Wisconsin State Assembly passes Campus Free Speech Act

By John Corry

Photo from Pamela Geller

Thursday, June 22nd, 2017, 07:33 pm Eastern

 

On Wednesday, the Wisconsin State Assembly voted to pass the Capmus Free Speech Act. The bill would suspend and possibly expel students found guilty of wrongfully disrupting speeches on campus, and was sparked in part by a November disruption of conservative media Daily Wire editor-in-cheif Ben Shapiro. 

The video of the disruption is posted below, but, if anyone keeps up on these thing too much, it's not very surprsing: a speaker is trying to do what he was brought to the place to do (speak) and is forcfully barred from doing so by protestors. There's not much of a difference between this video and many others of the same nature, althogh Shapiro's writing 'morons' on the chalkboard behind the protestors is certainly worthy of a laugh. What's interesting is how often these types of occurences have been happening as of late, and how little is being done to stop them, based on the assumption that mankind has the right to tell mankind how to think (if you want to stop someone's ideas from spreading, you need to prove those ideas to be wrong, fascism will never be eliminated by simply saying 'fascism needs to go, and there's nothing more I need to know than that.' Yes there is, it's called: what is fascism, and how do we get it to go away).

The Wisconsin verdict was passed by a Republican-majority assembly in which not one sinlge Democrat voted for the bill. Whether one agrees with what someone like Shapiro may have been saying or not is irrelevant; these people (Shapiro, Yiannopoulous, etc.) were asked to speak at these events, and in every one of these videos in which the speaker was barred from speaking, there is an obvious abundance of people there who want to hear what this person has to say. Whether it's because they want to hear what points the speaker may have because they blindly agree with her/him, or because they're curious about where she/he might be wrong in her/his dialectic, is for no protestor to assume, just as no republican/conservative should assume any protestor (or person of color, or Rachel Dolezal decendant etc.) is an idiot or has less of a say in political matters (if the person has done her/his homework, or is not a pretentious little douchebag #StephenHawkingLovesToFindOutHe'sWrong(Alledgedly) ).

These people have an interest in what this speaker has to say, or the way she/he thinks, and it is not in any stranger's power to assume what the motives behind that interest may be, just as no one has the right to assume that about you (oh, you want to disrupt someone who addimttedly has questionable views, and stop me from being able to do my research–the research necessary to argue this fucking shit-tard down to oblivion? You're a fascist (seriously, surpressing free speech has been the first step for every potential dictator ever, for the aforementioned reason; you may be right in your need to disrupt this person's outreach, but surpressing their freedom is not the answer any more than their supresssing yours at any point in history stopped you from doing what you needed to do)). Morals are personal, and they're very complicated (Aristotle). Sometimes, people just have to hear a story or sing a song before they know what the hell we're talking about.

The bill is now headed for the State Senate, and Wisconsin Democrats are not happy, despite the fact that violent riots at universities in response to conservative speeches are on the rise (which may be a fairly understandable (if not expected) result of the election of a guy like Donald Trump at this point in history, but that does not relegate the concept of 'freedom of speech' to the status of mere competition–freedom of speech is not about who wins or who's winning (it's about 'freedom'), and to think that it is only hurts the concept). Wisconsin Rep. Lisa Subeck (Dem) said: "Our colleges and universities should be a place to vigorously debate ideas and ultimately learn from one another," (because that isn't contradicted by defending people in masks aggressively shutting down events meant only to spark debates and ultimately learn from one another (I know you think they're trying to usher in a new era of slavery, but it's about having respect for people who don't think like you do, before it is what that 'respect' may imply about society, or the paths it's taking #Seriously,TryReadingSomeAristotle ), "Instead, this campus gag rule creates an atmosphere where free expression and dissent are discouraged."

Is no one discouraged when conservatives are constantly rendered racist, fascist, homohobic or what have you at every turn of the dial? What about students involved in economic theory (conservaties know economics, liberals know art, it's one of the great harmonious balances of society, and is as needed for the harmony of the intelligible universe as humans humans perceive it as is the difference between up and down, and even the concept of 'balance'' itself)? What about the kid who knows nothing but what he sees on the Internet or on TV? Because he's too busy crunching statistics at age fifteen because he finds it fun, or writing the next 'Dark Side of the Moon' 

I can see how some people may sometimes go a bit overboard when it comes to talking shit on liberals, democrats or SJWs, and I agree that perhaps they should concentrate more on figuring out why it is that people are so divided right now (?) (but who am I to tell them what to do? (seriously #ThePlightOfTheArtistIsThePlightOfTheHuman )), rather than play up their passionate disagreements with others, while simultaneously talking shit on people who play up their passionate disagreements with others, but it's people like them, right now, who are holding the freedom of speech lifeline from destruction, not because they're always right (they certainly sometimes are (and much more often than a blindly passionate SJW would like to admit #LearningIsTheReal'Progressive' #ThinkALittleDeeper #READ )), but because they have the audacity enough to realize that, right now, diffences in experience are being exacerbated by an increase in connectivity (thanks a lot, Internet #WhyDidn'tSomeoneTellBillGatesToSHUTTHEFUCKUP?!?!?! ), and, as a result, people are naturally going to go a little crazy.

I mean is it just me or is the arguement Ms. Subeck had there the exact same argument as the one used by #CrazyDouchebagChristians to pretend they have a moral responsibility not to sell food to gay people? Not to say that a shop should be forced to serve someone whom the shop owners do not want to serve to (would you tell Ozzy Osbourne not to play metal just because you don't like metal? Just don't listen to it...), however, more so that claiming moral superiority when you're aggressively stopping another human being from partaking in something given to every human being upon birth in America (the right to speak freely, or the right to buy food) is fucking stupid, fascist, and, in the case of these protestors who think that violence somehow doesn't only beget more violence, hypocrisy. 

You're better than this.