The modern far left in the western world lives in this imaginary lala-land where they think that they are fighting some kind of oppressive totalitarian "patriarchal" capitalistic "white-supremacist" regime that oppresses and exploits the weak and the minorities. In other words, they are roleplaying in all seriousness this "the weak raising against the powerful" narrative.
And one of the most ironic, contradictory and self-defeating ways in which they are doing this fighting is by trying to severely limit and restrict freedom of speech. Not only do they want an ever-increasing amount of restrictions to it, and an ever-increasing amount of words, sentences, opinions and ideas added to the list of banned speech, they also want harsher and harsher punishments for anybody who breaches these restrictions and limits by expressing the "wrong" opinions.
What's so ironic, contradictory and self-defeating about this?
The fact that freedom of speech is a weapon of the weak, not a weapon of the powerful, of those in charge.
Those in power do not need a right to free speech in order to stay in power and oppress the weak. In fact, severely limiting freedom of speech only helps them stay in power and oppress the weak. Limiting freedom of speech only hurts the weak, not the powerful.
It's the weak, the oppressed, the discriminated, who need freedom of speech. Maximal freedom of speech. As much of it as possible. It's their most powerful and effective weapon against those in power, against the oppressors.
The fact is that those in power welcome restrictions to free speech, they do not fear it. When activists demand restrictions to free speech the people in power do not cower in fear. They ask "how many?" while smiling.
Thus, it's highly ironic and self-defeating for those who, allegedly, are fighting against those in power and in defense of the oppressed to demand restrictions to freedom of speech. They are just helping those in power, not fighting against them.
Comments
Post a Comment