Many civil libertarians argued against passing “hate speech” laws because when you start saying that some speech isn’t protected by the First Amendment, that means someone gets to decide what that banned speech is, and that’s a slippery slope toward partisan censorship. For instance, here’s a story about a former Congressman and the President of the American Jewish Congress arguing that the government should use hate crimes laws to ban entire social media platforms or political campaigns that are determined (by whom? Them?) to be promoting “extremism.”

https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/free-speech/autumn-johnson/2021/06/20/no-thanks-former-rep-argues-hate-speech-should-be

Ironically, that claim is so extreme that even Twitter’s lawyers slammed it, with other legal experts noting that there are plenty of court precedents that the First Amendment does protect so-called “hate speech.”

Well, we have hate speech laws anyway, and now, the slope for what’s “allowable speech” has become slipperier than a water slide. But I’ll bet you never saw this one coming: an “analytic philosopher” and a lecturer in political theory from Britain’s Sheffield University have written a paper in the Oxford Journal of Legal Studies called “Should We Protect Animals From Hate Speech?”

https://redstate.com/alexparker/2021/06/19/legal-journal-publishes-plea-for-hate-speech-laws-protecting-animals-n399522

Utilizing an impressive barrage of both doubletalk and gobbledygook, the authors compare racist hate speech to “speciesist” hate speech and argue that if hate speech laws can ban hate speech that doesn’t actually hurt anyone, then why not apply the same ban on hateful words that don't wound to hateful words about animals that they can’t understand? Their summation:

“We thus conclude that, absent a compelling alternative argument, there is no in-principle reason to support the censure of racist hate speech but not the censure of speciesist hate speech.”

Granted, it’s not entirely clear whether they’re arguing that we need anti-animal hate speech or that all hate speech laws are as justifiable as banning phrases like “Beat a dead horse.” Another question: would animal hate speech laws also apply to animals? I’ve heard parrots say some pretty hurtful things. Personally, I just hope we never make it illegal to say bad things about cats or I’ll be facing a lot of lawsuits.

Most Texan Action You Will See In The News All Day

By Mike Huckabee

Congratulations to Texas Gov. Greg Abbott for taking the most Texan action you'll see in the news all day.

https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/rick-moran/2021/06/20/gov-abbott-vetoes-funding-for-state-legislature-including-lawmakers-pay-n1455835

Sponsored Advertisement

Watch My Conversation With Charles Mizrahi

Fun and Informative! I use this investment service and you should too!  GO HERE>>>

Leftwing Twitter

By Mike Huckabee

Courtesy of Instapundit and Brian Reidl of the Manhattan Institute, here’s some news that corporate CEOs should ponder long and hard before going “woke” to appease the Twitter mob.

https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/457159/

According to Pew Research, Democrats outnumber Republicans on Twitter by 15 percentage points. If Twitter were a state, that would tie it with Hawaii and Vermont for most liberal state. But it gets worse: only 10% of Twitter users post 92% of all tweets. Among those active users, Democrats outnumber Republicans by 43 percentage points. If Twitter were a Congressional district, that would make it the second-most leftwing district in America.

And 3% of Twitter users post 90% of all tweets, so you can only imagine how far left of most Americans their tweets are.

If you’re a CEO who’s making business decisions based on what people say about you on Twitter, you might as well just run your company by asking yourself, “What would Ilhan Omar do?” And I think we know what she would do: she’d put you into bankruptcy.

What Changed? 

By Mike Huckabee

Seth Barrett Tillman, a law lecturer at the National University of Ireland, dug up an eye-opening Newsweek article from January 18, 2018. Currently, Trump supporters who think the election was rigged are being silenced and vilified as delusional for thinking that the results could be overturned and Trump become President again. I’m not saying that could happen, but this article reminds us that many Democrats had a very different attitude when they thought the Mueller probe might prove that Russia rigged the 2016 election for Trump.

https://twitter.com/SethBTillman/status/1406665439288176644

The article quotes Harvard professor Lawrence Lessig as saying that if it was proven Trump conspired with Russia to steal the election (spoiler alert: it wasn’t, and he didn’t), both he and Mike Pence should resign or be impeached. That would make then-House Speaker Paul Ryan President, and he should nominate Hillary Clinton, "the person defeated by the treason of his own party, and then step aside, and let her become President.”

Lessig admitted that there is no “mechanism for correcting the criminal results of the previous election," and he wasn’t saying this should happen, just that it could.

The important point is that only three years ago, questioning the validity of the previous Presidential election wasn’t treason or insurrection, it was free speech. And fantasizing about the current President being forced to step down and replaced by his former opponent because the election was rigged wasn’t a conspiracy theory so crazy that anyone who even mentioned it had to be censored, monitored and investigated. It was something that Harvard professors openly discussed in mainstream media outlets.

Gee, I wonder what changed in so short a time?