A writer named Andrew Marantz recently posted a commentary in The New York Times called Free Speech is Killing Us.
Woah… This is typical of the left. For decades they have claimed to be defenders of free speech, but we know that leftists are the worst censors of all. And in the age of the internet they are using their power to turn off free speech because they know that it means that people with alternative points of view to theirs (i.e., conservatives) are effectively communicating their ideas. They also are furious that president Trump is in the White House and thus they want to stifle any speech that defends him.
Here are excerpts from Marantz’s column with a Nikitas3.com comment after each excerpt:
Marantz writes: There has never been a bright line between word and deed. Yet for years, the founders of Facebook and Twitter and 4chan and Reddit — along with the consumers obsessed with these products, and the investors who stood to profit from them — tried to pretend that the noxious speech prevalent on those platforms wouldn’t metastasize into physical violence. …
No one believes that anymore. Not after the social-media-fueled campaigns of Narendra Modi and Rodrigo Duterte and Donald Trump; not after the murder of Heather Heyer in Charlottesville, Va.; not after the massacres in a synagogue in Pittsburgh, two mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand, and a Walmart in a majority-Hispanic part of El Paso. The Christchurch gunman, like so many of his ilk, had spent years on social media trying to advance the cause of white power. But these posts, he eventually decided, were not enough; now it was “time to make a real life effort post.” He murdered 51 people.
Nikitas3.com comment: Meanwhile violent forces on the left like ‘antifa’, ISIS, Black Lives Matter and the regimes in Venezuela and North Korea have been spreading their poison for years or decades to marginglize, imprison, injure and kill not dozens of people but millions of people. But Marantz carefully avoids mentioning this.
Marantz writes: Having spent the past few years embedding as a reporter with the trolls and bigots and propagandists who are experts at converting fanatical memes into national policy, I no longer have any doubt that the brutality that germinates on the internet can leap into the world of flesh and blood.
Nikitas3.com comment: Yes, like the endless internet attacks on president Trump and his supporters, some of them turning into violent actions. Trump supporters in Mississippi, Atlanta and Pennsylvania were murdered leading up the 2016 election, but that got zero coverage in the Fake News media and no mention by Marantz. Trump supporters also have been attacked at rallies and had their vehicles trashed. Republican headquarters offices have been repeatedly attacked. An anti-Trump play in New York showed the president being murdered. And on and on.
Marantz writes: The question is where this leaves us. Noxious speech is causing tangible harm. Yet this fact implies a question so uncomfortable that many of us go to great lengths to avoid asking it. Namely, what should we — the government, private companies or individual citizens — be doing about it?
Nothing. Or at least that’s the answer one often hears from liberals and conservatives alike. Some speech might be bad, this line of thinking goes, but censorship is always worse. The First Amendment is first for a reason.
After one of the 8chan-inspired massacres — I can’t even remember which one, if I’m being honest — I struck up a conversation with a stranger at a coffee shop. We talked about how bewildering it was to be alive at a time when viral ideas can slide so precipitously into terror. Then I wondered what steps should be taken. Immediately, our conversation ran aground. “No steps,” he said. “What exactly do you have in mind? Thought police?” He told me that he was a leftist, but he considered his opinion about free speech to be a matter of settled bipartisan consensus.
Nikitas3.com comment: Notice that he carefully avoids talking about the murder of up to 100 million people in the 20th century by communist regimes in Russia, China and Cambodia that censored all anti-government speech. Very convenient.
Marantz writes: I imagined the same conversation, remixed slightly. What if, instead of talking about memes, we’d been talking about guns? What if I’d invoked the ubiquity of combat weapons in civilian life and the absence of background checks, and he’d responded with a shrug? Nothing to be done. Ever heard of the Second Amendment?
Nikitas3.com comment: Here we go again with guns. Again, he fails to mention that Hitler and Stalin murdered tens of millions of people in countries where opponents of the government were not allowed to own guns. Or have free speech.
He also fails to mention that millions of crimes in the US have been prevented by good people with guns.
Marantz writes: Using “free speech” as a cop-out is just as intellectually dishonest and just as morally bankrupt. For one thing, the First Amendment doesn’t apply to private companies. Even the most creative reader of the Constitution will not find a provision guaranteeing Richard Spencer a Twitter account. But even if you see social media platforms as something more akin to a public utility, not all speech is protected under the First Amendment anyway. Libel, incitement of violence and child pornography are all forms of speech. Yet we censor all of them, and no one calls it the death knell of the Enlightenment.
Nikitas3.com comment: The overwhelming majority of hate speech and incitement on the internet are aimed at president Trump and his supporters. Nikitas3.com did not see 1% of this amount of hatred directed at Obama by conservatives. Marantz should look into the ongoing hatred being promoted by his side including the serial deceptions from the New York Times – like the recent unsourced accusations against Supreme Court justice Brett Kavanaugh – if he wants to see the hazards of free speech and incitement of hatred, for instance at Kavanaugh.
Marantz writes: In 1993 and 1994, talk-radio hosts in Rwanda calling for bloodshed helped create the atmosphere that led to genocide. The Clinton administration could have jammed the radio signals and taken those broadcasts off the air, but Pentagon lawyers decided against it, citing free speech. It’s true that the propagandists’ speech would have been curtailed. It’s also possible that a genocide would have been averted.
Nikitas3.com comment: Who says this is true? Nikitas3.com has never heard this narrative before. Then again, the same people on the left, including the New York Times, created a totally false narrative that president Trump colluded with Russia and that was proven utterly false. So we never know what is true anymore from the rhetoric on the left.
Marantz writes: Congress could fund, for example, a national campaign to promote news literacy, or it could invest heavily in library programming. It could build a robust public media in the mold of the BBC.
Nikitas3.com comment: Oh, sure, the BBC, one of the most biased, left-wing, taxpayer-supported media institutions in the world. By the way, Mr. Marantz, we already have such a public media in the US – it is called “public broadcasting” and it is as biased as the BBC while taking $440 million in taxpayer money every single year. Yet the conservative presence in public broadcasting is nil – just like Marantz wants it.
Marantz writes: (Congress) could rethink Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act — the rule that essentially allows Facebook and YouTube to get away with (glorification of) murder. If Congress wanted to get really ambitious, it could fund a rival to compete with Facebook or Google, the way the Postal Service competes with FedEx and U.P.S.
Nikitas3.com comment: Notice that Marantz makes no mention of the glorification of murder every day in Hollywood and on violent TV shows, all produced by people on the Democrat left. Or the glorification of murder by Planned Parenthood, as if killing more than one million babies per year is a good thing, not a bad thing.
And by the way, the Postal Service does not compete with FedEx and UPS. The Postal Service could never do so; it is a grossly inefficient public service that will never reform itself. Marantz ignores this fact since he comes from the left.
Marantz writes: “We need to protect the rights of speakers,” John A. Powell, a law professor at the University of California, Berkeley, told me, “but what about protecting everyone else?” Mr. Powell was the legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union in the late 1980s and early 1990s, and he represented the Ku Klux Klan in federal court. “Racists should have rights,” he explained. “I also know, being black and having black relatives, what it means to have a cross burned on your lawn. It makes no sense for the law to be concerned about one and ignore the other.”
Nikitas3.com comment: Oh boy, a cross burned on your lawn. Big deal. That is infinitely less harmful than the tidal wave of physical violence perpetrated by blacks (murder, assault, robbery, rape, etc.) against whites every year in America. But don’t tell Andrew Marantz. He loves all black people no matter how evil they are. He’s a liberal!
Marantz writes: Mr. Powell, in other words, is a free-speech advocate but not a free-speech absolutist. Shortly before his tenure as legal director, he said, “when women complained about sexual harassment in the workplace, the A.C.L.U.’s response would be, ‘Sorry, nothing we can do. Harassment is speech.’
Nikitas3.com comment: This is baloney. Workplaces have been turned upside down by harassment laws. For Marantz to claim otherwise is utter nonsense.
Marantz writes: In one of our conversations, Mr. Powell compared harmful speech to carbon pollution: People are allowed to drive cars. But the government can regulate greenhouse emissions, the private sector can transition to renewable energy sources, civic groups can promote public transportation and cities can build sea walls to prepare for rising ocean levels. We could choose to reduce all of that to a simple dictate: Everyone should be allowed to drive a car, and that’s that. But doing so wouldn’t stop the waters from rising around us.
Nikitas3.com comment: Notice how seamlessly Marantz transitions from free speech to ‘greenhouse emissions’. This proves how conniving and manipulative these lefties are. They want to control everything from speech to the economy with their biased and narrow opinions. In fact the whole ‘green’ agenda is a curtailment of free speech. We have all heard the lunatics say that those of us who tell the truth about “climate change” should be thrown in jail.