Ben Shapiro
Photo: Richard Levine, Corbis/Getty Images |
Leftists are deeply unhappy
with the First Amendment.
Since they’re losing the
public debate, Leftists have decided that the real problem is that the rules of
the game – that everyone gets to say what they want – are rigged. If they could
simply redefine the rules of the game, they’d suddenly see success, culturally
and electorally. To that end, the First Amendment must be curbed so that they
can finally have a fighting chance at victory.
On Sunday, The New
York Times ran a front-page, 2,000-word report on how “conservatives
weaponized the First Amendment.” Now, you might ask yourself why the most
famous press institution in American history is questioning the wisdom of the
First Amendment. You might also ask yourself how conservatives could have
weaponized a freedom. This is sort of like saying that law-abiding citizens
weaponized the right to be free of unreasonable search and seizure. But
according to the Times’ Adam Liptak, conservatives have twisted the
definition of free speech to enhance their own political goals.
Quoting execrable Supreme
Court Justice Elena Kagan, Liptak explains that conservatives have been
“weaponizing the First Amendment” through decisions that recognize the rights
of non-union members, religious Americans, and people who want to spend money
on elections. Liptak states:
Conservative groups, borrowing
and building on arguments developed by liberals, have used the First Amendment
to justify unlimited campaign spending, discrimination against gay couples and
attacks on the regulation of tobacco, pharmaceuticals and guns.
Or, alternatively,
conservatives have been under attack on First Amendment grounds for decades,
and the Left is finally getting held to a First Amendment standard. It used to
be that attempts to curtail the First Amendment largely sprang from the Right;
now those attempts come from the Left, and the Supreme Court recognizes that
obvious fact.
But according to The
New York Times, this is a problem, since the First Amendment was only meant
to protect Leftist interest groups. As Liptak explains:
As a result, liberals who once
championed expansive First Amendment rights are now uneasy about them. “The
left was once not just on board but leading in supporting the broadest First
Amendment protections,” said Floyd Abrams, a prominent First Amendment lawyer and a supporter of broad
free-speech rights. “Now the progressive community is at least skeptical and
sometimes distraught at the level of First Amendment protection which is being
afforded in cases brought by litigants on the right.” Many on the left have
traded an absolutist commitment to free speech for one sensitive to the harms
it can inflict.
This is inane, of course. As
soon as we subvert the commitment to free speech in favor of curbing the harms
attendant on free speech, free speech is no longer a right. This view of the
First Amendment is anti-Constitutional; the founders believed that rights
pre-existed government, not that the government created rights. But if you
believe the government created and gives you rights, then anything the
government deems to be bad can countermand such rights. That’s the perspective
of Democrats these days: conservative speech is bad for the country, and thus
ought to be curbed, while Leftist speech ought to be promoted. See, for
example, Professor Frederick Schauer:
There was a certain naïveté in
how liberals used to approach free speech, said Frederick Schauer, a law professor at the University of Virginia. “Because so
many free-speech claims of the 1950s and 1960s involved anti-obscenity claims,
or civil rights and anti-Vietnam War protests, it was easy for the left to
sympathize with the speakers or believe that speech in general was harmless,”
he said. “But the claim that speech was harmless or causally inert was never
true, even if it has taken recent events to convince the left of that. The
question, then, is why the left ever believed otherwise.” Some liberals now say
that free speech disproportionately protects the powerful and the status quo.
In other words, free speech
never should have been allowed to roam untrammeled. Instead, the Left should
have used the power of government to reinforce its messaging. When you believe
that neutral rights like the right to free speech are a problem because some
people more effectively use those rights, you’re no longer a believer in the
right itself. See, for instance, Professor Louis Michael Seidman and Professor
Catharine A. MacKinnon:
“When I was younger, I had
more of the standard liberal view of civil liberties,” said Louis Michael Seidman, a law professor at
Georgetown. “And I’ve gradually changed my mind about it. What I have come to
see is that it’s a mistake to think of free speech as an effective means to
accomplish a more just society.” To the contrary, free speech reinforces and
amplifies injustice, Catharine A. MacKinnon, a law professor at the
University of Michigan, wrote in “The Free Speech Century,” a collection of
essays to be published this year. “Once a defense of the powerless, the First
Amendment over the last hundred years has mainly become a weapon of the powerful,”
she wrote. “Legally, what was, toward the beginning of the 20th century, a
shield for radicals, artists and activists, socialists and pacifists, the
excluded and the dispossessed, has become a sword for authoritarians, racists
and misogynists, Nazis and Klansmen, pornographers and corporations buying
elections.”
Free speech is just another
element of a corrupt republic that must be torn down brick by brick in favor of
a better world. When you see Donald Trump as the final iteration of a
hierarchical system built to prevent the world from achieving utopia, that
system must be dismantled – starting with the freedoms that allowed Donald
Trump to become president. It’s that simple for the Left.
And it’s that dangerous. This,
as the saying goes, is how you got Trump.
Nenhum comentário:
Postar um comentário
Não publicamos comentários de anônimos/desconhecidos.
Por favor, se optar por "Anônimo", escreva o seu nome no final do comentário.
Não use CAIXA ALTA, (Não grite!), isto é, não escreva tudo em maiúsculas, escreva normalmente. Obrigado pela sua participação!
Volte sempre!
Abraços./-