The “I’m a free-speech guy, but” post

posted at 5:11 pm on May 26, 2006 by Allahpundit

How did Kurtz escape a lefty blog-lynching for this piece? One trackback for reminding “dissident” narcissists that politeness is also patriotic? Richard Cohen wrote an entire column about the hate mail he received when he tried something like that.

He says he’s “a free-speech guy” but … he disapproves of their insistence on speaking empty gestures to power. I’m a free-speech guy too, but … I confess to feeling a frisson of glee at this piece of recent Senate legislation. Fear not: the ACLU is already hard at work making sure that no time, place, or manner restriction shall stay this clan of hateful douchebags from their appointed routes. Also, I’m a free-speech guy, but … someone sent me this link the other day and it made me want to open a vein. What’s with all the news about 9/11 conspiracies lately? Pages like that being circulated, Loose Change on Google Video, that Zogby opinion poll saying 45% of Americans think 9/11 needs to be investigated further — it seems like we’re reaching some kind of critical mass lately, but I’m not sure why. Consider this an open call for the Screw Loose Change guys to offer their theories.

No big conclusion here; just tossing a few links on Friday afternoon.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Liberal’s definition of Free Speech is:

They are free to shout you down when you speak.

They control every major newspaper so they can selectively report the news they prefer. Or they simply spread falsehood and rumors.

Well, they sure behave like communist Chinese.

May be they are the same thing.

May be the illegals would become the future members of the US Communist Party.

Easy87us

easy87us on May 26, 2006 at 6:41 PM

Either speech is free or it isn’t. No such thing as a little free speech, just like there is no such thing as being a little pregnant.

Abigail Adams on May 26, 2006 at 7:09 PM

free speech to a liberal is only good for them… everyone else must eat cake…

Asmodeus on May 26, 2006 at 7:43 PM

Dictionary definitions:

Liberalism: A mindless cancer on a mission to destroy anything and everything in its path.

Liberal: A mutant, cancerous cell traveling in abstract direction wallowing through slime, grime and time, carrying an incurable terminal disease.

ForYourEdification on May 26, 2006 at 8:30 PM

It’s a mental disorder, as Michael Savage would say.

Kini on May 26, 2006 at 9:02 PM

I got your free speech Dems style.
Do as I say not as I do.
Our opinion over rules your Facts.

Jarch007 on May 26, 2006 at 9:16 PM

Free speech? Who put forth the silly notion that a bunch of kids who don’t pay their way should be allowed to speak out at a commencement when no one wanted them to do so?

Ann Coultier pointed out in her most recent article that what was displayed was scorn for one of the heros who assisted in keeping free speech alive, yet the liberal media acts as if these noisy idiots were the heros on display. My best guess is that they were also college grads since they also show no common sense. No wonder that there are so many liberal reporters out of work today.

For those appalled by the actions of the few who have accomplished not one notable thing in their entire lives, I will point out that someone paid to have the minds of these children twisted into the fashion that caused them to grow into disrespectful childish brats. Are parents really less interested in the education of their children then they are of the purchase of a new car? In both cases the monies spent are certainly notable.

Caveat emptor, and you get what you pay for are truisms today. The actions of todays college students are proof of both axioms.

To the parents of these children I have one message. Be ashamed. Be very ashamed. ;o)

DannoJyd on May 26, 2006 at 10:16 PM

Allah, that Bill is pretty ridiculous. I did a ton of research on it, and assuming it passed Constitutional muster, it wouldn’t have effected a single one of Phelp’s protests. (It only effects Federal cemetaries, and this knucklehead mostly stands in front of the church on public property.) As near as I can tell, the only thing it does is give that jackass a platform for more publicity, and the knowledge that he managed to piss off the Congress. It seems kinda feel good nonsensical to me. I prefer the Ptriot Riders approach better.

E5infantry on May 26, 2006 at 10:32 PM

I have to say that few people on either side of the aisle really know what the term “free speech” meant to the Founders!

Warner Todd Huston on May 26, 2006 at 11:09 PM

I’d say smoething, but I might offend someone who is not a wealthy straight white Christian male member of the Republican party, so I better not.

hadsil on May 26, 2006 at 11:25 PM

The Left’s mantra:

“Free speech for me! But not for thee!”

CrazyFool on May 27, 2006 at 3:08 PM

The only concern that I have is the same one that applies to anti-abortion protests being banned or restricted.

When one starts limiting the right of people to assemble and protest on public property, it can become a very slippery slope before anyone realizes it.

As with all legislation, the law of unintended consequences applies to this one, too.

I just think that some locality ought to have all their Law Enforcement off doing something else very important while Mr. Phelps is engaged in a protest, and make sure that everyone knows it.

If he and his little “coven” were to be tarred and feathered and ridden out of town on a rail once or twice, I suspect he’d go home and shut up.

He has the right to express an unpopular opinion. But if it’s unpopular enough that it causes a riot to descend on him, that’s the danger in being too unpopular, isn’t it?

jefferson101 on May 27, 2006 at 4:59 PM

The LEFT ABSTRACTIONS CARTEL has labeled “Hate Speech” those assertions of Eternal Truth that conflict with The Sacred Visions Of The Anointed*. So much for “Free Speech” and Intellectual Inquiry.

* Thanks to Professor Sowell for the phrase.

Waumpuscat on May 27, 2006 at 5:42 PM

free speech goes both ways! Never stop engaging the brick wall(the liberal mind)! I personaly have not ran into or upon anyone that says 911 was staged by the government. I can read it all day on the internet. Most of it ends up with the same statements or things; Bush, NEO-CON big gov, you get the picture. If it was a real conspiracy by our government it is probably the only thing they have ever done right. Don’t take that wrong anything that takes hundreds or thousands of people to get done is bound to have problems. People leaking the plan to kill Thousands of people has got to happen. Someone would object and leak something. Bottom line is the conspiracy people give our government too much credit competency in an evil plot and it really was a group of terrorist who got mostly lucky and exploited our non existent security and tendency not to fight back in a hijacking situation.

Bureaucracy can not do this thing, but terrorist can

draeknet on May 27, 2006 at 11:03 PM

Hate speech is not free speech. The problem is that Liberals blur the line between the 2.

:/

VonHelton on May 30, 2006 at 10:02 AM