The First Amendment. Some may call it a run-on sentence. I view it as very good glimpse into what this country stands for and an indicator of what the framers of our Constitution experienced elsewhere in the world that led to what is now The United States of America.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
It’s concise and gets right to the point, but leaves much to interpretation. Lawsuits have been filed and courts have ruled on first amendment issues. I’m no legal expert or constitutional scholar, but I have a few things I’d like to say on some first amendment issues that have come up in recent years. Everybody gets all upset and there’s wall-to-wall news coverage about whether somebody should have to bake a cake for somebody, who can go int which restrooms, whether NFL players should kneel during the national anthem, etc.
Then there are other issues that the mainstream media loves to either ignore almost entirely or cover for weeks on end – riots. In recent years, there has been extended coverage of riots in Ferguson, Missouri in August 2014 and Charlotte, NC in September 2016 after a citizen was killed by police and the situations were charged with allegations of racism. Watching these events reminded me of things I vaguely remember from growing up in the 1960’s and 1970’s and many events from the Civil Rights movement that I’m too young to remember.
I could write about whether or not the news coverage was slanted in this direction or that direction, but I think that’s a mute point. These days, all news coverage is slanted on one direction or another. You are watching narratives designed to lead you to form opinions as part of your belief system. It’s up to you resist this brainwashing, for the lack of a more correct term for it.
Slanted or not, extensive news coverage of these events was warranted and many important discussions were had as a result. These discussions led people with all different opinions to exercise their right to free speech. Most of it was constructive, some of it was destructive and revealed the ugly face of racism, hatred, and bigotry.
These things have returned to our daily lives over the past decade or two. They were never gone, I believe they were suppressed because they have not been dealt with and maybe can’t truly be dealt with in a way that will remove them from the planet. There are still people full of hate and ideologies designed to divide us into groups and get those groups to fight with each other. Sadly, this may never end.
None of that is why I am writing this post. I want to talk about the entire reason this website exists, the suppression of free speech. There is a reason the website is called RemainSilent.Online and the associated Twitter account is @RemainSilentNO.
I have seen other riots in recent year that were covered very differently and this is the problem I want to address. If you rely on the mainstream media, you will remember these events as protests or peaceful protests, but if you look objectively at the facts, you will arrive at the conclusion that these were riots designed to infringe on free speech. The best example is the UC Berkeley riots in February 2017.
To their credit, the mainstream media reported the UC Berkeley riots as riots and as protests that broke out into violence at the time they were occurring. To their discredit, they didn’t spend much time on that coverage. Not nearly as much time as the race riots mentioned earlier. These riots weren’t about race. They were about free speech. The riots themselves actively suppressed free speech.
We could argue about whether race or the suppression of free speech deserves more coverage until the end of time. I submit to you that they are simply both important enough that if one deserves wall-to-wall coverage, so does the other. In both cases, the story comes and goes and racism and fascism continue their assault on our republic and it’s not being discussed nearly enough.
The mainstream media contributed to the suppression of free speech by suppressing these news stories. They covered the events in short bursts and they didn’t show the most violent videos or burning buildings and people being bloodied in attacks of bigotry by Antifa. Seriously, if you believe in the freedom of speech and the freedom of the press, what better time to exercise that right?
People being attacked with bike locks. Burning buildings. Because of words you don’t like? No. It’s even worse than that. Violence was used to prevent the words from being spoken. They decided ahead of time that someone who they disagree with shouldn’t be allowed to express his beliefs, that his right to free speech mean nothing, and that preemptive violence was the answer. In America. At a university known historically and celebrated as the haven of free speech.
Police officers stood by and watched because they were ordered to stand down. Don’t believe me. Look it up yourself. You won’t find it on the mainstream media. If you want the truth, you have to go get it. Nobody is going to shove it in your face. That’s the world you live in now. You’ve been told. Now you know. You’re welcome.
The media, whose freedom if the press is protected in the very same First Amendment that supposedly protects the free speech of the ideas Milo Yiannopoulos was going to express. By providing small amounts of coverage (when compared to coverage of other less newsworthy items), the media suppressed the coverage of the suppression of free speech. So, along with the police, the media stood down. Interesting? I wonder why.
I hope this makes you wonder how honest the media is and why they spend more time on news that fits an ideological narrative instead of news that is based on unbiased fact.
RS
RemainSilent.Online 