TOPICS: ConstitutionFree Speech
“The United States Constitution legally protects your fundamental human rights. Every citizen should feel free from an immediate threat, so limited speech restrictions make sense. However, valuing free speech means that our collective tolerance for new ideas needs to increase. Redefining every negative interaction as hate speech hurts everyone, creating a climate of political correctness that ultimately muzzles every American. There is a reason that free speech is legally defined. No one person or group can impose their ideas or priorities on another, nor should they. Ultimately, these values promote mutual respect, which creates the safest public climate for all citizens across every political stripe and social issue.”
… Sujit Choudhry is the founding director of the Center for Constitutional Transitions and the I. Michael Heyman Professor of Law at the University of California, Berkeley – School of Law.
Personally, I could not agree more whole-heartily about the U.S. Constitutional human rights agenda against suppression and controls than what Professor Choudhry stated above. However, not everyone sees the U.S. founding documents in that light or interpretation.
In my opinion, the First Amendment expresses support for, plus also guarantees, free speech and the practice of certain rights associated with freedom of belief, speech and religion, which in today’s political climate are denigrated by the very persons who claim to be “free speech rights advocates and enforcers.” Hello! What am I missing? Their rabidness is indicative of their disdain for freedoms, in my opinion. They seem to align with corporate dictates that mandate “their way or the highway” when it comes to healthcare, vaccines, GMO ‘phood’, weather geoengineering, microwave technology and AMI Smart Meters, public utility commissions, the U.S. CDC/FDA and a host of other actors which I would label a “Corporatocracy” form of socialist-fascist governance.
However, as I view the First Amendment, it also should include and enforce precluding the denials of suppression of free speech, beliefs, and religious tenets EXCEPT when radicals overstep their zeal and enthusiasm to promote fascist-like tactics as witnessed on today’s supposedly ‘free-thinking’ college and university campuses. That preclusion also ought to extend to financial support extended to radical ‘free thinkers’ like George Soros and his many-faceted agendas, e.g., the color revolutions in various countries, Bill Gates and his foundation, the Rockefeller clan, the Rothschilds AND the one percent elites who want to control humankind.
Apparently, the “more narrow interpretation” Professor Choudhry talks about in his article comes from the “political correctness” meme which, ostensibly, gave birth to what ought to be labeled “Democrat radicalism.”
Another sphere of First Amendment restraint factors, in my opinion, which ought to be impacted with harnessing their rabid controls of the First Amendment regarding free speech are the six media corporations that own 90 percent of free thought and free speech media-output in the USA: GE, News Corp., Disney, Viacom, Time Warner, CBS. Ninety percent outputs boil down either to collusion or control! Which is it? And why have citizens fallen for it?
As I assess the status of the First Amendment, it looks like it’s up on the checkout counter traveling down the belt to a final demise. Apathy on the part of those who believe in the U.S. Constitution and its Amendments, plus our country’s founding documents, are responsible for allowing the socialist Democrat radicals, who are changing the Democratic Party, to get their pernicious and communist-like-thinking socialized “mad world” into what some radicals think the USA ought to become.
As a Nation, do we want the total loss of our freedoms that were paid for in blood, sweat, tears, honor and devotion to be lost?