Category: Free speech

Respect the office

According to NPR, liberals outnumber conservatives 2:1 among educators. Maybe that’s how this wall mural depicting President Trump’s head on a spear came to be painted at a school in Chula Vista, CA.

The unapologetic artist had this to say about the whole episode. Given their viewpoint, it’s hard to imagine how the school could not have known what kind of mural they would develop.

You don’t have to respect the man, but you should respect the office. A painting depicting the decapitated head of the President of the United States on a spear is inappropriate, and only furthers the growing divide between out political parties.

If you want to help, then build something inclusive. However, please stop defacing the United States of America with anti-American and divisive drivel.

You know the end is near when…

Restaurateurs in New York City are up in arms over what seem like continuous  hikes in the minimum wage. They want to deal with these increases by applying a separate surcharge on each bill of ~ 5%, but they need city approval to do so which has not been forthcoming.

The obvious question is this: Why in the world should a retailer need government approval to set their own rates in any fashion they desire? Does anyone else understand the significance of government control on prices? I understand why the government might not want the surcharge (it would expose the cost of their wage meddling efforts), but why doesn’t such an action fall within the free-speech rights of the restaurateurs? I find it hard to believe that the inhabitants of NYC would be so gullible as to fall for this slow devolution into socialism.

A second obvious question also arises: Why haven’t people figured out that increasing the minimum wage really does nothing, and is just a false panacea – good only for vote pandering? Think of it: things like rent are expensive in NYC because apartments are a scarce resource. What do you think happens when the same people vying for the same apartments now have more money to compete in the marketplace? That’s right – the number of apartments remains unchanged, but the price of apartments increase to account for the additional money available for rent expenses. Only the politicians (through votes bought by pretending to help workers) and landlords (through greater competition for their apartments, and thus higher rents) make out in this scenario. Minimum wage earners are left exactly where they were before – broke and in an (even more) expensive apartment.

Anyway, back to the meaning of our title for this blog enty:

“…when you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing … you may know that your society is doomed.”

An excerpt from a speech by fictional character Francisco d’Anconia in Ayn Rand’s novel, “Atlas Shrugged”

Given that these restaurateurs (producers) need government approval (produce nothing) for their pricing structure, this quote seems appropriate. Do you think that the voters will ever catch on? After all, the politicians have…

Unions and a “free” press

Unfortunately, California’s press crusade of associating illegal aliens with legal immigrants has taken hold; the media no longer makes any distinction between the two. This is painfully evident in press accounts (and in the bill itself) of California’s latest illegal immigrant protection mechanism, The Immigrant Worker Protection Act (AB 450). It is interesting to note, however, that this bill by Assembly member David Chiu (D-San Francisco) was reportedly sponsored by the Service Employees International Union.

Maybe that explains the media bias: I’ll bet most media newsrooms are union, too. That begs the question: Can we truly have a free press when such a considerable bias  is found in their union workforce? Just a thought…

I’m tired of being right…

I predicted earlier that the government, barred by the first amendment from limiting speech, would use the threat of regulation to force social media sights to do their bidding instead. Unfortunately, I was right – this is exactly what they are attempting to do. It’s covered well in this Cato Institute editorial by John Samples so I won’t bore you with the details here – read it for yourself instead.

Thank you, Jeremy Hunt

A voice of reason rings out among the partisan, acrimonious rhetoric regarding race:

Demonizing white people doesn’t improve race relations

While I am sure that Jeremy and I have different views on many subjects, I feel that I could have a constructive conversation with him regarding those differences. That’s how it’s supposed to be; civil discourse is the true purpose of free speech.

The attack on free speech

Free speech is so important to the existence of a free society that the founders of this country enshrined the right to free speech as our constitution’s 1st amendment. The 1st amendment. Need I say more…?

Unfortunately, there are some in this country who are opposed to free speech. Their opposition to free speech may be rooted in the desire/need to control the thoughts of the general public (or more likely the typical voter) for their own ends. Or perhaps their desire is to see the world work in a way that they sincerely believe is best for all. However, attempts to limit speech in the past have led to suppression of the “opposition”, with dire results. Think not? Ask any WWII survivor who witnessed the suppression of opposition speech by Hitler’s stormtroopers and brown-shirts.

There are those who would argue something different; that in fact what is allowed to be said – rather than that not said at all – is what drives negative results. I would argue otherwise, and make the claim that if other voices are heard (rather than suppressed), in the end saner voices will prevail. In any event, the dilemma in attempting the suppression of “wrong” speech (over allowing competing viewpoints to be heard) is this: who exactly gets to decide what speech is allowed?

This is the dilemma faced by the founders. In their wisdom they decided that it was better for all voices to be heard rather than to trust a government to wield such an enormous power responsibly. I wholeheartedly agree with their assessment.

This has not stopped those who wish to control speech. Realizing that the government cannot limit speech (that pesky 1st amendment again…) they have instead taken to demand (under threat of regulation) that those who hold the means to speak (i.e.: the social media providers) limit the ability to disseminate speech that “they” deem hate speech, or simply speech that is divisive (it’s not like free speech is supposed to air opposing viewpoints or anything). Don’t be fooled; it is simply an end-run around the constitution and poses the same problem as noted before: who decides what speech is allowed?

The framers of our constitution were wise but imperfect people operating in a time very different from our own. However, they made a great effort to lay down a solid foundation upon which to build a modern, successful society. This foundation is enumerated in our constitution and its amendments, and we should be very leery of any attempt by our government to circumvent the same. Don’t fall for the demands to limit some speech via threat of regulation –  it’s just an attempt to gain control over all speech.

And remember – when speech is limited, someone has to decide what is allowed. What do you think will happen when your opposition holds that power?

Yeah – that’s what I think, too.

Social media and censorship

I predicted earlier (here, here) that social media moguls would use their platforms to steer opinion by limiting speech. Here is an example where a social media company has allegedly attempted to limit speech directly associated with a political campaign. If this doesn’t raise your eyebrows, then you haven’t been paying attention.

Now, to be completely honest, I don’t particularly agree with this candidate’s views. But their views are not my concern; what is my concern is that this social media firm appears to be silencing politicians with whom it disagrees. Bear in mind that even if you do agree with this company’s alleged attempts to censor this particular political speech, keep in mind that next time it might be your opinion that is quashed.

This would not be a problem if it were not for the success of these social media platforms. They have become the de facto means of communication for so many that their importance in the communication of ideas cannot be underestimated. To be fair, the social media companies are within their rights to take such action: the 1st amendment guarantees you the right to free speech, but not a platform from which to speak. You truly only have free speech in a venue that you control. However, the use of these social media systems to disseminate opinion and information has become so ingrained in our society that I would argue that such systems are simply a service, and as such cannot discriminate based on content. Let me elaborate a bit more…

A physical media publisher seeks out those who produce works that they want to publish. They publish books/magazines/etc under their own brand label, and as such what they publish affects the opinion of that brand. Such companies should be allowed to pick and choose the authors they wish to represent. However, a simple printer does not suffer the same association with the content they print. What they print is branded by the author and their material, without regard for the printer in any way. For that reason the printer should not be allowed to refuse to print materials based on content. Just as a baker cannot refuse to bake a cake for a gay wedding, neither should a printer be able to refuse to print invitations for such a wedding (or announcements, or photo books of wedding photos, etc.). We can have a long argument about whether or not freedom of association allows such discrimination, but for now let’s assume it does not (we’ll wait for the final court say before commenting more on this topic…).

Social media sites are nothing more that digital printers. No one associates the content of a <insert social media site name here> posting with the social media site; instead, they associate the contents only with the author. The social media site is free to post its own opinions on any number of topics (including their opposition to particular posts) and make known that these are their opinions, but Joe Blow’s post about their political beliefs are just that – their political beliefs. Only a simpleton would assume that the independent posts of an individual would represent the opinion of the social media company that hosts this site along with the sites of millions of others.

When social media platforms seek to limit particular political speech, they are interfering with our political process. We should raise our voice loudly to protest such actions whenever they occur.