We’ve all heard it, more importantly, we’ve all said it, “The First Amendment protects Hate Speech.” Why is this our debate mantra? We are forced to defend hate speech for the simple reason that more often than not our opinions are labelled as such. We defend hate speech because we defend free speech. The idea we would ever twist the First Amendment to punish someone is ridiculous, right?
In fact, the only thing your mouth is good for is being Vladimir Putin’s cock holster. – Stephen Colbert
What do you do? Admittedly it would be quite a thrill to see Colbert fall victim to the very same machinations used against Conservatives. Who wouldn’t want to see him lose everything? Before you answer, ask yourself the following: Would Colbert’s absolute ruin be worth sacrificing the 1st Amendment?
There is no “BUT”, there is no “exception”. Supporting #FireColbert is EXACTLY the same as supporting Gavin McInnes’ ouster at Rooster. There is no material difference. The ONLY difference is your opinion, your emotional attachment. Those who object to this line of reasoning are thinking one or both of the following:
- Fight fire with fire! Turnabout is fair play!
- Gavin is “our guy”, Colbert is not.
The 1st Amendment, on the other hand, is devoid of human emotion, is morally bankrupt, and it does not take sides. If the 1st Amendment were to organize a cocktail party, the guest list would include Nazis, the KKK, Republicans, Democrats, Communists, BLM, BAMN, and even NAMBLA. I can say with certainty that many of these groups garner nothing short of visceral disgust from you, the reader. How can we fight them? How can we win? The answer is simple: We fight fire with fire. We use the 1st Amendment in all of its glory to engage in arguments, debates, thought provoking essays, and so on. To create an exception clause because someone you support was insulted dismantles the entire purpose of the 1st Amendment.
An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind. – Gandhi
Some of you are still in disagreement. I can tell. This is where we take the “high road”. If we don’t, we will create an endless loop of censorship. Us using censorship will always serve as an excuse for Liberals to use it and then Liberals using censorship will always serve as an excuse for us to use it.
Disappointed? Don’t fret! Taking the high-road has its perks when your opposition is the Regressive Left. Whether it be Colbert, Al Franken, ANTIFA, Pelosi, or Schumer, they do more harm to their own party than we could ever hope to do when allowed to speak freely. Moderates and those left of center may not listen to us, but they will listen to their peers. Let their peers be offensive and uneducated. Let them be fools. When wielded by the foolhardy, the 1st Amendment is truly a double-edged sword.
Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake. – Napoleon Bonaparte
Allowing speech to flow freely will always favor those who are right. Stifling free speech in a case such as this gives them a mulligan. It will take time, but we can set a new precedent where we truly are defenders of free speech. In the meantime, let them self cannibalize. When they’re done with one another we will go to war with their bones.