Censorship and Gun Control Will Not Make Us Safe, by Ron Paul

The desire for an unattainable absolute safety only paves the way for repression and tyranny. From Ron Paul at ronpaulinstitute.org:

Sadly, but not unexpectedly, the mass shooting at the Tree of Life Synagogue in Pittsburgh is being used to justify new infringements on liberty. Of course, opponents of gun rights are claiming this shooting proves America needs more gun control. Even some who normally oppose gun control say the government needs to do more to keep guns out of the hands of the “mentally ill.” Those making this argument ignore the lack of evidence that background checks, new restrictions on the rights of those alleged to have a mental illness, or any other form of gun control would have prevented the shooter from obtaining a firearm.

Others are using the shooter’s history of posting anti-Semitic comments on social media to call for increased efforts by both government and social media websites to suppress “hate speech.” The shooter posted anti-Semitic statements on the social media site Gab. Gab, unlike Twitter and Facebook, does not block or ban users for offensive comments. After the shooting Gab was suspended by its internet service provider, and PayPal has closed the site’s account. This is an effort to make social media websites responsible for the content and even the actions of their users, turning the sites’ operators into thought police.

Some social media sites, particularly Facebook and Twitter, are eager to silence not just bigots but those using their platforms to advocate for liberty. Facebook has recently banned a number of libertarian pages— including Cop Block, a site opposing police misconduct. Twitter has also banned a number of conservatives and libertarians, as well as critics of American foreign policy. Some libertarians say we should not get upset as these are private companies exercising private property rights. However, these companies are working with government and government-funded entities such as the Atlantic Council, a group funded by NATO and the military-industrial complex, to determine who should and should not be banned.

The effort to silence “hate speech” is not just about outlawing racist, sexist, or anti-Semitic speech. The real goal is to discredit, and even criminalize, criticism of the welfare-warfare state by redefining such criticism as “hate.” It is not just progressives who wish to use laws outlawing “hate speech” to silence political opponents. Some neoconservatives want to criminalize criticism of Israel for the nonsensical reason that any criticism of Israel is “anti-Semitic.” Other right-wing authoritarians wish to expand hate crime laws to include crimes committed against police officers.

Ironically neoconservatives and other right-wing authoritarians are among the biggest purveyors of real “hate speech.” What could possibly be more hateful than speech advocating perpetual war? Cultural Marxists are also guilty of hate speech with their calls for both government and private violence against political opponents, and for the use of government force to redistribute property. Just about the only individuals advocating a political philosophy not based on hate are those libertarians who consistently advance the non-aggression principle.

Preserving the right to free speech is vital to preserving liberty. All who value freedom should fight efforts to outlaw “hate speech.” “Hate speech” laws may initially be used to target bigoted and other truly hateful speech, but eventually they will be used to silence all critics of the welfare-warfare state and the authoritarian philosophies that justify omnipotent government. To paraphrase Ludwig von Misses, libertarians must fight hate speech—including the hate speech emanating from Washington, D.C.— with the “ideas of the mind.”

 

Advertisements

3 responses to “Censorship and Gun Control Will Not Make Us Safe, by Ron Paul

  1. Make the connection.

    https://www.newsweek.com/lawmakers-propose-hate-speech-social-media-checks-gun-purchases-1200746

    http://www.captainsjournal.com/2018/11/05/maryland-kills-its-first-red-flag-gun-confiscation-victim/#comments

    ERPO (Red Flag)

    A petition may be filed by a:
    spouse;
    cohabitant;
    relative by blood, marriage, or adoption;
    person with child(ren) in common;
    current dating or intimate partner;
    current or former legal guardian;
    law enforcement officer; or
    medical professional who has examined the respondent

    Who is an Extreme Risk Protective Order filed against?
    A person who poses an immediate and present danger of causing personal injury to self or others by having firearms.
    Factors demonstrating possible risk include:

    alarming behavior and statements;
    unlawful firearm possession;
    reckless or negligent firearm use;
    violence or threats of violence to self or others;
    violating peace or protective orders;
    drug and/or alcohol abuse; and/or
    information contained in health records.

    Like

  2. There’s much better instruments of death than firearms

    Like

  3. Yes, you could be forced to listen to all of the speeches of leading democrats and neoconservatives (or do I repeat myself?) over the last 10 years. What a slow, lingering, painful way to die.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.