This article was originally published by Ron Paul at the Ron Paul Institute
Sadly, but not unexpectedly, the mass shooting at the Tree of Life Synagogue in Pittsburgh is being used to justify new infringements on liberty. Of course, opponents of gun rights are claiming this shooting proves America needs more gun control. Even some who normally oppose gun control say the government needs to do more to keep guns out of the hands of the “mentally ill.” Those making this argument ignore the lack of evidence that background checks, new restrictions on the rights of those alleged to have a mental illness, or any other form of gun control would have prevented the shooter from obtaining a firearm.
Others are using the shooter’s history of posting anti-Semitic comments on social media to call for increased efforts by both government and social media websites to suppress “hate speech.” The shooter posted anti-Semitic statements on the social media site Gab. Gab, unlike Twitter and Facebook, does not block or ban users for offensive comments. After the shooting Gab was suspended by its internet service provider, and PayPal has closed the site’s account. This is an effort to make social media websites responsible for the content and even the actions of their users, turning the sites’ operators into thought police.
Some social media sites, particularly Facebook and Twitter, are eager to silence not just bigots but those using their platforms to advocate for liberty. Facebook has recently banned a number of libertarian pages— including Cop Block, a site opposing police misconduct. Twitter has also banned a number of conservatives and libertarians, as well as critics of American foreign policy. Some libertarians say we should not get upset as these are private companies exercising private property rights. However, these companies are working with government and government-funded entities such as the Atlantic Council, a group funded by NATO and the military-industrial complex, to determine who should and should not be banned.
The effort to silence “hate speech” is not just about outlawing racist, sexist, or anti-Semitic speech. The real goal is to discredit, and even criminalize, criticism of the welfare-warfare state by redefining such criticism as “hate.” It is not just progressives who wish to use laws outlawing “hate speech” to silence political opponents. Some neoconservatives want to criminalize criticism of Israel for the nonsensical reason that any criticism of Israel is “anti-Semitic.” Other right-wing authoritarians wish to expand hate crime laws to include crimes committed against police officers.
Ironically neoconservatives and other right-wing authoritarians are among the biggest purveyors of real “hate speech.” What could possibly be more hateful than speech advocating perpetual war? Cultural Marxists are also guilty of hate speech with their calls for both government and private violence against political opponents, and for the use of government force to redistribute property. Just about the only individuals advocating a political philosophy not based on hate are those libertarians who consistently advance the non-aggression principle.
Preserving the right to free speech is vital to preserving liberty. All who value freedom should fight efforts to outlaw “hate speech.” “Hate speech” laws may initially be used to target bigoted and other truly hateful speech, but eventually they will be used to silence all critics of the welfare-warfare state and the authoritarian philosophies that justify omnipotent government. To paraphrase Ludwig von Mises, libertarians must fight hate speech—including the hate speech emanating from Washington, D.C.— with the “ideas of the mind.”
It Took 22 Years to Get to This Point
Speaking to author and podcaster Dana Parish, former Centers for Disease Control and Prevention...
The United States just made a decision that could lead to World War 3. The current ruling class...
This article was originally published by Lance D. Johnson at Natural News. In the global war to...
Russia has just announced that conscription in the former Soviet Union is "unnecessary" as...
Commenting Policy:
Some comments on this web site are automatically moderated through our Spam protection systems. Please be patient if your comment isn’t immediately available. We’re not trying to censor you, the system just wants to make sure you’re not a robot posting random spam.
This website thrives because of its community. While we support lively debates and understand that people get excited, frustrated or angry at times, we ask that the conversation remain civil. Racism, to include any religious affiliation, will not be tolerated on this site, including the disparagement of people in the comments section.
If this event was real, and not just staged for govt subsidies, if you can take sides, in this event, then, gun control and free speech can take sides.
Somehow, we have determined that responsibilities are impartial, so all people must have responsibilities.
How are two mutually-incompatible worldviews assumed to be equal, when both can’t be correct, at the same time.
“Censorship and Gun Control Will Not Make Us Safe”
Censorship and Gun Control wasn’t meant to make us safe; it was meant to make them safe.
“The press was to serve the governed, not the governors.”
—U.S. Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black in New York Times Co. v. United States (1971)
I am all for gun control! If you can’t control your gun, how do you expect to hit anything?
That’s why I like 300 Blackout.
Power similar to a 357 Magnum, but in rifle form. You can make it as handgun-like as you want.
Load numbers available at –
http://www.hodgdonreloading.com/data/rifle
Kevin2, truer words were never spoken. I don’t follow censorship or gun control, period.
Just being rhetorical, here —
Should Red Communists be armed and given a soapbox, say the ones from south of the border? It’s a universal right? Even for Islamists?
Freedom isn’t easy. If its rationed its not free. Its messy. But its far preferable to the alternatives. The Bill Of Rights applies to all Americans or it applies to no one. We’re supposed to have immigration procedures which should prevent those who advocate the violent overthrow of the US Constitution from entry. Illegals are just that, illegal. They’re prevented from firearm ownership.
It’s a universal right? Even for Islamists?
Yes. You’ll find upon study that a large about of trouble in the Middle East has been caused by the US overthrowing non religiously governed nations (Iraq & Libya) allowing via accident or design a fundamentalist take over. ISIS was born out of Libya, armed by the CIA/Saudi/Israel and used to overthrow Syria. The enemy of your freedom isn’t 8000 miles away. While this is upsetting it is unfortunately very factual.
Plenty of posts on this site offend me,but I would never agree to have them censored. People need to grow up and be mature adults. If you don’t like something,turn the channel,leave the site,ignore the person (s), saying it. I don’t need anybody making decisions for me about what I should read or view.
Censorship is intended to control the discussion.
And controlling the discussion is intended to control the people.
It works for a while, then collapses. As various communist and police state dictatorships have demonstrated over the last century. The people eventually get tired of it and revolt, sometimes explosively.
I don’t see why everyone gets to do something, or noone gets to do it, would like to have my cake and eat it, too.
We just can’t have nice things….
Well except maybe a Beretta 96 with 15 rounds of bone shattering, gut splattering, .40 caliber goodness! 😀
California used to be nice.
“Some libertarians say we should not get upset as these are private companies exercising private property rights”
I’m not a libertarian as I believe in a strong Military and obliteration of anybody threatening my country.
However private sites, are private property. The thing everybody is worried about is the idiots in America(AKA Democrats) may gain an advantage. The world has bumbled along for many millennia dragging the idiots along with us. I don’t how to fix this. But Government “control” is not the way to go. Totally free markets are.
“I’m not a libertarian as I believe in a strong Military and obliteration of anybody threatening my country.”
The US has obliterated, or attempted to obliterate nations that posed no threat to the US costing trillions in wealth and tens of thousands of US lives in the last six decades. Its been perpetrated with lies and those responsible are repeatedly not held to account. We unfortunately live in a plutocratic oligarchy that long ago stole the Republic.
Blind belief is blind.
K2,
You are a very sublime wit. Please list the nations that America has destroyed that in no way were a threat to America. I’ll grant you from the start Vietnam was very wrong, and a typical Democrat abuse of power.
BTW I’m a Vietnam era Vet.
sub·lime (sə-blīm′)
adj.
1. Characterized by nobility; majestic.
2.
a. Of high spiritual, moral, or intellectual worth.
b. Not to be excelled; supreme.
3. Inspiring awe; impressive.
Thank you.
Kevin is Right On. If anyone has a problem with that statement of fact, they should read some history books.
The US has destroyed dozens of countries that posed no threat to it.
More so since 9-11. And, at this point it’s passed the 100-mark. 100+ countries destroyed by the US. The War on Terror is a War of Terror.
I pledged Allegiance to the United States of America.
I never pledged Allegiance to the United States of Israel.
With all due respect Relik, I don’t think you have a correct understanding of libertarianism.
BJ
Thank you, its pretty obvious.
Libertarians are the closest to Constitutional Intent. Wars predicated upon reports from Neo-Cons, who lie as a matter of routine, on nations that have no capability of any credible attack upon the US but plenty of reasons for Wall Street is in itself criminal.
Uncle Sam has been taken hostage by globalist international bankers and businessmen.
Ron Paul, thank you for continuing to stand up for INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS. LIBERTY is a word we use to represent INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS. The Bill of Rights was written and added to our Constitution to limit Federal power, guarantee INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS, and therefore give us a better chance for LIBERTY. The “Founders” knew that an educated citizenry was necessary to assure LIBERTY. Do we have enough knowledgeable citizens to keep the dream alive?
If social media sites want to be “publishers” and aren’t liable or responsible for content then their “private” sites must contain all the entry’s and posts of those complying with their terms of service equally. Deleting and “shadow-banning posts would be illegal.If however they want to act in the capacity of “editors” and limit the posts and content of any that comply with their terms of service, then they are liable for all content including accuracy and any libelous claims made by anyone posting to their site. They cannot have it both ways! So which is it? Congress needs to act with the full weight and authority of the United States government to hold the social media platform companies accountable for which ever role they choose to take.
driving ideas and therefore people who express them underground places those people in a position of “nothing left to lose”. People with nothing left to lose and ideas to express become violent (history shows that time after time). Is this the route we really want to go down?
Well NO WORRIES, if the 14th amendment cant be changed for birth rights.. Then the 2nd amendment sure as hell won’t be able to be touched, Until the 14th is changed first.
Ok its education time.
Vietnam…….no threat (predicated upon lies upon lies & a false flag too)
Iraq………..no threat (where were those WMDs)
Libya……no threat (we used US air power to facilitate Islamic Fundamentalists taking over0
The list of those where we put tyrants in power, throughout central and South America is virtually the entire map. USMC Major General Smedley Butler said it very accurately; “I was a racketeer for capitalism”. In 1953 the US overthrew the democratically elected Prime Minister of Iran, Mohammad Mosaddegh and installed the Shah of Iran, a dictator. Democracy?
On hindsight its highly likely that the CIA/MI5 pretty much installed every government in the Western world for globalist business interests. On occasion it worked in the favor of the indigenous populations, more often it did not. As FDR said about Somoza, “he is a son of a bitch but he is our son of a bitch”. The prestigious “School Of The Americas” who’s graduates killed Roman Catholic Priests who dared speak out injustice in their own countries. White hat? No, it was all done for the likes of United Fruit. Let this sink in, murdered Catholic Priests.
Afghanistan too. Got to control the opium!
Interestingly Afghanistan exports more opium post Taliban then when they were in power. How can opium fields and processing facilities to make transportable for refinement occur under the nose of the US? Answer, it can’t . Its not like its the first time the CIA was in the narcotics business as their airline Air America.
We know what hate speech is, and it has nothing to do with hate.
Simply look at what was outlawed in Soviet Communist Russia.
Anti-Semitism. Antisemitism. Anti Semiticism.
What is Anti-Semitism?
It is a word made up by the evil evil evil Satanic Communist Criminal Syndicate.
It’s like the Italian Mafia controlling Italy and America calling you anti-Roman.
Then blowing your brains out when you get in the way.
The penalty for Anti-Semitism during the Communist reign of terror was literally a bullet in the back of your head. The death penalty. Same as the mafia.
_
yup!
“right wing authoritarians”…authoritarianism is a far, far left ideology no matter who advocates for it
No its not.
The far left has no monopoly on evil; the right none on virtue.