The Red Jackal

How the left tries to twist the First Amendment

When people talk about the first amendment, most think it just pertains to freedom of speech but if you look at it, it really encompasses a lot:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof or abridging the freedom of speech, or in the press, or the right of the people to peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Obviously freedom to protest and petition speaks for themselves, but freedom of speech and freedom of religion are either widely misunderstood or twisted by the left to fit an agenda. I will delve into both, but mainly will focus in on freedom of speech.

When you look at religion in the first amendment, what it really means is that the government will not openly endorse one religion over others. This makes sense as America’s creation was founded by people who were persecuted for their religious beliefs so they would not want to inflict the same on others.

But you will hear from the left all the time that there ” is a separation of church and state” but you will not find any mention of this in the constitution. This separation of church and state came from a widely controversial decision (Everson V. Board of Education) opined by liberal justice Hugo Black. Black was a very secular lawyer so his personal beliefs crept into this decision which in the end was 5-4.

The success of western democracies is based on Judeo-Christian beliefs however this has not stopped people to further trying eradicate religion from daily life. Some have even gone so far as to remove “God we trust” on currency or any oath to God when being sworn in as they have an ignorant understanding of God given rights. When we say that we have God given rights, it really does not mean we have an allegiance to God but we are acknowledging that a greater power than man that guarantees our rights. If we said the rights were derived from man, we know that man is flawed and anything created by him is flawed as well.

That is all I have to say about religion, I just wanted to briefly mention it but I want to go into more about free speech and what freedom really means.

Freedom of speech means you can say what you want and you cannot be prosecuted for your beliefs. What it does not mean is that what you say won’t have any consequences: This is what true freedom means. With the recent assassination of Charlie Kirk you have seen many people celebrate not only his death but condone more violence to people with similar views. One example came from a teacher who said he was glad Charlie Kirk was killed and hoped that his wife would be killed so the children could be raised right. There are others who have a hit list of other conservative speakers. Many though have gotten a rough lesson as they found out employers can fire you as they don’t want to be affiliated with an employee who espouses this vitriol. Hundreds of teachers have been fired not realizing that free speech only guarantees not being arrested it does not mean you will face consequences for your actions.

Then we have the Jimmie Kimmel situation last week. Kimmel repeated what looks like the lefts talking points that the shooter was a right wing MAGA zealot. He knew this was a lie as the day prior the Utah AG provided background of the alleged shooter and that this person was aligned with leftist leanings. There was an outcry about it and Kimmel is allowed to say what he believes but the reason he was suspended was a result of threats by advertisers and affiliates about dropping his show. It did not help that the FCC head sort of hinted and looking at other shows but in the end it has to do with money. ABC and other major networks like to trumpet the virtue of what they are doing, but if something is losing money changes will be made. (note- later Kimmel was reinstated)

Even though most of the censorship is from the left, there was an instance recently in which someone on the right violated the most basic tenet of the first amendment that one person will not be prosecuted for their opinion. AG Pam Bondi was/is looking to prosecute an office depot employee who refused to make copies for a Charlie Kirk memorial because of their politics. This employee was fired so they were punished, but in no way should be prosecuted. I like Pam Bondi, but if she pursues this, she should really resign. Never mind the free speech aspect of this, but does the AG of the US really need to prosecute a local office depot employee? It seems like the AG was caught up in the moment of this and was looking to try and show she is trying to do something.

Then you have the real censorship on free speech which is hate speech. Well, it sounds good to block hate speech but what exactly is hate speech? Some would say saying something that is racist or anti-semitic. Well we are all against that right? But then other topics are added to this to include any newly “protected” groups and then hate speech basically includes anything that one person is offended with. But when one says hate speech now, it is basically anything they disagree with. When one hears “hate speech” it tries to render the opponent below them and therefore you no longer need to debate them.

A case in point had to do with hate speech trial in Canada in which author Mark Steyn was prosecuted for an article he published in Maclean’s. Steyn’s hateful comment? He made a comment that was considered anti-Islam but he was actually quoting an Iman. I don’t recall what he said and can’t find it on line but it was to the tune that the west over time will belong to Islam. The lawsuit was started by a radical Imam in Canada who considers any criticism of Islam as hate speech and combined with the kangaroo human rights court of Canada, it was easy to bring this lawsuit to fruition. In the end Steyn triumphed but this should have never seen a light of day as it was just providing an opinion.

I am reminded of Voltaire’s famous quote: “I may disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”.  Just because you don’t agree with what someone is saying, doesn’t mean its hate speech. If you don’t like what one is saying, debate them, don’t go on social media dehumanize someone you don’t agree with. With freedom of religion, we should not prosecute or ban other religions that are outside the main stream but at the same time refute the notion that there is a separation of church and state. The most productive part of human society in the world (Western Civilization) is based on Judeo- Christian values, countries in which the government is the God, are some of the most repressive and corrupt societies in the world.