Suppressing Free Speech

 By Gretchen Garrity

"Students who live under a regime of censorship are being taught that freedom of speech and government accountability are disposable values that must give way to 'making the school look good.' The lessons these students learn about the First Amendment--lessons they will carry with them into their adult lives--are that people with power get to control what is said about them, and that viewpoints should be suppressed by the government if they challenge prevailing beliefs. This is not only bad preparation for journalism, it is bad preparation for citizenship."

 In the first chapter of the reference tool, "Law of the Student Press," the editors write about censorship. Their focus is high schools and colleges, but their words apply to the larger world, where censorship is alive and well on social media platforms.

While we tend to think censorship and suppression of free speech is something Google, Mark Zuckerberg and the old Twitter indulges in, the culture of censorship has trickled down to local platforms and activists who routinely suppress and delete articles and writers they find objectionable.

Often, there is back channel chatter that attempts to demean and discredit individuals who say or publish uncomfortable truths. Even elected officials indulge in this behavior. Instead of engaging the public in a spirited debate, or pointing out errors, these individuals subvert free speech in a stealthy background campaign to censor points of view with which they disagree or find inconvenient, and to discourage others from engaging in public discourse.

It points to the larger issue in the Republican Party right now. What is a conservative? What does it mean to be a Republican? What are the values of the individuals who make up the Party? How do those values, or lack of them, affect what happens on the local, state, and national level?

In a 1988 decision that was devastating to the free speech rights of students, the United States Supreme Court ruled that students at a St. Louis, MO high school did not have the right to publish articles the school administration deemed unacceptable. You can read about the ruling HERE.

The editors of the Law of the Student Press had this to say in reference to the ruling:

"A generation's worth of legalized Hazelwood censorship has damaged the learning environment in schools, discouraged young people from meaningfully engaging in civic life, and obstructed the public's access to truthful information. As the director of the University of Arizona's journalism program told a law-school symposium reflecting on the legacy of Hazelwood, 'We are raising a nation of sheep. I don't think it's extreme to say that we risk democracy."

Meanwhile, writers are being called extremist around the state of Missouri and in Christian County. David Rice interviewed Gail Griswold and myself the other day. Judge for yourself who the extremists are:

Censorship within Conservative Grassroots by David Rice

How do Conservative Journalists survive censorship and cancel culture within the conservative movement? I ask Gail Griswold, Local Control, and Gretchen Garrity, Right2WinOzarks. We also laugh a lot.

Read on Substack

American History of Freedom of the Press

 

From: Helpful Professor

 

From a timely article from Colonial Williamsburg.

"Here is a list of the States and how the law was written in their Constitutions or Bill of Rights going from north to south:

1. A Declaration of the Rights of the Inhabitants of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. - June 15, 1780: XVI.--The liberty of the press is essential to the security of freedom in a state: it ought not, therefore, to be restrained in this Commonwealth.
2. A Declaration of the Rights of the Inhabitants of the Commonwealth or State of Pennsylvania - September 28, 1776: XII. That the people have a right to freedom of speech, and of writing, and publishing their sentiments; therefore the freedom of the press ought not to be restrained.
3. A Declaration of Rights, and the Constitution and Form of Government agreed to by the Delegates of Maryland, in Free and Full Convention Assembled. - November 11, 1776: XXXVIII. That the liberty of the press ought to be inviolably preserved.
4. Virginia Declaration of Rights – June 12, 1776: XII That the freedom of the press is one of the greatest bulwarks of liberty and can never be restrained but by despotic governments.
5. North Carolina, A Declaration of Rights, &c. - December 18, 1776: XV. That the freedom of the press is one of the great bulwarks of liberty, and therefore ought never to be restrained.
6. An Act for Establishing the Constitution of the State of South Carolina. - March 19, 1778: XLIII. That the liberty of the press be inviolably preserved.
7. Constitution of Georgia; February 5, 1777: ART. LXI. Freedom of the press and trial by jury to remain inviolate forever.
8. A Declaration of the Rights of the Inhabitants of the State of Vermont – July 8, 1777: XIV. That the people have a right to freedom of speech, and of writing and publishing their sentiments; therefore, the freedom of the press ought not be restrained. (Vermont was not yet a state yet, but saw fit to set up a Declaration of Rights)"

 

Giving up free speech

 

 

                        ________________________________________________________

“If all printers were determined not to print anything till they were sure it would offend nobody, there would be very little printed.” -- Benjamin Franklin

              ________________________________________________________

Americans have sewn their own mouths shut--first through accepting that it was not politically correct to say certain things. Next, through assenting to the idea that some speech is hateful, and therefore should not be aired. Then it was discovered that oligarch tech giants and their government partners had the "right" to censor what they found politically unpleasant.

As a natural consequence we have local Facebook community pages that allow only one side of an issue to be shared, politicians who feel free to chastise constituents if they have the gall to disagree with a vote, and self-appointed locals who take to task anyone who has the temerity to publicly criticize our dear leaders in the Church and in Government.

Americans, having lost the valuable trait of being able to vigorously debate ideas, will you now go quietly as our Congress seeks to make it a crime to quote the New Testament? What a terrible pity we are doing it to ourselves. Here a little, there a little we give up our God-blessed rights and think we have done the Lord's work.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

“In those wretched countries where a man cannot call his tongue his own, he can scarce call anything his own. Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech; a thing terrible to publick traytors.”-- Benjamin Franklin

_____________________________________________________________________________________