Being a liberal has now become synonymous with being an enemy of freedom
Freedom of Speech and Liberals
Comments | Print friendly | Subscribe | Email Us
Tragic events , such as the one that recently transpired in Tucson, AZ, invariably awaken a primeval impulse in the liberal psyche to craft new legislation aimed at restricting what they wholeheartedly affirm are the definitive basis for such deranged behavior. Herewith the natural trajectory of the logical reductionism typical of today’s liberal reasoning: we have a man who is a criminal - his erratic behavior was directly or indirectly caused by the provocative rhetoric from conservative mediums - thus the obvious solution is to criminalize this type of rhetoric. This is what is otherwise known as Censorship; a term selectively applied by indignant liberals against those who try to stifle fashionable misnomers like consensual pedophilia or chic child pornography.
But contrary to popular belief, there are actually some smart liberals out there - albeit a rather small pool - who will expose the absurdity of this logic. Unfortunately, the most vocal majority is willing to compromise intellectual honesty in exchange for the temporary retreat of their most formidable opposition. As for the rest, they simply prefer to linger in silent oblivion, rather than futilely caution their less prudent peers, that the virtue of fairness might require that such restrictions be equally enforced against their own brand of vitriol.
After all, liberals routinely employ far more subversive language than what their contentedly prudish conservative rivals tend to engage in. I distinctly recall a movie that was on the works a few years ago, depicting the assassination of then President George W. Bush. This brand of polemics has long been a part and parcel of common discourse in liberal circles.
But the real reason why liberals are not afraid to exhibit a penchant for overtly militant forms of censorship, is that they are not in the least concerned that their efforts to silence their equals on the opposite side of the spectrum will particularly hinder their own acerbic style of dialoguing.
There’s no reason, as far as liberals are concerned, why those who engage in respectful, honest, and yes, perhaps at times nakedly frank and constructive criticism should be censored. It is the hallmark of freedom to allow all views a chance to be heard as long as they are presented in a civil and respectful manner. This is the vacuum from which liberals appraise their own rhetoric, and any sign of rudeness in their part is probably a misreading from those unable to countenance what is nothing more than a small dose of honesty.
Behind this unilateral crusade against conservative opinion that grates at virgin liberal ears is their firm conviction that their mode of exchange in the discussion is utterly devoid of any ideological bias. Some are even shocked to find that theirs is not the accepted standard of all manner of communication in any open forum for the exchange of ideas.
Consequently, this makes liberals think that they are eminently qualified to define the parameters within which public discourse should be conducted. Theirs is presumably the way political dialogue ought to be regulated, science conducted, policy made, etc; because in the end, it is the right way to do things. And anything which exposes this fallacy should be silenced. This is the big blind spot of the liberal mind; a vanity and sense of self importance that blinds them to the utter idiocy of their present stance.
By their own admission, it is strictly conservative voices that liberals aim to censure. And their crooked venture is being stealthily popularized under the benign principles of fairness and tolerance. It is they who should prescribe the standard. Theirs is the most reasonable, tactful, and acceptable norm for communication. As far as they are concerned, their manner of discourse exemplifies the only objective model of restrain and moderation. Hence by this same standard, liberals feel justified in prescribing that opposing views and those who hold them have to be subjected to a litmus test of progressivism before they are given any serious consideration in the arena of free public expression.
That is what lurks deep beneath what is billed by liberals as the most sensible appeal to judicious civic discourse, wholly expunged of unnecessary slander or calumny against one’s opponent. Yet in truth, it is not the vitriol that they ultimately want to censure, but a very specific source from which it emanates.
In the end it shows how few smart liberals really are out there. But most ironic is that being a liberal has now become synonymous with being an enemy of freedom.