The Left’s Assault On Free Speech

Monday, February 28th at 9:00PM EDT

33 Comments

Imagine, if you will, a Denial Of Service attack on George Soros’ Open Society Institute (Orwell would love this name). Would the lefties be sitting, mute, taciturn at their voices being squelched? Would they be pleased?

The Americans for Prosperity, an activist organization on the Right, has been fighting against a non-stop Denial Of Service attack by leftist goons intent on silencing the organization and their supporters. The marauding coders gleefully trumpet their squelching of speech to Politico:

It has come to our attention that the brothers, David and Charles Koch–the billionaire owners of Koch Industries–have long attempted to usurp American Democracy. Their actions to undermine the legitimate political process in Wisconsin are the final straw. Starting today we fight back.

…Anonymous cannot ignore the plight of the citizen-workers of Wisconsin, or the opportunity to fight for the people in America’s broken political system. For these reasons, we feel that the Koch brothers threaten the United States democratic system and, by extension, all freedom-loving individuals everywhere. As such, we have no choice but to spread the word of the Koch brothers’ political manipulation, their single-minded intent and the insidious truth of their actions in Wisconsin, for all to witness.

I’m guessing that these same egomaniacs would be against a Middle Eastern regime from turning off the internet switch in the respective countries and howl about the stomping of free speech. We’ve seen the press be rightfully upset about the internet being killed, too.

And yet, I have seen scant media evidence that they even care. Worse, leftists at DailyKos are thrilled and go one further: boycott anything Koch. My favorite? Medical plaster. That’s right sick people. Boycott the material that would protect your wounds or make your cast. Stand against the capitalists!

So, the past few weeks have demonstrated that not only are Union thugs violent, uncivil and promoting a Climate of Hate™, they also don’t mind and even encourage destroying an environment of free speech online.

Today, John Hinderaker said this in his aptly titled The Left’s Unhealthy Koch Habit:

What’s really going on here is an attempt to silence people whose views liberals disagree with. After all, they don’t have a problem with billionaires using their money to influence policies and public opinion when the money is being spent by the likes of George Soros, a left-winger who, among other things, helps fund the Think Progress site.

It’s all very hypocritical, of course. But that’s the left for you.

Just remember, there’s good free speech and there’s bad free speech–if you’re a leftist.

UPDATED:

The Koch brothers, loci to this irrationality too, speak out via the Wall Street Journal. Here is Charles Koch:

For many years, I, my family and our company have contributed to a variety of intellectual and political causes working to solve these problems. Because of our activism, we’ve been vilified by various groups. Despite this criticism, we’re determined to keep contributing and standing up for those politicians, like Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, who are taking these challenges seriously.

Both Democrats and Republicans have done a poor job of managing our finances. They’ve raised debt ceilings, floated bond issues, and delayed tough decisions.

33 Comments Leave a comment

Respnding to Charles Koch:

altexas Monday, February 28th at 9:52PM EDT (link)

Sir, that was brief. I like brief. Well said.

and thanks.

Proving once again that progressives despise the prosperous

gumbi5 Monday, February 28th at 9:55PM EDT (link)

They want your money, they want your property and they want your freedom… and it’s time they got off their duff and earned their own way instead of mooching off everyone else.

Melissa, with all due respect...

Jeff Emanuel (Diary) Monday, February 28th at 10:04PM EDT (link)

…I fail to see how a boycott equates to an “attack on free speech”any more than, say, our actions here at privately-owned RS could be construed as “censorship.” The two just don’t logically or definitionally go together.

Jeff: The Cyber "Terrorist" Group called Anonymous

Michael Dugas (Diary) Monday, February 28th at 10:30PM EDT (link)

Does not do boycotts. They shut down and crack the websites and computers of those they don’t agree with. So I would agree that illegally cracking and disabling the website for Americans for Prosperity and preventing their message or “voice” from being accessible IS denying Americans for Prosperity their free speech rights. It’s their website and a group is intentionally disrupting that website and preventing people from getting to it.
If I hacked into MSNBC’s or CNN’s website and shut it down what would they be calling it?

Intro to Federalist Papers; section 5;
paragraph 4.
“…dangerous ambition more often lurks behind the specious mask of zeal for the rights of the people than under the zeal for a firm and efficient government.”

Remember: A Citizen on the dole is a Liberal Vote at the Polls.
END ENTITLEMENTS!

Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum !

A Denial of Service Attack...

Melissa Clouthier (Diary) Monday, February 28th at 10:35PM EDT (link)

Imagine a DoS attack on Redstate for a day. Imagine leftists doing it to Redstate.

Would you say that they’re trying to stop free speech?

The leftists have been attacking Koch’s websites and Americans for Prosperity. They want to silence their ideological opposition and websites like the Daily Kos believe it’s a good thing.

So if I boycott

Leon H. Wolf (Diary) Monday, February 28th at 10:07PM EDT (link)

the movie of a prominent Hollywood d-bag because I didn’t like some moronic thing he said at the Oscars, am I squelching his free speech?

————
We can’t stop here. This is bat country.

no, your analogy fails

JoeG Tuesday, March 1st at 1:14AM EDT (link)

It would if you tried to hack the web site of the Hollywood D-bag.

Not really

PowerToThePeople (Diary) Tuesday, March 1st at 1:19AM EDT (link)

our right to free speech can not be infringed by an individual, only the government. What they are doing is criminal, as is your example, but it is not violating our free speech. There is a difference. to quote Leon on another post, it is a criminal act that has a secondary affect of silencing speech.

The only entity that can actually, by definition, violate our right to free speech is the government. Anything else is a criminal act and while it may silence our speech, it is not ending it, permanently stopping it, making our speech criminal, etc.

Quick explanation

PowerToThePeople (Diary) Tuesday, March 1st at 1:28AM EDT (link)

just so my point in clarified as well as Leon’s.

I take a baseball bat upside someones jaw, does not matter what they were saying or if they were saying nothing at all. I leave the guy in a coma and with a jaw that needs wired. Did I violate his right to free speech or commit a felony? The answer would be felony, not the first.

I break into your home and steal all your guns. Did I take away your right to have guns or commit a crime……I committed a crime.

Same applies to the above, whoever has attacked the website has committed a crime, they are incapable of violating our right to free speech. Their intent may have been and most likely was to silence the message, but that still does not mean they violated our free speech right as they are incapable of doing that. Only the government can violate our right to speech, what they did was break numerous state and federal laws and should be punished accordingly.

Contradictory arguments

civil truth (Diary) Tuesday, March 1st at 2:18AM EDT (link)

One the one hand, you’re saying that our rights to free speech can only be taken away by government.

But then you argue by case that all efforts by private (i.e. non-governmental) agents to squelch free speech are crimes (I’m not convinced that ALL such violation are crimes, but that’s a secondary point to the argument that follows).

Conversely that argument implies, that if it’s not a crime, then there’s no violation of free speech by private agents. (Which also means by extension that if there were no government to create criminal laws, then there could be no violation of free speech at all.)

Moreover since it is government that defines a crime – and has the power to enforce said law, you thus are relying on the same governmental power to define and protect your free speech (through its power to define crimes) whose power it is that you at the same time affirm that you also need protection against from taking away your free speech.

That doesn’t exactly sound like a firm foundation.

In any case, by effective stating that free speech is a creation of government, you in the process denying the ability of people to enter into a common community understanding (or covenant even) defining free speech and setting out the terms of engagement – a process that is outside of governmental codification into laws.

So regardless of governmental behavior, I would argue that there still is a meaning to “free speech” that is rooted in community values and which can be violated by other individuals outside of any governmental agency.

Small addendum to last paragraph

civil truth (Diary) Tuesday, March 1st at 2:41AM EDT (link)

…rooted in community values (or even natural law)…

Never argued

PowerToThePeople (Diary) Tuesday, March 1st at 3:09AM EDT (link)

that any private company attempts to squelch speech were criminal, I argued that the violations of fed and state law by hacking the site are criminal. The very act of hacking the site is criminal, not the motive behind the attack.

And quite frankly, anyone yourself included can argue that private entities can violate free speech but that does not make it so. The only entity or group of people who can violate our free speech is the government, not a group of hackers. Their criminal acts may have silenced the speech, as would a baseball bat, but the outcome does not mean they can violate our right to speech.

I read your response and while it is articulate and well reasoned, you are still associating a criminal act that has a consequence of ending speech for the time being as being a violation of our right to speech. Again, a person who has no power to violate speech can not do so even if the end result of their criminal action is silence. Per the example that Leon used, murder silences a person, but the crime committed by the killer is not a violation of the dead person right to speech, it is murder.

It is very simple, speaking against the government is why we have free speech and they are the only ones who can stifle speech to the point the right is violated. Claiming criminal acts by non government entities violate that right is just propaganda and not accurate.

You seem to be turning the concept of "rights" onto its head

civil truth (Diary) Tuesday, March 1st at 4:50AM EDT (link)

But I’ll have to take a closer look later this morning

A BOycott. .

rdm42 Tuesday, March 1st at 7:46AM EDT (link)

would be if you yourself refused to by or utilize someone’s product. A boycott is not when you prevent through malicious action anyone ELSE from buying or using it.

The former is a legitimate action of protest, the latter is a crime.

I think some took the medical plaster boycott the wrong way.

rickbull Monday, February 28th at 11:02PM EDT (link)

DoS is an attack on free speech.

Boycotting medical plaster is just plain dumb.

WE ARE THE 53% (who actually pay taxes).

Really?

Leon H. Wolf (Diary) Monday, February 28th at 11:11PM EDT (link)

I mean, a DDoS attack is a crime, a violation of the CFAA, the result of which is that your speech disappears until you can get your servers unhorked. It is not, however, an assault on “free speech.” Free speech means “free of government interference.” It does not mean free of getting fired from your job, or free from having people boycott you, or any such thing.

Put this way. If someone murders you, that is not an attack on free speech. It’s a crime that has a secondary effect of silencing speech.

————
We can’t stop here. This is bat country.

Silencing Ones Opposition

Melissa Clouthier (Diary) Monday, February 28th at 11:34PM EDT (link)

Now the Club for Growth is down.

Let’s just say that systematically, the lefty hackers take down Right-leaning websites. Do you consider that a desire to silence opposition?

Random criminality?

This is an attempt to slash the online tires of the opposition. The lefties desire to intimidate and squelch anyone who opposes them.

Missing the point

Leon H. Wolf (Diary) Monday, February 28th at 11:42PM EDT (link)

No one is arguing that this is “random criminality.” I am quite sure it is coordinated. That does not mean that “free speech” is implicated in this particular discussion.

Again – “free speech” means “free” in the sense that it is free from government interference, not private interference – legal or otherwise.

————
We can’t stop here. This is bat country.

It would seem that the term "free speech" has more than one meaning

civil truth (Diary) Tuesday, March 1st at 12:16AM EDT (link)

If by “free speech” one refers to the rights guaranteed to us under the 1st Amendment, then you’re 100%: that freedom of speech equates with “free of government interference”. (This same argument applies to charges of “censorship”, which requires that the censor be a governmental agent.)

On the other hand, it seems to me that free speech has a second and widely employed usage, a non-forensic sense of being a common agreement/understanding among the citizenry that in a public (or neutral) arena people will mutually allow each other the opportunity of speaking their opinions freely without being shouted down, physically attacked, wrestled away their speaking site, blockaded from reaching the speech forum, and so on.

In essence a mutual non-aggression pact (or reciprocal agreement) to allow debate on social topic to proceed among opposing parties, so as to preempt a resort to force or violence.

(Of course there are place and time restrictions in practice, but that doesn’t affect the concept.)

So for instance, if we have political candidates at a common locale in a debate or giving speeches, and the audience consistently shouts down or rushes the stage in an effort to prevent one of the candidates from speaking, that would be an attack on “free speech” in the latter sense of the term.

Or in a different sense, the kind of actions that have not infrequently have taken place on college campuses regarding invited speakers who take a position what a certain group does not want to be spoken.

Or as another expression of this second understanding of “free speech” is the principle that the cure to speech you disagree with is more speech on your part), not shutting down the speech of those you disagree with.

To conclude, organized DOS attacks are another front in the left’s assault on this common understanding of free speech, in essence representing a resort to force to suppress their political opponents from presenting their views to the public.

This is, in part, the same tactic that was used on Whole Foods...

LaborUnionReport (Diary) Monday, February 28th at 11:10PM EDT (link)

when John Mackey wrote a WSJ article critical of ObamaCare. While Whole Foods’ computer system wasn’t hacked or site shut down, the Left (and the unions) organized a boycott.

It is an attempt at intimidation and, until the Right recognizes it as such and either calls them out, or plays by the same rules, the Left will continue getting away with it.

“I bring reason to your ears, and, in language as plain as ABC, hold up truth to your eyes.” Thomas Paine December 23, 1776

In any compromise between food and poison, it is only death that can win. In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can profit.-Ayn Rand

LaborUnionReport.com
The Most Comprehensive Source for
News & Views on Today’s Labor Unions.

Follow @laborunionrpt

That's about the time I started a counter-boycott...

acat (Diary) Monday, February 28th at 11:18PM EDT (link)

The Whole Foods chocolate ice cream is really good – and they have a better price on soy creamer than the other stores in the area.

Just sayin’

Mew

——
self-portrait

Caveat Suffragator

"Play[ing] by the same rules."

Leon H. Wolf (Diary) Monday, February 28th at 11:18PM EDT (link)

that is the method I endorse. I for one would be all for punishing some corporations who give money to leftist causes by boycotting them and/or shopping elsewhere. Maybe it’s intimidation, maybe it isn’t. I call it voting with my pocketbook. And it’s my exercise of free speech.

I don’t begrudge anyone doing the reverse. If people feel strongly enough about it they can buy extra medical plaster or something.

————
We can’t stop here. This is bat country.

Not only corporations.

Melody Warbington (rwm52) (Diary) Monday, February 28th at 11:25PM EDT (link)

I hired a lady to clean my house after knee surgery for a few months a while back. I also asked my doctor what she thought about the health care issue. I’ve started asking everybody. If I get the liberal spin or endorsement, I go elsewhere. And of course, I tell them why.

The woman saith unto him, I know that Messiah cometh (he that is called Christ): when he is come, he will declare unto us all things. (John 4:25)

coincidence?

bassethound Monday, February 28th at 11:44PM EDT (link)

Townhall, another conservative blog is mysteriously down.

I had no problem at Townhall or AFP just now. nt

Melody Warbington (rwm52) (Diary) Monday, February 28th at 11:59PM EDT (link)

The woman saith unto him, I know that Messiah cometh (he that is called Christ): when he is come, he will declare unto us all things. (John 4:25)

They seem to have more on their list

judy Tuesday, March 1st at 12:48AM EDT (link)

Malkins site was getting attacked a bit today as well. But it’s ok now.
Perhaps some security measures need to be looked into for all sites that might be a target soon, before it happens.

~”No change of circumstances can repair a defect of character.” Ralph Waldo Emerson~

Boycotts

concreteblue Tuesday, March 1st at 2:50AM EDT (link)

Boycotts are free speech. Here is a list for all you posters saying it is a Left tactic..
http://www.freedomworks.org/press-releases/freedomworks-joins-coalition-to-boycott-dawn-soap
http://www.politico.com/blogs/onmedia/0610/Tea_Party_MSNBC_boycott_not_really_working.html
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/10/02/google-boycott/
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/07/03/mcdonalds-boycott/
http://rightwingnews.com/mt331/2009/04/boycott_the_sponsors_of_the_mi.php
Pot, kettle, Goose, Gander, etc….

Ok. Lets go on this:

rdm42 Tuesday, March 1st at 8:08AM EDT (link)

Dawn soap: I don’t see the news item about slashing their delivery truck’s tires and preventing them from shipping their product to the stores. . .

On MSNBC or their sponsors” I don’t see an attack on their methods of delivery or ability to put their product out. .

I don’t see anything about a denial of service attack on Google. .

This AFA I fail to see the part of the story where they sneak in at night with an arc welder and weld the doors to the McDonalds shut to keep customers from getting in.

I also fail to see the part where the sponsors of the Miss USA pageant were prevented from delivering their goods and services to people who still wanted them?

Free Speech....

concreteblue Tuesday, March 1st at 2:52AM EDT (link)

Free Speech is not free. All actions have consequences….One person’s Heckling is another’s Free Speech. Messy place we got here, huh?

To repeat:

rdm42 Tuesday, March 1st at 7:57AM EDT (link)

A boycott would be if you yourself refused to buy or utilize someone’s product. A boycott is not when you prevent through malicious action anyone ELSE from buying or using it.

One is danying someone the benefit of your own money and encouraging others to chose likewise. The other is DENYING other people even the choice to use someone else’s product; instead of making a choice for yourself you are making a choice for THEM against their will. I can’t see how you fail to see the difference.

The former is a legitimate action of protest, the latter is a crime.

...Anonymous...

tjpeco Tuesday, March 1st at 8:55AM EDT (link)

Oh dear… this is not good.

Anonymous are, by and large, a group of very proficient cyber criminals. IIRC they were a big group in the wikileaks attacks.

Its unfortunate that obviously bright people like them have “drank the koolaid” in so much as they think that there is “plight” to be found amongst the teachers in Wisconsin.

What I’d like to know, is if there’s a cyber criminal group willing to stick up for the plight of the Wisconsin taxpayer.

Where do you think they went to school?

Duke Tuesday, March 1st at 9:15AM EDT (link)

And do you think they were taught electives like History and Econ. by – a conservative or liberal teacher?

On the way to an education in Computer Science, I suspect their Pol.Sci. professor made sure they were properly indoctrinated in Kensian Economics as it applies to governing America. That won’t be any help at all to those of us from Wisconsin!

It’s not about a purge. It’s about an insurrection.