Posted on 04/27/2022 3:50:25 AM PDT by Kaslin
A dozen of us were seated on either side of the long dining table. Present were writers gathered from across the nation and around the world. Beside me was a lady from Nigeria. Facing me was a Romanian. The woman next to her had flown in from Sydney, Australia. This was a celebratory supper after a long day of book signings at the Los Angeles Times Book Festival — a major literary event.
The conversation among this group of lively intellects was a sparkling delight — light hearted and witty. Only for a brief while did it turn to the fashionable liberal topic of the moment: the benefits of censoring free speech. I said nothing. Why spoil the celebration?
It is odd that the notion that speech must be censored is the current fashion of people who call themselves liberal. Liberalism is supposed to be the philosophy of individual freedom and free speech. Well, language evolves, and true liberals are much more likely to be found in the ranks of conservatives than those left of center.
There really are true liberals on the left. The people seated around me certainly were. Unfortunately, they live in an almost impenetrable fortress of specious certainty. Conservatives swim in a sea of progressivism, so they are well aware of the thinking of the left. The converse is not the case. In my experience, people left of center have a fantastically distorted concept of conservative ideas. I suppose this is because they mostly listen to one another, to the progressive media, and to their thought masters, not to real conservatives. Perhaps, too, they fear they might like conservative ideas and so become outcasts.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
And, if a nation has ‘hate speech’ laws, then it doesn’t have free speech.
It is easy to be a Liberal and have no moral compass. Conservatism is common sense and requires work to convince Liberals they are full of $hit.
.
I broke the Laz Tradition and read the entire article and I will never read another Chet Richards's article again.
She is a pussy, she "said nothing" when there was an obvious lie being presented, because, "why spoil the celebration".
Too uncomfortable to tell the truth.
What a lame excuse, "Why spoil the celebration?"
OR an established and protected boarder
A former potus who once swore to uphold and defend the free speech as outlined in the Constitution disagrees. He says we have too much free speech and that free speech only applies to certain groups. Surely, his speech would be in opposition to a functioning nation and would be an act of insurrection?
This is true. Without freedom of speech, having borders, laws, or anything else is superfluous.
That is why, even though I don’t regard Elon Musk as a true conservative in many ways, I will embrace and support him in his endeavor at Twitter.
It is a big battle on contested ground, and he fights.
In 1854, Grant left the Army in disgrace because of his heavy drinking. When he returned after the outbreak of the war, questions surrounding his fitness for command followed him everywhere—even to his greatest victory. Rumors persisted that Grant was drunk on the battlefield at Shiloh, and Lincoln was urged to fire him.
“I can’t spare this man,” Lincoln responded. “He fights.”
Absolutely.
Many people don’t seem to understand that in a war, you don’t want the most accomplished, diplomatic, fill-in-the-checkbox kind of Soldier, Sailor, Marine, or Aviator.
You want one that fights like a beast.
That’s why men like Patton, Halsey, LeMay, and Puller were valuable. All of them had flaws.
But they “fought”.
Grant was a remarkable man. A true American. If you have never read his memoir, it is a great read.
Barlow used to tell me that the remedy for hate speech was more speech.
“You Can’t Have a Functioning Nation without Free Speech”
Sure you can. “Functioning” nations without “free speech” have existed for thousands of years before America was founded. Many exist today. They may not function very well but they function. Perhaps it depends on how you define “functioning”, and “free speech”.
You can’t have free speech without the right of self defense.
Excellent point.
If it’s real hate speech, the solution is often to to just them talk and expose the ugliness and irrationality of the speaker.
The problem with anti-hate speech laws is who decides what ‘hate’ is and the fact that truth is no defense.
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.