How about the fact that it was America, a country with a sordid history of slavey and virtually no limits on free speech, which elected a black man President. Twice. Similarly, why is anti-Semitism so much more entrenched in parts of Europe than in the United States, despite all the “hate speech” laws across the pond. I’ll tell you why, becausefree speech works and censorship doesn’t.
Before I get into this piece, it’s very important for me to state how little respect I have for anyone who judges people based on anything other than the actions of that specific individual. I think most readers of this site are enlightened and intelligent enough to understand this position. Not only do I find such generalizations to be ignorant and foolish, but I’m also well aware that the status quo intentionally pushes such divisions so that the citizenry remain too busy fighting amongst themselves to unite and take on the real cancer that is the elite established oligarchy.
With that out of the way, I still think what former U.S. Congressman Joe Walsh did is noteworthy.
Just in case you aren’t aware of what he’s referring to in his dare to Loretta Lynch, the following should get you caught up.
From Mediaite’s article: AG Loretta Lynch Promises to ‘Take Action’ Against ‘Anti-Muslim Rhetoric’
In remarks before the Muslim Advocates Dinner Thursday night, Attorney General Loretta Lynch told attendees that the Justice Department will take action against “anti-Muslim rhetoric” and “violent talk.”
“Now obviously this is a country that is based on free speech,” she said. “but when it edges towards violence, when we see the potential for someone lifting that mantle of anti-Muslim rhetoric or, as we saw after 9/11, violence against individuals… when we see that, we will take action.”
“I think it’s important that as we again talk about the importance of free speech we make it clear that actions predicated on violent talk are not America. They are not who we are, they are not what we do, and they will be prosecuted,” she concluded.
First Amendment scholar and Washington Post blogger Eugene Volokhpoints out that anti-Muslim speech– even speech that encourages violence but doesn’t include a specific threat– is constitutionally protected. “If the attorney general is trying to suggest that the Justice Department will generally prosecute people for speech that ‘edges towards violence,’ or for ‘anti-Muslim hatred, including rhetoric,’ that’s bad,” he writes.
Indeed, First Amendment law is pretty well established on this point, which makes Loretta Lynch’s commentary so troublesome. Personally, I think she’s trying to instill fear in the American populace so that it thinks twice before speaking. This is completely and totally unacceptable behavior from the Attorney General of these United States.