Free Speech - Rights and Responsibilities

During the writing of the U. S. Constitution, there was considerable debate involving civil rights. Some wanted certain civil rights to be included in the Articles of the Constitution. Others were concerned that naming specific rights in the Articles of the Constitution might lead people to believe that their rights were limited to only those listed. Still others believed that no rights should be listed, but that everyone should naturally enjoy any freedom that did not specifically violate either the Constitution or statutory law. These are all reasonable arguments. In the end, no rights were included in the Articles, but certain rights were later added as amendments.

It is safe to say, and I believe most would agree, that with rights come responsibilities. For instance, the second amendment recognizes each citizen’s right to bear arms. However, with that right comes the responsibility to treat weaponry with respect. One cannot abuse this right by using any weapon in a way that interferes with the rights and safety of others. Similarly, the fourth amendment protects individuals from “unreasonable searches and seizures.” Naturally, it is the individual’s responsibility to give the government no “cause” to search and seize.

In modern America, it is not uncommon to hear citizens expound on their right to free speech, and it can rightfully be argued that this is the fundamental right upon which our freedoms rest. There are, of course, those who would like to limit free speech and only allow voices that align with their own socio-political views, but the purpose of this amendment is to specifically protect the kind of speech that someone else despises. That having been said, freedom of speech does not come without its own modicum of responsibility.

The words Nazi, fascist, and Hitler have been bandied about (and I would say abused) so much in recent years that some people apparently believe these words are in limited supply and they must spend their share before the supply runs out. I will also say that these words are primarily used by those on the left side of the political spectrum in America and aimed at individuals like Donald Trump, Stephen Miller, and others who hold politically conservative views. Additionally, it is safe to say that those who so freely spout these words are completely unaware (ignorant, if you will), of their implications. Granted, there are those on the right who are equally guilty of this kind of language, but the right/left frequency could easily be 1/10,000. I would not be surprised if this verbiage is aimed at those on the right at least 1,000 times each day in Facebook posts, speeches, etc. In fact, that may well be a low estimate.

If we seek to find examples of fascism, it is not necessary to go back centuries and revisit ancient kingdoms where a king could have his way with his subjects, ordering the deaths of anyone he chose. We need only look to the previous century where we find two prominent examples. The first was Mussolini, who ruled Italy as a dictator with an iron fist in the early twentieth century. It is estimated that he was directly or indirectly (mostly directly) responsible for the deaths of between 400,000 and 600,000 people during his reign of terror. Of course, that pales in comparison to Adolph Hitler whose regime in the early 1940’s was responsible for far more. We often hear about 6,000,000 Jews who were killed. However, the total number of deaths for which Hitler and his regime were responsible is estimated to be in the 17,000,000 range, including Soviet citizens, non-Jewish Poles, and others.

When the words Hitler, Nazi, and fascist are used to describe an individual, the speaker/writer is not merely saying that the individual seeks some kind of totalitarian government. They are comparing that individual to the likes of Hitler and Mussolini. What they are saying when those terms are used is that the target of their speech not only has the capacity to oversee the deaths of the masses, but that is part of the plan. Naturally, the person voicing the words will deny that they are calling someone a mass murderer. They will claim that they are speaking only of dictatorship. However, it is impossible to deny that every historical example of fascism is characterized by mass murder. When someone identifies Trump with Hitler, they are calling him a mass murderer.

According to evidence, Charlie Kirk was killed because a young man believed he was a fascist. It is highly unlikely that he came to this conclusion purely on his own. It is more likely that he read dozens, if not hundreds of articles where Charlie was depicted as a fascist. That being the case, and realizing that fascists like Mussolini and Hitler were mass murderers, the young man might not only have believed his actions were justified, but that he might even be considered a hero for saving thousands, and perhaps millions of lives.

It is safe to say that political violence has escalated recently, particularly from those on the left, with two attempts on Trump’s life, Charlie’s assassination, and even recent threats aimed at people like Benny Johnson. However, I don’t necessarily view as political activists those who seek to take others’ lives for political reasons. Generally, I believe they are often weak-minded, unstable individuals who are easily influenced to take action based on the volatile language of those around them. Consequently, that unstable person may believe he is saving lives by taking out a political adversary (a fascist). While politicians and others may insist that they detest political violence, they cannot possibly be so dense that they are oblivious to their influence on unbalanced individuals who might turn those words to violence.

Is Donald Trump a fascist? Is he a Nazi? Is he Hitler or Mussolini? That’s how those on the left like to characterize him. However, those are strange names to aim at someone who has, in his first year in office, ended the killing that was taking place in eight different conflicts around the world. It is also a peculiar name to throw out given the tendencies of his accusers.

In America we have an abundance of abortion doctors whose sole purpose is to snuff out innocent life. The work of these doctors is actively supported and whole-heartedly praised by the same individuals who insist that Trump is a fascist (mass murderer). While it has been used sparsely by mindless individuals, the term “baby-killer” is rarely employed to describe those who abort life in the womb even by those who abhor abortion. That is because people like me are fully aware that someone might view that speech as justification for taking the life of one of those doctors. Refusal to use this kind of language is an example of responsible free speech.

Here’s the conundrum. Donald Trump’s goal has been to stop the killing and save lives wherever he can. Trump’s actions can then be weighed against those individuals and their supporters whose primary purpose is to take out perhaps 15,000,000 innocent lives over the next ten years. These observations about the two sides of the coin of life – life-saving (Trump) and life-taking (abortion) – are objectively true. Given these unbiased truths, it is difficult to understand how Trump comes out as the fascist.

There is, of course, what those on the left like to call Trump’s hidden agenda. That agenda can be seen in Trump bringing peace to the Middle East. Oh, wait, that is not something a fascist would do, and that agenda was not hidden. Perhaps that hidden agenda can be seen in Trump’s clandestine attempt to shrink the size and scope of the federal government. No, that does not work since it was not hidden, and a fascist would seek to have a bigger, more intrusive government. That means that his hidden agenda must lie in his attempts to reduce crime in America. That also makes no sense. All we can do, then, is assume that Trump’s hidden agenda has not yet surfaced and surely never will. It makes one wonder what these people will do to justify their hatred of the man when Trump leaves office in 2029 and crime is down, the economy is strong, the government is smaller, and freedom is more secure.

Here’s something to consider for those who insist on declaring daily and boldly that Trump and his allies are fascists. This country has more than its share of unhinged individuals who will take your words to heart. They will believe that, like Hitler, Trump’s plan is to massacre millions of people sometime soon. A few of those individuals may carry that to the ultimate end and someone will be killed. In that case, it is reasonable to say that the weak-minded individual who pulls the trigger is not the only one responsible. The person who treats free speech so recklessly could be considered equally guilty. It could be said that they, too, have their finger on the trigger since that finger is only there due to their influence, obliterating any claim they might like to make that they loathe political violence. It’s not that they are inciting political violence; it’s that they are inviting it.

See below for contact information

This book will truly enhance your understanding of the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution. Click the button below to check it out.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________