An American could speak his mind more freely in 1970 than now

Violent protests by visiting mob lead Berkeley to cancel a speech by Milo Yiannopoulos

In 2015 Victor Davis Hanson could already see that Americans could no longer take free speech for granted. In 2018 it is now commonplace that conservative speakers are being silenced on social media as well as on University campuses. Their venues get cancelled due to threats made to the venue owners and their rallies, speeches or panel discussions are often violently attacked by protestors.

If you have the ‘wrong views’ or work for president Trump today you can expect to be thrown out of restaurants, have your livelihood threatened, your products or services boycotted and to receive death threats. The land of the free has become the land of the viciously virtuous who believe that the only speech that should be free is theirs. Quote:

[…] There was more free speech and unimpeded expression in 5 -century Athens than in Western Europe between 1934-45, or in Eastern Europe during 1946-1989. An American could speak his mind more freely in 1970 than now. Many in the United States had naively believed that the Enlightenment, the U.S. Constitution, and over two centuries of American customs and traditions had guaranteed that Americans could always take for granted free speech and unfettered inquiry.

That is an ahistorical assumption. The wish to silence, censor, and impede thought is just as strong a human emotion as the desire for free expression ? especially when censorship is cloaked in rhetoric about fairness, equality, justice, and all the other euphemisms for not allowing the free promulgation of ideas.

George Orwell devoted his later years to warning us that while the fascist method of destroying free expression was easily identified (albeit only with difficulty combatted), the leftwing totalitarian impulse to squelch unpopular speech was far harder to resist ? couched as it was in sloganeering about the ?people? and ?social justice.? It is easy to object to the speech codes of a self-interested, corrupt dictator in sunglasses and epaulettes, but difficult to fight censorship that allegedly helps the poor, minorities, and the helpless.

We can all but write off today?s university as a place of free expression. In the age of Obama, zealots in the university have clamped down on any thought deemed reactionary. ?Trigger warning? is a euphemism for trying either to censure literature or to denigrate it. ?Safe space? is another term for the segregation of campus areas by race, class, or ideology. ?Hate speech? has become a pejorative for uncomfortable truth.

So try a thought experiment. If Professor A […] before the academic senate, at the ?free speech? area of the quad, during student advising, in a faculty meeting, or during class ? announced that on-campus, Christian student groups practiced hate speech and thus should be monitored or silenced, or he declared that due to white privilege he was holding private tutoring sessions only for people of color, or he urged that global warming deniers should not be allowed to spread their heresies in class, or he insisted that the nature and propriety of sexual intercourse should be post facto defined only by the female participant, […] many of those proposals would be taken seriously if they were not already part of campus protocol.

But if a bookend Professor B in the same venues announced that he found Muslim groups equally suspect, or that, due to constant deprecation of white males, he was holding tutoring sessions only for his European-American students, or that he was hosting a campus conference on the unscientific nature of the global warming movement, or if he urged the university to insist that any allegations of rape follow strictly the rules of evidence and procedures as outlined in the U.S. Constitution and state laws of criminal jurisprudence, he would find himself in a great deal of trouble, if not fired. End of quote.

The article also talks about groupthink which allows a lie to be accepted and repeated because of the social purpose it serves. One example given was the? ?hands up, don?t shoot? slogan that was based on a complete myth about Michael Brown.?Quote:

Michael Brown, fresh from committing a robbery,[…] lunged at a policeman, grabbed for his weapon, fled, turned around and charged, before being shot and killed. He was not shot in the back. Nor did he halt and put his hands up, begging the policeman not to shoot him. End of quote.

Another example given of a lie that was accepted and repeated was ?Mattress Girl? who turned a sexual encounter she later regretted into a forcible rape story and became a feminist icon even though her claims were never proven. Quote:

[…] The subtext of Mattress Girl?s whine is that even if she is lying, her cause still furthers progressive agendas and thus is not really a lie after all. End of quote.

When people want to draw attention to issues that do not fit the progressive agenda however it is a completely different story. Quote.

Eric Holder called the nation ?cowards? for not holding a national conversation on race. But Holder did not wish a freewheeling discussion about the break-up of the black family, the epidemic of violence and drug use, the cult of the macho male, the baleful role of anti-police rhetoric and rap music ? in addition to current racism, a sluggish economy, and the wages of past apartheid. Instead, the ground rules of racial discussion were again to be anti- Enlightenment to the core. One must not cite the extraordinary disproportionate crime rate of inner-city black males, or the lack of inspired black leadership at the national level. One most certainly does not suggest that other minority groups either do not promote leaders like Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson or do not seem to have a need for national collective spokespeople at all.

In our current Dark Age, logic is ignored in lieu of ideology.

[…] A final symptom of an un-Enlightened age is the assumption that lies are truth because untruth offers collective benefits, while veracity disrupts social justice. Take Obamacare. Almost every promoted tenet of the Affordable Care Act proved false: premiums went up; so did deductibles and co-payments. Millions lost not just their doctors but their existing health care plans

[…] The much ballyhooed health care website proved dysfunctional. Newly passed mandates were unlawfully suspended to enhance the Obama reelection effort.

Nationalized health care did not per se reduce the deficit, nor will its protocols contain escalating costs without radical curtailments in service. Mandatory electronic record keeping did not free physicians up to spend quality time with their patients, but often resulted in the very opposite with doctors typing into computer screens while distracted from patients? inquiries. Again, no matter. Obamacare is now hailed as the president?s ?signature achievement??[…]

The country is terrified about having a rational and logical discussion about almost every great issue of our times: unsustainable national debts and deficits, the new nexus between leftwing plutocracy and populism, the viability of Social Security and Medicare, deteriorating race relations, the Soviet-style American campus, global warming, and the deterioration of medical care. Instead, to preclude honest talk, we offer perfunctory charges of sexism and racism, and seek cover in ?fairness? and ?equality.?

The redistributionist, equality-of-result state ? fueled by a national progressive ideology ? is the new deity that determines what is free expression. Blasphemy is now defined as daring to use logic and evidence to expose the state?s failed, deductive tenets.

This descent into the Dark Ages will not end well. It never has in the past. End of quote.