April 07, 2009

“Freedom of speech is an American concept”

“… so I don’t give it any value.” So says Canadian Human Rights Commission (HRC) investigator Dean Steacy.

All I can say are two things: 1) Thank God freedom of speech is an American concept (and should be a human concept for all people concerned with personal freedom), and 2) by saying “I don’t give it any value,” cretins like Steacy should be anathema to any so-called free society.

As I noted many times (most recently yesterday), ironically it is so-called “progressives” that possess a similar philosophy as Steacy. For them, freedom of speech should have many more limits than what American law has traditionally prescribed. As our local gaggle of moonbat bloggers has recently demonstrated, speech that may -- MAY – serve as a catalyst for some mentally unbalanced individual to grab some sort of weapon and use to kill someone should [somehow] be curtailed. Oh, if you read everything they wrote on the recent shooting(s), it’s doubtful you’ll find any explicit calls for banning people like Limbaugh or Glenn Beck from the airwaves.

But why else would they continue to proffer the theory that Limbaugh, Beck and whoever else are in part responsible for unbalanced individuals’ murder sprees? Obviously, these folks (Limbaugh, Beck, et. al.) aren’t going to stop speaking their points of view and theories on what makes good government and politics. Thus, it stands to reason that our local gaggle of moonbat bloggers, as well as many others, want these radio/TV talkers held somehow responsible for the actions of deranged criminals who may give some passing reference to something the talkers had said. (Just don’t bring up how, for example, Al Gore’s book Earth in the Balance was found in the Unabomber’s cabin, or how semi-perennial Democratic presidential candidate Al Sharpton once led hateful protests which led to an arson which killed seven people, and a mob which jumped and killed a student. These instances are directly analogous to the current complaints about conservative talkers and the actions of the killer in Pittsburgh, but inquiring about them only causes so-called “progressives” to accuse you of “diversion” and “making things up.”)

What should happen to the talkers, then? Who would get determine that what they say is “reasonable” or not?

In Canada, somehow, people like Dean Steacy get appointed to make such determinations. These “human rights” commissions operate much like those who determine whether a “hate crime” has been committed here in the US. In other words, it’s extremely political. In fact, politics is the overriding determining factor.

If we give someone like Steacy the power to do to conservative talkers here what he does to those whose politics he dislikes up north, we might as well scrap the First Amendment. American campuses attempt to do this regularly, but thankfully the full might of our [still-friendly-to-the-First Amendment] court system thwarts them when their activities are exposed.

As I said yesterday, it is primarily leftists who disdain the 1st Amendment – because it allows “hurtful” speech to be uttered or written. Leftists don’t like it when people are hurt or offended; that is, unless they’re conservative. Which goes to the very heart of the matter: To “progressives,” hurtful speech is OK if it’s directed at conservatives, because, after all, they do not believe in what is “good” and “just” – like liberals do. In order to construct a “good” and “just” society, conservatives need to be purged, either figuratively (via changing their views) or literally. As an example, just note in the comments here how certain [supposedly] provocative acts (those committed by leftists) were justified or ignored outright, all the while the need to “get back to the issue” of supposed conservative-induced criminal activity was overwhelming. After all, conservative beliefs are the “dangerous” ones.

Semi-related: Steve Newton's excellent post.

Posted by Hube at April 7, 2009 05:34 PM | TrackBack

Comments  (We reserve the right to edit and/or delete any comments. If your comment is blocked or won't post, e-mail us and we'll post it for you.)

You are dead on with this one, Hube.

I got into it a ways back with donfeces over a similar issue. He said that he didn't feel people should even be allowed to have "opinions" that "we know are wrong."

His quote was something along the lines of this:
“Why do we continue to allow people to walk around with opinions that we know are wrong.”

Now if he doesn't feel people should even be allowed to have opinions that are "wrong," I think it is safe to say that he doesn't feel they should be allowed to express said opinions freely.

Posted by: A.B. at April 8, 2009 07:44 AM