Why is it the Left (and Progressive Republicans) HATE Free Speech? - Granite Grok

Why is it the Left (and Progressive Republicans) HATE Free Speech?

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

Ann_RavelThe Left is not even trying to hide their scorn for the ideal of Free Speech – they see the Constitution as something only to be used to when it furthers their agenda otherwise it’s that cock-eyed view that it must be thrown out because:

  • It’s too old
  • It was written by old white slave owners
  • It oppresses us from taking stuff from you so that we can give our Socialist Utopia (“Peace be upon Karl Marx!”) which requires that you obey us.

So that means not only our regular everyday speech (why do you think that Cultural Marxism / Political Correctness exists? Answer: to create the illiberal idea that there is Hate Speech (which the First PROTECTS!!!) to control and limit dissent) but our Political Speech as well.  Why else do they continue to harp on the Citizens United SCOTUS decision?  Why are they already fearing any tax reform that would unmuzzle church pulpits undo the [LBJ] Johnson Amendment?

And even though she got shot down when she was on the Federal Election Commission, Ann Ravel (D) believes, contra the First Amendment, it is up to the Government to regulate our political speech (yeah, I know – why have we acted like sheep and allowed them to get away with this??):

(emphasis mine, reformatted):

Former chairwoman of the Federal Election Commission Ann Ravel recently spoke at an event at UC Berkeley titled “Future of Democracy” where she discussed the possible need for regulating political speech and ads on social media. Ravel, who has previously called for regulation of political websites such as The Drudge Report, stated that without regulation of the internet and digital platforms, the role of the FEC will essentially become obsolete as the FEC focuses mainly on TV and radio content.

Be sure of one thing – she is Hard Left and the word “possible” really means “absolutely necessary” as she has been on this warpath to shut down political speech she doesn’t like (hey, kissin’ cousin with Lois Lerner, who served in the FEC before going over to the IRS to harass TEA Party and conservative groups).  After all, she (and others like her) believe that EVERYTHING needs the heavy guiding hand of people like her.  Non-partisan her, by the way.

And it is absolutely clear that she either doesn’t know why the Founders carefully scribed the First – or hates it.  Much of the impetus for it was FOR protecting political speech that they wanted to be unfettered.  They had the same issue then as we do now – absolute slandering, fake news, smear campaigns, lies – there is nothing new under the sun.  The Constitution was written not just to outline a structure for a government but to account for human nature.  They realized that the arena of ideas has to be free for our Republic to work and their words were to keep Government out of it.

Ravel believes she knows better than they did – or has other motives for doing the opposite:

“We know that there’s a lot of campaigning that’s moved to the internet, whether it’s through fake news or just outright advertising and there is almost no regulation of this, very little. And so that the disclosure that we expect as to who is behind campaigns is not going to exist soon,” said Ravel at the Berkeley law school. “Some people are even predicting that by 2020 most of the advertising is going to move from television to the internet, and and I think this is a serious issue that requires a lot of discussion.”

No, Ms. Ravel, it doesn’t.  It is not about the technology – it is about the basic value to speak our minds.  The Founders knew that – they deliberately made the decision to protect the very thing she wishes grab – anonymous speech.  The Founders dealt with this problem – and decided that Freedom / Liberty was of a higher order / value / ideal. Ravel believes that her knowing is more important than protecting someone’s speech REGARDLESS of the issue.

Ravel claimed that the use of Facebook and other social media platforms by political campaigns is a problem. “I’ve talked to a lot of campaign consultants and they buy some groups in Holland or in Russia who figure out who the target audience might be and then they go through circuitous mechanisms to put ads or fake news or whatever it is on Facebook.”

No, it isn’t a problem.  It is only a problem for people like you who believe we all aren’t smart enough to figure it all out.  Sure, the politicians (and activists) scream bloody murder about it, but as I watch the plethora of political ads going by (this IS NH after all, where it seems there are more political ads that flow by in all channels than the ice flows of the streams and rivers that are going downstream right now).

From my view, the only person’s speech that should be regulated are those speaking out of the Government and not the Government regulating ours.  That would include Ms. Ravel – the Freedom hater.

Oh, that kick at Progressive Republicans?  Like those here in NH? Yeah, they go along with this stuff because they hate the idea that somebody doesn’t love them.

(H/T: Brietbart Tech)