Freedom Of Speech Under Attack

Latest Polls (view all)

Under the cover of Covid, and now in the shadow of the infamous Election Irregularities of that fated 2020 presidential election, with current emerging alleged election fraud in Nevada and Pennsylvania inconveniently slipping into the public discourse, there is proved a colluded ongoing Election Interference in the nomination of the Republican candidate, the likes of which has never occurred in our Constitutional Republic's history, albeit, the question remains: Do you support the plain-sight Election Interference of the Democratic Socialist party, employing its minions in their Propagandistic Media, and their Two Tiered Justice System?

98.85% No, I do not support Election Interference; I am a patriot unto our Constitution.

1.15% Yes, I do support Election Interference; the alternative, Donald Trump, to this mentally diminished president is far worse.

0% "What, me worry" if elections are rigged?

Click Here to Vote
87 Vote(s)

View all Polls

Published: Saturday, June 6th, 2015 @ 4:46 am
By: John Locke Foundation ( More Entries )

Publisher's note: The author of this post is Jon Guze, who is the Director of Legal Studies for the John Locke Foundation.

Freedom of Speech Under Attack

At cato.org, Walter Olson has posted an interesting discussion of how politicians are increasingly inclined to criminalize politically incorrect speech:

Writing in the Washington Post, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) urges the U.S. Department of Justice to consider filing a racketeering suit against the oil and coal industries for having promoted wrongful thinking on climate change, with the activities of "conservative policy" groups an apparent target of the investigation as well.

Sen. Whitehouse cites as precedent the long legal war against the tobacco industry. When the federal government took the stance that pro-tobacco advocacy could amount to a legal offense, some of us warned tobacco wouldn't remain the only or final target.

By the mid-2000s, calls were being heard, especially in other countries, for making denial of climate change consensus a legally punishable offense or even a "crime against humanity," while widely known advocate James Hansen had publicly called for show trials of fossil fuel executives. Notwithstanding the tobacco precedent, it had been widely imagined that the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution might deter image-conscious officials from pursuing such attacks on their adversaries' speech. But it has not deterred Sen. Whitehouse.

A Distressing Change of Heart

For generations, the political left in America could be depended upon to uphold the right to free expression no matter what, but it seems that things have changed. As Kevin Williamson notes at nationalreview.org, whereas support for using force to suppress undesirable speech might once have been limited to a small fringe on the far-left ("Oh, that's just daft old Robert Kennedy Jr., he has all kinds of weird views!"), it's evidently now respectable with mainstream Democrats:

Sheldon Whitehouse is a sitting United States senator, writing in the Washington Post, arguing for racketeering charges against those who hold heterodox opinions on global warming. How about we ask the candidates what they think about this? Does Mrs. Clinton support the proposal to lock people up...for seeking to publicize their views on political issues? Does Senator Sanders? Senator Warren? Follow-up question: Which other unpopular political views should we be locking people in cages over?

An On-going Campaign to Suppress Dissent

This isn't the first time Sen. Whitehouse has tried to silence opposing points of view; the John Locke Foundation was among the targets of a previous attempt that occurred a few months ago. As Roy Cordato described it at the time:

Last week the John Locke Foundation received a letter from three US Senators as part of a nationwide witch-hunt targeting scientists, universities, advocacy groups, and think tanks who are skeptical of or have presented any evidence that contradicts the alarmist line on global warming. The letter to the John Locke Foundation, which was the only state based think tank to receive such a letter, was signed by Democrat Senators Edward Markey, Barbara Boxer, and Sheldon Whitehouse. In a demanding and intimidating tone, and with no supporting justification, the letter asks for 10 years of information regarding any payments made by the John Locke Foundation to anyone who might have done work for us on the issue of global warming

Needless to say, we refused to comply!

Go Back

Login to Leave a Comment

Comment

Stan Deatherage said:

( June 6th, 2015 @ 10:59 am )

Good post on the Left's misunderstanding of the Constitution, and the First Amendment, which is one of the few amendments that they purport to understand, but, obviously, can't.

This is what Fascism looks like: The restriction of liberty for some, while extending pieces of it to others.

The State Budget And Where NC Ranks

John Locke Foundation Guest Editorial, Editorials, Op-Ed & Politics

Reports Discuss The High Costs Of Government Mandates In Health Care And Energy Policy