Censorship Spreads

Home Blog Censorship Spreads
Censorship Spreads

Conservatives favorite saying when it comes to college students is usually something along the lines of “wait till they get to the real world.”  This is usually in reference to the insane babying that happens on college campuses by bureaucrats who capture these young adults in some sort of time warp where they are adult enough to sign away 100k dollars but childish enough to not have first amendment rights.  However, what happens when the babying starts corrupting the real world?  Then what do we say?

It’s not surprising that liberal outlets like MSNBC or the Huffington Post would support some of the bizarre claims spouted by kids on college campuses.  If MSNBC can capture a few more eyeballs by speaking on the evils of cultural appropriations, why not?  If the Huffington Post can con a few more clicks by arguing that science proves gender is fluid, go for it!  However, when institutions that are reliant and have championed the first amendment begin turning on that very right.  Things have gone horribly wrong…

Recently the New York Times published an op/ed from Ulrich Baer who argues that some speech “invalidates the humanity of some people,”  No seriously, he said that…

Liberal free-speech advocates rush to point out that the views of these individuals must be heard first to be rejected. But this is not the case. Universities invite speakers not chiefly to present otherwise unavailable discoveries, but to present to the public views they have presented elsewhere. When those views invalidate the humanity of some people, they restrict speech as a public good.

See, I told you.  Mr. Baer is utterly insane.  However, he is not alone.  Former DNC head, DEMOCRAT presidential candidate, and now MSNBC contributor, Howard Dead, also believes hate speech is not protected by the first amendment.  It’s kinda weird people think are brilliant founders were concerned that popular speech was in danger of being supported so that’s why the first amendment.  Oh, wait.  Or maybe our founders knew popular speech would never be censored since it was POPULAR.  Maybe when they wrote the first amendment they had unpopular speech in mind.  This, of course, doesn’t mean our founders were bigots who love hate speech.  What they were smart enough to know is that once we start limiting one kind of speech all bets were off.  The problem with so-called “hate speech” is that one person’s hate speech is the next person’s gospel.

Wesley Smith over at National Review points out the problem with this way of thinking…

Moreover, he misses the obvious point that the power to squelch speech that conflicts with progressive social advocacy could be similarly used to punish those who call Donald Trump a fascist, if the government ever attained the power to punish disfavored views.

It’s kind of nutty that the same people who are calling Donald Trump a fascist are demanding the creation of a system that gives government ultimate control over speech.  It’s illogical, hypocritical, and deadly.  I know.  That sounds extreme.  However, it is not.  We’ve seen what has happened to dissenters in places like China, Cuba, North Korea, Turkey, and Venezuela just to name a few.  Best case scenario is indefinite imprisonment, worst case scenario is death.  “But we’re not North Korea” I can already hear you saying.  That is true, but we might be closer than you think.

POLITICO recently reported on the damage that Obama’s Title IX laws did to the campus climate and the lives it ruined…

On-campus sexual assault complaints will continue to generate a great deal of heat and not much light so long as they are perceived as being handled by schools in a lopsided manner that makes them appear unfair and illegitimate.

When being found “more likely than not” responsible for sexual misconduct makes the difference between staying at school or expulsion, between having a degree or a transcript with an ineradicable black mark, we owe it to our students to do better than a kangaroo and half a loaf.

This tale is horrifying for many reasons.  However, the most terrifying is that an actual court agreed with the sham court on campus is nothig short of jaw dropping.  However, it is important to always fine the silver lining.  This article was published on the front page at Politico.  A mainstream outlet has woken up to the atrocities that are happening on our college campuses.  I’ve read very similar pieces in the National Review or the Federalist but never at such a mainstream outlet.  I am hoping this is a sign and that the spread of illogically politically correct ideologies is overblown.  While it doesn’t surprise me that the New York Times has disappointed me once again, I can say I’m surprised Politico has come to the rescue.  Let us hope more mainstream outlets go down the path of the Politico and reject the insanity of the New York Times.

Facebook Comments