Tag: meta

As a semi-popular blogger, pundit, and all around neat guy, I have a deep respect for freedom of speech. After all, without it, I’d just be some lunatic behind bars talking about how bad government sucks. As it stands, I’m just in a rubber room, so yay, I guess?

I wouldn’t bring this up unless it was relevant, and thanks to Queen Kamala the Appointed and the Left, it’s become very relevant, but not in a good way. Whether it’s The Social Media Site Formerly Known as Twitter getting banned in Brazil for alleged misinformation to Vice Presidential candidate Tim Walz and Presidential candidate Kamala Harris both in favor of some form of government intervention/regulation of social media, the topic is as relevant today as it was when the Bill of Rights was passed.

free speech

What the Left thinks it means – the right to express yourself without government interference, except when it crosses certain lines

What it really means – the right to express yourself without government interference, regardless of who you are and what you say

As with guns, cars, and movies like “The Room,” freedom of speech can be used for different ends. That’s why it’s important to consider the implications of their use prior to firing a gun, driving a car, or paying for a ticket to see “The Room.” Oh, and speaking out.

Yes, there are some limitations to free speech, and they’re established as a means of protecting people from physical or reputational damage. Some speech like “fighting words” aren’t considered free speech because a) they are designed to promote a violent response, and b) the person engaging in it is kinda asking for an ass-whuppin’. For those of you younger folks reading this, fighting words are what we old folks used to do in lieu of internet trolling because the Internet hadn’t been invented yet. (Thanks, Al Gore.)

Anyway, the Left has tried to apply the same approach used with fighting words with other forms of speech. Each one could be a Lexicon entry in and of itself, but here is a list of these speech forms the Left doesn’t like.

hate speech – Basically, any speech that makes Leftists look like assholes

misinformation – Basically, any speech that proves Leftists are assholes

election interference – Basically, any speech that shows Leftists losing

election misinformation – Basically, any speech that proves Leftist politicians are full of shit

I’m not sure, but I’m sensing a pattern here…

Although a case can be made for regulations on these, the case is pretty fucking bad. You can pass as many laws banning them, but they run smack in the face of the very thing Leftists claim to be all about: free speech. Yes, some speech is abhorrent and would make Gandhi want to grab a shotgun and start kicking ass, but the answer to it isn’t cracking down on the bad speech; it’s countering it with good speech. Dennis Miller put it best (and I’m paraphrasing it from here, so please don’t sue me, Mr. Miller): No free speech gives you Hitler. Healthy free speech gives you David Duke. There’s a big, big difference.

The problem is the Left doesn’t understand that difference. Either that, or they don’t get the reference, which isn’t all that uncommon with Miller’s work. Regardless, Leftists treat any speech that isn’t from their echo chamber as dangerous. And it’s not because it’s particularly threatening, dangerous to society as a whole, or offensive to society as a whole. It’s because it’s not something they can control with any degree of success.

Having said that, they aren’t going to stop trying. During the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, information countering the official narrative got censored and social media accounts that spread that information got removed. Even as Mark “No, I’m Not Data” Zuckerberg had to admit the Brick Tamland Administration pressured Meta to crack down on certain content. And I’m guessing you know what content got the ban hammer.

But you know who didn’t get nailed for COVID misinformation? All the figureheads and media outlets who peddled the Administration’s bullshit. Seems “Trust the Science” didn’t include actual science. Then again, the “Trust the Science” people also believe men can be women just because they feel that way, so…

It’s bullshit like this (the censorship, not the men claiming to be women) that made Elon Musk take on the mantle of leadership when it comes to free speech online. He has rightly made it his cause, and given the lack of accountability for those who on the Left who violate the Left’s own rules (I’m looking at you, Rachel Maddow!), it’s clear we need someone who not only understands free speech, but also allows it.

Musk may not be the best person to do it, but at least he’s doing it. Since taking over the Social Media Site Formerly Known As Twitter, he has reversed many of the previous decisions made and reinstated accounts that he felt were terminated unjustly. Granted, that gave us back noted white nationalist and all around weirdo Nick Fuentes, but the upside is we can now keep better track of him and what he says. That’s something you don’t get with free speech crackdowns. Forcing people like Fuentes to go off the free speech grid makes it harder to track him down and combat whatever speech he’s spouting. With a healthy respect for free speech, he makes himself known, so we can do a little rhetorical White Supremacist Whack-A-Mole.

And if you know any of the scuttlebutt about him, the mole part might not be complete hyperbole.

Freedom of speech is one of the bedrock principles we should all strive to want. Without it, how would we redress grievances with the government (of which your humble correspondent has plenty), spread the message to others to gather peaceably, or print out flyers? And for those of you eagle-eyed readers out there, you might recognize the examples I just gave as rights covered under the First Amendment. If you didn’t, that’s okay. You’re still brighter than 100% of the dipshits who think free speech should be limited because fee-fees get hurt.

I don’t think free speech is going anywhere if Queen Kamala the Appointed and Vice Queen TIMMAH get into office because neither one has the brains necessary to make the case in favor of getting rid of it, but that doesn’t mean we can ease up protecting it. As Ronald Reagan put it:

Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.

And if you can’t trust a man who acted with a chimp, who can you trust?