The core values among 60’s liberals was that the right to “FREE SPEECH” was sacrosanct, and regarded as much too important or valuable to be interfered with. It was considered the bedrock of our democracy by our Founders, and essential to the health of our nation, and so crucial to our democracy that it became our “First Amendment” to the Constitution.
And for well over 5-decades, “liberals” and the right to “free-speech” became almost synonymous within their core belief structure. However all that’s changed within a remarkably short period of time beginning with the election of Ronald Reagan in the 80’s, and continuing to a lesser degree with President George Bush.
However with the election of President Obama, the most progressive President in America’s history, the left seemed to once again embrace the idea of “free speech” until that historic night in November when the political world for progressives changed overnight, rattling once again for them, the underpinnings of the First Amendment.
New York Times Author and Professor of Ethics Thomas Williams, chronicles in a frank and honest exposé, how today’s liberals who once championed our First Amendment Rights for all, now are ambivalent and outright uneasy regarding freedom of expression when practiced by conservatives.
Most conservatives didn’t need Professor Williams, to tell them what they’ve already known. Simply witness the antics taking place on our nation’s college campuses as far-left students and paid political activists use violence as a political tool in harassing conservative speakers or the unconstrained and false news coverage by a majority of the press, in how they cover national issues, regarding the Trump Presidency.
Williams’ exposé lays out how the left purposely attempts to abandon the very fabric of our democracy through a series of contrived and convoluted assertions.
As an example, Lawyer Floyd Abrams notes the left once led support for First Amendment protections, are now “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” to the Supreme Court.
The fundamental differences between then and now, is that progressive dogma has moved radically to the left over the course of a decade. Today’s progressives view the rulings of the Supreme Court “as being far more likely to embrace free-speech arguments concerning conservative speech than liberal speech,” writes Williams.
Remarkably Georgetown Professor Louis Michael Seidman, an advocate and defender of free speech now sees his prior position as a “mistake”.
“When I was younger, I had more of the standard liberal view of civil liberties,” Seidman said. “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.”
Moreover, the outright bias of yet another educator, Professor Catharine A. MacKinnon regarding free speech goes even further then Seidman’s in her contempt for those with a different political point of view, stating that free speech reinforces injustice, because of ideas “she disagrees with.”
“Once a defense of the powerless, the First Amendment over the last hundred years has mainly become a weapon of the powerful,” writes MacKinnon, who teaches such courses as “Evolution of Gender Crimes” and “Sex Equality.”
Moreover, the biggest “wake-up” call for progressives has been the Supreme Courts rulings on pivotal issues regarding the most progressive President in American history. The Obama administration, by historical standards, has done exceedingly poor against the Supreme Court. A significant part of Obama’s problem was his continued attempt at overreaching his constitutional authorities.
Another pivotal issue is the recent 5-4 decisions by the court in favor of more moderate and common sense values such as the ruling supporting anti-abortion pregnancy centers and California’s attempt to mandate those religiously oriented “crisis pregnancy centers” provide information on how to kill an unborn child.
Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for the five-justice conservative majority wrote in the opinion, “Licensed clinics must provide a government-drafted script about the availability of state-sponsored services, as well as contact information for how to obtain them,” Justice Thomas wrote. “One of those services is abortion, the very practice that petitioners are devoted to opposing.”