Tuesday, November 22, 2005
Who Believes In Free Speech?
I am asking my students to boycott your event. I am also going to ask others to boycott it. Your literature and signs in the entrance lobby look like fascist propaganda and is [sic] extremely offensive. Your main poster "Communism killed 100,000,000" is not only untrue, but ignores the fact that CAPITALISM has killed many more and the evidence for that can be seen in the daily news papers. The U.S. government can fly to dominate the people of Iraq in 12 hours, yet it took them five days to assist the people devastated by huricane [sic] Katrina. Racism and profits were key to their priorities. Exxon, by the way, made $9 Billion in profits this last quarter--their highest proft [sic] margin ever. Thanks to the students of WCCC and other poor and working class people who are recruited to fight and die for EXXON and other corporations who [sic] earning megaprofits from their imperialist plunders. If you want to count the number of deaths based on political systems, you can begin with the more than a million children who have died in Iraq from U.S.-imposed sanctions and war. Or the million African American people who died from lack of access to healthcare in the US over the last 10 years.Mike Adams rather joyously romps through the rich hunting-grounds of the English professor's illiteracy. Unfortunately it is not confined to this email, and Adam's column is both funny and sad. WCCC is holding a meeting about the professor's status. I hope that if the professor is dismissed it is on grounds of professional incompetence rather than his political statement.
I will continue to expose your right-wing, anti-people politics until groups like your [sic] won't dare show their face [sic] on a college campus. Real freedom will come when soldiers in Iraq turn their guns on their superiors and fight for just causes and for people's needs--such freedom fighters can be counted throughout American history and they certainly will be counted again.
What struck me was the professor's determination to drive such events off the campus, his determined aversion to the truth and his rage against this particular student. Advocating fragging is of course advocating a crime, but I think this is too vague to qualify as incitement to criminal activity. I hold to a strict constitutional interpretation of the First Amendment on the order of Brandenburg v. Ohio. The ACLU on the subject (note that they misspell "Brandenburg"):
Finally, in 1969, in Brandenberg v. Ohio, the Supreme Court struck down the conviction of a Ku Klux Klan member, and established a new standard: Speech can be suppressed only if it is intended, and likely to produce, "imminent lawless action." Otherwise, even speech that advocates violence is protected. The Brandenberg standard prevails today.I want to point out that Marxists ardently disagree with these principles and their philosophy has made deep inroads in American higher education. Marxisim, IMO, is a cult. It requires its members to believe in lies, includes the idea that anyone who counters their lies is an enemy of the people, and advocates that such enemies should be suppressed or destroyed. The professor of bad English seems to fall within that category.
Brandenburg V Ohio:
Held: Since the statute, by its words and as applied, purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of action, it falls within the condemnation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Freedoms of speech and press do not permit a State to forbid advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.It's interesting that such Marxist professors always fall back on "academic freedom" and their constitutional freedoms when their jobs are at stake. They do not, however, believe that their student body should have the same rights. Marxism is a totalitarian philosophy that cannot allow for freedom of individual conscience, and the habits of thought Marxism engenders have been deeply corrosive to traditions of academic rights and constitutional freedoms. See, for example, Carl of No Oil For Pacifists highlighting the experience of an Army First Lieutenant attending Harvard Law School. She writes:
I never ask that my fellow liberals agree with me, just that they respect my sense of obligation and professional duty. But at Harvard, that's a tough sell. Here, the emphasis is on the individual--the "me", the "I," and the "mine." It is difficult to explain a group obligation to people who idolize the first person singular.True. They don't. In the view of such people, the Lieutenant is a "wrong-thinker", and should be eliminated. Given Marxism's historical record, this habit of thought should be taken seriously.
But the most difficult part of the recruiting period has been learning the limits of liberal tolerance. It has been uncomfortable to see that the lessons I learned from the traditional liberal platform appear not to apply to me.
I have seen the figure of 100 million deaths from Communism before, but it may not be quite correct. One common feature among dictators is that they do not keep a tally of their victims. No credible historian denies that communist regimes have racked up an awesome death toll, regardless of the exact number. The communist and ex-communist regimes are sad edifices of mass graves, poverty, poor medical care and censorship.
For anyone who doubts this, I recommend reading Boxun, an alternative news source covering China. You can read it by using World Lingo's website translation service. Just type in www.boxun.com and read it for three weeks. Read about the corruption, the land grabs, the army, and the prosecutions. Read about the environmental collapse and the discrimination. Horrifying.
This is the truth that professors of bad English and unconstitutional Law cannot stand to confront. Having abandoned reality they must suppress all those who chose to live in it. They are few, but their habits of thought have gained a widespread credibility in American education. FIRE (Foundation for Individual Rights in Education) has been fighting a battle to stop the spread of profoundly unconstitutional restrictions upon speech and advocacy. I urge you all to read and support it, because we are on the verge of becoming Europe, which is on the verge of destruction.
I realize that these types would gleefully run you over with a tractor and throw your crumpled body into an unmarked grave. I realize that such a fate is exactly what they desire for almost every person in our Armed Forces. I realize that they advocate almost exactly the reverse of the rights granted to us in the Constitution. I realize that they are the enemy of our entire way of life, our system of law, and any decent system of law. I realize that they want the United States to end as quickly as possible.
In short, I realize that, ideologically speaking, these people are repulsive parasitical lice-like excrescences upon our society.
However, how do I defend your right to speak without defending his? I can't craft a logical way that would shut him up. Any type of strategem that would allow that would promptly be used to shut you up.
Besides, merely publicizing such idiots exposes them for exactly who they are. This is why they so desperately want to shut you up.
What I fear is that speech codes will always be used to silence the worthy.
Links to this post: