Censorship, Speech, and Calling the Cops

I am very aware that people who believe they will disagree with my comments/statements/arguments will most likely not read my posts because they already know they won’t like them. However, I will continue to write posts with the aim of trying to persuade someone to rethink their political beliefs or stances. I know that many people find politics to be extremely stressful and disconnected from their day-to-day lives. However, if you do not pay attention to politics, at some point politics will start to pay attention to you, and I can guaran-damn-tee you won’t like what it does next to you, your family, and your day-to-day life. Especially in times like what we are currently experiencing.

On that note, today I want to point out the massive contradictions between the words of those on the left who insist that they are trying to “save democracy” and their actions… their lived experiences if you will. They are willing to kill democracy and individual freedoms in the name of “saving” them and “creating safe spaces.” So off we go!

I saw a story this morning that the president of the University of Maryland gave a pro-Hamas group permission to protest on the quad citing freedom of speech as his reason for granting that permission. The mother of a Jewish student at the university protested the decision in an email to the president and he responded by threatening to call the cops on her if she continued to protest. What. The. Ever-loving. F*&%??!!

Let’s review: The president of a PUBLIC UNIVERSITY, an individual in charge of an institution of higher learning, THREATENED an individual for exercising her constitutional and natural right to speech, after he cited the EXACT SAME right as his reason for granting permission to anti-semitic protesters (who’s “from the river to the sea” call advocates for the elimination of a nation-state and its people, btw). In addition, the president never explicitly said what exactly was the reason behind the planned protest except to note that October 7, 2024 was the one year anniversary of October 7, 2023.

Pop quiz time: University of Maryland president Daryll J. Pines is:

1. Stupid
2. Intellectually challenged
3. Anti-Semitic
4. Stupidly evil
5. All of the above

There have been soooo many examples recently of immoral and unethical cretins in positions of power threatening and bullying anyone who disagrees with them that it would be funny except others in positions of power seem happy to go along with them. Freedom of speech and thought is a concept that is near and dear to my heart (and, quite frankly, should be the same for everyone) and it is something that can launch me onto my soapbox without a second thought. I will continue to hop onto my soapbox every time this topic comes up. So – fair warning, I am stepping up onto my soapbox right now.

Freedom of speech is a natural right. A natural, God-given right is something we hold simply because we are human. A government can squash or restrict our right to free speech, but it cannot remove it. This is an important point. Just because a government says you have no right to free speech, doesn’t mean that right disappears. It means they are acting against nature and God and restricting your use of your rights. You still possess that right. You are human and were born with that right. It is inherent within you. That’s what the Constitution means when it says “unalienable rights” – the government cannot alienate a citizen from those rights.

Now, at the same time, no one is obligated to listen to you, nor are they obligated to give you a platform for your speech, no matter how important you believe your commentary to be. You have no right to invade private property to bully anyone on that property with your speech.

Under the US Constitution, the government is the entity upon which we have placed limits, not individual citizens (to forestall the stupid snark… murder, etc. violate the rights of the victim, so yes, those are restricted – duh). The government cannot arrest you for your speech (outside of very strict limits). A private entity can require/request that you take your speech and air your grievances elsewhere. If they do that, they are not restricting your right to speech. They are simply refusing to grant you access to their facilities. You can stand at the edge of their property and yell all you want because they cannot have you arrested for speaking. Trespassing, threatening, all that… those they and the government can act on.

It might appear to be a fine and fuzzy line, but it’s not. France arrested Pavel Durov, the founder of Telegram, for speech that users engaged in on the app. The French government arrested him for speech made/written by others. Under the US Constitution, this would be an illegal move by the government. No one is responsible for speech by others even if you provided the platform for that speech.

Along those same lines, Mark Zuckerberg testified before Congress that Facebook/Meta had been pressured by the Biden Administration to censor content appearing on their platforms to conform to the story the administration wanted to put out regarding Covid in particular, along with other issues. This was a violation of the Constitution by the Biden Administration. Government pressure on private companies is censorship and restriction of speech. And unconstitutional action.

Responding to speech disagreeing or arguing with a public figure by threatening parents of students (UM is a public school making the president a public figure) with harassment by campus police or the city police is unconstitutional. When the administration of the President of the United States labels disagreements “misinformation” and threatens the speaker with police actions or actually arrests citizens for protesting (i.e. J6 defendants) that is unconstitutional action.

Every single politician holding elected office at the national level (and others, but we’re focusing on national here) swore an oath to uphold the Constitution. If you want to argue that the oath is just a formality, then I suggest you are not an ethical or honest individual and clearly you are happy having dishonest and unethical individuals running the government.

Freedom of speech is not some arcane or outdated concept. It is at the very core of a free people and free society. Using the power of government to restrict speech you don’t like is the act of a tyrant and identifies you as a weak individual. Calling the police to harass someone for saying something you don’t want to hear is the act of a childish bully. The same goes for insisting that others only use words approved by you. You have the right to say whatever you like. You do NOT have the right to restrict others in their speech or use the power of government to restrict their speech.

Sunshine is the best disinfectant. If there is speech you find objectionable, just publicize it. Let others read it or hear it. You may find that you are not alone in your dislike of that particular speech. You still can’t restrict it, but now at least you know where the group or individual stands and you can act accordingly. On the other hand, you might find that everybody else is laughing at you for taking offense. In which case, untwist your knickers, take your lumps, and go about your life. Consider the idea that your speech is offensive to others (no matter how righteous you feel you are).

Speech can be and often is offensive. Counter that with speech of your own, or simply don’t listen. There are no places safe from speech.

Now, go forth and speechify!