Inside the War to Take Away Our Free Speech
Posted on January 21, 2020 January 26, 2020 by Corey Daniels
Taggedjewish, nationalism
Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter Many Americans are rightfully on guard when it comes to their Second Amendment rights. There is a whole subculture, lobby and multitude of groups dedicated to celebrating firearms, monitoring political attacks on gun rights and fighting against them.
On the other hand, another cherished freedom, the right to express your beliefs, has been totally ceded to Jewish dominated left-wing activist groups, like the ACLU.
Those ignorant of our nation's history, and especially of Zionist mobilizations in the present, live with the comforting lie that free speech is an inviolable right.
Today, the Jewish community in the United States, which has wrongfully earned a reputation for harboring civil libertarian views, has been at war with the very concept of the First Amendment.
Whether it's former CEO of the National Constitution Center Richard Stengel writing opinion pieces calling for hate speech laws, or Jonathan Greenblatt of the Anti-Defamation League calling on Congress to act against "anti-Semitic" opinions on the internet, it's clear that the Jewish community no longer respects this freedom and is working tirelessly to abolish it.
The cultural taboo against questioning the sanctity of the First Amendment have quickly been eroded since the election of Donald Trump. Today, panels discussing calling for limits on free speech are no longer exclusively populated by communist academics or blue-haired "SJWs," but by actual Attorney Generals supposedly tasked with upholding civil liberties, like Josh Shapiro .
The ACLU, which won a free speech absolutist reputation after its army of largely Jewish lawyers defended brownshirt wearing "Nazis" in Skokie, today has abandoned this role and largely refuses to defend comparatively less controversial "hate speech" and political assembly after realizing nationalists are now a serious political force.
Looking at the history of First Amendment cultural and legal battles, the pattern becomes clear: the Jews claiming to be fighting for free speech only did so to create space for unpopular left-liberal movements in the 1960s and 70s. Today, the Jews and the left have been absorbed by the neo-liberal establishment and no longer has any movements challenging the status quo, so they have lost interest in defending the right for citizens to assemble to try and effect social change, which has been disastrous for today's dissidents since all advocacy groups are in their hands.
Don't Assume Anything About Your Rights
Whitney v. California , decided in 1927, is seen by some as one of the most important contemporary affirmations of the right to belong to dissident political organizations and contribute to the marketplace of ideas.
Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis ruled with the majority in overturning the prosecution of Anita Whitney, who had founded a communist organization labeled a criminal syndicate in California, much to the chagrin of Herbert Hoover. Brandeis, a Zionist activist, made this decision at a time when the distinctions between Zionism and the heavily Jewish communist movement were not so cut-and-dry.
In his opinion, the Jewish justice Louis Brandeis wrote passionately about the moral importance of the free exchange of ideas in a liberal democracy, winning him the reputation as a Jewish pioneer of civil liberties. He was one of the first judges to promote the idea that open debate allows good to triumph over evil.
But Brandeis' reputation as a lover of free speech and ideological diversity is brought into question when looking at a later ruling by another Jewish Justice, Felix Frankfurter, who Brandeis closely mentored and for years used as a personal mouthpiece.
In 1952, Frankfurter established one of the first precedents for European-style "hate speech" laws in American history.
The case of Beauharnais v. Illinois was remarkably similar to Whitney v. California . A man in Chicago posted leaflets in his city bringing attention to black crime, and called on whites to join his political advocacy movement. The materials did not express any violent sentiments.
Frankfurter, authoring the opinion in the 5-4 ruling upholding Beauharnais' conviction under Illinois hate speech statutes, declared that Beauharnais was guilty of "group-libel" against blacks by referring to their role in the increased crime rate, and that libel was not protected by the First Amendment.
"Hate speech" laws in Europe are premised on this same assertion, that generalizations about groups constitute "libel" and can thus be prosecuted.
What is most disturbing about Beauharnais v. Illinois is that the Supreme Court has yet to overturn it.
The closest precedent some legal scholars cite as overruling it was New York Times v. Sullivan in 1964, where it is claimed that SCOTUS found in favor of free speech above libel law.
But here too, we find that the political nature of the dispute may have played a greater role than the principle of free speech itself.
In the case, the Jewish controlled New York Times ran an advertisement from of a pro-Martin Luther King organization making outlandish and slanderous claims against the police in Montgomery, Alabama. A recent article by the Los Angeles Review of Books meticulously documents how Jews were in charge of every nook and cranny of the "civil rights movement" as well.
L.B. Sullivan, the Montgomery Public Safety Commissioner, decided to take them to court to clear his police department's name. It was broadly accepted that many of the claims in the ad were false and he won his case in the Alabama state court, but upon later Supreme Court challenge it found that libel statutes did not apply to the white policemen because they could not prove "malice" in the printing of said lies.
Today, the free speech law and the political conditions of their application remains opaque. While this author believes conservative anti-environmentalism is absurd, the Supreme Court's refusal to clarify the National Review 's right to give a subjective opinion in the Mann v. National Review defamation case last November suggests our higher courts don't find our First Amendment to be as sacred as we once assumed.
In this case, a college professor is suing the National Review for libel over an opinion piece questioning his data on global warming. The National Review has so far spent millions of dollars defending itself over multiple years, […]
Read more at www.unz.com
Corey Daniels
Journalists and Canadians
In Conversation with Tina Lund from the Nordic Resistance Movement
A New Generation Finds Evil In "Magic: The Gathering"
Martyr Rudolf Hess
How to write to German POLITICAL Prisoners – In jail because of BIG JEWISH LIES!
Welcome young migrants to replace 'dying' Europeans and 'begin a new history,' says archbishop
Are the Jews Playing a Deep Game with the Attacks on Kavanaugh?
No One Believes The Biden Lie