Anarcho-Lobbyist vs. Free Speech?

Free Speech. Are you in favor of it? I bet you are. In fact, I am willing to bet that even if you despise freedom of speech and would allow any level of government suppression of free speech, you would still instinctively say “Of course I’m in favor of free speech!”

Anarcho-Lobbyist vs. Free Speech?

Anarcho-Lobbyist vs. Free Speech?

That’s of course what we have going on with the left in perpetuity. Long gone are the days of “I disagree with what you say but I would fight to the death for your right to say it!” We instead live in a time where a few people actually support free speech, while other groups pander to the notion while presenting a litany of exceptions to that rule, such as “hate speech”.

A bill sits before the House Education Committee in New Hampshire, to protect freedom of expression on the campuses of state universities and community colleges. It would make the punishment or regulation of speech based on content thereof, legally actionable in court. This seems like a fine step in the right direction, but I have come to a radically different conclusion on the real solution to the problem.

The government should suppress the left. State universities and community colleges are government institutions which we the taxpayers, and really anyone who spends federal reserve notes are forced to subsidize. We should not be compelled to subsidize the spread of communism, or ridiculous ideas like “rape culture”. We have universities pumping out a generation of students who can’t tell the difference between Halloween and racism, or rape and a hangover. It has to be stopped, by any means necessary.

Leftists wield the weapon of the State against all sane and decent people. Sane and decent people then refrain from using that weapon against the left. We have no right to act surprised when the only people benefiting from that arrangement are violent, reality detached left wing fanatics.

So I told the House Education Committee that they should suppress the left. You can just imagine the outrage. Suggest that people should be punished for sexism, racism, or homophobia, and you’ll be met with a spectrum of responses ranging from “I agree” to “I’m not entirely sure that’s the best way to handle this problem”. Suggest that those who want to suppress free speech in this manner should themselves be suppressed, and you will be looked upon as the worst type of villain.

Check out the video of my testimony below, and stay tuned for more in this series. I already have video of me testifying on license plate scanners, planned parenthood, and a heroin user registry. And that’s just in one day! There is lots more of this to come.


This production is made possible by donors like you, you can also help by shopping through my Amazon affiliate link. Without that support, this site will cease to exist.

Subscribe via email and never miss another post!

  • Gil O’Teen

    People like you who are well spoken and do IRL activism are the alternative right’s greatest assets. Thank you sir! I’ll be donating again soon.

  • Richard Chiu

    I’ve mentioned this before, but you would be better served by making the case that state subsidies for Marxist speech are effectively an unconstitutional suppression of non-Marxist speech.

    We can talk about suppressing the Marxists after we’ve ended everything that could be reasonably identified as anti-competitive subsidy of Marxism.

    • Libertymike

      Good point Richard. The state’s subsidizing of Marxist speech is, effectively, a suppression of speech antithetical to Marxism.

  • paendragon

    “Progressive” criminals pretend to hold submissive masochism as the highest virtue (for their victims to hold, not them) and the ultimate crime to be causing offense and hurting other people’s (criminal’s) feelings, (i.e: by accusing them of their crimes).

    So they want to make it illegal to accuse criminals of their crimes, since that might hurt their feelings and in offending them with the often-painful truth, “make” them commit even more crimes!

    Is there anything which really ought to qualify as hate speech and be banned?

    NO – not because it’s “hateful” (because that sort of nonsense is only making subjective assessments based on emotions;) and “HATE” is really only the perfectly natural human response of perpetual anger towards ongoing crimes (like islam); without ‘hate’ we would never bother to accuse criminals of their crimes in order to stop those crimes.

    Unreasonable false displays of hatred and anger on the other hand, are what the Left is good at – but that’s already illegal, not because of the anger displayed, that’s just the packaging, but because it’s fraudulent slander.

    Such criminal leftists who try to make “hate” into a crime, only ever make it ‘illegal’ to hate crime itself!

    Speech which is already disallowed is incitement of immediate violence and death-threats… and even those aren’t illegal, if say they call for the police to use violence to counter ongoing mob violence and looting, or call for the death-penalty for murderers!