(I really can’t figure out the artist’s name, and the site is ‘armycorpsofengineers.com’ They have an art site?)
It you create art which angers, and you are not already dead…you can thank those who with strength and resolve defend your rights. Those who would make war on your behalf don’t do so because they really think art is unimportant. They know that the full range of human activity would be threatened if those who want to kill or subjugate you were allowed free rein.
You make art, literature, science and music only because you are not actively defending your country. Be grateful.
Oh, and the subliminal “obey” symbol on her neck…
Eugene Volokh discusses a proposal in New York to give people the right to have certain statements about them deleted from the internet if they are deemed ‘inaccurate,’ ‘irrelevant,’ ‘inadequate’ or ‘excessive.’
But the deeper problem with the bill is simply that it aims to censor what people say, under a broad, vague test based on what the government thinks the public should or shouldn’t be discussing. It is clearly unconstitutional under current First Amendment law, and I hope First Amendment law will stay that way (no matter what rules other countries might have adopted).
Remember: There is no “right to be forgotten” in the abstract; no law can ensure that, and no law can be limited to that. Instead, the “right” this aims to protect is the power to suppress speech — the power to force people (on pain of financial ruin) to stop talking about other people, when some government body decides that they should stop.
These new ‘rights’ are a real problem. The right to not be offended. The right to expect safe spaces. The right to never confront evil, or face emotional discomfort. The right to violent action to prevent a presentation with which you disagree. The right to demand that others use proper pronouns and descriptive words to describe you. The right to self-identify as Native American, black, male or female — regardless of clear contradictory evidence.
Whatchu talkin’ about, Willis?
Oh, and the right to show another citizen’s tax returns on TV without permission.
Digital Heretic points out an essay by blogger Chris Hernandez, with this sad, but true statement about the left:
Don’t get me wrong; you’re great at being cowards and forming large groups to attack individual unarmed people, you’re highly skilled at breaking windows, you’re proficient at arson, but you suck at actual fighting. And since your groups are made up of people who hate guns and hate the military, you don’t have armed, trained people experienced in the use of violence.
But your targets do. The people you consider Nazis are far more likely to be armed, trained, and prepared to fight than you are. And the more incidents of mass violence you commit, the more likely regular Americans are to fight back. Those regular Americans will be better at fighting than you are. The only reason you people haven’t been beaten down en masse in the streets is because regular Americans are following the rules and expecting the police to stop you. It won’t always be that way. Some day, probably very soon, you’ll encounter people who are intimately familiar with the kind of violence you think you’re capable of. And you won’t win.
I hate hate, hate violence and really don’t want this to deteriorate. Free speech is for everybody. There are also freedoms to own property and to protect that property and your safety when the mobs come to town.
Over at the very shy and demure ‘Ace of Spades HQ’, CBD brings up a very salient point. The Left keeps foisting “rights” onto society for society to slavishly embrace, respect, uphold and celebrate; but so many of these “rights” used to be privileges. What happens when people start exercising their real God given ( the gentle reader may modify that language as suits; but that’s how I roll) Rights to freedom of expression without violent reaction; or freedom to defend one’s person against said violence? Freedom to be secure in ones papers and property? Freedom from retroactive laws and bills of attainder? — Gus
Fred said it best (May he rest in peace.)
So, If Dreamers Are Merely “Undocumented,” May I Exercise My 2nd Amendment Rights As A Pre-Documented Concealed Carry?
The pro-amnesty contingent of the Democrat party (which seems to be all of them) and their fellow travelers on the hard left (am I repeating myself?) quite obviously think that the lack of documentation — or as normal, law-abiding citizens call it, being a criminal — is a technicality that can be happily, cheerfully, blissfully ignored by these wonderful youngsters who are merely pursuing their dreams to be astronauts or engineers or doctors or landscape technologists.
Or how about all those professions which require a license, certification or professional education? Do you want your next surgery performed by an undocumented but legal doctor, or the next bridge you drive over designed by someone who is an undocumented civil engineer? – Dave
Chasing down examples of folks who don’t understand free speech is becoming a full-time job. This rant deserves an honorable mention:
Hate speech is NOT free speech. Unfortunately, it is protected by the First Amendment despite the fact it’s morally, ethically and rationally wrong. It should be illegal, too, but that is a slippery slope and a topic to be debated sometime soon. We need to debate and come to a consensus the quick following:
- Clear definitions of free speech and hate speech. If what I said here doesn’t work, then let’s define it together.
- Let’s deal with that slippery slope between true freedom and social control, and none of that political or patriotic correctness nonsense.
- Let’s gather the evidence: what people have posted and the consequences of those posts (in some tragic cases, a suicide resulted).
- Get a great advocate to litigate the case in the court system, all the way to the Supreme Court.
In the meantime, the best way to combat hate speech to recognize it and shut it down.
Or, and this is just a thought, we could allow most all speech which does not incite violence, cause real harm or spread lies about an individual. Let most ideas — even those we disagree with — to have a hearing. Then, we’ll see what ideas win the public debate.
About the author:
Carlo Tamarit has self-published two novels (Celestial in 2007 & Miracleman: Dawn of the Age of Heroes in 2016, the second available on Amazon.com for digital download). After graduating from the University of Florida with a degree of Liberal Arts & Sciences, he spent the next several years living life, traveling, and continued to write. Carlo also writes on his blog at ctamarit.wordpress.com, addressing issues such as the bullying epidemic, divisive politics, and equality issues. An outspoken, even profane, critic of hypocrisy and bullying mentality, Carlo writes in a stream of consciousness that reveals his passion and brutally honest perspective.
There’s more to the essay, and to the bio, but to publish it here would only be pounding the rubble.
European experts criticise Denmark for taking interventions against religious extremism one step too far, reports Kristeligt Dagblad.
Danish Parliament on Monday adopted the last part of the anti-extremism package, the so-called ‘forkynderlov’, which includes a public sanction list of religious preachers.
According to Ingvill Thorson Plesner, a human rights researcher at University of Olso, and Peter Edge, a professor of law at Oxford Brookes University, the new law is in conflict with religious freedom.
I can’t actually tell if the law is in conflict with established views of ‘religious freedom,’ but this something to watch out for. On the other hand, I had to blog about this because the law is actually called ‘forkynderlov.’
“A little rebellion now and then is a good thing.” — Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, 1787.