TIME FOR A MUSEUM OF FREEDOM?

by H. Millard (c) 2000 - VCT Web Posted 12/21/00

Freedom of speech, one of America's most sacred tenets, is coming under fire these days. And, as might be

expected, the tyrants who want to tell others what they can or cannot think, read, say, see or write are

justifying their tyranny with rationales calculated to fool those who are incapable of critical thinking. Their

buzz term, which they apply to speech they don't like is "hate speech." What is hate speech? Whatever the

tyrants don't like. What don't the tyrants like? Hate speech. You no doubt get the picture of how this little

merry-go-round scam works.

As mentioned in other columns, these true haters of freedom are succeeding with their repression of free

speech in countries whose citizens didn't long ago demand the freedoms that we have in the U.S.

In the U.S. it was no luck of the draw that the founding fathers put freedom of speech as the First

Amendment to the Constitution, because they knew that without this freedom, no other freedoms could

exist. People need to be able to express their views and not fear either the heavy hand of government or of

petty private sector dictators. This is basic. All else flows from this.

Lately, however, we've been witnessing some dangerous and dark trends concerning this freedom. A couple

of years ago, President Clinton's White House press secretary Mike McCurry talked about "the hate radio talk

circuit," in an apparent attempt to silence critics of the administration. By itself, McCurry-- who speaks the

President's thoughts-- opinion of talk radio might have been easily dismissed, but when taken together with

some other events coming either from friends of, or from like minded individuals of the administration, we saw

a pattern of loopy lefty fascism emerging.

Sometime ago, it was announced that the ADL (Anti-Defamation League) formed a partnership with AOL

(America On Line) to keep speech that the ADL doesn't like, off the Internet. To accomplish this, the

organization followed the usual pattern of labeling anything it doesn't like as "hate," and let the appellation

substitute for critical thinking and the ability of the public to decide for themselves about the nature and

characterization of any particular exercise of free speech . In furtherance of this repression of what is often

political, social or religious (and thus protected) speech, those who would keep others from hearing or

reading what some individual or group doesn't like, will often take an extreme example of speech that may

be along the lines of, say, someone writing: "Kill all the (fill in the blank)" then rightly call this "hate speech."

But, here's the trick. They then add other types of speech to this "hate speech" column that is not hate speech

at all but the expression of a political, religious or social position.

Once the term "hate speech" has been defined by the extreme example, it is an easy thing to convince the

public that anything that bears this label is unfit for them to hear or read and that the censors have a right to

keep them from hearing or reading it. To name a thing, which is to say, give it a label, and define it, forever

conjures up an image in the minds of those hearing this label even when the actual thing now being talked

about doesn't fit the definition. For this reason we must be precise in how we define things. To do otherwise is

to engage in prejudice, based on labels, rather than on facts.

Censorship must be resisted whether it comes from the right, the middle or the left, and the people,

themselves, must be allowed to read and hear various points of view on a wide variety of subjects and not

have petty tyrants decide on whether any particular speech is acceptable.

The founding fathers were well aware that petty tyrants would pop up in our society in every age, and they

were also well aware that such petty tyrants would often make persuasive and compelling arguments for the

censoring of what the petty tyrants didn't like

Consider. Not long ago there was a controversy in Orange County California over having a class or a lecture

on the Kennedy assassination in which, apparently, the speaker has the view that either the government of

Israel or agents of the government of Israel or people from Israel were behind the assassination. I say,

"apparently" because the public was kept from hearing this lecture or class or whatever it was and is left to

wonder not only about what was going to be said, but also about the fact that the person who wanted to

say it was kept from doing so(thus are born conspiracy theories). The suppressed talk or lecture or class was

labeled "hate," by those who didn't want people to hear it and was then easily dismissed, because, remember,

we all know that hate is "Kill all the (fill in the blank)." Instead of mass cries of indignation over this fascistic

prevention of free speech, there was hardly a whimper, and presumably this was just another example of the

fear of also being called a "hater"simply for defending free speech. It's just the modern version of what

happened during the Salem Witch Trials when anyone defending the women accused of being witches was

also called a witch.

Now comes news that Germany's highest court has ruled that German law applies to foreigners who exercise

their free speech rights on Web sites that are clicked by freedom loving ordinary German citizens. It appears

that some in Germany still prefer the sound of clicking heels to clicking mouses.

While you might think that such repression of free speech is so beyond the pale, that few people in the United

States would ever think that this is anything but the worst form of tyranny, you'd be wrong. Rabbi Abraham

Cooper, Associate Dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles apparently agrees with the court

decision in Germany. According to Wired News (www.wired.com/news) Rabbi Cooper "applauded the

action."

Perhaps it's time that we opened a Museum of Freedom in the U.S. and had all those people who can't

understand the basic principles of freedom go through the museum and learn what freedom really means.

Perhaps we need to start giving lectures to very young school children about the dignity of the individual and

how our freedom of speech was paid for by the blood of those who founded this great nation.

We must never let petty tyrants rise up with noble sounding phrases and justifications to put their iron heels on

our freedoms.

Meanwhile, while some lefties in this nation still think that they're protecting free speech by listening to George

Carlin tapes about the seven words that you can never say on television, which are mostly about bodily

functions and sex, the real tyrants are sneaking in and censoring speech about politics, religion and social

matters.
http://www.newnation.org/index.html
____________________________________________________________
Simon is becomming so blinded by his own hatred, it appears he is becomming very irrational. If he continues in this direction much further, he may become the only one reading his list!