Tag Archives: free speech

What Speech Does the 1st Amendment Protect?

1 Dec

After giving us several good examples exemplifying how ridiculous the “Word Police” have gotten in censoring our speech in order to prevent offending anyone, Two Heads Are Better Than One ends a recent blog with this question and bit of wisdom.

From “thabto.wordpress.com”:

. . . . When did the schoolyard saying about sticks-n-stones cease being operative? In a free society, when did the responsibility for dealing with a perceived “offense” land on the offend-er, rather than where it belongs: the offend-ee?

I’m reminded once again of Kathy Shaidle’s call for us to all undergo ‘Insensitivity’ Training [illero insertion: As opposed to SENsitivity training]:

“…The only sort of free speech that matters is the sort that offends some people somewhere… I think that in any well-functioning democracy it is incumbent on all citizens to grow a thick skin…”

Until we all learn to do just that, the Word Police will continue on their current path, limiting and controlling more and more of what is “acceptable” in polite society to discuss.

[End of excerpt]

What a great statement by Ms. Shaidle!  We need to ALL ponder this practical interpretation of the First Amendment.


Constitutional Protections? Not at Our Colleges

15 May

For a glimpse of where this country is headed under the Obama ideology, please read Mona Charen’s column entitled “Obama Administration Scraps Free Speech”.  You can find it at


The last few paragraphs of the column are reprinted below.  However, the first several paragraphs are well worth the reading.  This is pretty scary stuff.


A letter from the Department of Education and the Department of Justice addressed to the University of Montana but explicitly intended as a “blueprint for colleges and universities throughout the country,” the government has altered the legal meaning of the term “sexual harassment.” The new rule directly contravenes Supreme Court decisions and previous rulings from OCR that harassment “must include something beyond the mere expression of views, words, symbols or thoughts that some person finds offensive.” The Supreme Court has ruled that to meet the test of sexual harassment, behavior must be “severe, pervasive and objectively offensive.” Note the word “objectively,” meaning that a reasonable person similarly situated would be offended.

The reasonable person standard is now gone. The new definition of sexual harassment decreed by the Obama administration is “any unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature,” including “verbal conduct.” The purported victim now has the power to decide whether a young man or woman (but it’s nearly always a man) is branded a sexual harasser. It’s entirely subjective.

Obama promised fundamental transformation. This is part of it. Freedom of speech is sacrificed, and a new army of sexual harassment “specialists” will descend on America’s campuses to enforce the new dispensation.

[End of Excerpt]

Wow! “The View” Comes Through For Freedom

29 Jul

My estimation of the ladies on “The View” just went up a notch – something I thought would never happen..  Here is a bit of what occurred the other day on that program, with regard to the Chick-Fil-A controversy.  Thank you, ladies.

Token conservative Elisabeth Hasselbeck criticized Menino and Emanuel. “I don’t believe public officials should be banning companies based on the owner’s personal opinions,” she said. “Why aren’t more intelligent questions being asked? Has Chick-Fil-A fired someone because they’re gay? Have they not hired someone because they’re gay?”

Sherri Shepherd echoed the sentiment when she said, “they don’t stop gay people from going there either.” When Whoopi Goldberg brought up the Civil Rights Movement in a roundabout way [apparently in a way that supports Chick-Fil-A’s right to take a position], Behar chimed back in, “What if they were donating money to the Ku Klux Klan, then what?” Shepherd replied with a plea for common sense. “We all knew Chick-Fil-A is a Christian organization. That’s what they stand for,” she said. “They don’t ban you from going there to eat. It’s a freedom of religion. If you don’t support it, for goodness sakes don’t buy their chicken.”

Despite Behar’s minor protest, Goldberg got the final word on the matter. “If you don’t like what they’re doing, don’t go. But don’t step on their right – anybody’s right – to have an opinion. This is still America,” she said. “The bottom line is, they have every right in this country to do as they please with their company and you have the right to say, you know what, maybe it isn’t Chick-Fil-A tonight. Maybe it’s KFC.”

Because of this furor raised by gay-marriage advocates to try to squelch free speech, I happen to think that I will be visiting Chick-Fil-A more often.  Others might stop going altogether.  Let free speech reign, and “vote” with your wallets.  What could be more American?