In the not-so-olden days of the 1970's and 1980's, kids were taught that the 1st Amendment was basically sacrosanct. The mantra was "We tolerate the speech we hate, to guarantee the speech we love."
These days, that's no longer the case.
Today, the left sees the 1st Amendment as a hindrance
Meet Charlene Carruthers, according to her Wikipedia entry, she's "a black queer feminist activist and organizer. Her work aims to create young leaders in marginalized communities to fight for community interests and liberation."
This weekend, she had a message for Bill Clinton about free speech and assembly:
Sadly, this mentality is on the rise. Somehow, throwing away our rights is the only way to guarantee our rights.
The real plan is to eventually silence dissent
Today, the left sees the 1st Amendment as a hindrance. It's an annoyance that allows people to argue with them when, really, those people should just be silenced. They use racist pigs like the Nazis in Charlottesville as poster children for the limitation of 1st Amendment rights, but that's only part of the goal.
The real plan is to eventually silence dissent. If they start by stifling a bunch of indefensible racists, they can claim everyone who disagrees with them is a racist, and use that position to shut down mainstream groups in the future.
Here it is again, on MSNBC, this time from Black Lives Matter founder Patrisse Cullors. She's complaining about people taking away rights while (and please note the irony) simultaneously trying to diminsh the 1st Amendment by claiming it doesn't apply to "hate speech."
Support Canada Free Press
As always with progressives, they're in favor of any and all diversity - as long as it isn't ideological.
I'm not sure how many times we have to say it, but: That's an abject lie. The left can try to sell this falsehood all they like but, unless the U.S. Constitution is amended, it won't be any less false.
As Joan Vennochi writes at the Boston Globe, "There’s no hate speech exception to the First Amendment":
The First Amendment protects the speech we hate to hear.
Hard as it is to accept, the right to express vile and repugnant thought is guarded by the Constitution. Of course, there’s no right to smash a car into others who have gathered to express alternative opinions. But it’s the job of elected officials and law enforcement to protect both the purveyors of ugly language and those who gather to protest it.
That's dead on. The only thing I would take issue with is the idea that it's "hard to accept." It's not. Everyone "accepted" it for 200 years. Those who seek to silence their opposition simply don't want to accept it, and they're fighting against the notion of free speech like never before.
Want to go to war with Nazis? I'm right there with you. But, go to war with the first Amendment and you're no better than the fascists you claim to despise.
As always with progressives, they're in favor of any and all diversity - as long as it isn't ideological.
