CSGV: Against the First Amendment as much as the Second

CSGV tried to have Examiner.com censor Kurt Hoffman, a number of bloggers stood up for his right to speak. A free exchange of ideas is what healthy free societies support. I’ve had my issues with the III percent philosophy, which I have not been shy about criticizing on this blog, but I absolutely believe they have a right to speak and publish on their viewpoint. This is yet another desperate attempt by CSGV to silence dissenting opinions.

I read Kurt’s post which started all this hubbub, and as best I can tell he told people to read a book. I will forthrightly back people’s desire to publish and read materials, even controversial or potentially dangerous materials. The book Das Kaptial contains ideas that are responsible for the deaths of millions of people in the 20th century, but I’d still suggest people read it. Does that make me a marxist or violent left-wing revolutionary? The adult thing to do in these situation is to counter speech with more speech. If you don’t agree with the insurrectionist idea, understand what it really is, and speak out against it in a serious manner. But that’s not what the straw men builders at CSGV have chosen to do; they have chosen to attempt to silence and intimidate people who stand up for our rights and freedoms.

7 thoughts on “CSGV: Against the First Amendment as much as the Second”

  1. Thanks, Sebastian. As you say, we’ve had our differences, and will most likely continue to, but we can agree on certain first principles, and the First Amendment is as good an example as any.

    Thanks again.

    1. I only regret I was late to this controversy so they could not attempt to smear me for standing up for free thought and expression.

  2. Of course, not only does Josh Horwitz want those who disagree with him to shut up, he’s also making it clear that he believes the Government can do anything it wants, and we as citizens should just lay back and put up with it.

    Thus, those millions who died in concentration camps and gulags, should not have fought back.

    I agree that we shouldn’t overthrow *legitimate* government. But if a legitimately elected government starts doing illegitimate things, then is the time to fight back. If our President declared our elections invalid, and declared martial law, and refused to step down–a fear that I vaguely have, *regardless* of who is in office–then is the time to resist.

    Horwitz acts as if citizens are the only ones who can usurp legitimate government!

  3. A government’s legitimacy does not come from majority vote, any more than it comes from divine right of kings. It comes from the government’s willingness to live by the legitimate purpose of government: the protection of life, liberty and property. If the government does not adhere to that purpose, it becomes illegitimate–regardless of how the government gained power in the first place.

  4. What I find ironic is the anti-gun commenters on Hofmann’s article quote the Constitution to somehow prove his “treason.” Perhaps if they would cease and desist their attacks on another particular piece of the Constitution bloggers would have a lot less treason to advocate.

  5. I’m absolutely of the mind that countering bad speech with more speech is the way to go. Something Jefferson advocated as well. I’d go so far as eliminating libel and slander laws.

  6. Good post!
    Horwitz places too much emphasis upon voting and too little on true liberty. A cogent argument can be made that the free speech from Messrs. Hoffmann and Vanderboegh is a pre-requisite to and superior to voting.

    With free speech, we say whatever we want in public with no fear of official retribution. The vote is almost always a limited choice in private. Plenty of tyrants give such limited choice on a ballot, but almost no tyrant will allow speech he disagrees with.

    The day Mr Vanderboegh and Mr Hoffman are silenced, is the day we need to dread.

Comments are closed.