In light of what’s been going on around us over the last four years, and most particularly in recent weeks, I’ve been thinking about our most fundamental right – the right to say what we think.
It is one of the natural human rights, described as free will as early as the 13th century by Thomas Aquinas, and is the first amendment to the US Constitution. I agree with others who say it is the right above all others.
There are disturbing signs speaking one’s mind is no longer a right – but is increasingly and officially considered a privilege granted by the owners.
According to those in charge, you have the right to say what you think:
As long as you only speak in favor of approved government narratives;
As long as you only use approved words and phrases;
As long as you say things that aren’t considered offensive to a privileged group;
As long as you only speak and act according to norms approved the owners;
And, as long as you don’t say anything critical of Israel.
Let me unpack a few of those a bit.
The response to the Covid pandemic led to the increasing use of terms such as “trust the science”, while opposing positions were called “disinformation” – spreading known false information, “malinformation” – real information taken out of context to mislead; or “misinformation” spreading false information thought to be true.
Those terms were frequently used by government spokespeople, i.e., anchors in the MSM, to diminish or preclude counter-arguments.
Without going through the individual arguments for or against the MRNA vaccines and the lock-downs, it’s important to remember that science is a process: a hypothesis is developed, followed by analysis and testing to prove it with data, and then submittal of findings for peer review and critiques.
Those physicians and other scientists that conducted their own research on COVID and MRNA vaccines and attempted to advance their findings, frequently at odds with the “trusted science”, found themselves subject to censure, dismissal from their positions, and loss of medical licenses.
It is not the role of government bureaucrats to issue non-changing directives and mandates based on early findings, often from self-interested organizations, that haven’t gone through a skeptical review process.
And what you say should not be dependent on approval of the owners.
A term that I hold in contempt is “hate speech”. Speech can indeed be hateful, and in most cases can be revolting to sensible thoughtful people – but it’s still speech, and speech is protected.
I grew up with the jingle that “sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt.”
What the Hell happened to that idea?
Now, anything said that makes someone feel unsafe is considered hate speech – as long that someone belongs to a special class of citizens. There doesn’t have to be implied or overt statements or actions about violence directed at an individual or a group of individuals for something to be considered unsafe. They just have to “feel” unsafe.
Hate speech is a fluid term – used by those in power to control thought and expression of that thought.
The many January 6th protestors who were peaceful and, in most cases, only walked through the US Capitol – the so-called ‘People’s House’, where only lobbyists are free to roam – were called “insurrectionists”; now those who protest genocide in Gaza are called “Hamas terrorists”.
Those in charge at the time decide what is approved speech and what isn’t.
“Jewish students” at some campuses have claimed they feel unsafe because of campus protests – protests that include other Jewish students and individuals protesting genocide by the nation state of Israel against civilians in Gaza.
If the recent House approval of the Antisemitism Awareness Act is also approved by the US Senate and signed into law by Genocide Joe Biden, one has to hope it gets quickly brought to the US Supreme Court and is tossed out as unconstitutional.
Otherwise, would the Bible have to be rewritten concerning the killing of Jesus by the Jews? Would the Merchant of Venice have to be removed from libraries? Would Jewish students who openly expressed their views of the genocide in Gaza, even if not part of any protests, be guilty of crimes? Would Hasidic Jews be guilty of criminal behavior for their openly expressed views on the nation state of Israel?
Those may sound ridiculous, but they may become real concerns if the House Act officially becomes US law.
(Personally, I think it’s a cynical political stunt by both parties in the House – they may be vassals of Israel, but most are lawyers and likely expect it’ll be tossed out by the Supremes; they’re just doing what Jonathan Greenblatt and the ADL want. But what happens if the Supremes fold too?)
Among others, Speaker of House Mike Johnson – third in line for the Presidency – said recently at Columbia University that he believes in free speech, as long as it is done in certain ways.
Left unsaid is that implies ways approved by the government, e.g., ways like “free speech zones” near official proceedings, where protestors can be identified and recorded, and where protestors are allowed until someone in a blue uniform tells them to disperse.
US history is full of examples where protestors complied with the wishes of those in charge and still achieved their goals. Perhaps the best example relates to the founding of the United States.
The Founding Peacemakers urged their fellow colonists to quietly obey the letter and spirit of the taxation laws passed by Britain’s’ Parliament, they condemned the rioting by criminal agitators in Boston in 1770; as well as the insurrectionists who tossed tea into Boston harbor in 1773; and they enthusiastically supported the seizure of terrorist weapons in Lexington and Concord in 1775.
After many years of peaceful curfews and restrictions enforced by British and Hessian troops, they were able to convince Britain they were ready to manage their own affairs, and the representatives from different regions of the new country cordially founded the United States – paying special attention to ensure that slavery was outlawed in the new constitution.
In reality, it was the “technicians” of governance in Britain – to paraphrase the historian Barbara Tuchman’s description of the British government led by Prime Minister Frederick North, that led to the actual revolution.
Their sense of control and their belief in their ability to manage what would today be called events and the narrative failed. They failed to listen to the speech of the colonists who objected to taxation without proper representation.
They exemplify what John F Kennedy observed when he said that those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.
Those of us of a certain age remember the riots and increasingly violent campus protests of the 1960s. Over reaction by the Ohio state government and deployment of the armed national guard led inevitably to the murder of four students at Kent State in 1970.
I am still chilled by the opinions of the adults of the Kent, Ohio community quoted at the time by local reporters, who said the students got what they deserved for protesting. I assume that included the two students who weren’t at the protests and just walking to class – one of whom was a ROTC student.
I fear that may occur again.
The reflexive actions taken primarily by private universities to assure rich donors (to be brutally honest, rich Jewish donors who oppose the views of the students) has resulted in the deployment of heavily armed police in tactical gear to arrest and remove the protestors encampments. Add to that the well reported (at least in the alternative media) presence of non-student outside agitators, and bad things may happen.
I support the views and goals of the students.
But even if I didn’t, I support their right to free speech on what are supposed to be sanctuaries of free speech – college campuses where differing ideas are supposed to be freely explored, debated, and questioned.
Ultimately, for me, this is about a first amendment issue.
As the House Act moves into the Senate for debate, and ultimately perhaps to Genocide Joe Biden, I fear the rise of antisemitism will likely increase dramatically – with many innocent Jews and their synagogues facing actual threats.
When people can not channel their beliefs and emotions into saying what they think – the alternatives become terrifying.
And one other thing.
What’s left of of our democracy will not die in darkness, but on the tip of the tongue of someone afraid to say what is thought.
