THE DEADLY CONSTRICTION OF THOUGHT AND SPEECH

When reason fails to argue in your favor, there is always coercion. In The Silencing: How the Left is Killing Free Speech, liberal democrat, Kirsten Powers, writes about the Left's methods:

• The illiberal left yearns for a world sanitized of information that offends them. So why not just tune out the views they don’t like? They can’t. They are authoritarians at heart; they know what Americans should think and what information they should consume. So they launch petitions to have particular views censored from newspapers. They try to get columnists fired for expressing the wrong views. The illiberal left has maniacally maneuvered to delegitimize the Fox News Channel, unable to abide the existence of one news network critical of the president. High- ranking White House officials were the face of this effort, telling anyone who would listen that Fox News was “not really a news station” and not “legitimate.” These top government officials were joined in their illiberal campaign by the progressive nonprofit Media Matters for America (MMFA), which enjoys the support of some of the Democratic Party’s top donors. 12 At one point, Media Matters’ CEO David Brock told Politico that the organization’s ninety- person staff and $10 million annual budget was dedicated to the purpose of waging “guerrilla warfare and sabotage” 13 against Fox News. A leaked MMFA memo for liberal donors detailed a strategy to destroy Fox that included plans to assemble opposition research on Fox News employees.

• The illiberal left hunts down heretics, dissidents, and run- of- the mill dissenters to not only silence them, but make examples of them for the rest of society. Dissent from liberal orthodoxy is cast as racism, misogyny, bigotry, phobia... Those who oppose same- sex marriage don’t have rational, traditional views about marriage that deserve respect or debate; they are bigots and homophobes. When conservatives opposed the Affordable Care Act’s “contraception mandate” it wasn’t due to a differing philosophy about the role of government. No, they were waging a “War on Women.”

Why does Powers term them "illiberal?"

• The illiberal left, on the other hand, believes that people who express ideological, philosophical, or political views that don’t line up with their preferences should be completely silenced. Instead of using persuasion and rhetoric to make a positive case for their causes and views, they work to delegitimize the person making the argument through character assassination, demonization, and dehumanizing tactics. These are the self- appointed overlords— activists, university administrators, journalists, and politicians— who have determined what views are acceptable to express. So, shut up— or else.

Sadly, these Leftists aren't a fringe element. According to Powers, they have great latitude to shape young, idealistic, but naive minds:

• On campuses there are speech codes, so- called “free speech zones,” and a host of “anti- discrimination” policies that discriminate against people who dissent from lefty groupthink. Christian and conservative groups have been denied official university status by student government organizations for holding views not in line with liberal dogma.

We might think that the universities and media have a vested interest in upholding the freedom of speech for all. However, myopically, they are convinced that, by depriving a voice to some, their voice will remain unbridled. 

This is what the proletariat masses, who met Lenin upon his return to Russia in 1917 with enthusiastic cries of "Power to the people; Power to the Soviets" thought. They had been promised that they would be in control and not the Tzars. However, Lenin had other ideas:

• One of the first moves of Lenin’s government was to ban all opposition press. When asked about freedom of speech Lenin answered: “Freedom of speech?! We are not going to commit suicide.” (Russiapedia) 

Powers is certainly not alone in her analysis:

• “This tainting and ostracism of sinners is the secret power of the leftist faith,” wrote David Horowitz in Progressives, Volume II of The Black Book of the American Left. “It is what keeps the faithful in line.” It is “part of a ritual that has become familiar over generations of the left, in which dissidents are excommunicated and consigned to various Siberias for their political deviance. It is a phenomenon normal to religious cults, where purity of heart is maintained through avoiding contact with the unclean.” 

The reaction to Powers’ book by her fellow liberal leftists was predictable. Breitbart reports:

• Powers, a lifelong liberal and supporter of gay marriage, has suffered an avalanche of abuse from her side. She’s called a “bigot,” “homophobe,” “f-ckface,” and more. It is a classic Leftist tactic – take something the person did or said, lie about it, make it into a huge deal, and use it to discredit them. It is also a Leftist tradition to bury any independent thinkers on their side the moment they express disagreement.

How is it that the Left is able to get away with libel? There is little accountability from the media and the universities. Either these institutions are thug-sympathizers or they are afraid to stand up against the thugs. At best, they compromise their integrity and fail the public trust.

Huffington Press, LZ, the Colorado Shooting, Libel, and a Destroyed Reputation

LZ Granderson, who writes a weekly column for CNN.com, was named journalist of the year by the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association. In light of the way that he presents Christians, this is not surprising. Granderson writes:

• For all of the rhetoric about Christianity being under attack in this country, oftentimes it feels no one does a better job of hurting Christianity than the people who call themselves Christians.

According to Granderson, even if Christians are under attack, it’s all our fault – a classic case of let’s-blame-the-victim!

Even though I found this statement quite offensive from the get-go – but it’s certainly not offensive to those looking for more ammo against Christians – I decided to read on:

• For example, after the September 11 terror attacks, Jerry Falwell blamed the ACLU, as well as feminists, gays and lesbians, for lifting God's veil of protection.

I was feeling a little better. If he had to resort to an 11-year-old case to bring home his point, it shows that Granderson really had to stretch. He then appealed to the off-the-mark words of Pastor John Hagee and Pat Robertson to make the case that Christians deserve the abuse they receive.

Then, Granderson brought his “evidence” into present time with the Colorado shooting:

• And just this weekend, as the nation is trying to heal from the theater shootings in Aurora, Colorado, Jerry Newcombe, a spokesman for the evangelical group Truth in Action, took time out of his day to inform mourners that some of their loved ones were going to hell.

Hm? That sounded strange to me. Not that this type of thing has never been expressed by a professing Christian – Fred Phelps comes to mind – but I was surprised to hear that Jerry Newcombe had informed “mourners that some of their loved ones were going to hell.” However, if “the journalist of the year” had said it, it must be true, right?

Fortunately, my perplexity was put to rest by another article – one written by Newcombe’s brother, Rick, founder of Creators, a worldwide media company that syndicates hundreds of columnists and cartoonists. And he doesn’t even share Newcombe’s beliefs. In “A Misleading Story on The Huffington Post,” Rick writes:

• Several weeks ago he [Jerry] wrote a column about hell, saying that, in his opinion, too many people don't fear it. On the morning of the tragic shooting in Colorado, he retold the same basic column, saying that we had lost fear of hell as a society and that’s part of the reason such evil things happen. In the new column, he wrote, “Tens of millions of young people in this culture seem to have no fear of God. It’s becoming too commonplace that some frustrated person will go on a killing spree of random people. If they kill themselves, they think it’s all over. But that’s like going from the frying pan into the fire. Where is the fear of God in our society? I don’t think people would do those sorts of things if they truly understood the reality of Hell.” 

Of course, any talk about hell or eternal consequences is offensive to many. However, others have understandably noted the connection between the awareness of these consequences and how this has restrained their conduct. Without this restraint, the mass murders committed by the Communists and National Socialists are easier to understand.

However, even if talk of hell might be offensive, informing the Colorado “mourners that some of their loved ones were going to hell” is entirely another matter. From where did Granderson obtain this tasty piece of gossip? Rick Newcombe explains:

• After the column was posted, Jerry was then interviewed by a Christian radio network (AFA out of Mississippi) on the morning of the shooting…The Huffington Post used words from Jerry taken out of context from that radio interview, as if he were talking specifically about the victims of the Colorado massacre. He never made any comment, nor would he, about the state of those who were killed; he even noted this week how some of the victims showed “Christ-like behavior in shielding other victims.”  However, he did say of the alleged shooter: "The next time someone wants to take out their frustrations on others by killing innocent victims, they ought to consider the eternal consequences of their evil actions." On the Monday after the shootings, The Huffington Post ran this headline: "Jerry Newcombe, Evangelical Leader, Says Only Christian Victims Of Colorado Shooting Going To Heaven."

Well, couldn’t this misunderstanding – this libel - be easily cleared up? Rick writes:

• Jerry immediately contacted The Huffington Post and complained that he never discussed the victims of the shooting; they refused to take the column down or run a correction.

However, a juicy story is more appealing than making apologies and doing retractions:

• More than 7,000 readers made comments, mostly condemning Jerry, kicking The Huffington Posts' straw man over and over… Many experienced journalists have warned that, with the decline of newspapers, there are fewer safeguards to make sure that the public is presented accurate information. The Huffington Post, in this instance, violated every principle of basic journalism by claiming that Jerry was talking about the victims of the Colorado shooting, when he was not, and by refusing to correct the error after it was pointed out to them.

Evidently, Granderson happily lifted his dirt from the Huffington Post. Was he aware of the controversy? Who knows? When the media is the information gatekeeper, it is hard to get a word in edgewise, and perhaps Granderson hadn’t been privy to Newcombe’s word of protest. But why bother checking out the facts, even if they sound highly suspect, when you know that your story is going to cater to popular marketplace tastes, and perhaps even win another award.

Meanwhile, a man’s reputation is destroyed, but he’s just a bigoted “fundy” anyway. He brought it all on himself, just as Granderson alleges.