Posted on 06/17/2018 11:45:25 AM PDT by MtnClimber
In a democratic republic, freedom of expression and enlightened, open-ended debate are paramount. Yet in America in 2018, First Amendment rights are vanishing for conservatives. There's a reason: Powerful entities such as online and televised media, many of whom are left-oriented, have gradually shape-shifted our nation's speech to match their political flavor.
For progressives, this uneven playing field is a seismic boon. For conservatives, not so much, nor is it good for even moderate left-wing thinkers. Under such a regimen, though, a land and people once revered as freedom-loving now creep closer toward socialism.
Yet there they stand: the venomous resistance and never-Trumper,s alone atop a shrewdly crafted ideological mountain.
Seated beneath, weary deplorables take it, having insults and mockery heaped upon their heads.
Because what they see, in real time, is leftist Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube flaunting their platforms by silencing all who oppose their agenda
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
The leftist media ignore violence done by leftists. Even a US congressman almost killed by a leftist gets ignored.
The only real dilemma is “what is the trigger that makes us stop denouncing a Conservative Freedom Fighter as a domestic terrorist?” How far down the road to forced irrelevance and then to taxation without representation are will we willing to be marched?
We own talk radio and the internet
There is wherd ideas are actually debated
Liberals hate real debate. They only like attack attack and talking points
The front lines are colledge campus and schools
There is where you see the effort to shut down speech
The only way to win over liberals is facts and they have to be willing to listen. This is why I just ask questions
Also weird that he uses the term 'dilemma' and instead of coming up with an argument referencing the original definition of 'dilemma' he comes up with a trite and unoriginal argument referencing its newer vague definition.
The true dilemma for conservatives is which of two horns do we choose:
1) Support free enterprise and allow corporations like Google and Facebook to suppress free speech, or
2) Do we find some way to restrict Google and Facebook in order to force them to treat all non-violent content (regardless of political or religious association) equally.
There are those conservatives who believe that Google and Facebook have become monopolies and can be regulated like utility companies. Other conservatives disagree, and believe that the only solution is boycotts and attempts to stand up conservative alternatives.
That is a true dilemma worth discussing.
No dilemma. We’re hte only ones who stand for freedom of speech — the ONLY ones — and we must, as a matter of principle, continue to do so.
Suppressing political expression generally leads to civil war. I know I am surly trending in that direction.
Every sane person has the right to loudly denounce any and all leftists and their sick agendas and to BOYCOTT everything those un-americans do and anyone who deals with them.
Push their faces into their own ideological excrement and point them out to everyone as betrayers and haters and hypocrites.
I still find that stunning. They found a way to name a US Navy vessel after a leftist like Gabby Giffords who nearly got killed by another angry leftist, but a conservative nearly killed by “another angry leftist” barely recovers and nobody knows it even happened.
I already feel, and have for some time, that many of us are governed with no representation for taxation or much of anything else.
It is a dilemma, you hit it spot on.
As a conservative, I am loathe to give the government any reason to intervene on nearly anything having to do with speech (other than ensuring one is free to speak)
I don’t want them interpreting what is right and what is wrong. I just want the government to allow me to say what I wish and exert its power on those who wish to silence me.
If we start having the government decide, on the basis of parsed (by the government) expression, when to engage the force of government and when not to, I think that will be the end of us as a Republic.
In the case of Facebook, I find myself in the position of advocating their heinous approach to speech simply because I find the alternative, having the government making decisions on it, even worse.
But I am also open to the concept that there are times a government remedy is in order. Not sure this is one of them, but I suspect I could be convinced.
It ALL looks like a slippery slope to me, damnit.
Too far. By that time, all will be lost.
All nations fail. Enjoy this reprieve while it lasts.
I spit on some of those signs in NWO Lower Merion,PA, when no one is looking.
The benefit of owning the MSM.
bump
>>All nations fail. Enjoy this reprieve while it lasts.
I only need about 20 more years. After that, the Hogg Generation can live in Communist misery.
If you believe in free markets then go with a free market solution.
The problem presented by journalists and freedom of the press is that we require free and independent presses - and instead, we have a single press due to the operation of the wire services in general and the Associated Press in particular. Adam Smith on monopoly:People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices. It is impossible indeed to prevent such meetings, by any law which either could be executed, or would be consistent with liberty and justice. But though the law cannot hinder people of the same trade from sometimes assembling together, it ought to do nothing to facilitate such assemblies; much less to render them necessary. - Wealth of NationsThe AP “wire” is a continuous virtual meeting of all major journalism in America, and the result is precisely as Smith predicted. The conspiracy against the public is the promotion of cynicism towards society and the concomitant promotion of naiveté towards government. It is that combination which is the true defining characteristic of socialism.The way to attack that monopoly of wire service journalism is, IMHO, to sue the AP and its membership under the Sherman AntiTrust Act.
I am in agreement.
To me, it is also a Freedom of Association issue. I believe that people should have the right to associate with people they want, and not be forced to associate with people they find undesirable.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.