Posted on 02/05/2021 5:21:08 AM PST by Kaslin
When embattled freshman Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., took to the U.S. House floor Thursday morning in advance of a chamberwide vote to possibly strip her of all committee assignments, she spoke through a face mask embroidered with that most iconic of all American rallying cries: "FREE SPEECH." Greene thus followed in the footsteps of many others on the right who respond to a domineering and increasingly illiberal ruling class with rote proceduralist appeals to free speech and open discourse -- whether in the context of media/academia-driven "cancel culture," ideologically homogenizing Big Tech censorship or elsewhere.
On the merits, it would be mistaken to strip Greene, who has previously flirted with the QAnon conspiracy theory and has voiced numerous other ludicrous beliefs, of all House committee assignments. While punishing duly elected congressmen and senators for post-election statements and actions is an issue of case-by-case prudence, punishing congressmen and senators for preelection statements and conduct would set a chilling precedent and undermine rudimentary notions of republican self-governance. There are other remedies for Greene's myriad foes to pursue, such as a 2022 primary challenge or, as The Washington Post's Henry Olsen argues, congressional redistricting.
But the fact that Greene -- an erstwhile QAnon adherent, 9/11 truther and believer that the 2018 Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting was a "false flag" operation -- can so effortlessly retreat to the comparatively safe terrain of "free speech" ought to concern conservatives. It is a reminder of the inherent moral limitations of appeals to liberal procedure in lieu of underlying substance. Moreover, conservatives would be making a tactical error if they were to lionize Greene and like-minded fringe figures as valiant martyrs for "free speech" ideals.
Just as Ethics and Public Policy Center President Ryan T. Anderson recently argued in The Wall Street Journal that "religious liberty isn't enough," so, too, is "free speech" perhaps necessary but ultimately insufficient as a tool with which to implore elites to grant conservatives basic societal legitimacy. Every argument that begins and ends with cries of "free speech," whether in opposition to the latest noxious manifestation of "cancel culture" or censorious Big Tech account ban, is necessarily an argument eschewing any focus on underlying claims to justice or truth.
The left's implacable obsession with insular intellectual gatekeeping and quashing of conservative participation in the public square does make necessary, to some degree, appeals to free speech. But such an intense focus on free speech as an intrinsic end -- encapsulated by the Supreme Court's sophistic 1971 musing, in Cohen v. California, that "one man's vulgarity is another's lyric" -- is to engage in the very sort of moral relativism that conservatives rightfully decry. Worse, it misunderstands the historical understanding of free speech, which was not that of an intrinsic good unto itself but instead that of a merely convenient instrumentality in pursuit of genuine truth and knowledge. Conservatives who are confident in their convictions should not be afraid to defend their substantive beliefs, whether about human sexuality, immigration levels or any other contemporary issue of public policy, without pleading to be left alone due solely to pluralistic commitments to religion or speech.
It would also be tactically short-sighted for conservatives to depict Greene's trials and tribulations, let alone the broader cult of QAnon, as a fight for free speech or a rejection of "cancel culture" (itself just a proxy for free speech). There are plenty of prudential reasons to oppose punishing Greene based on information that was readily available at the time the voters of Georgia's 14th congressional district sent her to Congress. To punish an elected official based on preelection actions would set into motion a very slippery slope; presumably, poring over elected officials' high school newspaper editorials to scour for all traces of "wrongthink" would be fair game. This isn't a particularly appealing vision of self-rule. But we can avoid it without cabining the looniest of conspiracy theories under the veneer of "free speech." To do so is morally infelicitous, frustrates the defense of conservative beliefs that should be protected and promoted for their inherent worth, and confuses First Amendment-protected speech with colloquial conceptions of broadly permissible speech.
Marjorie Taylor Greene should not be formally punished by either the current House Republican minority or Democratic majority for her previous beliefs, no matter how noxious they may be. But it is imperative that we understand such lenity as prudence -- not myopic free speech absolutism.
And yet Maxine Waters remains at large.
The Second Amendment says that the RKBA shall not be infringed. Yet, we infringe it.
Free Speech absolutism? Is that a bad thing now? Are we going to “judiciously” infringe on First Amendment rights?
If so, I propose that we make Islam illegal.
Or, if we can’t do that, why don’t we acknowledge that saying “I disagree with some of this US Representative’s pronouncements” is about as far as anyone should go. Efforts to cancel her, shut her up or punish her are a direct abuse of the First Amendment.
We either recognize these rights or we don’t. Currently, it really appears that the government is pretending that these rights don’t exist.
Use your brain before you speak. In other words think before your mouth, as you might say something that you have to regret.
That was a logical link for this thread...
later
I'm also convinced that these punks would have no problem leaning on the person/persons in charge here demanding names,addresses,IP addresses,etc. And by "leaning" I mean "how would you like a 10 year vacation in West Virginia?".
There was a time not too long ago when I didn't believe that...but I do now.
“them” don’t need to lean on JR or anybody else here to find out about “us”
“they” most probably can run through a server pretty surreptitiously and pull off anything they’re interested in
its far less disruptive to the social order
Let’s root out the left wing conspiracy theories:
-We can and must control the climate.
-Gender dysphoria is not a mental problem but a natural state of being.
-Transexualism is not simply a fetish, people cannot control that behavior.
-Free markets enslave people.
-Secondhand smoke is dangerous.
^ ^
“I must admit that I’m convinced that FR is being monitored by US Government punks....by the likes of Brennan,Clapper,Comey,Strozk,Weissman,Rice,etc.”
Yep, individuals. Name the names. I recently had the pleasure to meet some civilized FBI recently. They knew of my posts. They said some of them were funny...FIB. : )
To Whom It May Concern: Thanks.
Good, Bad, Ugly, Wicked, Evil in every collective.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h1PfrmCGFnk
I can believe there are some "civilized FBI." But that leads me to another question: How much power do they have vs. the "uncivilized FBI?" Same question for CIA, NSA. the Pentagon. And if they did have power, why wouldn't Biden's masters tell him to get rid of them or coerce them?
GRRRREAT Q. Dunno? Trying to figger it all out could drive a person cray cray.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-N4jf6rtyuw
: )
once yer thru the looking glass, anything is possible
Charlie Parker:"I wish I could play like Tatum’s right hand!"
mind-boggling. WOW! Thanks. (gonna write that one down)
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.