The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewPaul Craig Roberts Archive
Will Censorship Prevail Over the First Amendment?
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

I remember when censorship in America was a limited phenomenon. It applied during war time—“loose lips sink ships.” It applied to pornography. It applied to curse words on the public airwaves and in movies. It applied to violence in movies. There could be violence, but not the level that has become common.

Today censorship is ubiquitous. It is everywhere. In the United States censorship is both imposed from above and flows from the bottom up. Censorship is imposed from above by, for example, TV and print media, Google, Facebook, Twitter, and by laws in 28 states prohibiting criticism and participation in boycotts of Israel and by President Trump’s executive order preventing federal funding of educational institutions that permit criticisms of Israel. Censorship flows from the bottom up by, for example, people of protected races, genders, and sexual preference claiming to be offended.

The ubiquitous censorship that today is characteristic of the United States has shut down comedians. It has shut down criticism of non-whites, homosexuals, transgendered, feminists, and Israel. Official explanations are shielded by labeling skeptics “conspiracy theorists.” The ubiquitous censorship in the United States is an extraordinary development as the US Constitution guarantees freedom of expression and a free press.

We owe journalist Abby Martin appreciation for reminding us of our right to free speech. Abby is suing the state of Georgia, one of 28 states that have violated the Constitutional protection of free speech.

Abby was scheduled to give the keynote speech at a conference at Georgia Southern University. She discovered that in order to speak publicly at a Georgia college she had to sign a pledge of allegiance not to criticize Israel. Her refusal to sign resulted in the conference being cancelled.

Here we have the state of Georgia blocking free speech because it will not support the Israeli position on Palestine. See: https://www.lewrockwell.com/2020/02/no_author/journalist-abby-martin-sues-state-of-georgia-over-law-requiring-pledge-of-allegiance-to-israel/ . Also: https://www.timesofisrael.com/filmmaker-who-wouldnt-sign-georgias-oath-not-to-boycott-israel-sues-us-state/

Think about this for a moment. More than half of the 50 states that comprise the United States have passed laws that are clear violations of the US Constitution. Moreover, these 28 states have imposed censorship in behalf of a foreign country. Americans have gags stuck in their mouths because 28 state governments put the interest of Israel higher than the First Amendment of the US Constitution. When government itself is opposed to free speech, what becomes of democracy and accountable government?

Why would 28 states legislate against the US Constitution? One explanation is that the state governments were bought by the Israel Lobby with money under the table, by promises of political campaign donations, or by threats of financing rival candidates. How else do we explain 28 state governments imposing censorship in behalf of a foreign country?

ORDER IT NOW

Abby Martin is one person who will not stand for it. She has brought a lawsuit that—if the US Supreme Court is still a protector of the First Amendment—will result in the 28 state laws and Trump’s executive order being overturned. The protection of Israel against boycotts parallels state laws passed in the 1950s that prevented Martin Luther King’s movement from boycotting businesses that practiced racial segregation. These laws were overturned by the Supreme Court.

The outcome of Abby Martin’s suit will tell us whether the US Constitution is still a living document.

(Republished from PaulCraigRoberts.org by permission of author or representative)
 
Hide 39 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Anonymous[169] • Disclaimer says:

    Think about this for a moment. More than half of the 50 states that comprise the United States have passed laws that are clear violations of the US Constitution. Moreover, these 28 states have imposed censorship on behalf of a foreign country.

    Amazing, isn’t it? I’m also willing to bet that this is completely unprecedented in the history of the world.

    • Agree: Orville H. Larson
    • Replies: @Richard B
  2. Why don’t I be the first to say it? The supremely comical court will not stand in favor of this lawsuit. Remember, they allowed Bwanacare. A ridiculous decision allowed because Bwana be’d black. Does anyone think the SCC is going to stand in the way of Israel?? Oh yeah and also, Miss Martin might want to keep her head down, and watch for oncoming traffic. Accidents do happen, right?

    • Replies: @Dani
  3. BuelahMan says:

    We’re the JewSA

    • Agree: TimeTraveller
  4. melpol says:

    Most Internet censorship concerns the high volume of hate speech toward Jews. Those advocating knocking off the yarmulkes of religious Jews should not be given madia exposure. Those advocating harm to Jews should be censored. Internet voices advocating mob action against Jews must be prosecuted.Jews are defenseless against mobs who want to do them harm. Internet Jew hated must be silenced. Those on college campuses harassing Jewish students should be expelled. Jew hatred has taken a spin by using the Palestinian problem as a Jew hating shield. Jews must not be set upon by bullies. Let my people go said Moses.

  5. Anonymous[169] • Disclaimer says:
    @melpol

    Let my people go

    Go where? No-one is holding you hostage. It’s your tribe that’s furiously working to imprison and chain goyim free speech.

  6. Rurik says:

    Think about this for a moment. More than half of the 50 states that comprise the United States have passed laws that are clear violations of the US Constitution. Moreover, these 28 states have imposed censorship on behalf of a foreign country.

    And not just any foreign country, but a foreign country that extorts billions of dollars from the US tax slave every year. A foreign country that at the very least, knew 9/11 was going to happen, and didn’t warn Americans, (rather, their agents danced and celebrated the horrific slaughter of thousands of Americans).

    And yet Americans are told it’s verboten to criticize this nation of cowards and liars and murderers.

    Operation Cast Lead, organ harvesting, human trafficking, white phosphorous on civilians, shooting children for target practice, USS Liberty, theft, murder and genocide..

    and yet our treasonous politicians shove our faces in it, and tell us Israel and Jewish supremacy are above our laws.

    As the politicians slurp the shekels out of the slop trough, and betray their oath, their public trust, and any shred of human decency they might have once had.

    God bless Abby Martin, and God speed with her law suit.

    • Agree: Twodees Partain
    • Replies: @Realist
    , @Twodees Partain
  7. Cut the tongue and rule the world.

  8. swamped says:

    “How else do we explain 28 state governments imposing censorship in behalf of a foreign country?
    Abby Martin is one person who will not stand for it”…and Bahia Amawi, John Pluecker, Zachary Abdelhadi, Obinna Dennar, and George Hale were other persons – who won a lawsuit against Texas’s draconic anti-BDS law last spring – who wouldn’t stand for it, either. Esther Koontz – who won a federal court suspension of Kansas’s anti- BDS law two years ago – wouldn’t stand for it. Mikkel Jordahl – who won an injunction against Arizona’s anti-BDS law in ’18 – also wouldn’t stand for it. Courts have sided with individual pliantiffs on free speech (& other) grounds consistently in the few cases where these despicable laws have been challenged. These states have responded however, not by repealing the misbegotten laws entirely but by amending them so they only apply to larger businesses (usually 10 or more employees and/or $100,000+ state contracts) & not to individual contractors like those who so far have appealed. No larger contractor has yet to defy these laws so it isn’t clear what the courts might do then, since the laws are still on the books as amended. But there are still 22 states which don’t have them. An anti-BDS rider was stopped by activists who wouldn’t stand for it in committee in the state Senate in Massachusetts in ’16 & hasn’t been re-tried since. And in MO, WA & MT – where such bills have been defeated in the last couple of years – they wouldn’t stand for it either. In NY, two anti-BDS bills were stopped cold in the legislature by citizens who wouldn’t stand for it; only to have sleazeball Gov. Cuomo issue an anti-BDS executive order (not to be outdone by the president he’s always slamming). And in MD the same trick was used: anti-BDS bills twice defeated in the state legislature but the governor went around those who wouldn’t stand for it with another anti-BDS executive order. Nice to see Martin won’t stand for it also & Georgia’s law will probably have to be revised too, along with the others. Not the first time & won’t be the last but every little bit helps. Yes you can.

    • Agree: Rurik, Jim Christian
  9. Walter Hixson, author of Israel’s Armor, may be on to something when he said at WRMEA:

    “The distortions and deep divisions within this country remind me of the antebellum years in American history. Ominously, it was a time when the political system collapsed. In the year 1858 the nation confronted irreconcilable differences as a result of its long embrace of crimes against humanity…

    “It was true of the United States in 1858 and it is true of Israel-Palestine today. Something, somewhere, somehow, sometime is going to have to give.”

    https://www.irmep.org/

  10. Realist says:
    @Rurik

    God bless Abby Martin, and God speed with her law suit.

    Unfortunately, she will lose.

    • Replies: @Rurik
    , @Franz
  11. Realist says:

    …if the US Supreme Court is still a protector of the First Amendment…

    Sadly, it is not.

  12. @Rurik

    Where’s the gold border for this comment of yours, Rurik? I hope it’s there by the next time I log in.

    • Thanks: Rurik
  13. Speech was never quite as free as First Amendment purists recall it. At the time of the nation’s founding “free speech” was limited by one’s ability to defend that speech in a duel. Recall Alexander Hamilton died from a gunshot would from Aaron Burr inflicted in a duel. President Andrew Jackson was in several duels at least one over disparaging words said about his wife. Virginius Dabney wrote a delightful book entitled “Pistols and Pointed Pens: The Dueling Editors of Old Virginia.” That book recounts tails of newspaper editors repeatedly being forced to defend their free speech with their dueling pistols. What is fair to say is that in the early days of the nation, one was held accountable for his words.

    When media became more “mass media”–newspapers moved to fancy presses, radio emerged and later television–speech was “free” for those people with access to the tools of mass media. The reality was that speech in the public square was edited. Of course any one with a ditto machine could print their tome (this is how the Samizdat press in the old Soviet Union worked). But the dittoed press release or pamphlet was of limited reach.

    In the 1950s we had McCarthy hearings and the government cracked down on communist speech. In the 1960s and 1970s speech was a little freer but we know that the FBI worked to infiltrate “fringe” groups and monitor what they were doing.

    Fast forward to the Internet age and we see Government doing far more to regulate speech with overt rules and we see private corporations that control channels of communication doing the same. The key difference from the time of the nation’s founding is this: you could defend yourself in a duel. You have no defense today against government prosecution or having your Internet access cancelled.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
  14. @swamped

    I ran out of [Thanks]’s, but thanks for this info, Swamped.

  15. @Harry Huntington

    Hold on a minute. What’s the dueling got to do with censorship, Harry? There was no US Government dueling program. There was no organization that prohibited any speech, just arguments over said speech by individuals. This was the way, sometimes, back then, when men cared about their honor. It wasn’t usually a good thing, for somebody, but it has nothing to do with censorship.

    I’d like to read that book about the dueling editors nonetheless, but that’s more of a personal thing that, if one didn’t abide by the honor code, could have been settled by the law, as credible threats to life and limb.

    The closest thing we have now is ghetto blacks shooting other ghetto blacks for dissing them by calling their sisters prostitutes, who very well might be. Of course, they are much too lazy for pistols at dawn, and they hold said pistols sideways out of car windows, so, it’s not quite the same ….

    Uh, when did the US Government crack down on Communist speech? The McCarthy hearings were legit enough, as there were plenty of Commies infested in the US Government. Don’t believe the Lyin’ Press about Joe McCarthy. It was almost 70 years ago, and they figure nobody knows the truth anymore. Some still do, though.

    • Replies: @Harry Huntington
  16. Hey, Paul Craig Roberts, this was another great column. I have nothing to argue with in it, unfortunately, or I would. ;-}

    Keep up the good work, Sir.

    • Agree: Jim Christian
    • Replies: @Jim Christian
  17. Rurik says:
    @Realist

    Unfortunately, she will lose.

    I don’t think so.

    The treasonous rats in state governments don’t think people will notice their treachery. They figure with their constituents trying to survive, and raise their families, they won’t have the time to worry about obscure laws, that sort of sound good to Christians, but don’t have too much real world effect on many people’s lives.

    But once they get to the courts, then too many eyeballs are watching, and these are not just middle class people trying to get on with their lives, but legal experts and Constitutional types, for whom these serial treasons against our Constitutional freedoms are beyond egregious.

    But then when you consider Brown, or Roe, or Obamacare, then yes, it does seem that even our Supreme Court will betray all their principles and oaths, when it comes to abasing themselves before ((Glob)).

    So I guess we’ll have to watch and see..

    • Replies: @Realist
  18. anarchyst says:

    It’s worse than most people realize…
    Monika Schaefer, Ursula Haverbeck, Sylvia Stolz, Ernst Zundel and many others have been imprisoned for their beliefs.
    You see, “holocaustianity ™ ” has been turned into a “religion” in which no dissension or honest, impartial investigation is permitted.
    The above individuals have been imprisoned in maximum-security prisons for merely declaring their “freedom of thought”.
    Monika Schaefer and Ursula Haverbeck, both elderly grandmothers have been imprisoned in maximum-security German prisons for merely questioning “that which shall not be questioned”, the so-called jewish “holocaust ™ “.
    In the case of Sylvia Stolz, she was imprisoned for attempting to introduce evidence into the courts system as part of a proper defense for her client. You see, in the “kangaroo courts” that prosecute “holocaust ™ ” “crimes”, TRUTH cannot be used as a defense if it runs counter to commonly accepted beliefs-even if the commonly accepted beliefs can be proven to be false.
    Ernst Zundel was imprisoned in Canada as well as in Germany for his beliefs. Not only that, his Canadian home was firebombed by jewish criminals; no perpetrators were ever found or prosecuted as jewish interests in the Canadian government were not interested in solving this crime.
    We have gone down the “slippery slope” in the uSA with Trump’s declaration that jews are to be considered to be a “race” and must be covered under “civil-rights (for some)” “protections, as well as the anti-BDS movement to criminalize free thought and expression.
    Criminalizing free thought and expression, once considered abhorrent in the uSA is coming to fruition right here in the uSA.
    When laws have to be passed to criminalize certain “trains of thought”, THAT is PROOF that the holocaust is one bald-faced CON job perpetrated on the world by “you know who”…
    It is long overdue to start the deportations from country 110…

  19. Realist says:
    @Rurik

    I don’t think so.

    You need to read the First Amendment…it only applies to actions taken by the US Congress.

    • Replies: @Rurik
    , @AnonStarter
    , @KenH
  20. Rurik says:
    @Realist

    First Amendment…it only applies to actions taken by the US Congress.

    I’m not a constitutional scholar, but I know what I’d say, if our government said, ‘you’re not allowed to criticize Israel or Jews.

    I’d tell them to fuck off. And if the American people would be any less resolved to speak their minds freely, then they don’t deserve to be free people any more. They deserve their chains.

    I’d only hope I’d be able to leave the ‘land of the free, and home of the brave’, soon enough that I wouldn’t die of dry heaves, puking on my fellow Americans.

    But luckily, I don’t think the American people are that cowardly and pathetic. That they’d bow their heads, and say ‘oh well, the Supreme Court just said free speech is only for congress or the ‘fake news press’, and the rest of us will be punished if we criticize Israel or the Jews.

    I guess we’ll see, but I’m betting on the American people on this one. They’re not that pathetic, at least not yet, anyways.

    • Replies: @Realist
  21. @Achmed E. Newman

    You are correct that there was no government dueling program, but government did not protect speakers by stopping dueling. This is the same with the college campus free speech problem today. Colleges effectively deny first amendment rights by allowing student groups to block speakers on campus. The same problem existed at the nation’s founding: it was called the duel.

    I would concede, however, duels provide an excellent check on libel and slander. We might have a more honest press today if dueling made a come back.

  22. Realist says:
    @Rurik

    I’m not a constitutional scholar, but I know what I’d say, if our government said, ‘you’re not allowed to criticize Israel or Jews.

    I agree…American people should be able to criticize anything they want. Nonetheless the First Amendment only applies to actions of the US Congress.

    But luckily, I don’t think the American people are that cowardly and pathetic.

    Oooh, sure they are. That’s why we are in the mess we’re in. The people, in the states with anti BDS laws and laws against criticizing Israel, need to elect state government that will eliminate those laws…but they don’t and won’t because of their insouciance.

    Remember Trump is an Israel first Deep Stater.

  23. gsjackson says:

    Hmmm, yet another person on this site about a century behind the times. It’s called the incorporation doctrine, and it applies the Bill of Rights to state and local governments. See Gitlow v New York.

    I mean seriously, think about all the hundreds of civil liberties cases that have gathered public attention during your lifetime and been decided under the U.S. Constitution, and see if you can think of just one where the federal government was the defendant, where an “act of Congress” was at issue.

    • Replies: @gsjackson
  24. gsjackson says:
    @gsjackson

    Third time this has happened today. Either I’m neglecting to hit reply to the person I’m writing to, or that function isn’t working all the time. We’ll see what happens with this one. In any case, the above comment is directed to Realist.

  25. If Arab-Americans had monopoly control of media & internet platforms and denied service to Zionists as purveyors of HATE(against Palestinians and Arabs) and to homos as purveyors of degeneracy & obscenity(hate crime against decency), Jews and homos would be up in arms about violation of Freedom of Speech. They would not be saying “It’s a private company and can do as the please.”

    If Palestinian-Americans owned Paypal and denied service to Zionists as hate-mongers against Palestinians, it wouldn’t be tolerated by American elites and politicians.

    All this ‘muh private company’ shtick is just so much BS.

    Btw, if banks are bailed out by ALL tax-payers, why do they have the right to deny service to certain people based on politics, ideology, or creed?

    If banks can deny service to ‘white nationalists’, can ‘white nationalists’ opt out of paying taxes to bail out banks?

    With Jews and globalists, it’s heads they win, tails you lose.

  26. Crazy Horse says: • Website

    Abby Martin has become a true American Heroine and Patriot whereas state governments that write such repressive laws are exposed as TRAITORS.

  27. @Realist

    You need to read the First Amendment…it only applies to actions taken by the US Congress.

    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 applies to Congress making laws that violate the aforementioned stipulations. Congress is responsible for authoring and ratifying federal law, which, according to the Supremacy Clause, supersedes State law, including the flagrantly unconstitutional legislation that is the subject of this lawsuit.

    In every state where anti-BDS legislation has been challenged, the law has been declared unconstitutional and the State legislature has been forced to amend it. It remains to be seen whether or not the legislation will have any teeth remaining once the higher courts pick it apart.

    Ms. Martin is likely to prevail, as have the individual plaintiffs named by swamped in post #9. Still, as swamped also noted, a case with a larger contractor plaintiff is yet to be tried. These initial cases are much like sending up weather balloons, a trial run to determine the climate of the American body politic. Right now, the anti-BDS crew isn’t likely to prevail, but all it takes is another manufactured crisis on the homefront — just as it did with 9/11 and the immediately subsequent passage of the Patriot Act — and we’re that much closer.

    Be wary of coming days and signs of further treachery. May the enemy be foiled, exposed, and deposed.

  28. Franz says:
    @Realist

    God bless Abby Martin, and God speed with her law suit.

    Unfortunately, she will lose.

    I have to agree with Realist.

    Abby Martin, bless her heart, forgot all the losers in 1945, Year Zero.

    We mostly remember the Germans and Japanese, but they were just the fringe. The target was all European Derived people.

    We’ve forgotten because before they tightened the screws, the current regime made a fetish of the Greatest Generation even before the term was coined.

    Now that group is mostly gone. The velvet glove is off, the steel fist is out.

    I hope Abby remains safe, at least.

  29. Richard B says:
    @Anonymous

    I’m also willing to bet that this is completely unprecedented in the history of the world.

    Though it’s true that, in terms of censorship, Italy, to use one example, seemed to be getting it from every possible direction during the first half of the 19th century, you’re point’s still well taken.

    Official explanations are shielded by labeling skeptics “conspiracy theorists.”

    I’ve said it before, but I’ll say it again because it’s worth repeating.

    Who needs a Conspiracy Theory when you have The Unz Review?

    Regarding PCR’s article, just look at how Wiki describes TUR on Ron’s wiki page in this irony-free excerpt.

    The Unz Review, an online publication known, according to the Anti-Defamation League and the US website of The Spectator, for its anti-semitism and Holocaust denial.

    When intelligent people cannot see how self-refuting and therefore self-incriminating their public statements are you know that a ruling orientation has so blinded them they literally cannot think straight.

    From this perspective alone we have a duty to stand up to a hostile elite in control of a propaganda empire that would have made Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot, all drool with envy.

    Especially when one considers the fact that their power is in no way limited to propaganda and censorship.

  30. Dani says:
    @Sweep the Leg

    Sweep the Leg, I’ve been waking up to the ugly reality of truth for maybe 6-7 years now. Early on, after seeing a few videos, I became of the mindset Abby Martin isn’t the hard core grassroots journalist I should choose to patron. What are your thoughts on this? When I first heard of this lawsuit initiated by her, it didn’t sit right with me. The fact it’s getting anything that amounts to considerable attention has me thinking it’s an attempt to set an example for any true grassroots journalists/activists who might be contemplating any such action.

  31. @swamped

    An anti-BDS rider was stopped by activists who wouldn’t stand for it in committee in the state Senate in Massachusetts in ’16 & hasn’t been re-tried since.

    Charlie Baker (full-on dual loyalty Israeli/Irish puppethead) didn’t go the executive order route, unless he did it at 3 AM one fine night. But what’s been done in Massachusetts is that an unofficial protocol has been adopted by schools and Unis that BDS talk in speeches and class will not be tolerated on campus. Everything is previewed and given the go-ahead or not.

    While I applaud PCRs and all else’s enthusiasm, with or without a court case, whether the laws and exec orders are struck down, you can’t stop an unofficial protocol from being executed because all the players are connected and want to keep their jobs. If those armed with a court decision showed up at their door, they’d simply say, “Who, us?”. They simply won’t book speeches at colleges (or anywhere else) not previewed.

    The game will go on and the practical effect remains. Meanwhile, back in Virginia (I grew up in Fairfax, a formerly gun-friendly region), Bloomberg and Soros and all the foundations are dropping big dough on anti-gun measures and they’re taking. Also, here it’s the First Amendment, but it’s also the Second. So they’re fully engaged in the destruction of the two most important amendments of the Constitution (and they’ve already subverted all of our financial regulations in the economy, placed there as protection from them after the Depressions they’ve cause over the decades) and the players are all, at root, dual-loyalty Israel-Firsters.

  32. @Achmed E. Newman

    Ditto here. Achmed.

    Every read the about the game (maybe it was a school assignment?) where you select a President living or dead to have a beer with? There are a few writers and whatnot here I could enjoy the same game with. PCR is definitely Top-Tier. The guy cuts right to the nuts of these issues. Having seen the fortunes of war as experienced by those who put their own boots on the ground, their injuries and disabilities, I especially appreciate Paul’s insistence that these wars aren’t necessary.

    He’s hand-in-hand with General Smedley Butler who foretold the entire 20th Century back in the early Thirties. PCR is similarly laying out the landscape for the rest of THIS century. And good luck getting any of these works out to people of influence who aren’t well and truly bought out, owned-and-operated and prohibited from even reading them.

  33. @melpol

    Let my people go said Moses.

    Careful what you wish for Melpol

  34. KenH says:
    @Realist

    You need to read the First Amendment…it only applies to actions taken by the US Congress.

    The first amendment applies to the states through the incorporation doctrine. In Gitlow vs. New York (1925) SCOTUS ruled that individual states must abide by the first amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It’s my understanding that this was the first of several cases forcing states to honor most of the Bill of Rights.

    The Bill of Rights is actually pretty meaningless if states aren’t required to observe them.

    • Replies: @Realist
  35. KenH says:

    I hope Abby Martin wins but I don’t have much confidence in the courts who often seem to rule according with the “get it right” doctrine of ruling in accordance with the dominant politics and sentiment and/or will of the powerful rather than a plain reading of the Constitution. In fact, I thought a state or federal court just ruled that the first amendment doesn’t protect the right to misgender someone.

    The first amendment has been under withering assault since the 2016 election and it’s Jews and Jewish organizations leading the charge of getting right of center people banned from social media and books electronically burned at Amazon. If they succeed in their campaign to drive criticism of themselves and Israel from the public square and university campus then it won’t be long before blacks and latinos demand that they have a right not to be criticized or offended. Eventually it will be unconstitutional to criticize any racial group except white people who BTW we’re told don’t exist.

    Pretty soon we’ll have Jews, blacks and self loathing white leftists lecturing us that the first amendment was written for people of color to check white privilege.

  36. Realist says:
    @KenH

    In Gitlow vs. New York (1925) SCOTUS ruled that individual states must abide by the first amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It’s my understanding that this was the first of several cases forcing states to honor most of the Bill of Rights.

    Then there is no reason to relitigate it.

    The First amendment reads: 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.

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Paul Craig Roberts Comments via RSS