Sharon nails it!

Sharon hit the nail squarely on the head:

It’s no mystery that conservatives thrive when free ideas are expressed. Liberals, on the other hand, constantly and persistently side with silencing speech they dislike.

Liberalism once had a reputation of supporting the free and open exchange of ideas. But for the last 40 years, liberals have constantly complained that all conflicting ideas must be suppressed, whether those ideas concern religion, speech, protest, education or virtually any other issue.

It might not be true of all liberals (certainly not Aphrael!), and it was good to see that the liberals who commented on Mary Shaw’s piece on OpEdNews were mostly critical of her position. But in far too many cases, for our friends on the left, freedom of speech means freedom for the speech of which they approve — and no other.

Sharon’s entire article is here.


  1. Freedom of speech is a fundamental for me. This sometimes leads to uncomfortable places, where support for free speech is in conflict with my other policy preferences. But political philosophy is *supposed* to be hard. :)

  2. Pat Buickanon is more of what is now known as a “Paleo-Con”, or, in plainer language, a right-wing nut. He’s one of these guys who thinks the world should be frozen as it was in the mid 1950’s, and resents that Bush and the “Neo-Cons” (no relation to The Matrix) want to actually govern the country as it moves into the 21st century …

  3. Pho,
    It’s a pretty big jump to say setting up free speech zones is similar to trying to get Rush Limbaugh off the Armed Services Radio Network, banning Ann Coulter from appearing on TV, using racketeering laws to stifle abortion protesters, or bringing back the Fairness Doctrine as a way to prevent conservative programs from being aired. The Constitution provides for time, place, manner restrictions (which free speech zones are). It doesn’t provide for silencing your opponents just because you disagree with them.

  4. Aphrael wrote:

    Freedom of speech is a fundamental for me. This sometimes leads to uncomfortable places, where support for free speech is in conflict with my other policy preferences.

    Well, that’s just it: to support freedom of speech means supporting the right of other people to say things with which you disagree or which you may find politically or personally repugnant. It means, for example, that we must tolerate the Fred Phelps of the world.

    Too many people, on both the right and the left (though it seems to me to be more prevalent on the left at the current time, though that wasn’t always the case) seem to think that real freedom of speech is some sort of a problem, that speech they don’t like somehow doesn’t qualify as real speech. Thus far, I have yet to find a problem in which the solution was the stifling of speech in which the solution wasn’t a whole lot worse than the problem itself!

  5. Oh, yeah, that is why, Art with his NAMBLA/ACLU obsession continues to denounce free speech to silence NAMBLA. Obviously few would be in favor of NAMBLA, but I think I would speak for most of us here (except ARt) who is for civil liberties, which is what the ACLU is all about.

    Then, a little over ten days ago, too the Rs bringing up the Move.on ad, wasting valuable Congress time to condemn a statement. THAT is using government to diminish free speech!!!

    But the spineless Dems showed insufficient integrity amongst them. I couldn’t believe it. Even the Dems decided to be more indignant of what was considered an irresponsible splattering of ink in the NYTimes, but with the five independent studies/reports of the contrary facts of what General Pet/B had to say, well the irresponsible splattering of genuine blood/hemoglobin, was not as important as the way the ink was used.

    Hypocrisy once again exposed, sigh, of the Republicans'(and too many Dems, as well) perspective, with the incapacity to see both sides of everything.

  6. Pingback: Common Sense Political Thought » Archives » Uhhh, guys, can you get your actual work done before you start playing around?

  7. NAMBLA is evil, Blu. Their sole purpose is to molest children. They should have their dicks chopped off.

Comments are closed.