November 04, 2013

"Chilling repercussions?"

The Comic Book Legal Defense Fund highlights a story that supposedly has "chilling repercussions" on free speech. You be the judge:

Across the Atlantic Ocean in the United Kingdom, Darren Cullen is currently fighting for his freedom of speech while he struggles to get his new comic book, (Don’t) Join the Army to the printers. The comic is a satirical depiction of the British Military in the form of an “anti-recruitment leaflet.” Multiple printers have refused to print the comic due to the fact that they find it offensive. Despite the fact that this suppression of speech is not by a governmental agency, and therefore not under the protection of the First Amendment or Article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights, it still has chilling repercussions.

Uh, what?? Let's see -- this dude Cullen wrote his own comic without any hassle from anyone, getting it fully funded via the popular Kickstarter site a couple months ago. Yet, because some private printing entities refused to publish it because they exercised their First Amendment/Article 10 rights, this somehow equates to Cullen "fighting for his freedom of speech."


As way too many a "progressive" fails to recognize, freedom of speech does NOT mean that other private individuals have to grant you a platform for your speech. Period. The article goes on to note that "Cullen was eventually able to find a printer that did not object to the content of the comic book ..." Well how 'bout that? Isn't that terrific? The very essence of freedom and democracy actually worked.

You can bet your bottom dollar that if someone wrote a pro-military comic and pacifist printing companies refused to publish it, guys like Cullen and column author Eric Margolis wouldn't be clamoring about "suppression of speech" then. They'd be championing the printers for their freedom of association rights. And they'd be right!

Don't believe me? Just check out how "progressives" treat conservatives' freedom of speech on just about any college campus. The rationalizations for their actual suppression of speech usually are comprised of "because it's 'hate speech," it's "intolerant," it's "racist," and/or it "doesn't add to the dialogue."

Posted by Hube at November 4, 2013 04:16 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.)

Like... OSC's superman story? ;-)

Posted by: Nate Winchester at November 4, 2013 05:22 PM

Touché, Nate!

Posted by: Hube at November 4, 2013 05:22 PM

Post a comment

Remember personal info?