We need the Second Amendment to protect us from Leftist professors like this who want to kill free speech

imagesThe title of of this leftist professor’s article is “How much free speech do we need?” So anti-American a concept, he had to go to Al-Jazeera to publish it. Of course, it’s hardly a surprise that a media outlet favored by Al-Qaeda and Al-Gore would concur with the idea that the First Amendment must be revised to restrict speech that is offensive to the most offensive people on earth – Muslims.

201291895852725734_8Erik Bleich is Professor of Political Science and Director of International Politics and Economics at Middlebury College in Vermont* (among the most far left of colleges in one of the most far left states in America) and is the author of The Freedom to Be Racist? How the United States and Europe Struggle to Preserve Freedom and Combat Racism, published by Oxford University Press.

*Vermont introduced legislation in 2011 that would restrict free speech on the internet: Bill to kill free speech

Bleich contends that the United States is a “dramatic outlier” when it comes to protection of inflammatory speech.


Al-Jazeera (h/t Allan I) The tragic events of the past week have reminded us that freedom of speech can have deadly consequences. In the United States, many journalists, jurists, and academics believe that we must robustly defend freedom for the thought that we hate. This view is obviously not shared in most Muslim countries. But the current American stance on free speech is also not popular in other established liberal democracies, nor has it always been the prevailing wisdom in the United States. It is time to rethink the rationale behind America’s radical free speech absolutism that protects the promotion of hatred.

Reacting to the slaughter of American representatives in Libya, Secretary of State Clinton asserted, “There are, of course, different views around the world about the outer limits of free speech and free expression, but there should be no debate about the simple proposition that violence in response to speech is not acceptable.” That is true. Yet pivoting toward an emphasis on violence downplays the fact that the United States stands virtually alone on the world stage in permitting speech that deliberately provokes hatred along racial, ethnic, or religious lines.

Even Denmark, known for its commitment to wide open public discourse, has a longstanding law that forbids “threatening, insulting, or degrading” speech that targets people because of their race, skin colour, national or ethnic origin, faith or sexual orientation. Denmark declined to prosecute the journalists and illustrators whose 2005 portrayal of Muhammad led to major international protests and violence. But in the same breath, its Director of Public Prosecutions emphasised that it was simply untrue that religious groups had to be ready to put up with “insults, mockery, and ridicule”, as suggested by theJyllands-Posten editor.

As evidence of its standards, Denmark removed the broadcast license from a radio station whose announcer called for exterminating fanatical Muslims and pursued criminal charges against a politician who compared Muslims to a cancer on society that had to be cut out. Countries like Denmark have managed to maintain a firm commitment to freedom of expression while enforcing provisions against the most destructive forms of hate speech.

The United States itself has also restricted hate speech. The First Amendment of the Constitution seems categorical when it asserts, “Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech.” This injunction only applied to state and local laws starting in the 1920s, however, and even after that point, local, state, and federal authorities often disagreed over what types of inflammatory expressions were subject to restriction. Most significantly, in its 1952 Beauharnais decision, the Supreme Court upheld an Illinois state conviction of a man who publicly decried the “the aggressions… rapes, robberies, knives, guns and marijuana of the negro”. It is not a given that the United States Constitution protects aggressive racist speech.

The free speech stance that Americans now take for granted was a product of the Civil Rights era. At that time, a progressive Supreme Court sided with blacks against Southern jurisdictions that attempted to use speech restrictive laws to curb protest.

Americans now find themselves entangled in a system that was the product of a particular era and that no longer necessarily reflects its citizens’ values. According to First Amendment Center surveys from 1997 through 2008, a majority of those polled believe that people should not be allowed to say things in public that might offend racial groups.

Freedom of speech is a core liberal democratic value. It must be upheld even when words cause offence. And no amount of violence should intimidate the United States into changing its laws. But it is vital to recognise that America is a dramatic outlier when it comes to the freedom to express inflammatory, hatemongering, racist speech. In this regard, we are different from virtually every other liberal democracy; we are different from what we used to be; and we are different from what many Americans want us to be.

It will take a bold Supreme Court to change the current interpretation of the First Amendment. But Supreme Courts respond to public pressure. It is worth having a national debate about whether we want to protect aggressive speech designed to exacerbate tensions across racial, ethnic, and religious lines. It turns out that preserving the freedom for these thoughts that we hate may not be an American value after all.


27 comments on “We need the Second Amendment to protect us from Leftist professors like this who want to kill free speech

  1. Freedom of speech is the life blood of democracy. Without freedom of speech our democracy will end. The first amendment must be protected at all costs. That is why the founding fathers gave us the second amendment to ensure the first, no matter what the cost.

  2. The man is right. People should not be allowed to say things that offend others. So shut him up because everything he says is offensive to me. His very name makes me feel sick – it sounds like a sound kids make when they throw up.

  3. Looks like we have a candidate for a free plane ticket straight to the Middle East. If these lunatics, who are so anti-Constitution, anti-American, think it’s better to be enslaved both mentally and physically then let’s help them live the dream.

  4. So, this jackass exercises his free-speech right to censor the rest of us? Maybe we should restrict speech when it comes from leftist extremist professors like this fool.

    How about a bill to gag Islamophiles, infidelophobes and anti-free-speech advocates?

    These censorial types should be up on charges of treason against the Constitution, i.e., the First Amendment.

    People have been trying to impede this freedom for centuries, that’s why it’s the FIRST amendment.

    We will NOT be shut up from frank criticism of and self-defense against heinous ideologies and mentalities. You and your bill can go to hell.

  5. My major concern with “restrictions” such as those outlined and held up as “good examples” of proper restrictions is this:
    Who determines whether or not a written or spoken comment, lecture, article is in violation of the restrictions?? The “standard” will vary with whomever is “in charge”. An opinion or statement that presents a different point of view from the one “deemed” to be politically correct will become a violation of the restrictions. Thus, all Freedom of Speech is “restricted”

  6. Oh please. Saying “boo” to a Muslim is considered’ “threatening, insulting, or degrading” speech that targets people because of their race, skin colour, national or ethnic origin, faith or sexual orientation.” ‘

  7. It is very simple, people. You do NOT negotiate. You do NOT back down. You do NOT seek permission. Your rights are inherent. God given, so to speak. They are not up for debate. If anyone wants to take them from you, then we can settle this in the back alley. After the offending asshole is face down in a pool of blood, we will see how many more of his ilk want to take our rights from us. Not today, not tomorrow, not ever.
    And no, the government will not help you, so stop asking for help from them. Most probably the government is the one trying to take your rights from you. It is up to you, the individual, to guard your rights. If you do not care enough to fight and die for them, then you don’t deserve to have them.

    • The words of a true Patriot; “if you do not care enough to fight and die for them, then you don’t deserve to have them”,,,,ooooooorah
      Semper Fi baby.

  8. slander , stereotyping ,Truth ! one leads to the other muzzies , it is how we found the real you . You will find out why we around here call it one of the Bloody Amendment ‘s you try to mess with it . There is no slimy leftie version never will be.

  9. I wonder how much this prostitute in a three piece suit was paid by the house of saud to write this seditious bullshit?

    Hey, Prof., you need to ask Bucaille how that saudi money is serving his traitorous ass in hell.

  10. ” it is time we rethink the rationale behind America’s radical free speech absolutism that protects the promotion of hatred”

    O.K. kiddies, what wrong with this statement. This is the ranting of an educated I.D. 10-T, plain and simple enough to distinguish.
    rationale: sensible; reasonable; reasoned out. syn: sound, wise, judicious, sane.
    Radical: going to the root, favoring extreme changes or reform: A global ideology…..has the power to capture radical revolutionary minds, i.e. islam.
    Hatered, by whom, this educated i.d.10 t. or his charges, the brothers from their hood, islam
    America’s radical free speech. WOW, and what does this say about the rationale of these mutts, the brothers from their hood, islam, is it to imply their rationale, or hatred is only against those against favoring extreme changes or reform, sharia complience anyone?……who have the power to capture radical revolutionary minds, i.e. soldiers of satan, muslims
    Yeah WE GET IT, we don’t need no stinkn’sharia laws, or the implimintation of a sub sect, of priveledged victim claiming hood rats,. common criminals, subverts of our God given protections, of free thoughts, either. This is supposed to be an educated person with the same free-speech-protections guarenteed by the 1sr Amend. but to disect this statement, he not only feels he can claim, hatred, radical, free into a slusterf*c* of meaningless bull shit, as opposite to free anything about our thoughts, but is asking for us, under these same protections, to agree with the words he chose to incite with such hatred for same protections. Well now, I’ve known for a few decades, liberalisn is a mental disease, now it is simply a conformation of someone, who clearly deserve neither the protections of said free speech, not afforded the protection of those who would willingly give all to secure them…… and they have the nerve to tout out this deranged i.d.10.t by saying he is someone we need to pay any attention too-wth.
    Yeah I’ve got your global ideology………favoring extreme changes or reform, right here in the sights of my favorite tool, ms. burtha right here sighting in on my opponent of free, thought, expression, and worship, thank you very much, but no thanks, I’ll do quit well one my own. Remember folks, its all about changing the meaning of common sense persons into something we neither reconize or has any meaning to which it applies and of course, its for the kids, right?

    Semper Fi.

    • From what I have read, even the left are staritng to be disappointed with BOyo and his henchmen!
      i think I also read on WND that there was a liberal group calling for BOyo’ s impeachment, so there is a glimmer of hope on the horizon.

      • Hanna, you did read it on WND. I read it too. And of all the leftist groups who would want the Obamination impeached, they were the last I would have expected….the darling dykes* of code pinko!

        Seems the loony lesbos* have their short and curlies in a twist over the mahdi’s ordering of drone strikes on United States citizens.

        Of course, the dippy dykes* are late for the party. If it had been Bush they would have been screaming for his head the minute word of the strikes hit the lame stream media.

        *No insult meant to lesbians who aren’t raving lunatic leftists.

  11. Hey there miss bni, you are getting to be quite the little constitutionalist! 1A and 2A have been popping up in your blog lately. Consider joining the best organization out there promoting adherence to the principles of America’s founders, the John Birch Society. They also have the best and most reliable info on the nwo conspiracy, past and present. Check out jbs.org or thenewamerican.com.

    I leave for my trip for Israel in 6 hours! Almost finished packing. G-d is kind.

  12. We do not need to shoot the AssWhole, we need to contradict his suicidal insanity.

    The idea of religious supremacy: that Allah confers a right and imposes a divine mandate to convert, kill or enslave everyone who does not worship him can not be tolerated. Persons bearing, propagating and implementing that idea can not be tolerated. Both the idea and its believers must of necessity be objects of hatred and contempt, expelled and excluded from the soil of this nation.

    Let all doubters, dissenters & deniers; damned fools one and all, seek out, read and re-read until they fully comprehend: “What’s Wrong With Islam & Muslims?”.

      • “The two enemies of the people are criminals and government so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first.” Thomas Jefferson
        Enough said, by one of our wise founding fathers. eric the idiot can debate this with Thomas Jefferson and take the intellectual beating he deserves.

    • “Denmark declined to prosecute the journalists and illustrators whose 2005 portrayal of Muhammad led to major international protests and violence.”

      Everyone shoot down that UTTER CANARD.

      The Akkari-Laban dossier is a 43 page document which was created by a group of Danish mohammedan islamist clerics to inflame islamists everywhere against the Jyllands-Posten mohammed cartoons. Akkari and Laban THEMSELVES added three EXTRA images, not in the original, and deliberately more offensive. They touted them around UNTIL they got the result they wanted, about five months later: 200 (mostly islamists!) dead, and about $300 million in damages. Any losses to Denmark from boycotts, was more that offset by buycotts from the west.

      That was (yet another) black eye for islam.

      Unfortunately, no legal action was ever taken against the clear INSTIGATORS of the mayhem, who returned to their parasitic teat sucking of Denmark.


Leave a Reply