Free Speech Now Defined by Government Not the Bill of Rights

0
Share

WSJ

Hillary Clinton’s recent campaign flyer quoted Hillary as saying, “Breitbart has no right to exist”. She wants to shut down the right’s own media outlets beginning with Breitbart. She promises to be the new McCarthy, having pushed hate speech laws and censoring of the press in the past and we had better be ready for the siege.

Democrats are out in the open with their objectives to limit free speech. The Federal Elections Commission is chomping at the bit to regulate Internet free speech.

A CNET author, Ian Sherr, in explaining how Facebook censors, posted a novel definition of freedom of speech: “Freedom of speech isn’t what you think it is. The beginning phrase of the First Amendment to the US Constitution says ‘Congress shall make no law…’ That means, within reason, the government doesn’t mess with what you say.”

If the definition is “within reason” under the force of government, it leaves us open to hate laws, broadcast and Internet speech regulation and it makes RICO laws for expressing unpopular opinions reasonable.

When we play with the Constitution and the meaning of the Bill of Rights in particular, we are embroiled in a dangerous game.

Recently sixteen attorneys general decided to harass supporters of climate denial as they launched attacks against the bigger target Exxon Mobil. They demanded unreasonable documentation going back a decade or more with the threat of criminal prosecution hanging in the balance.

Left-wing organizations and Democrat politicians colluded with the Attorneys general and the DoJ to file RICO complaints against Exxon and any high-profile organization that has any differing opinions on the exaggerated science of global warming.

We know it’s exaggerated from Climategate but more importantly from the fact that almost none of their computer predictions have come true. They do not have records from the past and have nothing to compare with. The hockey stick has been debunked.

The left wants Exxon treated the same as cigarette companies and charged criminally for allegedly lying to the public. There is a big difference, however. Phillip Morris was putting higher levels of Nicotine into the cigarettes and lying about it. Exxon, on the other hand, produced studies that mostly proved global warming was questionable at best. Exxon’s case is a free speech case.

They are accused of hiding studies that “prove” climate change when in fact they were the less meaningful studies in their opinion and they did not agree with them. It was not their duty to present a case for Al Gore’s global warming theories.

All organizations that support fossil fuels and hold doubts about climate warming as the catastrophe of the near future are under siege by law enforcement. It is a threat to free speech.

Exxon and other organizations should be allowed to present an opinion that runs counter to the government opinion. If the government wins on this, what business will be next? Black Lives Matter, a Soros-Obama organization, tortured a restaurant owner of an olive store for a sign that said “White Olives Matter”. Should signs be banned or regulated? Perhaps the word “matter” has to be banned in certain cases? Should all opinions that go against government be put under law enforcement scrutiny if the government so decides?

Our First Amendment is in grave danger and this is one more means of attack. No matter how you feel about global warming, scientists and anyone who disagrees should be allowed to present another opinion.

There aren’t enough people fighting the government abuse of free speech.

Share