sitting on the edge of the sandbox, biting my tongue

November 21, 2011

Can Freedom of Speech Be Evil?

Filed under: politics — Tags: , — edge of the sandbox @ 1:32 pm

If we redefine it enough.

The First Amendment protects the freedom of expression, but what is freedom of expression?  Is it the ability to have one’s opinions’ stated without the fear of prosecution or an ability to frame one’s thoughts and feelings in any form desired?

#Occupy Boston obtained a temporary restraining order against possible removal on First Amendment grounds.  (Via Instapundit.)  I’m not a lawyer, and, frankly, I’m intimidated by the legal talk.  I understand there is a long history of American jurisprudence separating speech from criminality, but, the Boston court is not so sure, and the supporters of OWS can be quite adamant too.  Plus, occupiers are… err… exploring “alternative forms of protest”.  If camping out in the middle of a large city is constitutionally protected speech because that’s how the occupiers fancied to express themselves, then why not moving into the residences of the 1%?  After all, they are already taking over real estate.

#Occupy’s real life assaults on personal property are well-known.  For instance, they recently decided to squat in a vacant school building in DC.  And in Oakland, the occupiers blocked the access to the port and several banks — all to make a statement.  If said protesters move to redistribute the wealth stored in the bank they vandalized, that would be pretty persuasive.

R.S. McCain makes a point that disrespect for personal property has consequences.  A young lady found herself assaulted by a fellow occupier, and Mr. McCain comments:

Celebrations of sociopathic tendencies — and demonizing wealth is sociopathic — tend to attract maladjusted deviants[.]

A crime against property is a crime against an individual.

It can get worse, theoretically at least, if one is interested in articulating his view of the world by murdering an old lady and her sister.  Sure that was fiction, but lefties are known to name their terror groups after Dostoyevsky’s fiction, and offing, say, an mini-van driving suburban mother of 5 is a pretty pervasive argument in favor of green living.

Raskolnikov

Add a knit hat with ear flaps for a perfect #Occupy look.

Gutter Marxists do not feel themselves bound by the ordinary sense of morality.  Armed by hand-me-down Communist theory, they feel free to do as they wilt — because they are the representatives of the 99%.  Lenin felt that dictatorship of the proletariat (and its vanguard, the Communist party) was necessary to nurture socialism and unleashed the reign of terror.  It’s not going to happen here, but the occupiers obviously feel themselves above the law.

And why not?  If any commercial transaction and possibly non-transaction is interstate commerce (h/t DH), then any action is freedom of speech.

Advertisements

3 Comments »

  1. “Gutter Marxists do not feel themselves bound by the ordinary sense of morality. Armed by hand-me-down Communist theory, they feel free to do as they wilt ” Puts it all in perspective. How are the helping by interfering with all business, large and small?

    Comment by senselesstiger — November 21, 2011 @ 1:51 pm

    • senseless tiger,
      Thank you for stopping by and commenting.
      It’s true. It’s the small business that they hurt the most.

      Comment by edge of the sandbox — November 21, 2011 @ 8:21 pm

  2. “frankly, I’m intimidated by the legal talk.”

    don’t be. you can be intimidated by medical procedures, or music theory, or chemistry, but not legal talk. I’m assuming you are bilingual. Legal talk is way easier to master than a second language. Legal talk is nothing more than the rules to monopoly, or scrabble. Just wordier.

    Speech is not the same as occupying space, I would think. Unless they have permission to occupy that space. Then it’s not occupying that’s the issue at all. Just speech. If they do not have permission, then property rights should prevail.

    Of course, we’ve got the perverted situation where a city allows them to take up public space that ends up hurting small business third parties. Seems like a suit for public nuisance could still be brought. Of course, it’s not usually worth the effort of lawsuit.

    cheers friend
    Linda

    Comment by nooneofanyimport — November 22, 2011 @ 9:24 pm


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: