I can recall a time when children were being slapped in the head because they fought for “free speech.” People are being roasted and banned from the internet for the same reason now, but this time it’s the teenagers ‘ intellectual sweeter who were clubbed.
Advertisement
Another of life’s little paradoxes is how the children and grandchildren of those who fought for freedom of speech now joyfully stifle it. They believe that some speeches that they disagree with can be categorized as “hate conversation” due to the subject matter or target groups.
This brings to the fore the revolutionary concept that “free speech” may be dirty, cruel, terrible, wrong-headed, vulgar, insulting, also prejudiced, bigoted, Islamophobic, and Catholicphobic.  ,
To sum up, completely talk is, well, FREE FRICKING SPEECH. It’s not really. It’s not pleasant. It may hurt your feelings. Your body may start to cook as a result. But that’s what liberty is, and the left-leaning thugs who insist that the First Amendment doesn’t actually mean what they say must examine their ignorance at the door.  ,
Why this idea is difficult to comprehend on the left doesn’t escape me. I learned all I firmly believe about free talk from legists. I saw them — long-haired, disheveled, needing a bath — standing up to 1960s-era cops ( who were nothing like cops today ) so that you and I could grow up in a country that tolerated different points of view and could laugh at each other’s shortcomings and foibles.  ,
The response to Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg’s news that there would be no more “fact checker” on his channels nor would there be many” content restraint” to talk of is amazing.
Advertisement
” Here are some of the terrible things you can now claim on Facebook and Instagram,” sneered the tech blog The Verge.
” Without these essential hate speech and other procedures, Meta is giving the green light for individuals to target LGBTQ people, people, refugees, and other marginalized groups with violence, negativity, and dehumanizing stories. With these alterations, Meta is continuing to restore anti-LGBTQ contempt for profit”, said GLAAD President and CEO Sarah Kate Ellis.
Well, that sounds severe. ” Hatred for income” or no, Ms. Ellis misses the point. Whether it’s just not penetrating her sharp nose or she’s able to grasp the concept of “freedom”, it is illusory.  ,
Ellis is concerned because now, ignorant people you refer to sexuality as a “mental illness.” Pass the tasting compounds! What happens if one wants to make an unfounded state and citizens want to read it? That’s the price we pay for Ms. Ellis and her colleagues to be able to refer to people they wish as “homophobic” for any reason, including slander someone who deliberately holds political values different from her own.
Jim VandeHei and Michael Allen, co-founders of Forbes and long-time political observers in D. C., said that Zuckerberg’s change in policy “opens up most of social media as a Wild West of appearance, where high-quality, reliable information will commingle with garbage and propaganda”.
Advertisement
And that’s a bad thing? Sheesh. I suppose the rest of us will have to use our analytical abilities to discern what is and isn’t true.
And as far as “high-quality, trustworthy information” is concerned, who are they trying to snow? There’s “garbage and misinformation” coming from mainstream sources as well. Who do we” trust” to give us the facts?  ,
The bottom line is that we, as citizens, have been empowered by the First Amendment to make those decisions ourselves. We don’t need a commissar instructing us in the” correct” interpretation of the facts. We don’t need a Red Guard to enforce one way of thinking.
If you can’t trust the people to understand this democracy thing, what the heck is self-governance anyway?
