The fifth column. Crushing free speech is essential to leftists’ agenda of statism, and always has been. The National Socialist German Workers Party (the Nazis), the Communists, Stalinists, et al destroy freedom by first restricting free speech. The First Amendment is first for a reason. It is our most precious and most protected freedom. And political speech is the most protected speech.
It should give every American pause that anyone who was such an enemy of freedom of speech was FEC chairperson.
Freedom of speech is the foundation of a free society. Without it, a tyrant can wreak havoc unopposed, while his opponents are silenced. They blame truth and sites like the Geller Report for their crushing election defeat in November. So they mean to shut us down. Not once did they consider that the election was the result of their catastrophic failures. The Democrats are anti-freedom, anti-America, anti-individualism.
The left cannot win in the war of ideas, so they must silence the opposition. Crush freedom.
Putting up with being offended is essential in a pluralistic society in which people differ on basic truths. If a group will not bear being offended without resorting to violence, that group will rule unopposed while everyone else lives in fear, while other groups curtail their activities to appease the violent group. This results in the violent group being able to tyrannize the others.
If speech that offends a group is outlawed, that group has absolute power, and a free society is destroyed. A group that cannot be criticized cannot be opposed. It can work its will no matter what it is, and no one will be able to say anything to stop it.
Inoffensive speech needs no protection. The First Amendment was developed precisely in order to protect speech that was offensive to some, in order to prevent those who had power from claiming they were offended by speech opposing them and silencing the powerless.
A free society is by its nature one in which people exchange ideas and opinions. The alternative is a quiet authoritarian society in which only one opinion is allowed and the others are silenced, and ultimately sent to the camps.
FORMER FEC CHAIRWOMAN CALLS FOR ‘REGULATIONS’ OF POLITICAL SPEECH ON THE INTERNET
THE FORMER FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION CHAIRWOMAN ANN M. RAVEL SAYS THAT POLITICAL SPEECH MUST BE CONTROLLED ON SOCIAL MEDIA. SHE PRESENTED HER REMARKS IN A SPEECH AT UC BERKELEY, CALLING FOR REGULATIONS AGAINST “FAKE NEWS.”
By By Ian Miles Cheong | Heat Street April 14, 2017
Speaking at an event called “Future of Democracy,” Ravel argued the proliferation of “fake news” and political advertising on platforms like Facebook influenced elections. She warned that the lack of disclosure by the creators of these campaigns was becoming a huge problem.
“We know that there’s a lot of campaigning that’s moved to the internet, whether it’s through fake news or just outright advertising and there is almost no regulation of this, very little,” she said. “And so that the disclosure that we expect as to who is behind campaigns is not going to exist soon.”
“Some people are even predicting that by 2020 most of the advertising is going to move from television to the internet, and I think this is a serious issue that requires a lot of discussion,” continued Ravel.
During her tenure as the chairwoman of the FEC, Ravel previously called for right-leaning websites like the Drudge Report to be “regulated,” and blamed hostile responses towards her proposals on “misogyny.” She claimed it was within the purview of the Federal Election Commission to oversee internet political activities, including the airing of political viewpoints.
In 2015, the Democrats tried, but failed to expand the FEC’s regulatory powers to cover social media posts and other forms of political speech on the Internet, which are not subject to the same scrutiny as political advertisements on old media. At the time, liberal watchdogs complained to the FEC with allegations that (then-probable) presidential candidates like Jeb Bush and Martin O’Malley were skirting finance laws to campaign. Conservatives managed to stall the vote, fearing that the additional powers would chill political speech on the Internet.
Since then, Revel has only doubled down. In her speech at UC Berkeley, Revel claimed that companies like Facebook have “no real knowledge” of who sponsors the posts of political viewpoints on their platforms.
“I think this is a really serious issue that we need to address,” she said.
Article reposted with permission from PamelaGeller.com