Posted on 08/31/2017 12:27:20 PM PDT by Kaslin
When historians look back, I fear they’ll view the events of Charlottesville, Va., as a turning point, a crossing-the-Rubicon moment that preceded the inevitable fall of a great civil right.
Free speech is a right—a privilege, really—with an uncertain fate. The outcropping of press clippings questioning the efficacy and morality of unencumbered expression are a portentous sign.
The protection guaranteed by the First Amendment has always been threatened, or curtailed, in our country’s history. What transpired on the streets of Charlottesville is different. The gratuitous killing of Heather Heyer was awful enough–but it also provided plenty of fodder for those looking to curtail problematic political opinions.
This wouldn’t normally be an issue. But the general malaise that has beset the U.S., like a thick gray fog of discontent, has robbed the country of a robust defense of civic duty. The average American, it seems, is too distracted or burned out to take interest in the larger challenge of defining the public good. So it’s been left to the crazies, whose combined lack of volume control and employment make them perfect activists.
The First Amendment takes for granted a nation that implicitly supports it. Laws don’t matter when the larger society ignores them. As Scott Alexander writes, “Having free speech laws on the books is a necessary precondition, but it’s useless in the absence of social norms that support it.”
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
WTH is he talking about - it is a right. Privileges can be taken away.
I wish folks would learn the specifics before they read great meaning into events. It’s even more important if they are going to write on the subject, and try to make sense.
There is a very reasoned premise that this WAS NOT simply a gratuitous killing. The driver very well could have been in fear of his life, and simply trying to escape.
Using the ‘gratuitous killing’ theme, severs only to entrench Leftist tactics bringing their goals within reach.
the point free speech to not kill that woman the stopping of free speech killed that woman
free speech is just that Free Speech it’s not a physical act it never killed anybody
to paraphrase the great Second Amendment argument
Free Speech doesn’t kill people.... people kill people and killing people is how you take away there free speech
the point id free speech did not kill that woman ....the stopping of free speech killed that woman
free speech is just that.. Free Speech... it’s not a physical act ...it never killed anybody
to paraphrase the great Second Amendment argument
Free Speech doesn’t kill people.... people kill people ... and killing people is how you take away there free speech
I agree with your premise. Free Speech does not kill.
Didn’t quite understand the first sentence, but my take away is addressed above.
Thanks for the comments.
And the former Ms. Heyer was hardly an innocent bystander, either. She could have stayed home, or gone out for a latte or whatever clueless liberals do in their spare time, in which case she'd be alive today.
There have been many arguments that speech can be “dangerous”. That is the basis of hate speech laws, fighting word laws, and a host of others.
Even the first generation after the Revolution saw vast restrictions on the exercise of free speech in political areas. The Alien and Sedition acts jailed people who spoke poorly of government officials.
My point is that “Free Speech” has never been totally free. There have been restrictions on what can be said, where, and by whom since the beginning of the country.
Yes, she could have. She did have every right to be there, and it was indeed unfortunate that things played out as they did.
You really have to keep your wits about you in places and times like this. Even if you do, it can sometimes not be enough.
Even if she was a Leftist (which she may have been), I’m not wishing the Left death here. When it comes to black hoods and clubs, my reservation is withdrawn.
Also, the killing of Heather Heyer was not “gratuitous”.
It has every appearance of self defense.
More weasel words from media weasels.
Trump should speak at Sproul Hall.
“Free speech is a right—a privilege, really—with an uncertain fate.”
Nice try but a big miss. As you point out.
Wrong place at the wrong time comes to mind.
What also comes to mind is actions have consequences. Sometimes not always the consequences you have in mind.
Had Heather Heyer been acting lawfully and not trying to attack the rear of someone’s moving vehicle she’d be alive today.
I have no sympathy for this dead rioter.
I also know she’ll vote Democrat next year.
A similar watershed event happened decades ago. The world was tested on its commitment over Salman Rushdie. At first they stood with him, and then one by one Western leaders suggested Salman maybe should not have written his book.
What were Senator Rubio’s comments? I tried to find out through the links, but had no luck
“When entire movement built on anger & hatred towards people different than you,it justifies & ultimately leads to violence against them”
The UK's Sun showed a photo of her wearing a small crucifix. FWIW.
>> There have been restrictions on what can be said, where, and by whom since the beginning of the country.
The great danger of course is that the restrictions, e.g., “hate speech” can, in any given instance, be interpreted and expanded to whatever degree some judge chooses. This is the inevitable outcome of the so-called “living Constitution” doctrine. “IT MEANS WHATEVER WE SAY IT MEANS!”
Bump
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.