The 1st Amendment is extremely dangerous to our democracy. Pretty sure whoever wrote it never intended to excuse insensitive remarks about Sharia law or for it to be weaponized against persyns of non-binary gender.
That’s bullshit. Part of having the right to vote is being able to choose when NOT to vote. You teach American government — you of all people should know this.
Do you honestly not see the problem with telling someone he can only express an opinion if he exercises his voting rights as YOU see fit?
There are plenty of registered Democrats who have vowed to stay home from the polls because they’re disgusted with their party. They’re trying to sending a message, and they have EVERY right to complain.
I managed to leave off “without being lectured by an entitled sneuflake”. But that’s totally how it should have ended.
This same person once had the audacity to suggest that Trump only won in 2016 because the people who voted for him didn’t know any better. 🙄
Response to friend:
You obviously haven’t been spending much time on social media — good for you. The nut jobs are indeed demanding he be criminally investigated, and they’re being fueled by all sorts of re-shares claiming that it’s possible.
I’m a little stunned by your remark about due process — of course there is a need! The “due process” being referred to is the presumption of innocence and the recognition that guilt must be based on evidence alone.
It means he has a right to confront these accusations, and to do so publicly without being told: “Shut up, you’re not allowed to speak!”
It means not forcing the man to “bear witness” against himself, the way the Left is trying to present his anger and tears as evidence that he is mentally unhinged.
It means not convicting a man on the basis of an accusation, when not a single shred of evidence has been presented.
This is absolutely about due process. It a sense, that is the ONLY thing this is about. The Constitution isn’t simply a piece of paper — it represents a set of values one would hope the vast majority of us still believe in, even if we can’t always agree on how they should be applied.
This is essentially the same battle going on right now over free speech, only framed in a different light.
Some people think the free exchange of ideas is a good thing, regardless of the merit of the particular ideas being exchanged. Others believe there should be limits placed upon what is considered acceptable speech, but that such limitations should not come from the government. And others do not believe in free speech at all.
He was flagged by the DNC ! 😱
Back in July, actor James Woods tweeted out an utterly bland meme making fun of soy boys:
Wood is refusing to delete the tweet, citing concerns over the growing number of individuals with non-leftist views who are being censored on social media.
And so @RealJamesWoods remains locked, because Twitter isn’t about to delete it for him.
Yes, it seems that unlike Facebook, Twitter expects users to actively participate in their own censorship. Because Jack Dorsey believes in social responsibility. Also: conditioning.
In Europe, people are afraid to call out Islamic terrorism for fear of being targeted — or otherwise violating some ridiculous “hate speech” law, resulting in fines or even imprisonment.
In America, we’re afraid to call out Islamic terrorism for fear of being labeled “racist”.
The verdict? The terrorists won. And Islamic terrorism is going to keep on winning unless we can agree to speak openly and honestly about it without fear of unwarranted reprisals.
This doesn’t mean we need another round of Team America World Police or any further invasions of our privacy.
What it does mean is not being afraid to identify the motives of people who have dedicated themselves to the destruction of an entire civilization. It means recognizing religious extremism for what it is rather than drawing from an arsenal of ad hominems, red herrings, and false equivocations whenever someone proves bold enough to raise the subject.
It means recognizing that while Christians have indeed been responsible for some of the worst atrocities in human history — and Hindu extremists seem poised to slaughter Muslims over every little religious beef (lol plz) — the predominant form of religious terrorism the world faces today is Islamic.
It also means recognizing that condemning radical Islam does not make one Islamophobic. (Nor a racist, seeing how we’ve managed to extend the concept of race further than any other society in human history.)
Why aren’t we as willing to identify acts of Islamic terrorism as we are so-called “hate crimes”? Is it somehow more acceptable to despise an entire civilization, rather than an ethnicity or skin color?
If so, would it not follow that the man who kills a stranger over the color of his skin is somehow LESS guilty than the man who kills over a personal grudge?
Facts may be swept under the rug to keep our Safe Spaces looking pristine, but Reality has a way of creeping up behind us. And sooner or later, Reality will sweep the rug right out from under our feet.
To those who seek to hold Western Civilization responsible for Islamic terrorism:
Can you imagine blaming the Jews for the Holocaust?
Can you imagine blaming the slaves for the bloodiest war in our nation’s history?
Was the rape victim “asking for it” because of the manner in which she dressed?
If you answered ‘no’ to all three questions, then you likely hail from a modern, liberal society — be you from the East or the West. For this very reason, there are people who would like to see you dead.
We need to stop whitewashing the past and present for fear of offending Muslims — most of whom don’t have a goddamned thing to do with terrorism anyway.
And to anyone looking to blame the Western world for the overall violence in the Middle East: I encourage you to open a history book, because the Middle East has been a hotbed of violence since the dawn of civilization. It predates Israel, it predates America — it even predates Islam.