The Growing Anti-Free Speech
It is common for people to just write off the idea of losing their freedom as just another “conspiracy theorist nut job claim”. In some cases they may be right. BUT a slow and gradual erosion of rights can easily be missed until, that erosion, becomes the grand canyon and then its too late. Are our freedoms being eroded? Are these erosion’s justifiable? Lets put away our emotional fragility and look at this from a rational factual perspective.
Freedom of Speech erosion:
The Supreme Court (which has proven to get things wrong throughout history) classifies the following as NOT free speech; obscenity, child pornography, defamation, incitement to violence and true threats of violence. But, we can find the vagueness in all this that can then be arbitrarily applied depending on the mood and feelings of that judge, jury, or culture.
We go straight to “Hate Speech”, which a growing number of people claim is “obscene” and “incites violence”. Thus, they want what ever they determine or feel to be “Hate Speech” is not protected speech.
Justice William Brennan stated in his ruling involving flag burning, ‘If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.’ Justice Samuel Alito in Matal v. Tam, the “Slants” case stated this: [The idea that the government may restrict] speech expressing ideas that offend … strikes at the heart of the First Amendment. Speech that demeans on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability, or any other similar ground is hateful; but the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express “the thought that we hate.” We see that currently, the Supreme Court does favor a more broad sense of free speech.
But, here we are, 2018, where Facebook, YouTube, Twitter and others all censor this broad sense of free speech on their platforms. The proof of this is from the censorship of Alex Jones and Infowars . Now, we may not agree with what he states and publishes, but that isn’t the point; he is free to do so. What is more revealing is not just that these companies stand for censorship and not free speech, BUT no one really stood up against the censorship! Political parties are not advocating for his rights. The SILENCE in the face of censorship is more scary than the censorship itself. Of course CNN justifies this form of censorship  as they defend the “private company” argument. But what about the Wedding Cake Bakers and their “private company” argument? CNN has a hard time to explain the concept of Free Speech. They just think “the lines can get blurry“. They make them blurry. Those who WANT to censor speech they don’t like, MAKE it seem complicated. How can Facebook be forced by federal law to comply with federal hiring standards and not be forced to comply with Constitutional Rights?
The Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 (CSRA) provides some protection against discrimination on the basis of political affiliation. That statute requires that “All employees and applicants for employment should receive fair and equitable treatment in all aspects of personnel management without regard to political affiliation . . . and with proper regard for their privacy and constitutional rights.” 5 U.S.C. § 2301(b)(2). Employees are further protected “against arbitrary action, personal favoritism, or coercion for partisan political purposes[.]” 5 U.S.C. § 2301(b)(8)(A). But this applies to Federal Employment. How can only federal employees be required not to discriminate “against arbitrary action, personal favoritism, or coercion for partisan political purposes” due to Constitutional Rights and not Facebook?
That means Facebook CAN LEGALLY delete all accounts of Republicans, conservative, Christian, or with certain political affiliations. The “private company” argument logically justifies this sort of discrimination.
Justice Kennedy stated in the Masterpiece Wedding Cake case “The outcome of cases like this in other circumstances must await further elaboration in the courts… all in the context of recognizing that these disputes must be resolved with tolerance, without undue disrespect to sincere religious beliefs, and without subjecting gay persons to indignities when they seek goods and services in an open market.” The ruling largely rejected the claim that private business owners have a broad liberty of rights to turn away customers because of the protected persons status. The Civil Service Reform Act provides this protection of political affiliation. Facebook is a open market of services who freely censors free speech of those who have political affiliation as they provide an open service for. In Reynolds v. United States, the court ruled that the First Amendment guaranteed only freedom of belief, not freedom of practice; which opened the door to limit religious symbolic free speech though its practice. Thus, free speech for Pro-Life groups, based on religious ideals, are justifiably censored by private businesses.
Free Speech in College
Colleges cancel speaking engagements with the excuse of “poses safety risks”. So, all protesters would have to do is make it SEEM as though they would CAUSE safety issues. Then the public school could just cancel. Thus, offended snowflakes are the excuse for the school to censor free speech. UC Berkely featuring Ann Coulter for example..
It seems, for the time being, that the Supreme Court has accepted a more broad range of free speech but this does not stop private companies and citizens from infringing on such.
In September 2017 Milo Yiannopoulos shouted down at UC Berkeley. In October 2017
Student protesters shut down University of Oregon president’s speech to ‘stand against fascism’. ‘Liberalism is white supremacy’: Black Lives Matter protesters shut down ACLU free speech event. Protesters shut down UCLA event on ‘civil discourse’ and ‘hate speech’. Charles Murray event disrupted by chanting, hostile protesters at the University of Michigan. University of California-Berkeley Law Prof. John Yoo was speaking to the American Political Science Association yesterday when protesters disrupted a panel where he was speaking and held up signs demanding his firing. Protesters disrupt anti-immigration speech by Tommy Robinson at Columbia. At the University of Connecticut students shouted down a conservative speaker invited to campus to give a talk titled “It is OK to Be White.” The event ended after the speaker, Lucian Wintrich, was arrested for the breach of peace and escorted out of the auditorium; charges were eventually dropped. And most of these are just within one month! We can go on and on about free speech suppression. Antifa” leftists vandalized the Metropolitan Republican Club in Manhattan because it had an invited a fringe-y anti-Antifa activist to speak. The attackers also left a note warning that “Our attack is merely a beginning. We are not passive, we are not civil, and we will not apologize.” BreitBart news has a long, ever growing, list of people who were attacked for their political point of view.
The Ideological Power Trend
All these people VOTE for politicians they feel will support their anti-free speech ideology. Even the New York Post ran an article titled “How Liberals Turned Against Free Speech”  And the Hill published an article pointing out elected politicians who are in favor of creating laws that restrict freedom of speech .
But as more and more youth and young adults are uneducated regarding the natural consequences of socialism; ignorant of civics and what a Constitutional Republic is; and are indoctrinated by bias ideological teachers and professors… we are raising generations that will continually elect more and more politicians who are equally uneducated, ignorant, and indoctrinated like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez who is a member of the Democratic Socialists of America. And there have been a number of other DSA members that have been recently elected as well 
Then they will be such a major voting block, and elected officials who will nominate Supreme Court justices which will ultimately impose anti-freedom laws and rulings. This is just a fact of history. We saw this in how the electorate imposed laws on slaves, native Americans, American Japaneses during WW2, and it continues depending on what ideology has the predominant power.