mead berger shevtsova garfinkle michta grygiel blankenhorn bayles
Sayeth the Supremes
Notorious RBG Lets Down Campus Activists

Is America’s expansive free speech tradition just another tool for perpetuating oppression that should be curtailed when it offends a minority group, as campus activists and some on the media Left have been arguing increasingly loudly for the past few years? Not according to the Supreme Court, which issued a unanimous opinion affirming that “hate speech” has the full protection of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.

Eugene Volokh excerpts the key passages:

From today’s opinion by Justice Samuel Alito (for four justices) in Matal v. Tam, the “Slants” case:

[The idea that the government may restrict] speech expressing ideas that offend … strikes at the heart of the First Amendment. Speech that demeans on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability, or any other similar ground is hateful; but the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express “the thought that we hate.”

Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote separately, also for four justices, but on this point the opinions agreed:

A law found to discriminate based on viewpoint is an “egregious form of content discrimination,” which is “presumptively unconstitutional.” … A law that can be directed against speech found offensive to some portion of the public can be turned against minority and dissenting views to the detriment of all. The First Amendment does not entrust that power to the government’s benevolence. Instead, our reliance must be on the substantial safeguards of free and open discussion in a democratic society.

The pro-free speech consensus has been recently showing signs of political frailty as of late—Howard Dean and others on the Left, for example, justified the no-platforming of Ann Coulter and other acts of campus intolerance. And polls show that Millennials are less committed to free speech than older generations.

But this decision is a reminder that the full spectrum of the judicial establishment—from Samuel Alito to social justice icon Ruth Bader Ginsburg—agrees that the American Constitution does not allow the suppression of opinions just because some people find them hateful, and that creating “exceptions” to this rule would ultimately put everyone’s liberty at risk.

Rising polarization and distrust are making our political discourse more unpleasant. This will create growing pressure for legal and bureaucratic codes that control what can and can’t be said, to artificially impose order on a disordered politics and a fraying social fabric. The Constitution tells us that we must resist this urge. Better to work out our differences with politics—and that means vituperative and sometimes hateful public arguments—rather than taking the tempting but ultimately more destructive route of allowing the state to erase unpopular views.

Features Icon
Features
show comments
  • Kevin

    Good.

  • ——————————

    RBG, you finally did something right!

  • Anthony

    Tolstoy: “What shall we do and how shall we live? The possibility exists that there are different ways to think and different things to live for.”

    If the point of free speech is to facilitate the open debate that is essential for “democratic rule”, then a persistent attempt to suppress the expression of unwelcome beliefs and ideas contradict First Amendment principles (now, I’m not conflating free speech rights with the expectation of the adherence to norms of basic decency, like refraining from derogatory labeling). Implied in Post is that First Amendment jurisprudence doesn’t recognize offensive speech or even hate speech as categories subject to legitimate restrictions. That is, legally concepts (hate/offensive speech) are relative and subjective in America’s expansive free speech tradition. OK, but are there societal workarounds required while protecting interest of rational discourse (not to be confused with civil discourse)?

    A friend told me once that the test of your commitment to free speech, as a general principle, is whether you are willing to tolerate the speech of others, especially those whom you most disagree – if, he says, you are using speech to try to silence speech, you are not in favor of free speech but in favor of yourself. Just maybe, that’s RBG’ subliminal message.

  • PCB

    “And polls show that Millennials are less committed to free speech than older generations.” – this is a dividend of the Progressive take-over of public schools and universities, if there was ever any doubt.

    • Jim__L

      Gotta clean them out. =)

      • f1b0nacc1

        “Nuke them from orbit, it is the only way to be sure”

        • Jim__L

          To be honest, we could probably still find ten righteous men there.

          • f1b0nacc1

            Love it!

  • Andrew Allison

    Now all we need AGGRESSIVE enforcement of the decision. Of course, expecting that from the left-wing Fascists running all-to-many of our Universities may be a reach too far.

    • Jim__L

      Well, at that point the solution is to curtail the left-wing Fascists, isn’t it?

      • Andrew Allison

        Well yes, a few high-profile lawsuits against the individual administrators permitting, and faculty members encouraging or participating in these actions might be salutary.

    • Beauceron

      This decision, like all free speech rights, concerns abridgment by the government. Private universities certainly won’t be affected by this ruling at all, unless the government were to use government funding as a lever, which they are not.

      Heck, they literally have Leftists at Evergreen State College (a public Washington state university) patrolling the campus with baseball bats to keep in line those who disagreed with the school’s “Day of Absence,” where white students, teachers and administrators were told to stay off campus and not attend classes because of, well, white supremacy. They flipped out when a biology teacher– a long time Leftist himself, refused to ban anyone from attending class based on their skin color. He was himself assaulted and has had to move his family out of the area for their own safety because of all the threats he’s received.

      https://www.thecollegefix.com/post/33027/

      That university is in no danger of losing any sort of funding, federal or state.

  • Matt B

    Whew, that’s is a relief. The legal establishment apparently takes the first amendment seriously. The ramparts that must be defended now are in the law schools where tyrannical leftist undergraduates are enrolling. They will need serious deprogramming. And if elite law schools start hiring faculty with backgrounds in Women’s Studies and the ilk, God help us.

    • Anthony

      Dogma, and the enforcement of dogma, hopes for ideological consensus (elite or not). Now, whether that enforcement occurs among the tyrannical leftist (as you categorize) or the tyrannical rightest (to give counterpose) the points of view assumed by each work the same way – see the world as we do or be silenced.

    • Andrew Allison

      Might I suggest that since graduates of any law school are amoral at best, and the faculties at most of them are left-wing, Women’s Studies, et al. might actually improve things. As an aside, a JD should be an automatic disqualification from holding elective office.

  • FriendlyGoat

    Free speech can be used against The Right as well as against The Left. I imagine the liberal wing of the court has considered this necessity in the modern political era. Meanwhile, nearly everyone else in America couldn’t have cared less what name is trademarked by any rock band. Tell me, down the road, what other situations are defended by the citation of this case and I will tell you whether the tendency to violence in your country is going upward or downward. The practical limits of free speech on a personal level are actually determined, after all, by who shoots who—–in response to what.

    • Anthony

      The practical limits you infer are essentially framed by the “power” relationships between people on a personal level – excluding what you and I expect to be norms of decency – refraining from derogatory epithets (which makes quite unnecessary the shooting and beatings) – of course.

      • FriendlyGoat

        First of all, you and I both need to recognize——whether we like it or not—–that there are no remaining norms of decency in either the public arena or many of the private arenas. We are witnessing the tear-down of “limits” on a daily basis. That rose to an unprecedented free-for-all in the 2016 campaign at the national level. Bullying of every kind and in every place is going up. Nobody is “refraining” from anything. And nobody is likely to in the near future. Backing down, cooling off, tapering, tempering is seen on all sides as voluntary unilateral disarmament—–hence weakness. Sorry to be a pessimist, but when you have folks celebrating their rights to “just any” free speech, no matter how untrue, how misleading, how much intended to just “press somebody’s button”, I’m suggesting that violence follows. After we evaluate how well we’re liking all the violence, we can revisit the psychology of whether there ought to be any limits and who might set them.

        We once had the Church as a body of self-disciplined folks attuned to looking for what might be permissible or advisable to say in a time or place. Even they are now following the pugnacious example of the new president they adore and his absurd tweet machine. We live in fake news, ridiculously slanted professional commentary, and worst of all the —-I’ll say whatever I please” mindset. The result of that is going to be some people “snapping”. We ARE inviting them to do so, are we not?

        • Anthony

          Well said and an apt diagnosis – not pessimistic but realistic. Yes, the tenor and lack of conventions of politeness invite the response or provide pretext for behavior you describe.

          The original Post (First Amendment contours) regarding freedom of expression though makes me think: freedom of expression includes (or ought to include) the right to hear as well as speak. That is, the reason to listen to people who disagree with you is not so you can learn to refute them; the reason is that you may be wrong.

          • FriendlyGoat

            When we know, down the road, what this case is cited to support, we will know whether it enhanced freedom or thwarted freedom. I think we should maybe be skeptical when a case about ground-rubber playground chips may have bearing on whether or not public money is diverted to support the claims of religion, I think we should maybe be skeptical, too, when the trademarking of a rock band bears upon whether society shall be “benefitted” by loud purchased megaphones running sense down into the dust. We’ll see.

            To me, a thought shop like TAI—–run by a guy like WRM—–jumping FIRST to an “opportunity” to make fun of “The Notorious RBG” is not a good sign.

          • QET

            I don’t know FG, it seems to me you want to have it both ways. On the one hand, you deplore the erosion of decency and civility. On the other hand, you disparage and ridicule those with whom you disagree. You have not really accomplished anything, nor has anyone else who attempts the same thing, with your attempt to consign everything you really dislike and disagree with politically to a so-called “fringe” toward which you seem to believe can indecency and incivility is not only acceptable but mandatory. No, I have encountered this tactic far too many times in my life not to to be able to recognize it at once–the attempt to recast a dispute over substance as really a dispute over form.

            You were closer to the truth with your observations on the absence of society-wide moral authorities and institutions, but that is the price of true “multiculturalism,” which is an impossible phenomenon where discrete cultures inhabit the same political time and space without any of them being dominant. Given that in this country the dominant culture was always an Anglo/European one, i.e., a “white” culture with shared social norms deriving principally from Judeo-Christianity mediated through Aristotle (which survived in a secular form after “Christianity theology” was discarded by European philosophers of the 18th and 19th centuries), the project of the self-described multiculturalists must be to tear that dominant culture down because its very prevalence is understood only as a per se “keeping down” of every other culture. Multiculturalism as imagined by progressives is simply a reversion to a Hobbeseian war of all (cultures) against all. And so people’s speech and behavior adapt accordingly. Life During Wartime. This ain’t no party, this ain’t no disco, this ain’t no fooling around.

          • FriendlyGoat

            Liking, as I do, to boil things down to the simple—–fictional characters with whom we are familiar are sometimes helpful. On MASH, the TV show, we had Capt. “Father” Francis John Patrick Mulcahy and we had Maj. Frank Burns.
            They were both out of the “dominant” Anglo white American culture. They both disclosed a great deal of their world views and philosophy via what was written for them to say—–over several years. Free speech is dandy as long as Burns does not prevail in some kind of authority over everyone else.

          • QET

            The character of Frank Burns was a caricature even back in the 1970s. And I suspect that suppressed and regulated speech per the authority of a slight majority of persons generally of your own worldview would not trouble you. If it’s Frank Burns you dislike then that dislike is not contingent on the size of an electoral plurality or majority. And if it’s Hawkeye-speech you favor then the fact that it only narrowly prevails won’t cause you to favor it any the less.

          • FriendlyGoat

            I skipped Hawkeye on purpose and was not even that devoted a fan of MASH—–with exceptions. A man of religion is supposed to be altruistic AND wholly honest AND realistic about hard issues—–such as being a Chaplain at all—-AND humble. William Christopher portrayed Mulcahy perfectly and the character represented an admirable mindset about everything.
            Burns indeed was a caricature and represented a never-admirable mindset about anything. Burns in real life would be a Trumpie to the core. Mulcahy would not. Trump is playing to the Burns’s of the world, not to the Mulcahy’s. I don’t have to tell you this stuff. You, being not inattentive, already know.

          • Anthony

            I didn’t read case nor tie into link; so my reference has been to First Amendment generally. And I have leveraged Post to make my opinion vis-a-vis free expression by way of First Amendment judicial consideration – Band and Rubber issues are considerations I must get back to you on.

            Meanwhile, WRM/TAI obviously think they have an audience to nourish. Recognizing that, I try not to overreact when “the balance” reveal cues. Moreover, I just make a mental note and proceed accordingly.

            Similarly, I recognize that people do what people do. And they may or may not seek “industrial strength brainwashing” for agency. Rationals and antidotes justifying outcomes and actions are as numerous as the purveyors. Yet, you, I, and others must decide where we stand and respond accordingly. Being actively in the fight invigorates as well as demonstrates your intent. Lamenting, self-pitying, woe is me ism, etc. on the other hand, may give respite and pause but suggest acquiescence. So, the question is free expression in a plural society arranges where in the plethora of importance facing a contentious polity?

          • FriendlyGoat

            I sometimes wonder what audience TAI sees itself existing to nourish. You, me, Pait, occasionally Redwell? Or the overwhelming spirit of cynicism which seems to inhabit its comment section We know from reading here that TAI is not exactly Breitbart, however. So “The Notorious RBG” stuff is a sign of deterioration, we hope only momentary, no?

          • Anthony

            The deterioration (commentary generally) has been onset for a while now – remember JeBurke noted such a few months ago. But, hey, write to what interests you and recognize the online world for what it has become. You, RedWell, Pait, Jon Robins, and others make TAI’s comment section more than group reinforcement and for that ViaMeadia’s original intent still redounds, though weakly. So, hang on! Once I told you years ago, the negative voices are always the loudest (not necessarily the numerous). Yes.

          • FriendlyGoat

            So, I did. The celebration of free speech here per this article and the run of comments has some questionable tone to it. The virtue or lack thereof in this SCOTUS decision will be determined by what its precedent excuses in the future. Again, the subject matter of the particular litigant in this case was rather inconsequential to almost any American. That wouldn’t be the case if we use it to promote bad speech to the point that bad speech prevails. What is bad speech? Oh, maybe telling folks it is their “natural right” to be as mean to other people as suits their fancy. That’s the implied biggie of our day, after all, the desire of so many newly-misguided hearts. Only time tells what the subject case brings about.

          • Anthony

            One ought to pay attention to individual and collective virtue reflected in running comments and tone, hmmmmm! We (or SCOTUS) are already in full possession of the moral truth regarding free speech, hmmmmm. Necessarily, I am going to read the case decided so that I can adequately discuss matter and precedent thereof with you more capably.

            To the issue of speech (Good, Bad, or Otherwise) and to not be misconstrued, I mean the “attempt” to suppress the expression of unwelcome beliefs and ideas where rational discourse takes place (I do not mean the sense that is generally employed by many on the right: the expectation that all speech ought not be constrained by the norms of decency inclusive of First Amendment prerogative). Now, I’m a supporter of the norms of decency cascading into the realm of free speech. But, we’re in America and can’t pick which amendment to swallow whole and which to not digest. So, we work and utilize time, space, and place.

          • FriendlyGoat

            We’re in America which, at the moment, does not seem to know whether our collective pants might be falling down without us noticing. I kinda think that over-use of “speech” (aka the volume of incoming messaging) is hurting more than helping. That doesn’t mean we can throttle other people. It might mean that when we reach some tipping point in our tweeting, re-tweeting and followership of everyone else’s tweeting, we just go numb and dysfunctional.

          • Anthony

            You definitely got the pulse – more noise than signal and everyone has to have an unconditioned say. We have to ride it out, as they say elsewhere.

          • FriendlyGoat

            I’ve lost the link now, but recently we had one of the founders of Twitter admitting that he now understands that the platform he helped form did NOT help promote more understanding through better communication. Twitter is just one forum, of course. There is everything online, particularly those facilities for forwarding all kinds of things to other people. Facebook and more, for instance.

            Perhaps I have told you this. I have an old male coworker friend from my first workplace with whom I was very close. We still talk by phone every year or so. He is deep in church and political conservatism. His small-church pastor liked to circulate things around in e-mail chains, especially during the Obama years as they were always against Obama on general principles. So, they put me on the list for some of it——which I often found UNBELIEVABLE to be circulating among church people. I often ignored, seldom replied much, never complained—–but what I received from that bunch struck me as shocking and has formed part of my view on how “church went nuts on us”.

            Meanwhile, as a kid I spent a lot of time staying with my grandparents. All they had was a half-hour of Walter Cronkite on one channel and Huntley/Brinkley on the other in our two-channel town, plus a couple of newspapers, one local, one Midwestern metro. No Fox, no MSNBC, no CNN, no talk radio, no Internet. I think they, as adults, may have been better off, less polarized, more balanced than what we find now in many adults. I hear that the average age of viewers at Fox is well over 60, at least for some of the shows like O’Reilly had in the evening. That COULD have been my grandparents marinating themselves in daily anger and nonsense. Thank God it wasn’t.

            So—–“freedom of speech” in general? How much is good? When is it too much? Does anyone know?

          • Anthony

            You raise interesting and thought provoking concerns, FG.

            To repeat myself, the possibility exists that there are different ways to think and different things to live for – freedom of speech’s floor in general for me (“what shall we do and how shall we live”). What we know is respect underlies reciprocal speech – ideas and beliefs respectfully presented and heard, even in disagreement. That, we all ought to know.

            On top of that, social media (internet) to a large extent has eliminated the “filter” and now everyone becomes Walter Cronkite or Huntley/Brinkley, only with less seasoning and maturity – to our travail.

            Finally, Rick Perlstein (The Long Con, I linked it to you once) wrote about being on a conservative email list (for both Evangelicals and Conservatives) and how the exercise turned out to be far more revealing than expected (he said he mainlined a right-wing id that was invisible to readers who encounter conservative opinion at face value) – kinda like your self described epiphany. Meantime, we’re a long way from our grandparents world but they left us a legacy. So, let’s begin.

          • Anthony
          • FriendlyGoat

            Thanks. That article includes a very good analysis of the Tam case. Curiously, we might wonder for how many years the anti-disparagement limitations for trademarking stood in law without citizens objecting much until—–along came a rock band. For instance, were people like William F. Buckley and George Will having a fit about it in times past? Would Martin Luther King have thought it a reasonable statute? Does this only reverse in a time when we stop seeing government as “us” and start seeing government as “it”?

            As for gerrymandering, I predict the case will be done on a partisan divide. We can hope Kennedy and four liberals fix it. In that context, are we absolutely sure Kennedy will hear it? Might he announce retirement at the end of this term and be replaced by a Trump appointee? All issues are under the cloud of uncertainty going forward.

            As for the Court itself, we might be witnessing some effort at cohesion on unanimous opinions for differently-worded reasons from left and right. I wish I was confident in more of that coming on big cases. I’m not.

          • Anthony

            Well, you compelled me to look at the cases and I informed you that I would and then get back with a more capable response. Now as to Buckley, Will, and MLK vis-vis the Disparagement Limitation, the issue for each had not been considered in specificity probably (I write this conditionally). Frankly, it had not been on my radar either but I would hope that its current public airing had not been promoted by a Us/It view of our Federal Government.

            Regarding the Gerrymandering Case, it caught my eye because of the current talk of freedom of speech and first amendment prerogatives as well as your ending statement” “only….”

            Lastly, I understand power and I’m rarely surprised by the Supremely Political Court.

          • FriendlyGoat

            I really hadn’t considered government as “us” or government as “it” either until those words suddenly appeared in my own writing. Lincoln spoke of government “of the people, by the people and for the people”, but that was in a speech, a delightful-sounding ideal not articulated nearly so well in any operative document. When Reagan said government is the problem, later conservatives say government is the enemy, Grover Norquist recommends drowning it in a bathtub, where does that leave “the people”? We are probably living through an unfortunate redefinition without hardly noticing. It’s not nearly ALL “the people” who are doing that redefinition. It’s only about half of them.

          • Anthony

            You’ve put your finger on it a many of time here: our general inclination to be both emotional and muddleheaded about governance and politics. Consequently, government of the people,by the people, and for the people suffers in practice and you resort to honoring it in speech.

            A related thought (which we’ve also shared before), the departed H.L. Mencken referred to the typical citizen as a…and to the mass of typical citizens as the booboisie. In some way, we the people continue to be our worst obstacle. To this end, what is unknown or casually dismissed is the fact that the economic model that propelled American prosperity in the twentieth century had been facilitated by same government attacked by Reagan, Norquist, et al. Government has not always been a pejorative for Americans. Though now on many levels, we must contend with the demonized conception of how government marginalizes the idea of we the people, for the people, of the people. A truism remains that the redefinition changes reality little – government is neither irrelevant nor outmoded for the success of we the people. That reality exists despite the undermining and concerted resistance of its foes as well as the willful forgetting of an ideal of effective governance (a practical example of your speech [of…by…for…] being concretized.

            A shared observation: “gullibility and muddle-headedness are functions of insufficient intelligence. The intelligent person is prone to make significant distinctions, to analyze, compare, reflect and seek out difficulties in proffered propositions whether flattering or promising to himself or not. Skeptical self-analysis is beyond the powers of the gullible because they already feel insecure, must (as they say) ‘believe in something’ if only in believing. Intimations of any lack in their judgment are resisted. Hence it follows that they believe whatever ethnic, religious, or national group to which they belong is inherently superlative….”

          • FriendlyGoat

            You may be explaining to me in your last sentence why I must squarely confront my aversion to joining things. Yes, by default, I am male, white, “born-in-the-USA” American, but clubs, churches, boards, social circles, professional associations, and so forth are optional. Some of them are privileges of accomplishment, I suppose, and quite okay for those whose status causes them to be invited to be in “everything”—–but honestly, on a voluntary basis I am not the least interested in joining anything which obligates me to a belief or creed or prescribed set of views. It’s “all I can do” to muse and write down what my thoughts might be without feeling in violation of some set of mental promises made as a condition of “membership”. (Net, net, “they” are not looking for me either.)

          • Anthony

            Few really do look for independent thinkers; and that you are,FG, despite accident of birth (of which we have no control over). Most importantly, you are who and what you are however others attempt identify/categorize you. Stay well, my friend (by the way, last sentence not mine; I just borrowed the quote for illumination).

          • FriendlyGoat

            Well, male, white and American are accidents of birth which I am not “knocking”, but I’d have different influences and opinions, no doubt, if I happened to have been female, brown and Syrian (for instance). We don’t think about these kinds of things enough, I suspect. They can provoke feelings of “Wow, that could easily have happened.” If I ponder such possibilities, then what am I supposed to think, say or do?

          • Anthony

            Keep pondering and and sharing with those willing to pay attention to your musing! Referencing influences and opinions, here’s something sent to me (dated but worth sharing given your present communications): http://www.alternet.org/story/57001/neocons_on_a_cruise%3A_what_conservatives_say_when_they_think_we_aren%27t_listening

          • FriendlyGoat

            Yes, thanks. It would be funny if not tragic. And it would be ten years dated, except the theme of it is not dated at all. How do we know? Trump is far crazier than Bush, and they elected him. But “they” couldn’t have without the churches. This is a separate level of tragedy. The group-cruiser types from National Review were not enough by themselves. But a co-opted church is quite another matter.

          • Anthony

            I’m glad you appreciate the timelessness of the piece. And, you’re right on all counts; also, your comment on another thread, patriots in Republican party, strikes at the heart.

          • FriendlyGoat

            Thanks.

          • QET

            Allow me to try to answer the question in your last sentence. First, the question pertains not to some generic plural society in the abstract, nor to a “society” properly so-called at all, but to a single, specific, concrete polity–the USA. Second, that polity is no more contentious today than it was in 1787, by which I mean it has always been highly contentious. Third, that polity was intentionally constructed on an original foundation, one of the pillars of which is an unqualified, unequivocal right (as against the government) of each individual to free speech. So, on the basis of those facts alone, the rank of free expression in the USA is the very highest. It might share that rank with some other foundational rights/principles, but none outrank it. The necessity of reconciling the right and the principle with other legal issues–such as libel and slander–poses some interesting technical problems for lawyers but does not of itself depress its rank. Fourth, the rank is removable at will by We the People, through a Constitutional amendment. Certainly such a process is cumbersome, yet it has been undertaken successfully 12 times since the original 10 amendments, so it cannot be said to be impossible. So a determination to demote a right and principle of such importance should not, indeed legitimately cannot, be made via other more convenient means, such as by redefinition or hollowing out of the term “speech,” or by a succession of judicial “balancings” of free speech against recently-articulated rights and principles considered to be important (my right not to be offended by your speech) which successively demote free speech down the rank scale.

            So for all of these reasons, it is inarguable, I believe, that freedom of speech is of the very highest importance in the specific plural society that is the US polity.

          • Anthony

            The question in my last sentence needs no answer (and was not in search of one here) but had been intended to stir FriendlyGoat. Nevertheless, thanks qet.

    • Tom

      Ummm…yes. Restrictions on freedom can be used by Right and Left as well, a point that you seem to be confused on.

      • f1b0nacc1

        Not confused, but rather he has no intention whatsoever to extend to the Right the same prerogatives as he claims for the Left.

        This is in fact the central question that is never answered by those that want to limit speech, i.e. ‘who gets to choose what speech to limit’? The founders understood this, and were well aware that malign influences would inevitably lead some to muzzle those that they disagreed with. The only solution to that problem, that direct threat to freedom, was to put that power beyond the reach of those in power.

  • Jacksonian_Libertarian

    “Rising polarization and distrust are making our political discourse more unpleasant.”

    It’s the Leftists that are attacking American Rights and Freedoms. Whether it’s trying to outlaw free speech, the right to keep and bear arms, or legal due process, it’s the Leftists driving the polarization. The rejection by Americans of these illiberal attacks, has cost the Leftists over 1,000 seats since 2010. The Leftist Resistance and Black Lives Matter are murdering Right Wing figures and Police Officers, as well as organizing intimidation operations promoting assaults with clubs, baseball bats, and bicycle lock flails, isn’t endearing them to civilized “law abiding” Americans.

© The American Interest LLC 2005-2017 About Us Masthead Submissions Advertise Customer Service