Tag Archives: Free Speech

Righteous Riots and the Heckler’s Veto

From a fairly left-wing blog:


Don’t blame your lawlessness on others.


Even in our politically-correct, ultra-sensitive-to-verbiage times, folks have every right to express their feelings and beliefs about others, even the nasty ones, but only if they don’t trigger violence. Absolutely a paper-thin difference at times, right?

My response:
Wrong. The threshold is not speech that triggers violence, but speech which encourages violence. The right will not allow the left to target Milo or Trump w/violence, then turn around and say their supposed hate speech caused it.

The majority of the violence in the post-election America has been by progressives, angry because they did not get their way…or convinced that their righteous riots are justified somehow. It’s called the heckler’s veto, and the right is correct to oppose you on this. People who figure they are anti-fascists have become fascists…hoping the government, Twitter, Google or some adult organization starts shutting people up.

Be careful what you wish for.

Free Speech and Hate Speech

David Solway writes for PJ Media about a conference in Canada:

There is obviously a grey area between free speech and hate speech — human life cannot be reduced to a scientific formula enabling precise distinctions — but there should be no doubt that critical speech, analytical speech, satirical speech, spontaneous speech and offensive speech should not be legislated. Free speech is not a speech act. The term “hate speech” in its current acceptation, however, is merely a pretext for the eventual passage of blasphemy laws, envisaging the death of a free and democratic society.

Canada and the U.S. have different ways to deal with speech which might become an illegal act. The First Amendment still covers Americans whose speech is insulting, critical, even racist.

The trend worldwide is actually to punish so-called hate speech. Germany, the UK and other so-called free countries are now battlegrounds in this war.

It is a war. Or at least the first salvos.  

If blasphemy laws, hate speech rules and anti-free speech codes are a part of the U.S. legal system ten years from now, I wouldn’t be surprised. At that point, opposing illegal immigration, or maintaining some semblance of liberty will be in jeopardy. 

If you can silence someone, then you can silence anyone.  That never ends well.

How many teenagers and young adults get this? And how can they learn it, before it is too late.

The young people who justify violence, seek to enforce conformity of thought, and the media who treat the phrase “hate speech” as if it is already illegal…they’ve gone in the wrong direction. Somehow, through education and conversation, this must be turned around.

David Solway:

To return to the U of T symposium. The event was scheduled to conclude with a talk by controversial author and founder of The Rebel Media Ezra Levant, the highlight of the convention. Books like Ethical Oil, Shakedown and Trumping Trudeau, and the fact that Levant is frequently embroiled in legal battles with aggrieved Muslims (and ethically compromised judges), have made him a major draw on the conference circuit. Right on cue, as Levant stepped to the podium, a throng of protestors, plainly neither conferees nor students, swarmed past a detail of useless security guards and proceeded to wreak havoc. The fire alarm was pulled and the entire building (the Sandford Fleming Engineering Building) had to be evacuated. Classes were disrupted as well as the lectures in the auditorium seating hundreds of paying attendees — and that was the end of the affair. This, as noted, is a standard tactic of the dysfunctional and anarchy-loving student left.


New Meanings to Common Words

The words unsafe, violence, privilege, hate speech and others are being redefined for the 21st century.

Sam White at Up All Night:

This is because the activist left has a habit of twisting words to serve its own purpose. There’s a basic disrespect for language, and an unwillingness to be precise. Buzzwords abound, and if you don’t know what they mean, then your ignorance may itself be taken down and used in evidence against you.

Add attack to the list. The long, drawn-out drama of Brett Kimberlin is an example of this. Kimberlin has repeatedly complained of being ‘attacked’ by John Hoge and Aaron Walker and manages to add his associates and family to the mix so he can claim that they’ve all been attacked.

Attacked in this sense means mentioned, reported about truthfully or in the case of Walker, it might mean there was a brief, nonviolent confrontation with Kimberlin recorded in several photographs taken two seconds apart, and adjudicated as “not an assault.” Kimberlin reported various symptoms after the so-called attack. Details here. Yet still the Team Kimberlin group claims to be attacked. Ask a veteran, boxer or mugging victim about being attacked. 


Hang around Hogewash! or Allergic to Bull for more on the Team Kimberlin group of anti-free speech numskulls. 


They’ve decided that words are violence. And not embracing gender neutral pronouns might be violence. We hear about ‘structural violence’, whereby just existing in the world can render one a victim of assault and battery.

Photo credit: CBS

“All we are saying, is give fear a chance…”



I’m Against Bad Things!

A common thread in leftist propaganda: Strike a pose against objectively bad things, and in favor of things which barely anyone supports.



Okay, so apparently somebody, somewhere is in favor of ignorance, tyranny, hatred and oppression, while also against one nation through compassion, equality, veracity, solidarity, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

How about this: Tone down your rhetoric of good and evil, un-clench those fists, and maybe somebody who disagrees with you will bother to listen.

Oh, and condemn the anti-free speech mobs.  


The Fascists are here

A short post by Fernando De Vasquez included this bit of truth:

If there are differing opinions on the left, the chance of hearing these voices is slim because modern liberalism tends to eat their own — there’s a very real fear of speaking out. Those who have opinions or jokes outside of their bubble are susceptible to losing their jobs or careers because of a few sensitive people who hound employers until they fire those deemed “racist”.

Time and time, liberals get caught not being sufficiently liberal. Remember the example of the Yale professor and her husband. Her crime?

NY Times:

The lecturer, Erika Christakis, an expert in early childhood education, wrote an email in October suggesting that there could be negative consequences to students ceding “implied control” over Halloween costumes to institutional forces. “I wonder, and I am not trying to be provocative: Is there no room anymore for a child or young person to be a little bit obnoxious,” she wrote, “a little bit inappropriate or provocative or, yes, offensive?”

She was forced to resign after students decided she was not liberal enough. Her husband also left Yale. A year later, Christakis remembered her intentions:

I had hoped to generate a reflective conversation among students: What happens when one person’s offense is another person’s pride? Should a costume-wearer’s intent or context matter? Can we always tell the difference between a mocking costume and one that satirizes ignorance? In what circumstances should we allow — or punish — youthful transgression?

Christakis on the student reaction:

The community’s response seemed, to many outside the Yale bubble, a baffling overreaction. Nearly a thousand students, faculty and deans called for my and my husband’s immediate removal from our jobs and campus home. Some demanded not only apologies for any unintended racial insensitivity (which we gladly offered) but also a complete disavowal of my ideas (which we did not) — as well as advance warning of my appearances in the dining hall so that students accusing me of fostering violence wouldn’t be disturbed by the sight of me.

No. Halloween costumes which appropriate cultures are not to be worn. Or discussed. Wall that topic off at Yale, the second greatest educational institution in the U.S. (SUNY Oswego is still #1. Go Lakers!)

How many other topics are banned? Who bans them?

Ask the gals in the Women’s Center anything about gender and power. Bring a cup of coffee and find a comfortable chair. Ask the fellas in the Black Studies Center about the War on Poverty or the disproportionate abortion of black children. Or ask a conservative anything. I’m not picking a fight with anybody here, just pointing out that some stuff really deserves a good discussion.

It is the liberal who chooses to try to stop debate.

When is it Okay to Punch a Nazi?

Richard Spencer, often described as a neo-Nazi, was punched while giving an interview about inauguration protests.

I don’t know his beliefs, and don’t care today to investigate. Just like other folks who are mentioned at this blog, sometimes I am standing up for the right of people to speak. I don’t endorse their ideas.

[Not Robert Spencer, the man behind Jihad Watch.– Dave]

I suppose I’d make an exception for THAT Nazi. But the answer is really clear.

When is is okay to punch a Nazi?

When is it okay to punch a homosexual, a communist or a racist? All have been on somebody’s hate list.

When is it okay to praise someone who turns water hoses on the protesters who are just ‘riling up’ the locals? Or force a black man’s car off the road if he has a white woman in the car with him?

When is it okay to put a bomb on the porch of that preacher who’s behind all these protests? Or bloody up some freedom riders? Or sock a radical feminist in the kisser? Didn’t somebody honestly believe they were spreading hate?

When is it okay to punch out a man dressed as a woman in the ladies’ room? Or the young man in lipstick smiling at your son?


[For the record, all the groups I mentioned above should be able to…or should have been able to speak their minds without harassment. Yet each were or are targeted by people who have convinced themselves that it’s okay to bomb, hit, lynch or physically attack. – Dave]

Now if a Nazi throws a punch, defend yourself. If your country is at war with his country, the rules change.

But if he is peacefully walking down the street, even saying things you don’t like? Hateful, racist things? Not threatening you, but running down your race, gender, sexual orientation… No. You don’t get a free shot at someone you figure is a Nazi.

If you think you’re entitled to hit somebody because they say something hateful, congratulations. You just went full Fascist. 

These folks disagree:


A viral video of a masked protester socking white supremacist and anti-Semite Richard Spencer in the jaw as he was being interviewed about protests at the presidential inauguration prompted an increasingly common question: when it is acceptable to use non-lethal violence against those who advocate ethnic cleansing?

It’s difficult for many to say out loud, but the violent attack against Spencer does not deserve condemnation.

Those who don’t underestimate the violent nature of white supremacy see these acts of intimidation—including the attack on Spencer—as self-defense.


The blogger at the ironically named To Tame the Savageness of Man:

Now, some are angry that violence was committed during this interview, but afterwards, Spencer refused to file a police report, never called 911, and never asked the police to find the person who did it. You know how we usually respond to people who respond to acts like this? We give them a big ol’ shrug because we’ve got people of color being shot down in the street with their hands up and their backs turned to the police yet their cries for justice go unheard. We have Native Americans who live in some of the most impoverished portions of America who ask for support from the government to stop their record-breaking number of suicides and receive nothing in return. We’ve got women being denied the right to make decisions for their own bodies in the year 2017 CE- not BCE. They have to potentially travel hundreds of miles to receive affordable healthcare and other services even after our Supreme Court determined the Constitution gr
ants the right to privacy to you, your body, and what you wish to do with it.

So, Mr. Spencer, the only thing I can say to you is: welcome to the real world. Get used to it or get out, because we are marching onwards towards the mountaintop of progress.

Hey. That’s not the mountaintop you’re headed for.

The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral,
begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy.
Instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it.
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.


Why? What has violence ever accomplished? What has it ever created? No martyr’s cause has ever been stilled by his assassin’s bullet.

No wrongs have ever been righted by riots and civil disorders. A sniper is only a coward, not a hero; and an uncontrolled, uncontrollable mob is only the voice of madness, not the voice of the people.

Robert Kennedy

British Police Look into a Political Speech as Hate Speech

This IS coming here. Logical, mature, smart people are being hoodwinked by this stuff. Jonathon Turley has been following this all over Europe:

Image result


Now a recent complaint filed by a professor against Home Secretary Amber Rudd illustrates vividly how hate speech has become for some people an extension of political disagreements.  The complaint by Prof Joshua Silver, an astrophysicist, will not result in any serious investigation but it was recorded as a hate crime allegation under the existing standards.  [The Home Secretary is a cabinet level domestic policy person.]


So what did she say?


The complete text is here. A part:

Twenty years ago levels of immigration weren’t really an issue in British politics.
As net migration has risen, that has changed.

I’ve seen why as a Member of Parliament for Hastings and Rye.
Hastings is a seaside town that has experienced relatively high levels of migration over the past two decades.
That’s led to legitimate concerns around the pressures put on housing, public services and wages.
The Prime Minister recognised this, and took action to reduce net migration in the areas she could when she was in my position.
And now as Home Secretary it is my responsibility to do the same, and to make sure people’s concerns are addressed.

Looking for the hate? Yeah. Check the full speech. No hate.

Nothing was hateful in the speech, though she suggested that the UK needs to look into the sex scandal in Rotherham Pakistani-Indians were/are involved in years of abuse of children, and the police in the UK didn’t stop it. She also spoke about Daesh, which is the European term for ISIS/ISIL.  She’s against it.

Jonathon Turley:

[Professor] Silver is an example of how people who abandoned free speech values in seeking to silence or punish those with whom they disagree.  It is particularly chilling to see an academic adopt such an anti-free speech position but we have seen the same trend on U.S. campuses with academics leading the fight to curtail or prohibit speech.  

He told BBC News: “Some politicians have been using hate crime as an instrument to foster support for their political aims.”

Man, that sounds familiar. Trump and others are being accused of hate speech, though we have no such laws here. Yet. These laws will come here — and sooner rather than later.

I don’t think there will be convictions — but as we know the press and the lefties will use the phrase “Dave Alexander, who was accused of hate speech…”  We’ve seen phrases like these in the writings of Brett Kimberlin and his minion as tools to disparage others.  When NGO’s like the Southern Poverty Law Center want to smear somebody, they just add them to a list full of racists and let their cousins online cite the accusation.

I’m sure the BBC now introduces the Home Secretary as “Home Secretary Amber Rudd, whose speech on immigration was called hate speech by a prominent academic…”  

This stuff is exactly why people in the UK voted to drop out of the EU, and people in the U.S. are refusing to let the so-called elites run our lives.


The Craft Blog was contacted by a stupid person who requested equal time. This stupid request was granted.