Skip to content

Doublethink; Not Just For The Left Any Longer

May 13, 2007

I have officially switched from a conservative (small c intentional) to a Libertarian. Why? Because the right is now in collusion with the Left in plundering our liberties. Political Correctness is running amok on BOTH sides of the aisle and I’ve had enough. Doublethink is now rampant on the Right. Doublethink, as predicted by George Orwell, is holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them. Like proclaiming the belief in Freedom of Speech and Thought and individual liberty, while at the same time passing Hate Crime legislation (legislating THOUGHT), calling for the censoring of individuals with whom you disagree or usurping private business and personal rights by smoking bans.

In the past month or so, the following have all occurred. And these are just 4 examples:

Imus fired for saying Nappy Headed Hos. Words used ALL the time, but somehow punishable only when uttered by a cadaver-like old white guy.

Radio DJs fired for making fun of Chinese restaurants. If that is a crime, I am guilty.

Movies will now base ratings on SMOKING in a film. Yes, just the very SIGHT of smoking is now something that needs to be censored. I won’t even get into actual smoking bans again.

Opie and Andy now under fire for an admittedly awful segment that I am in NO way condoning, in which a homeless guest had a delusional rant about violating Secretary Rice, the Queen and Laura Bush. However, I’ve seen “jokes” about the actual murder of VP Cheney, Pres Bush and others just brushed away. I’d also be willing to bet that most people up in arms over the inclusion of Laura Bush and Condaleeza Rice secretly aren’t too upset about the Queen part. I’ve also read many, many “jokes” on Right minded sites suggesting the violation of Rosie O’Donnell by a man. Is it only offensive when it is about a person you like?

Yes, I know and understand the arguments for “acceptable standards” etc. I get the concept; I just disagree and believe our forefathers would have as well. I find myself amusing. Most people do not. I usually just get odd looks. Some are offended by things I say. Should I be silenced? Wait…….don’t answer that; My feelings are delicate. I’ll use a better example. Kevin Godlington; he speaks his mind, often in a blunt manner that could upset some whiner. Should he be forced off the air? What about Rush Limbaugh? Greg Gutfeld? Mark Levin? Mark Steyn? You see where I’m going with this.

There is ALWAYS someone that offends someone else. How can we put greater weight on one type of “offense” than another? If we allow that to happen just because we personally don’t like the speaker or the speech and we allow them to be vilified and censored, we can then no longer complain about things like this:

School paper not allowed to print FACTS; deemed “harassment”.

“The Primary Source published a satirical ad filled with factual assertions and because this angered people it was ruled to be unprotected harassment. If what the complaining students wanted to say was that the TPS facts were wrong, then–while this still would not be harassment–that could have been an interesting debate. But instead, in sadly predictable fashion, the students plowed ahead with a harassment claim that, based on the hearing panel’s decision, appeared not even to raise the issue of whether or not the statements in the ad were true, but turned only on how they made people feel. A panel consisting of both faculty and students found the publication guilty in flagrant abuse of what harassment case law and regulations actually say, and demonstrating total ignorance of the principles of a free society. Even in libel law (one of the oldest exceptions to the rule of free speech is that you can be punished for defaming people) truth is rightfully an absolute defense. Here, the fact that TPS printed verifiable information—with citations—was apparently no defense, nor was the fact that the ad concerned contentious issues of dire global importance. Such an anemic conception of free speech should chill anyone who cares about basic rights and democracy itself.

I doubt that the Tufts disciplinary board thought through the full ramifications of their actions. If a Muslim student had published these same statements in an article calling for reform in Islam, would that be harassment? If Tufts wished to be at all consistent (a dubious bet here), it would be.”

It is no longer just a matter of incendiary speech. Now, you are no longer allowed to say anything that might simply offend someone. Even if they are facts. Facts! THAT is the slippery slope about which I’ve been ranting (and yelling) of late. It isn’t slippery any longer. We’ve reached the bottom.

It is our attitude toward free thought and free expression that will determine our fate. There must be no limit on the range of temperate discussion, no limits on thought. No subject must be taboo. No censor must preside at our assemblies.
William O. Douglas

Restriction on free thought and free speech is the most dangerous of all subversions. It is the one un-American act that could most easily defeat us.
William O. Douglas

literature should not be suppressed merely because it offends the moral code of the censor.
William O. Douglas

If freedom of speech is taken away, then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.
George Washington

Free speech is the whole thing, the whole ball game. Free speech is life itself.
Salman Rushdie

No comments yet

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: