It’s Un-American To Be Anti-Free Speech: Protect the Right to Criticize the Government

[PAF]

Ron Paul Institute
Wednesday July 17, 2019
Written by John W. Whitehead


6692



Since when have we Americans been expected to bow submissively to authority and speak with awe and reverence to those who represent us? (https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/407/104) The constitutional theory is that we the people are the sovereigns, the state and federal officials only our agents. We who have the final word can speak softly or angrily. We can seek to challenge and annoy, as we need not stay docile and quiet.”

— Justice William O. Douglas



Unjust. Brutal. Criminal. Corrupt. Inept. Greedy. Power-hungry. Racist. Immoral. Murderous. Evil. Dishonest. Crooked. Excessive. Deceitful. Untrustworthy. Unreliable. Tyrannical.

These are all words that have at some time or other been used to describe the US government.

These are all words that I have used at some time or other to describe the US government. That I may feel morally compelled to call out the government for its wrongdoing does not make me any less of an American.

If I didn’t love this country, it would be easy to remain silent. However, it is because I love my country, because I believe fervently that if we lose freedom here, there will be no place to escape to (https://americanrhetoric.com/speeches/ronaldreaganatimeforchoosing.htm), I will not remain silent.

Nor should you.

Nor should any other man, woman or child—no matter who they are, where they come from, what they look like, or what they believe.

This is the beauty of the dream-made-reality that is America. As Chelsea Manning recognized, “We’re citizens, not subjects. We have the right to criticize government without fear.” (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/may/06/were-citizens-not-subjects-we-have-the-right-to-criticize-government-without-fear) Indeed, the First Amendment does more than give us a right to criticize our country: it makes it a civic duty. Certainly, if there is one freedom among the many spelled out in the Bill of Rights that is especially patriotic, it is the right to criticize the government.

The right to speak out against government wrongdoing is the quintessential freedom.

Unfortunately, those who run the government don’t take kindly to individuals who speak truth to power. In fact, the government has become increasingly intolerant of speech that challenges its power, reveals its corruption, exposes its lies, and encourages the citizenry to push back against the government’s many injustices.

This is nothing new, nor is it unique to any particular presidential administration.

President Trump, who delights in exercising his right to speak (and tweet) freely about anything and everything that raises his ire, has shown himself to be far less tolerant of those with whom he disagrees, especially when they exercise their right to criticize the government.

In his first few years in office, Trump has declared the media to be “the enemy of the people,” (https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/opinion/editorials/sd-obama-trump-media-leakers-20180910-story.html) suggested that protesting should be illegal (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-suggests-protesting-should-be-illegal/2018/09/04/11cfd9be-b0a0-11e8-aed9-001309990777_story.html?noredirect=on), and that NFL players who kneel in protest during the national anthem "shouldn’t be in the country." (https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/05/24/trump-praises-nfl-policy-anthem-protests/639113002/) More recently, Trump lashed out at four Democratic members of Congress—all women of color— who have been particularly critical of his policies, suggesting that they “go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came.”

The uproar over Trump’s “America—love it or leave it” remarks have largely focused on its racist overtones (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/george-conway-trump-is-a-racist-president/2019/07/15/b13c0bd4-a740-11e9-9214-246e594de5d5_story.html), but that misses the point: it’s un-American to be anti-free speech.

It’s unfortunate that Trump is so clueless about the Constitution. Then again, as the history books make clear, Trump is not alone in his presidential disregard for the rights of the citizenry (https://www.freedomforuminstitute.org/2002/02/15/the-first-amendment-a-wartime-casualty/), especially as it pertains to the right of the people to criticize those in power.

While the government has been undermining our free speech rights for quite a while now, Trump’s antagonism towards free speech is much more overt. For example, at a recent White House Social Media Summit, Trump defined free speech as follows: “To me free speech is not when you see something good and then you purposely write bad. To me that’s very dangerous speech (http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/07/trump-free-speech-twitter-google-facebook-authoritarianism.html), and you become angry at it. But that’s not free speech.”

Except Trump is about as wrong as one can be on this issue.

Good, bad or ugly, it’s all free speech unless as defined by the government it falls into one of the following categories (https://www.freedomforuminstitute.org/about/faq/which-types-of-speech-are-not-protected-by-the-first-amendment/): obscenity, fighting words, defamation (including libel and slander), child pornography, perjury, blackmail, incitement to imminent lawless action, true threats, and solicitations to commit crimes.

This idea of “dangerous” speech, on the other hand, is peculiarly authoritarian in nature. What it amounts to is speech that the government fears could challenge its chokehold on power.

The kinds of speech the government considers dangerous enough to red flag and subject to censorship, surveillance, investigation, prosecution and outright elimination include: hate speech, bullying speech, intolerant speech, conspiratorial speech, treasonous speech, threatening speech, incendiary speech, inflammatory speech, radical speech, anti-government speech, right-wing speech, left-wing speech, extremist speech, politically incorrect speech, etc.

Yet this idea that only individuals who agree with the government are entitled to the protections of the First Amendment couldn’t be further from what James Madison, the father of the Constitution, intended. Indeed, Madison was very clear about the fact that the First Amendment was established to protect the minority against the majority (https://billofrightsinstitute.org/founding-documents/primary-source-documents/the-federalist-papers/federalist-papers-no-10/).

I’ll take that one step further: the First Amendment was intended to protect the citizenry from the government’s tendency to censor, silence and control what people say and think.

Having lost our tolerance for free speech in its most provocative, irritating and offensive forms, the American people have become easy prey for a police state where only government speech is allowed. You see, the powers-that-be understand that if the government can control speech, it controls thought and, in turn, it can control the minds of the citizenry.

This is how freedom rises or falls.

Americans of all stripes would do well to remember that those who question the motives of government provide a necessary counterpoint to those who would blindly follow where politicians choose to lead.

We don’t have to agree with every criticism of the government, but we must defend the rights of all individuals to speak freely without fear of punishment or threat of banishment.

As I point out in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, tolerance for dissent is vital if we are to survive as a free nation.



http://ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/2019/july/17/it-s-un-american-to-be-anti-free-speech-protect-the-right-to-criticize-the-government/

[Swordsmyth]

What garbage.

[familydog]

The uproar over Trump’s “America—love it or leave it” remarks have largely focused on its racist overtones, but that misses the point: it’s un-American to be anti-free speech.

I disagree. It is only un-American for the general government to restrict free speech. There is nothing in Article 1, Section 10 that prevents an individual State from passing a law restricting speech. States were designed to be relatively free to manage their own affairs without intrusion from the general government.

[Swordsmyth]

Stupid leftist tripe trying to squelch Trump's freedom of speech.

[Anti Federalist]

If I didn’t love this country, it would be easy to remain silent. However, it is because I love my country, because I believe fervently that if we lose freedom here, there will be no place to escape to, I will not remain silent.

I agree 100%. And nothing will cause us to lose freedom faster than continuing to allow millions of wretched refuse invade the country that have no concept of, no philosophical grounding in, liberty and just are looking to make a fast buck.


Nor should any other man, woman or child—no matter who they are, where they come from, what they look like, or what they believe.

I'm assuming he's talking about Omar and the rest of the asshole broads.

So, they have free speech rights to tell me my country will no longer be mine, but I have no free speech right to respond?

[Swordsmyth]

I agree 100%. And nothing will cause us to lose freedom faster than continuing to allow millions of wretched refuse invade the country that have no concept of, no philosophical grounding in, liberty and just are looking to make a fast buck.



I'm assuming he's talking about Omar and the rest of the $#@! broads.

So, they have free speech rights to tell me my country will no longer be mine, but I have no free speech right to respond?
TDS is a mental illness and when added to the libertarian tendency to embrace enemies and hate friends it can turn your brain inside out.

Trump has done nothing to make speech illegal and this idiot wants to make Trump keep his mouth shut in the name of free speech for people who are free to speak and use that freedom to call for an end to free speech.

[Swordsmyth]

Rand Paul: Omar deserves 'rebuke over trying to say we have a rotten country’ (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?536798-Rand-Paul-Omar-deserves-rebuke-over-trying-to-say-we-have-a-rotten-country’)

[PAF]

I disagree. It is only un-American for the general government to restrict free speech. There is nothing in Article 1, Section 10 that prevents an individual State from passing a law restricting speech. States were designed to be relatively free to manage their own affairs without intrusion from the general government.

I disagree. My Natural Rights override Article 1, Section 10, as well as anything any state constitution, statute or ordinance may attempt to restrict.

[Origanalist]

What garbage.

Please be a little more specific in your critique.

[Swordsmyth]

Please be a little more specific in your critique.
Please read the rest of what I wrote in my other posts.

[tfurrh]

Stupid leftist tripe trying to squelch Trump's freedom of speech.

I think, if anything, it was sticking up for Trump's freedom of speech.

[enhanced_deficit]

It’s Un-American To Be Anti-Free Speech: Protect the Right to Criticize the Government

Ron Paul Institute
Wednesday July 17, 2019
Written by John W. Whitehead


http://ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/2019/july/17/it-s-un-american-to-be-anti-free-speech-protect-the-right-to-criticize-the-government/



While I have great respect for RPI and Free Speech, criticizing our government , war time Prez/VP (Bush/Cheney e.g.,), our closest allies can be seen as unpatriotic and should be avoided. Once the wars have ended and troops have returned home (from Iraq, Syria, Gaza, global bases abroad etc), then government policies and Prez can be criticized. In the mean time Trust the President ; Constitution is not death warrant and can be suspended temporarily while troops are abroad.




Related

Trump calls on Ilhan Omar to resign from Congress for ‘anti-Semitism’
(http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?531728-Trump-administration-launches-global-effort-to-fight-anti-semitism&p=6755379&viewfull=1#post6755379)
https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/485/socialembed/https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1102789320707108864~/news/world-us-canada-47488272

Ben Stein Says Ron Paul Is Antisemitic for Calling US ‘Occupiers’
Eric Garris Posted on December 29, 2009 On Larry King, Ben Stein said that Ron Paul calling the US “occupiers” was “using the same antisemitic argument we’ve heard over and over.”
https://www.antiwar.com/blog/2009/12...omment-page-1/ (https://www.antiwar.com/blog/2009/12/29/ben-stein-calls-ron-paul-antisemitic-for-calling-us-occupiers/comment-page-1/)

[Origanalist]

Stupid leftist tripe trying to squelch Trump's freedom of speech.

What? How?

[Origanalist]

Please read the rest of what I wrote in my other posts.

I did. Not helping. Please be more specific.

[Cap]

I wonder if he heard it zoom over his head?

[PAF]

While I have great respect for RPI and Free Speech, criticizing our government , war time Prez/VP (Bush/Cheney e.g.,), our closest allies can be seen as unpatriotic and should be avoided. Once the wars have ended and troops have returned home (from Iraq, Syria, Gaza, global bases abroad etc), then government policies and Prez can be criticized. In the mean time Trust the President ; Constitution is not death warrant and can be suspended temporarily while troops are abroad.




I prefer not to wait.

Come to think of it, I remember Bush W being elected again, using that philosophy.

[Swordsmyth]

I think, if anything, it was sticking up for Trump's freedom of speech.


What? How?





President Trump, who delights in exercising his right to speak (and tweet) freely about anything and everything that raises his ire, has shown himself to be far less tolerant of those with whom he disagrees, especially when they exercise their right to criticize the government.

In his first few years in office, Trump has declared the media to be “the enemy of the people,” (https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/opinion/editorials/sd-obama-trump-media-leakers-20180910-story.html)
He is right and he has a right to say it.

The bit about saying protests should be illegal is worrisome but since it come from WaPo and they have a paywall I am forced to assume it is twisted lies from the #1 Enemy of the people.


and that NFL players who kneel in protest during the national anthem "shouldn’t be in the country." (https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/05/24/trump-praises-nfl-policy-anthem-protests/639113002/)
That quote is presented without context so it is probably twisted but it is still a perfectly valid opinion to have about people who hate America itself. (and that is what they are, the Betsy Ross flag thing proves it)


More recently, Trump lashed out at four Democratic members of Congress—all women of color— who have been particularly critical of his policies, suggesting that they “go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came.”
Trump is absolutely right and making an issue out of them being "women of color" is leftist garbage insult added to injury.
They are nemies of freedom and America and they should leave the country and go somewhere they like better.


The uproar over Trump’s “America—love it or leave it” remarks have largely focused on its racist overtones (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/george-conway-trump-is-a-racist-president/2019/07/15/b13c0bd4-a740-11e9-9214-246e594de5d5_story.html), but that misses the point: it’s un-American to be anti-free speech.
More racism garbage and an attack on Trump's freedom of speech that claims to be a defense of freedom of speech.




While the government has been undermining our free speech rights for quite a while now, Trump’s antagonism towards free speech is much more overt. For example, at a recent White House Social Media Summit, Trump defined free speech as follows: “To me free speech is not when you see something good and then you purposely write bad. To me that’s very dangerous speech (http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/07/trump-free-speech-twitter-google-facebook-authoritarianism.html), and you become angry at it. But that’s not free speech.”
Again very little context is provided but lying is an abuse of free speech and Trump isn't calling for speech control, he is calling out liars who try to hide behind freedom of speech and he has the right to speak his mind about it.

[familydog]

I disagree. My Natural Rights override Article 1, Section 10, as well as anything any state constitution, statute or ordinance may attempt to restrict.

You are arguing against something I didn't address. You entirely missed my point. Only the general government restricting speech can be seen as un-American. What is American is the States being allowed to manage their own affairs independently from the general government. If the sovereign people of a State want laws restricting speech, then their representatives in the State government execute their wishes. THAT is the essence of America.

Your argument is valid. I would generally support free speech at the State level. However, if my State chose to violate my Natural Rights, I am free to move to one that satisfies my needs.

[timosman]

You are arguing against something I didn't address. You entirely missed my point. Only the general government restricting speech can be seen as un-American. What is American is the States being allowed to manage their own affairs independently from the general government. If the sovereign people of a State want laws restricting speech, then their representatives in the State government execute their wishes. THAT is the essence of America.

Your argument is valid. I would generally support free speech at the State level. However, if my State chose to violate my Natural Rights, I am free to move to one that satisfies my needs.

What if all states decided to violate your "Natural Rights". Where would you go? :confused:

[PAF]

You are arguing against something I didn't address. You entirely missed my point. Only the general government restricting speech can be seen as un-American. What is American is the States being allowed to manage their own affairs independently from the general government. If the sovereign people of a State want laws restricting speech, then their representatives in the State government execute their wishes. THAT is the essence of America.

Your argument is valid. I would generally support free speech at the State level. However, if my State chose to violate my Natural Rights, I am free to move to one that satisfies my needs.

A government, state or local, may form and legislates its own affairs. But when the idea that a state, or local, may choose to violate ones Natural Rights and therefore you are free to move to someplace else, someday there may be no place else to go.

Which is why my signature is essential and the foundation of all other rights.

By your analogy, "free speech zones" in "public space" would be allowable by state or local government. That is a very dangerous precedent to even suggest.

[familydog]

What if all states decided to violate your "Natural Rights".

What would be an example of a right that every State violated without unconstitutional coercion from the general government?


Where would you go? :confused:

This is a silly question. America was founded on compromise. Americans will find at least one State that offers them most of what they want.

[timosman]

A government, state or local, may form and legislates its own affairs. But when the idea that a state, or local, may choose to violate ones Natural Rights and therefore you are free to move to someplace else, someday there may be no place else to go.

Which is why my signature is essential and the foundation of all other rights.

By your analogy, "free speech zones" in "public space" would be allowable by state or local government. That is a very dangerous precedent to even suggest.

Dude is a moron. I just get neg repped. He's been with us since the beginning. Just like Zippy. :tears:

[timosman]

What would be an example of a right that every State violated without unconstitutional coercion from the general government?



This is a silly question. America was founded on compromise. Americans will find at least one State that offers them most of what they want.

Are you trying to make an argument? :tears:

[familydog]

A government, state or local, may form and legislates its own affairs. But when the idea that a state, or local, may choose to violate ones Natural Rights and therefore you are free to move to someplace else, someday there may be no place else to go.

Jefferson and other radical founders would argue that a revolution would be in order. In fact, Jefferson argued for a perpetual revolution. Personally, I am not as radical as Jefferson, but I see his point.


By your analogy, "free speech zones" in "public space" would be allowable by state or local government. That is a very dangerous precedent to even suggest.

I hate to nitpick, but its not that States would be "allowed," its that they have the sovereignty to make such rules. Is it a dangerous precedent to set? Of course, but that's the system we have. Its also the system Ron Paul fought so hard for.

[familydog]

Are you trying to make an argument? :tears:

I see you have no interest in a genuine intellectual discussion. I'll keep that in mind the next time you immaturely snipe at me.

[timosman]

I see you have no interest in a genuine intellectual discussion.

:rolleyes:


I'll keep that in mind the next time you immaturely snipe at me.

Please do.

[timosman]

Its also the system Ron Paul fought so hard for.

I hope your handlers realize this is going to be a very tough sale. :tears:

[Ender]

What garbage.

Try reading the article.


If I didn’t love this country, it would be easy to remain silent. However, it is because I love my country, because I believe fervently that if we lose freedom here, there will be no place to escape to, I will not remain silent.

Nor should you.

Nor should any other man, woman or child—no matter who they are, where they come from, what they look like, or what they believe.

This is the beauty of the dream-made-reality that is America. As Chelsea Manning recognized, “We’re citizens, not subjects. We have the right to criticize government without fear.” Indeed, the First Amendment does more than give us a right to criticize our country: it makes it a civic duty. Certainly, if there is one freedom among the many spelled out in the Bill of Rights that is especially patriotic, it is the right to criticize the government.

The right to speak out against government wrongdoing is the quintessential freedom.

Unfortunately, those who run the government don’t take kindly to individuals who speak truth to power. In fact, the government has become increasingly intolerant of speech that challenges its power, reveals its corruption, exposes its lies, and encourages the citizenry to push back against the government’s many injustices.

This is nothing new, nor is it unique to any particular presidential administration.

[Swordsmyth]

Try reading the article.
I did, try reading my other posts.

[Ender]

Jefferson and other radical founders would argue that a revolution would be in order. In fact, Jefferson argued for a perpetual revolution. Personally, I am not as radical as Jefferson, but I see his point.



I hate to nitpick, but its not that States would be "allowed," its that they have the sovereignty to make such rules. Is it a dangerous precedent to set? Of course, but that's the system we have. Its also the system Ron Paul fought so hard for.

States lost most of their sovereignty with the "Civil" War.

[Ender]

I did, try reading my other posts.

Go to the link & read the full article. The Ron Paul Institute & John Whitehead are NOT using:


Stupid leftist tripe trying to squelch Trump's freedom of speech.

Here's more:


The uproar over Trump’s “America—love it or leave it” remarks have largely focused on its racist overtones, but that misses the point: it’s un-American to be anti-free speech.

It’s unfortunate that Trump and his minions are so clueless about the Constitution. Then again, Trump is not alone in his presidential disregard for the rights of the citizenry, especially as it pertains to the right of the people to criticize those in power.

President Obama signed into law anti-protest legislation that makes it easier for the government to criminalize protest activities (10 years in prison for protesting anywhere in the vicinity of a Secret Service agent). The Obama Administration also waged a war on whistleblowers, which The Washington Post described as “the most aggressive I’ve seen since the Nixon administration,” and “spied on reporters by monitoring their phone records.”

Part of the Patriot Act signed into law by President George W. Bush made it a crime for an American citizen to engage in peaceful, lawful activity on behalf of any group designated by the government as a terrorist organization. Under this provision, even filing an amicus brief on behalf of an organization the government has labeled as terrorist would constitute breaking the law.

President Franklin D. Roosevelt authorized the FBI to censor all news and control communications in and out of the country in the wake of the attack on Pearl Harbor. Roosevelt also signed into law the Smith Act, which made it a crime to advocate by way of speech for the overthrow of the U.S. government by force or violence.

President Woodrow Wilson signed into law the Espionage and Sedition Acts, which made it illegal to criticize the government’s war efforts.

President Abraham Lincoln seized telegraph lines, censored mail and newspaper dispatches, and shut down members of the press who criticized his administration.

In 1798, during the presidency of John Adams, Congress passed the Alien and Sedition Acts, which made it a crime to “write, print, utter or publish … any false, scandalous, and malicious” statements against the government, Congress or president of the United States.

Clearly, the government has been undermining our free speech rights for quite a while now, but Trump’s antagonism towards free speech is much more overt.

For example, at a recent White House Social Media Summit, Trump defined free speech as follows: “To me free speech is not when you see something good and then you purposely write bad. To me that’s very dangerous speech, and you become angry at it. But that’s not free speech.”

Except Trump is about as wrong as one can be on this issue.

Good, bad or ugly, it’s all free speech unless as defined by the government it falls into one of the following categories: obscenity, fighting words, defamation (including libel and slander), child pornography, perjury, blackmail, incitement to imminent lawless action, true threats, and solicitations to commit crimes.

This idea of “dangerous” speech, on the other hand, is peculiarly authoritarian in nature. What it amounts to is speech that the government fears could challenge its chokehold on power.

The kinds of speech the government considers dangerous enough to red flag and subject to censorship, surveillance, investigation, prosecution and outright elimination include: hate speech, bullying speech, intolerant speech, conspiratorial speech, treasonous speech, threatening speech, incendiary speech, inflammatory speech, radical speech, anti-government speech, right-wing speech, left-wing speech, extremist speech, politically incorrect speech, etc.

Conduct your own experiment into the government’s tolerance of speech that challenges its authority, and see for yourself.

Stand on a street corner—or in a courtroom, at a city council meeting or on a university campus—and recite some of the rhetoric used by the likes of Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, John Adams and Thomas Paine without referencing them as the authors.

For that matter, just try reciting the Declaration of Independence, which rejects tyranny, establishes Americans as sovereign beings, recognizes God (not the government) as the Supreme power, portrays the government as evil, and provides a detailed laundry list of abuses that are as relevant today as they were 240-plus years ago.

My guess is that you won’t last long before you get thrown out, shut up, threatened with arrest or at the very least accused of being a radical, a troublemaker, a sovereign citizen, a conspiratorialist or an extremist.

Try suggesting, as Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin did, that Americans should not only take up arms but be prepared to shed blood in order to protect their liberties, and you might find yourself placed on a terrorist watch list and vulnerable to being rounded up by government agents.

“What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms,” declared Jefferson. He also concluded that “the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.” Observed Franklin: “Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!”

Better yet, try suggesting as Thomas Paine, Marquis De Lafayette, John Adams and Patrick Henry did that Americans should, if necessary, defend themselves against the government if it violates their rights, and you will be labeled a domestic extremist.

“It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from its government,” insisted Paine. “When the government violates the people’s rights,” Lafayette warned, “insurrection is, for the people and for each portion of the people, the most sacred of the rights and the most indispensable of duties.” Adams cautioned, “A settled plan to deprive the people of all the benefits, blessings and ends of the contract, to subvert the fundamentals of the constitution, to deprive them of all share in making and executing laws, will justify a revolution.” And who could forget Patrick Henry with his ultimatum: “Give me liberty or give me death!”

Then again, perhaps you don’t need to test the limits of free speech for yourself.

One such test is playing out before our very eyes on the national stage led by none other than the American Police State’s self-appointed Censor-in-Chief, who seems to believe that only individuals who agree with the government are entitled to the protections of the First Amendment.

To the contrary, James Madison, the father of the Constitution, was very clear about the fact that the First Amendment was established to protect the minority against the majority.

I’ll take that one step further: the First Amendment was intended to protect the citizenry from the government’s tendency to censor, silence and control what people say and think.

Having lost our tolerance for free speech in its most provocative, irritating and offensive forms, the American people have become easy prey for a police state where only government speech is allowed. You see, the powers-that-be understand that if the government can control speech, it controls thought and, in turn, it can control the minds of the citizenry.

This is how freedom rises or falls.

As Hermann Goering, one of Hitler’s top military leaders, remarked during the Nuremberg trials:

It is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.

It is working the same in this country, as well.

[Swordsmyth]

Go to the link & read the full article. The Ron Paul Institute & John Whitehead are NOT using:



Here's more:
I dissected the article and pointed out what I was talking about, I'm absolutely right, see post #17.

[Danke]

Go to the link & read the full article. The Ron Paul Institute & John Whitehead are NOT using:



Here's more:

Link, source?

Asking for TheTexan

[familydog]

States lost most of their sovereignty with the "Civil" War.

Until the Constitution is amended otherwise, the States retain their sovereignty.

[TheTexan]

Link, source?

Asking for TheTexan

The author is dangerously close to violating the Smith Act. (18 U.S. Code § 2385. Advocating overthrow of Government )

If you know of any places where he directly advocates for such instead of speaking in hypotheticals please bring it to the federal authorities immediate attention.


Try suggesting, as Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin did, that Americans should not only take up arms but be prepared to shed blood in order to protect their liberties, and you might find yourself placed on a terrorist watch list and vulnerable to being rounded up by government agents.

[Ender]

I dissected the article and pointed out what I was talking about, I'm absolutely right, see post #17.

No, you did not.

The purpose of the article is to: Protect the Right to Criticize the Government

Trump can be a dick but so can critics- it's called freedom.

Go to the RP Institute link & read the whole blinkin' article. It's also here:
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2019/07/john-w-whitehead/its-un-american-to-be-anti-free-speech-protect-the-right-to-criticize-the-government/

[Ender]

Link, source?

Asking for TheTexan
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2019/07/john-w-whitehead/its-un-american-to-be-anti-free-speech-protect-the-right-to-criticize-the-government/