U.S.A. –-(AmmoLand.com)- The Radical Left Democrats, Collectivists all, are sly, deceitful creatures. They erode our fundamental rights under the cloak of morality and pragmatism, hoping that few Americans will notice.
Consider the Biden campaign’s war on the fundamental right of free speech. Recently, Biden and other Collectivists argue that free speech ought not to extend to “hate speech.” Superficially, that may seem reasonable to some Americans. But is it? What constitutes “hate speech?” Indeed what constitutes “speech” as free expression under the Constitution. Does Flag Burning constitute “speech” protected under the First Amendment? Does display of firearms at rallies constitute “speech” protected under the First Amendment? Is the one but not the other an example of “hate speech?” If so, how does one make that determination?
As one academic writer aptly said: “Hate speech is a vague concept with varying definitions. Generally, it includes speech that is abusive, offensive, or insulting that targets an individual’s race, religion, ethnicity, or national origin.”*
The author continues, “Regulating hate speech in the United States is problematic because of the value the nation places on free speech. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides that, ‘Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press. . . .’” The author adds, “There are three prominent justifications for protecting free speech: (1) it acknowledges human autonomy and dignity, (2) it promotes the marketplace of ideas, and (3) it is an effective tool of democracy.”
But the Democrats and other Collectivists of all stripes—Marxists, Communists, Socialists, Globalists, Anarchists, and others—will have none of that.
But assuming that Congress could devise an operational definition of ‘hate speech,’ would such statute prohibiting such speech still conflict with the First Amendment? Yes! The U.S. Supreme Court has made this point clear, succinct, and categorical, opining, in Snyder V. Phelps, 562 U.S. 443 (2011):
“Such [hate] speech cannot be restricted simply because it is upsetting or arouses contempt. ‘If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.’ Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989). Indeed, ‘the point of all speech protection . . . is to shield just those choices of content that in someone’s eyes are misguided, or even hurtful.’ Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Group of Boston, Inc., 515 U.S. 557 (1995).
But Collectivists don’t give a damn about the First Amendment’s freedom of speech clause; nor do they give a damn about the High Court’s interpretation of it. As a prime example of what this means, what this entails, consider the Collectivists’ seamy, degenerate attacks on Zuckerberg’s social media vehicle, Facebook. The Collectivists’ have recently vented their fury on Zuckerberg’s Facebook. And, the toady and mentally deficient, presumptive Democrat Party nominee for U.S. President, Joe Biden, in whose name the Collectivists present their aims to the American public, doesn’t really have a clue what is going on all around him; how it is the Collectivist puppet masters are playing him for the fool he is and parading him, now and then, before the public.
Of course, Biden’s policy planks, marching ever leftward toward a cliff, are and must be coextensive with those of the Collectivists, who are feeding Biden his lines; his messages. They have simply stepped in his shoes, and, in his dim-witted muddled mind, Biden accepts whatever his handlers require of him, understanding nothing, and caring little, if at all, of the clown he has become; his words meaningless jabber, both to him and everyone else.
The website, Reason, says, “After being asked by the Times about previous comments Biden has made regarding Facebook’s refusal to remove negative ads targeting his campaign, the Democratic front-runner attacked both the social media platform and its CEO, Mark Zuckerberg.
‘I’ve never been a fan of Facebook,’ Biden says. ‘I’ve never been a big Zuckerberg fan, I think he’s a real problem.’
Biden and Facebook have been feuding for months, as Reason has previously covered. In an October letter to Facebook, Biden’s campaign called on the social media site to reject political ads containing ‘previously debunked content’—like a Trump campaign ad linking Biden and his son, Hunter, to corruption in Ukraine. Shortly afterwards, Zuckerberg said the company’s policies were ‘grounded in Facebook’s fundamental belief in free expression, respect for the democratic process, and the belief that, in mature democracies with a free press, political speech is already arguably the most scrutinized speech there is.’
Zuckerberg is correct, but that didn’t sit well with Biden. In a CNN town hall event in November, Biden said he would be willing to rewrite the rules for all online platforms in order to force social media companies to ‘be more socially conscious.’”
The Collectivists have gone to task on Zuckerberg. On July 9, 2020, as reported in the NY Times, Facebook’s “auditors,” said, “the prioritization of free expression over all other values such as equality and nondiscrimination is deeply troubling.”
Deeply troubling to whom? The Collectivist censors? Apparently, these Facebook auditors aren’t familiar with the critical importance of the First Amendment in a free Constitutional Republic.
“Free expression” isn’t a mere “value,” it’s a fundamental, unalienable, immutable, illimitable, natural right, bestowed on man by the Divine Creator, and its meaning is straightforward. The expressions, ‘equality,’ and ‘non-discrimination,’ though, are vague concepts and apply to aspirations, not fundamental rights.
In the absence of explication, those expressions, ‘equality’ and ‘non-discrimination that the Facebook auditors mention, do not denote “rights,” fundamental or secondary.
People as individuals are decidedly unequal. Some have been blessed with one or more gifts such as intelligence, or beauty, or athletic ability, or business acumen. Others do not have such gifts. In terms of talents, abilities, physical features, and even with respect to motivations and drives, people are decidedly and decisively unequal. Yet, even in physical, mental, and emotional attributes, Collectivists strive to force commonality and uniformity on everyone, destroying that especial aspect of a person that makes people individual souls. This has nothing to do with equal protection under the law as guaranteed under the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
But, apropos of “free speech,” everyone has an “equal” right to say their mind. If someone’s words hurt me, then all the worse for me. If my words hurt another, then all the worse for him. But all the worse for both of us and our Nation if the Collectivist censors determine what either of us can assert verbally or in writing, thereby denigrating and curbing the force of the free speech clause of the First Amendment.
Similarly, people discriminate all the time: in terms of their interests, their proclivities, the people with whom they choose to associate or not, and in terms of their political and social and religious preferences; and, while the law prohibits discrimination, as for example, on the basis of race, color, age, or sex; and as, for another, example, in employment, and in restaurant or hotel accommodations, anti-discrimination laws are statutory constructs, not fundamental rights.
But, Collectivists subsume aspirations to the level of fundamental rights; raise secondary man-made rights, such as ‘abortion,’ to the level of fundamental rights; and dismiss out-of-hand rights that are natural, fundamental, God-given, such as the right of the people to keep and bear arms as codified in the Second Amendment.
Biden and his handlers have made clear that preservation of the Second Amendment does not factor into their Party plank. While some Collectivists, like retired Associate Justice John Paul Stevens would strike the Second Amendment from the Bill of Rights altogether, Biden and the Democrats are, at the moment at least, circumspect about their intentions, couching the denial of the right in terms of a desire to curb “gun violence.” See “The Biden Plan To End Our Gun Violence Epidemic.”
And keep in mind how the Biden gun safety plank insinuates the First Amendment into the Second Amendment, and observe how the Destructors of our Nation don’t attack the Second Amendment head-on, but obliquely:
“Close the ‘hate crime loophole.’ Biden will enact legislation prohibiting an individual ‘who has been convicted of a misdemeanor hate crime, or received an enhanced sentence for a misdemeanor because of hate or bias in its commission’ from purchasing or possessing a firearm.”
This so-called “hate crime loophole” would add another criterium to the Federal Penal Code, denying a person the right to possess firearms for “thought” crimes. Eventually, the Collectivists wouldn’t even bother to use the excuse of a misdemeanor conviction to deny an American the right to keep and bear arms. If one’s speech is construed as “hate speech,” that would be enough to deny a person the right to own and possess firearms, expanding the domain of those not permitted to own firearms, exponentially. Would Collectivists argue that merely to desire to own and possess a firearm is tantamount to “hate speech” on its face? Considering how far the Radical Left Collectivists have come since Charlottesville—defacing the monuments of Confederate War Heroes—to arguing for the removal of monuments to the Father of our Nation, George Washington, and to the other Founders, there is no limit to the extravagant outrageous, laws, rules, regulations, ordinances, and executive orders that will come down the pike if the Collectivists take control over all three Branches of Government.
But if Radical Left Marxist control of all thought, deed, and action in our Country is what you fancy, then feel free to give a sawbuck or two to Biden’s campaign at “Can you donate to Elect Joe Biden?” I’m sure he would appreciate it.
About The Arbalest Quarrel:
Arbalest Group created `The Arbalest Quarrel’ website for a special purpose. That purpose is to educate the American public about recent Federal and State firearms control legislation. No other website, to our knowledge, provides as deep an analysis or as thorough an analysis. Arbalest Group offers this information free.
For more information, visit: www.arbalestquarrel.com.