Lingamfelter: The Truth Behind Limiting Speech
Sometimes I see something in the news that gives me hope that, as a nation, we may not have quite fallen off the enlightened ledge, not yet anyway. I am sure that many of you are aware of the “progressive” far-left assault on freedom of speech on college campuses across the nation. Like so much that is rooted in the minds of postmodern liberals, limiting free speech is utter claptrap.
They say to us that they simply want to limit “hate speech” or speech that is offensive, or words that harm the “dignity” of others. To facilitate that goal, they resort to shouting down those they disagree with as opposed to countering speech they disagree with speech that argues against their point of view. They now routinely “petition” college presidents to withdraw invitations for speakers who might engage in speech that offends the sentiments of the distressed cupcakes who writhe in revulsion to a lecture on how Thomas Jefferson’s draft of the Declaration was in fact not white supremacy.
For the even more sensitive, petitions to college presidents may be too stressful. Their solution is to repair to “safe spaces” where they will only be exposed to people they agree with. That will ensure nothing is said that would offend anyone. And where such safe spaces fall along racial lines, the idea of re-segregating America—separate safe havens for blacks—the idea of an integrated society falls by the wayside as an outdated idea.
And that word—idea—may be the point here. The far left’s effort to limit speech is not the primary goal. Certainly, they want to limit speech that they do not agree with, but why? That takes some inspection to fully comprehend their objective.
Behind the progressive movement—one designed to progressively destroy traditional America—is a loathing of our nation’s unique founding, our Constitutional form of government, and the free enterprise system that undergirds all of what we would call the “American dream.” Other ideas are also just too hard for the tender ears of college young to hear.
For example, that people enter this word as a female or a male. That seeking to change ones’ birth sex is a form of enlightenment, indeed an act of liberation from the repressive nature of nature. That children who grow up with a mother and a father united in a loving marriage and devoted to raising those children in a wholesome family environment are repressed.
That men and women who work must have equal pay without regard to the difficulty or danger that job presents to either?
That life begins at conception, not because some politician says so, but rather because that’s what the science tells us in Biology 101.
That Presidents and Governors propose laws, that legislatures pass those laws, and courts enforce them, and not the opposite.
That the idea of the rule of law is not white supremacy but indeed justice for all.
That spending trillion of dollars we do not have is good economics.
That signing treaties with people we know full well will break them is an act of good diplomacy or trusting terrorists not to engage in terror is rational thinking.
That destroying an economy to protect us from a virus makes the least bit of sense.
That destroying the nation’s energy independence will lead to anything but higher gas prices at the pump.
And that pretending that the requirement for voters to show an identification card, as they must to buy cigarettes, order a beer in a restaurant, fly on airplanes, or engage in a host of other daily tasks we effortlessly confront is somehow a form of voter suppression.
No America, the far left, and their super sensitive acolytes on our campuses are not merely seeking to limit speech. They’re seeking to limit the debate over ideas that disrupt their plans to turn the country into a socialist and hedonistic utopia where people no longer work but are dependent on a huge government to care for their every want and whim.
When the Founding Fathers drafted the 1st Amendment, they had a simple goal in mind: the pursuit of truth. They knew that if King George III of Great Britain could limit speech, he could also limit the debate of ideas he did not like, ideas that would expose the truth of what it means to live free. The progressives of our time are latter day tyrants who want to impair our ability to debate ideas that sustain our republic, our free enterprise system, hard work, risk-taking, individual liberty, indeed our forms of worship. They threaten all of that.
Do not be fooled. The left’s desire is not simply to limit speech, but rather to limit thought and ideas. And that is a very bad idea indeed.
