Washington Post urges ditching First Amendment

All colleges should censor 'racist and offensive' speech, an editorial in the Washington Post editorial read. This came in response to what they're calling a racist banana episode at the American University, which is currently under investigation by the FBI as a hate [aka 'thought'] crime. The rag is using this incident to justify getting rid of the First Amendment and stop people--racist pigs included--from saying whatever they want to say.

The editorial wants to "Make crystal clear that racist . . . speech is off limits." They want to punish and censor students if anyone thinks their speech or behavior is racist.

The term 'racist' therefore, will be determined by whoever says that what another student is saying is racist.

But worse than the ability to censor anyone you wish to shut up, the Constitution gives all of us, racists, humanitarians, good folk, bad folk and even vegetarians the right to say whatever they want. If you don't like what you hear, you can either leave or rebut the person. You do not have the right to censor that person unless they are calling for violence or creating an actual danger with their words.

And if anyone thinks that having their fragile feelings hurt is violence or danger, then they ought to shelter in place . . . forever.

It's always comical as much as it's irritating and hypocritical to hear arguments from "reputable" parakeet cage-liner newspapers to shut down free speech. In fact, my feelings are hurt by the Washington Post for them to think that I might be so racist as to even imply that people of my melanin level would promote racist dialogue or demonstrations. 

I say we censor them. 

I am not suggesting that hanging nooses on campus is not a crime--it's as offensive as hell--but I don't care for the idea that anyone should be given the power to shut down free speech.

The excuse the left gives is that hate speech isn't free speech.

Yes, hate speech is free speech, as much as it may suck to have to put up with it. But the best remedy for hate speech on campus is more speech--a better argument from the other side, not burning down a business because you're angry or getting paid by a Soros funded front to do it. 

And certainly not being stopped from speaking and stifling our core principles.

Eugene Volokh, a law professor at UCLA also wrote a Post editorial explaining why "making racist speech off limits" is a horrible idea.

"At public universities, it would violate the First Amendment; at private universities, it would violate many of the universities' stated commitments to open debate, as well as basic principles of academic freedom," Volokh wrote.

Speaking about being "crystal clear," the Supreme Court said that the government shall not discriminate based on viewpoint, even in limited public fora such as university open spaces.

Volokh also points out that even criticizing immigration could be deemed racist, or criticizing any religion. 

Who in the schools will or should decide what is or isn't racist?

The one thing that should scare all of us who appreciate the freedoms we have in this country is the notion of how one branch of government, the judiciary, is making decisions for us and unwriting much of the Constitution.

Please consider following Brain Flushings by clicking the Follow tab.


Tweet

Bill de Blasio: fascist, socialist, man about town

You may not like Donald Trump, perhaps you do, but in any case, New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio is using his power as mayor to go after him by "reviewing" his city contracts in light of what he said about Mexican immigrants. 

This is what fascists do when they don't like what you say.

De Blasio, a socialist and an Al Sharpton fan club president, doesn't care if what he is doing goes against the First Amendment--it's just a piece of paper, as far as he's concerned and in spite of Trump's inarticulate words, he has every right to say what he did, and the mayor has no right to abuse his office by going after his businesses.

Even Alan Dershowitz, a liberal attorney and Harvard's most distinguished civil liberties law professor, is against de Blasio on this and said, "This is not the American Way. De Blasio seems to put himself directly, squarely in conflict with the First Amendment," he told the Daily Caller, in an interview. He called de Blasio's actions "plainly unconstitutional," and said that "He would have a fairly open and shut case if they deprived him of any contract."

Trump said of Mexican immigrants that they are "bringing drugs, they're bringing crime, they're rapists, and some, I assume, are good people."

De Blasio fired back: "Donald Trump's remarks were disgusting and offensive, and this hateful language has no place in our city." His press secretary then said that the city was reviewing all of Trump's contracts.

De Blasio's words almost echo Obama's statement that "The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam."

In a 1996 Supreme Court ruling, they ruled overwhelmingly that it was unconstitutional to tie government contracts to a person's beliefs. This is exactly what de Blasio is doing, and not that different from what the IRS has done with conservatives.

UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh also told DCNF that "The statement by the Mayor is a real danger to public debate," saying that it would set dubious precedent for all future city contracts.

I hope Trump sees fit to fight de Blasio and go after him personally. Besides the fact that he is in violation of Trump's civil rights, the Mayor is the embodiment of all that is wrong with the left.

In fact, de Blasio is handling the City of New York in much the same way that Obama is handling ISIS: with great bluster and total impotence.




Tweet