The freedom of speech clause of the First Amendment to our Constitution is simply stated and unambiguous.  It reads as follows: “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech…”  Those who authored the First Amendment were clear in their intentions.  In fact their words are so clear that it would be difficult to twist or distort them to suit some nefarious agenda. However, in spite of the clarity of the words, liberals are trying to find a way around the free speech clause of the First Amendment—a clause they find increasingly inconvenient in their world of political correctness and strategic double-speak.

Liberals have not completely disowned the First Amendment.  In fact they become ardent Constitutional literalists when the First Amendment protects what they want to say.  However, when the First Amendment allows conservatives, Christians, and other thinking people to say things they don’t like, liberals quickly revert to being advocates of a “living Constitution.”  If you are unfamiliar with this term, it is simply a code name for a Constitution that can be construed to mean whatever liberals want it to mean at any given point in time. This love-hate relationship of liberals with the First Amendment creates an insurmountable dilemma for them. Simply stated, they can’t have it both ways.  Either the First Amendment protects all speech or it protects no speech at all.

If the First Amendment protects the vocal ravings of leftwing radicals, it also protects the speech of conservatives and Christians.  For example, if it protects the right of liberals to falsely label conservatives and Christians as “racists,” “homophobes,” and “greedy capitalists,” it also protects the right of conservatives and Christians to accurately refer to selected liberals as “race baiters,” “homosexuals,” and “welfare cheats.”  An undeniable fact that liberals cannot come to terms with is that the First Amendment was written for the sole reason of protecting speech that some Americans would find offensive.  What should be patently obvious—although liberals cannot seem to grasp it—is that speech that does not offensive requires no protection.  The First Amendment was written specifically to protect offensive speech because the drafters of the Constitution understood that even the most benign speech will be offensive to someone.

Liberals know they would never get away with trying to overturn the First Amendment.  Consequently they are resorting to extra-Constitutional means to circumvent it.  The centerpiece of their circumvention strategy is the concept of hate speech. What, you might ask, constitutes hate speech?  The answer to this question is a simple as it is diabolical:  hate speech is anything that offends a liberal.  Organizations such as the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) have taken to categorizing conservative and Christian groups as “hate groups” and labeling anything they say or write that runs counter to liberal orthodoxy as “hate speech.”  Colleges and universities have begun passing “hate speech” bans so that conservative and Christian students can be disciplined for calling “gay” students what they are:  homosexual, lesbian, and transgender students.  The gist of these campus regulations is this:  disagree with our leftwing, secular humanist views and you will be punished.

Liberals are misguided but they are not stupid.  Just as Republican and Democrat led governments have both seized on the terrorist threat to erode our individual freedoms, liberals have seized upon another issue—one that tugs at the heart strings of every mother in America—to chip away at our freedom of speech.  That issue is cyber-bullying. People of all ages feel empowered by their anonymity to say things over the Internet that they would never say in face-to-face conversations.  If you would like to get a taste of this phenomenon, just write a column for Patriot Update or some other conservative site.  You will immediately be attacked by self-righteous liberals whose mastery of profanity and invective would make even the saltiest sailor blush.  You will be called things you never imagined yourself to be and told do things that are physiologically impossible.

This tendency toward flaming has created a situation in which cyber-addicted young people who spend way too much time interacting with the various forms of social media are being harassed and called ugly names.  They, of course, respond by crying crocodile tears and wallowing in self-pity.  I find it interesting that the option of simply turning off their computers or ignoring the insults never occurs to these so-called victims of cyber-bullying or their parents.  Instead, the parents lobby liberal legislators for—you guessed it—a government solution.  Liberal legislators are, of course, only too happy to oblige and the First Amendment be damned.

Commenting on this subject for TOWNHALL (October 2013), Kevin Glass wrote: “…Democrat Rep. Linda Sanchez of California introduced the Megan Meier Cyberbullying Prevention Act, a piece of legislation designed to protect children from online harassment but which, in reality, had more sinister consequences.  The legislation would have criminalized speech that could ‘cause substantial emotional distress to a person’ through different means of communication, including to ‘e-mail, instant messaging, blogs, websites, telephones, and text messages.’  Fortunately, the bill never made it out of the House.”

Representative Sanchez’s proposed bill was just a shot across the bow of the Constitution.  Neither she nor her liberal colleagues are finished with this issue.  But as is often the case with liberals Sanchez and company have not thought this concept through to its logical conclusion.  For example, if such a law were to pass half of the liberals who respond to my columns would be headed for the pokey in short order.  In fact, most liberals would be due for a stretch in the pen since every time they open their mouths and spout more of their misguided, illogical, un-American tripe conservatives and Christians all over America experience “substantial emotional distress.”

Ironically, the Sanchez bill would make for some interesting bedfellows in America’s prisons and jails.  Think about it.  Everything I write and most of what I say causes liberals all over the world “substantial emotional distress.”  Liberals and conservatives all over America cause each other the same type of revulsion and emotional distress every time they open their mouths.  Apparently, when liberals are finally successful in passing hate-speech legislation, conservatives and liberals will have to share the same cells at the local re-education camp. In the meantime, I have a suggestion for liberals.  Rather than trying to pass government regulation of free speech to protect the feelings of little darlings who don’t know how to turn off their computers, why not simply encourage parents to teach their children how to deal with the often ugly side of life.  The world is not a perfect place and in spite of the misguided and often ridiculous efforts of liberals to make it so, it never will be.  Consequently, young people who experience “substantial emotional distress” just because mean people call them ugly names are going to have a hard time negotiating in the real world.  And, yes, there is still a world outside of cyberspace.