NewsWithViews.com
NewsWithViews on Pinterest NewsWithViews on Google+



Additional Titles

Other
Wooldridge
Articles:

In Violation of Their Oath of Office

Our Country Coming Undone

Chilling Costs of Illegal Alien Migration

 

More
Wooldridge
Articles

 

 

 

 

 

Quantcast

FREEDOM OF SPEECH FOR ME BUT NOT FOR YOU

 

 

 

By Frosty Wooldridge
June 24
, 2016
NewsWithViews.com

If you notice the enormous amount of money spent to defeat Donald Trump, you also see Americans shutting down free speech at his rallies. It’s one thing to adhere to the our 1st Amendment rights for yourself, but to trample on another’s same rights, illustrates how far we’ve gone down the road to losing our constitutional republic.

In this ongoing series of interviews, average citizens speak their minds. What’s happening to America via endless immigration, accelerates into Canada, too.

Canadian writer Tim Murray speaks his mind:

“Churchill nailed it,” said Murray.

“Everyone is in favor of free speech. Hardly a day passes without its being extolled, but some people's idea of it is that they are free to say what they like, but if anyone else says anything back, that is an outrage.”

“So it is, so it always was,” said Murray. “If history could add an eleventh Commandment, it would be this: Thou shalt not contest orthodoxy.

“Of course, throughout the ages, the guardians of orthodoxy have always had their reasons. There has always been a good reason to silence critics. The lyrics change but music remains the same:

"Say what you may, but what you say, you say against the Church, and that is blasphemy. And blasphemy cannot be tolerated." The stricture of medieval Christianity.

"Seditious comment must be punished". The warning issued to the rebels of the 13 colonies.

"We welcome discussion among comrades within the framework of socialism. But counter-revolutionaries must not be allowed to speak." The edict of Stalinism

"Let a hundred flowers bloom and a thousand thoughts contend". The invitation of Chairman Mao as he killed millions of his countrymen for disagreeing with him.

“When those thoughts were expressed, they were not to his liking, and those who expressed them paid the price. Dissent must not find a voice in the People’s Republic of China.

"Fascists have no right to speak." The axiom of Herbert Marcuse, guru of the emergent New Left.

“His essay “On Tolerance” was a call for intolerance. Then it became clear. For the New Left, the Left that still lives on in another generation, Orwell’s 1984 was not a warning, but a blueprint.”

And finally,

"Hate speech is not free speech…Hate speech is not acceptable…. Truth is no defense.”

“This is the mantra and rationale of the soft totalitarian state. Totalitarianism with a “progressive” face! An iron fist in a velvet glove! There is no need for torture chambers or gulags or a secret police in this state. Its weapons are indoctrination in the guise of higher education, public shaming, the threat of ostracism, the inculcation of guilt and self-loathing, the cultivation of victimhood, the nurturing of hyper-sensitivity and the bizarre right “not to be offended”. Hurt feelings must be the prime consideration, the gauge for what can be said and what can’t. In the progressive dystopia, no one should have to suffer hurt feelings.

“No one must endure a “hostile working environment”. Everyone must be entitled to a “safe place”. Safe not only from physical assault but verbal ‘assault’ as well. From ‘micro-aggressions’ and disturbing speech. From ‘hateful’ speech! Especially on campus, which used to be the one place, which encouraged and sanctioned the free exchange of ideas.

Subscribe to NewsWithViews Daily Email Alerts

*required field

“But who defines “hate”? What is the objective criterion for hate speech? Why is the emotional state or motivation of a speaker relevant to the veracity of what he says? If people are accorded the right to vote, why aren’t they accorded the right to hear what some deem to be “hate speech’ and judge its merits for themselves? Aside from whether a speaker has the right to speak, doesn’t the audience have a right to hear? Who has the right to deny that right? And most fundamentally, what is the point of freedom of speech if it is only to be afforded to those who agree with you?

“These are questions still unanswered. But the “Thought Police” have no inclination to answer them, for they afflicted with the disease of absolute certainty, the bedrock of the totalitarian impulse. The trademark of all true believers.”

© 2016 Frosty Wooldridge - All Rights Reserved

Share This Article

Click Here For Mass E-mailing

 


Frosty Wooldridge possesses a unique view of the world, cultures and families in that he has bicycled around the globe 100,000 miles, on six continents and six times across the United States in the past 30 years. His published books include: "HANDBOOK FOR TOURING BICYCLISTS"; “STRIKE THREE! TAKE YOUR BASE”; “IMMIGRATION’S UNARMED INVASION: DEADLY CONSEQUENCES”; “MOTORCYCLE ADVENTURE TO ALASKA: INTO THE WIND—A TEEN NOVEL”; “BICYCLING AROUND THE WORLD: TIRE TRACKS FOR YOUR IMAGINATION”; “AN EXTREME ENCOUNTER: ANTARCTICA.” His next book: “TILTING THE STATUE OF LIBERTY INTO A SWAMP.” He lives in Denver, Colorado.

His latest book. ‘IMMIGRATION’S UNARMED INVASION—DEADLY CONSEQUENCES.’

Website: www.FrostyWooldridge.com

E:Mail: [email protected]


 

Home

If you notice the enormous amount of money spent to defeat Donald Trump, you also see Americans shutting down free speech at his rallies. It’s one thing to adhere to the our 1st Amendment rights for yourself, but to trample on another’s same rights, illustrates how far we’ve gone down the road to losing our constitutional republic.