I was proud of how our community reacted to the presentation by Angela Davis (at College of the Canyons). Those of us on the right did not protest, we did not shout her down or exercise a heckler’s veto, or physically attack her. We recognized her First Amendment right to speak. Can anyone on the left say the same about their side of the spectrum concerning the way people with whom they disagree are treated? A federal appellate judge was not allowed to speak by left-wing hecklers and was scolded by a dean of diversity, equity and inclusion at Stanford Law School. Riley Gaines was physically assaulted and held captive when she tried to talk about transgender athletes in women’s sports — just to mention two of the latest incidents.
For a moment, given Mr. Gary Horton’s recent column about working together — I must admit to being confused given his earlier column describing about half the population as people who believe in myths, short for the religious, who reject “facts” and “science” — I had been thinking about writing to see if there were areas where we could actually agree, say, something non-controversial such as parents’ right to control what happens with and to their children, and children being unable to consent.
Then I read his latest gushing column about Davis’ presentation and it became clear to me there are no areas on which we can agree. Davis has been, and is, an avowed communist. She has identified as a Marxist since the fall of the USSR, a distinction without meaningful difference, and guns owned by her were used in an armed assault on a Superior Court that resulted in the death of the judge and three others.
According to The Signal’s report of her comments, she advocated for the distinction between individuality and individualism. As with so much that passes for intelligent thought on the left, this is gibberish. They are the same thing — “the state or quality of being an individual,” and both “concern the interests of the individual as distinguished from the interests of the community.” Marxism, on the other hand, exalts the interest of the community over the interests of the individual, and allows the government to deny the individual of rights, as it deems appropriate.
However, our Constitution recognizes the rights of all individuals in the Bill of Rights, together with the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments, and denies the government — or put another way the “community” — the power to infringe on those rights. We are thus presented with a schism that cannot be bridged. Individuals either have inalienable rights, granted by their Creator, not government, or they do not. Free speech is either free or it is not. There is no hate speech or “misinformation” exception. If there were, the exception would swallow the rule, particularly were the government able to so label speech with which it disagrees. This is also true of the right to practice a religion of our choice, or not.
We used to cherish these rights. We no longer do, or at least a not insignificant portion of the population, including a number of politicians, no longer do.
The left, including its handmaiden news media, have been working to discredit the Supreme Court for several years now. In the latest attack, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has accused Justice Clarence Thomas, the justice the left hates most of all, of violating the law by going on trips provided by a friend who has never had business before the Supreme Court. This is not misinformation, it is patently false, and AOC should know better. It is also slander as a matter of law — accusing someone of a crime — for which she could be sued by Justice Thomas.
He will not, of course. Instead, those of us who believe in free speech will use the method provided thereby — opposing speech to point out that AOC’s assertions are without either factual or legal basis.