Categories
Quick Analysis

Censorship and the Left

Recently, a letter to the editor from a left-wing reader who disagreed with the generally conservative-oriented research and opinions expressed in a guest column published in a local newspaper called for the exclusion of future similar articles.

The writer represents a growing and worrisome trend on the part of the American Left, where, despite the existence of a heavy pro-left bias on the part of most media outlets, the very existence of contrary discussion by non-Leftist thinkers is seen as a threat. Rather than engage in a thoughtful debate, they call for censorship, to keep those ideas out of the public square altogether.

The seriousness of the threat can be seen in the multiple avenues of attack those, almost exclusively on the Left, favoring limiting freedom of speech have taken.  They include:

  • introducing legislation on the federal and state level that limits free speech;
  • the use of violence or the threat thereof in response to free speech;
  • during the Obama Administration, the use of federal agencies to limit the ability of political opponents to organize;
  • the actions of social media powerhouses to downplay or censor non-Leftist perspectives; and
  • attempts to indoctrinate students to reject free speech.
Genuine drug store destinations likewise give a private, functional and at times shabbier approach to acquire physician recommended meds. on line viagra http://www.slovak-republic.org/history/democratic-slovakia/ from an unlawful drug store might cause genuine health dangers. With the increase in the morbidity rate, residents’ income levels and medical levels, the market size viagra on line cheap see for source now of China’s diabetes drugs rises year by year, which always presents a rapidly growing trend in recent years, reaching CNY 15.86 billion in 2011, with an increase of 18.2% YOY. The pill when taken in, reaches the stomach viagra tablets in india and spreads in other body part via blood stream. Hence, men that are found with diabetes were around 3.5 times more likely than men viagra cialis achat without issues of diabetes for having ED.

James Bovard, writing in The Hill points out that “Commentators in the Washington Post and New York Times have called for selective censorship of ideas and doctrines they abhor.

A generation of American youth are being taught on campuses that reject free speech. John Villasenor, writing for Brookings notes: “what happens on campuses often foreshadows broader societal trends…A surprisingly large fraction of students believe it is acceptable to act—including resorting to violence—to shut down expression they consider offensive…Freedom of expression is deeply imperiled on U.S. campuses. In fact, despite protestations to the contrary (often with statements like “we fully support the First Amendment, but…), freedom of expression is clearly not, in practice, available on many campuses, including many public campuses that have First Amendment obligations… among many current college students there is a significant divergence between the actual and perceived scope of First Amendment freedoms. More specifically, with respect to the questions explored above, many students have an overly narrow view of the extent of freedom of expression… a surprisingly large fraction of students believe it is acceptable to act—including resorting to violence—to shut down expression they consider offensive. And a majority of students appear to want an environment that shields them from being exposed to views they might find offensive.”

The problem reaches beyond agency actions. Senator Charles Schumer, (D-NY) who is the U.S. Senate’s minority leader, proposed a measure that would limit free speech protections as they pertain to campaign donations. The proposed legislation, thankfully defeated, gained 43 Senate supporters—all Democrats. At a Senate Rules Committee  Schumer stated that “The First Amendment is sacred, but the First Amendment is not absolute. By making it absolute, you make it less sacred to most Americans.”

From a practical perspective, the Left’s call for censorship is understandable.  Left wing concepts have failed. On the national, state, and local levels, Leftists ideas and politicians have endangered American security, weakened the economy, harmed the middle class, and failed to move the poor our of poverty. The results speak for themselves, and in a free and fair debate, those advocating for them would do and have done poorly.

Realizing this, the Left has chosen a different strategy. Censorship is one part of that. Some adopt physical violence, such as that perpetrated on people wearing those red Trump hats, or rioting in the streets following election results they dislike. Some have engaged in character assassination on false charges, such as those levelled against Bret Kavanaugh. Rather than concentrate on actual issues, “identity politics” pitting racial, gender, ethnic, and age groups against each other is foisted on the public.

The situation continues to worsen. Rep. Frederica Wilson (D-Florida) recently stated that individuals who “make fun of Congress…should be prosecuted.”

As the New York Analysis of Policy and Government has frequently noted, The U.S. is nearing a dangerous turning point, in which not only is free speech endangered, but also the very means to generate free speech is endangered. From academia’s relentless drive to indoctrinate students against the nation’s founding principles, to the establishment media’s actions in warping its reporting, to the actions by entrenched left-wing bureaucrats and elected officials alike to regulate and intimidate against the exercise of First Amendment rights, America’s most cherished freedom has become an endangered species.

Illustration: Pixabay