Home / Culture / Free Speech: A Tale of Trademarks, a Rooster, and a Dangerous Faggot

Free Speech: A Tale of Trademarks, a Rooster, and a Dangerous Faggot

Let’s make sure we understand right up front that the first amendment was designed to protect “hate” speech. That is the point of the first amendment. Speech that is acceptable doesn’t need protecting. There’s no one out there telling people not to say the things that everyone wants to hear, makes them feel warm and fuzzy, or that follow the party line. It’s the speech that people don’t like that needs protected.

Oscar Wilde
“I may not agree with you, but I will defend to the death your right to make an ass of yourself.” ― Oscar Wilde

I think Oscar Wilde said it best, “I may not agree with you, but I will defend to the death your right to make an ass of yourself.”

That’s a wonderful way to think about free speech. It acknowledges that within liberty of speech there can exist disagreement. Perhaps, (and even likely) it’s disagreement that will never be come to terms with. Both sides will probably always disagree. Wilde wasn’t likely to be convinced by the naysayers of his day, as he well proved, but coming to terms with them wasn’t his goal. He wanted the right to say what he wanted and also the right not to be forced to say something he didn’t want. This is why the modern issue of what gender pronoun someone uses matters to me. If someone wants to dress up like a woman, act like a woman, say they are a woman, I don’t think I should be able to stop them. In fact, I don’t want to. I believe that forcing someone degrades me and in their hearts and minds nothing has changed by my force.

Forcing people just creates a lie and everyone who lives by such lies knows they are living a lie. So, live as a woman if that’s what makes you happy. It doesn’t take any of my rights way for you to wear a dress, put on make up, and change your name. However, you have no right to make me say that you are a woman. Not using the gender pronoun someone wants me to use may be considered hateful, and some people out there may be motivated by hate (I’m certainly not) but their right to it is theirs.

It’s not a platitude to say that we should never take the rights away from a person or group today because you may be in the targeted group tomorrow.

There is a slant to hate speech laws (pun intended as always) .

When I first read the headline of the below linked article I reasonably assumed it was going to discuss the Washington Redskins what with them having been so much in the news for their trademark; turns out that the case in question has been brought against the U.S. by a band known as “the Slants” (I’m sure they could rock out, even on a bus). The Slants were denied a trademark for the name based on a 70 year old law that denies trademarks to “offensive” names. I put offensive in quotes because that word is subjective, not objective.

Milo is Dangerous

What is offensive to one, may not be to another. In the case of the word “slant” when used toward Asians it has long been considered a racially demeaning word. The band, being of Asian ancestry, clearly knows this and that was the entire point. They wanted to take the otherwise offensive word and reclaim it. Much in the same way blacks use “nigger” and the way MILO uses “faggot” as in his “Dangerous Faggot Tour”.

Then there is the case of Young Americans for Liberty (YAL) members getting arrested for handing out pocket sized copies of the US constitution.

“Campus security literally showed up to the YAL chapter’s national Fight for Free Speech campaign event and arrested students for peaceably handing out pocket Constitutions,” said Cliff Maloney Jr., president of Young Americans for Liberty

These were students of the school who had a right to be on campus, not trespassers and not someone blocking a walk way. They were simply giving them to those who accepted.

I recently had a conversation with an old friend of mine which you can watch in the video below. He had heard all sorts of ill things and believed them all. I don’t think I convinced him in the end but hopefully he’ll take another look.

Milo is a Brit! How can a Brit be Dangerous?

MILO says a lot of things that I won’t say. He discusses some topics that shock, such as some comments he’s made concerning his lust for black men. He says some pretty harsh things about fat people and uses the F-word, a lot! So when someone says they are offended by him I fully understand that. When someone protests him, I understand that too. What I don’t understand, what I can’t condone, is when people use underhanded techniques to libel him such as posting signs designed to offend as if they were from MILO but they weren’t, or when they block access to his speeches so that those who want to go can’t.

While I fully understand that the first amendment pertains to government and not private censorship there is still an argument to be made for free speech as a general rule. The main purpose of this site is to promote liberty and ideas of liberty. I find myself going back to that often, even when I’m trying to discuss something else. I believe that people have rights and as long as what a person does isn’t infringing on the rights of someone else then they should be allowed to do it. In this case the thing is speaking. Saying things. Talking.

There is no right not to be offended.

It’s that simple. MILO isn’t blocking your path and shouting these things at you. He can only be heard by those who seek him out. That’s a vitally important point to be understood. Everyone who is offended by something he said either read, watched, or listened to him on their own. He’s not kidnapped anyone and forced them to listen. Offense is subjective, slanted toward the bias of the listener and as such should not, cannot, be used as a measuring stick for what can be spoken or written.

The truth of the matter is very clear to me: the little leftists aren’t really offended – they are afraid. What MILO is saying is liberating people from a bondage and oppression created by leftists. They have made a prison of words from which MILO and people like him have the key. That key is an old one. It’s the one you’ve heard about since you were small. Ironically the left teaches it all the time, they just never picture themselves in the role of bully. But that’s the key – stand up to the bully and you take his power away from him. Milo is standing up to the left and the cage of political correctness. One need not like or agree with the things that Milo says to appreciate that simply saying what he says has power in and of itself.

The left is all about power.

Remember that. No matter what it is they use for their excuse the end goal is now and always has been to have power over others. A man like MILO, a man like Trump, a band like the Slants, refuse to be bullied into thinking or saying what is demanded of them. The law in question is not just archaic and subjective but clearly unconstitutional. Beyond that, it fundamentally robs people of the right to portray themselves how they want. The left is all for this when it comes to gender pronouns but don’t offer the same allowances for anyone else.

The Social Justice Warriors take pride in their own prudishness to a degree that no spinster or puritan ever did. They stand firm, signs aloft, and though there may be different words on the signs and different words coming from their mouths they are collective proclaiming, “I won’t say it, I won’t think it, I won’t hear it” and consequently damning themselves to their own orthodoxy.

There’s a person for each time and place in history and right now it seems that person is a Brit, and a faggot. Standing up and saying “no more” is a correcting measure the world very much needs right now.

The banks slant

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court is considering a First Amendment challenge to a law barring the government from registering trademarks that are deemed offensive. The justices hear arguments Wednesday in a dispute involving…

Source: Justices to hear free speech clash over offensive trademarks

Top
%d bloggers like this: