Free Speech

A quick look at Yahoo earlier (I know, I know... why do I bother?) Informed me that the "Free Speech" rally in Boston was "cut short" by anti-protesters. The article went on glowingly about how the "Conservative White Nationalist" were stopped by an overwhelmingly larger crowd (which included members of both ANTIFA and Black Lives Matter).

The problem is, all this was predicted yesterday on a couple of Fox News shows, by the event's organizers. They correctly pointed out which hate groups would be there to shut them down, and how they would incorrectly tie the rally to White Nationalist (even though none were invited, and only one of the speakers at the event was even white).

The rally was meant as a way to show public support and defense of all of our Constitutional right to free speech. It was open to everyone, of every race, creed or religion, and wasn't focused on elevating or tearing down one group over any others. But, there's a reason why I call the kinds of people demonstrating against these things "Regressives".

Their true colors were glaringly exposed for all the world to see today.

Will it matter? Of course not. The media will never sink to the level of reporting the actual truth about this. Even if they did, half our country is too indoctrinated and misinformed to care. And, almost no one seems smart enough to look beyond their fake, momentary outrage, to see the bigger picture here.

For the last few years, idiots on college campuses have been rioting and threatening violence, to prevent anyone they don't agree with from speaking. Anyone that has any sort of argument that differs from the Left's opinions, is branded some sort of "ist" or "phobe". And, they do it all, while claiming to be defending against "hate speech".

Let me explain something to you, snowflake... Legally, the is no such thing as "hate speech". Scour the books, Constitution, or any official document you like. You won't find it anywhere.

That's because, in order for it to become a legal and viable term, it has to be defined by a central authority.

Now, think this through for once... if you're a Liberal, and the Conservatives are in charge, do you really want them deciding what's legally considered hateful and punishable by law? (The same applies if you're a Conservative under Liberal rule).

Who really should have the authority to decide? What I find hateful and offensive, you may consider normal and tolerable.

Here's another piece of mind candy for your starving little brains...

The First Amendment guarantees us the right to speak freely. It does not state, "only if approved by the government or society". It was written to protect everyone's right to speak their mind, no matter how ignorant or offensive what they say may be. (The only exception to this are calls for violence or  direct harm to others.) The reason is simple, you don't need to protect speech that everyone agrees with. That would be redundant and stupid.

As much as I hate racists of any kind (White Nationalist, La Raza, Black Lives Matter... etc.), I defend their right to speak. If for no other reason than, I would rather have them spewing their garbage out in the open (so I can identify them), than hiding in the shadows, like the cowards they really are.