Quote of the day—Tina Dupuy

I’m a free speech extremist. I believe the government has absolutely no business regulating or censoring speech. Of course, commercially popular speech doesn’t need protection. It’s only unpopular—racist, sexist and vulgar—speech that requires it.

Why is this basic freedom important? Because whomever decides what speech is hateful or distasteful, ultimately becomes the arbiter of our discourse. Then we’re all at the mercy of ever-morphing taboos, mores and, yes, political correctness.

And just for clarity’s sake: The First Amendment doesn’t guarantee immunity from the repercussions of speech. Your boss firing you for tweeting something off-color doesn’t make you a First Amendment martyr—it makes you unemployed. Also, my telling you to shut up isn’t infringing on your freedoms. My telling you to shut up is also my right. It’s the government telling you to shut up that’s infringing on your freedoms.

Tina Dupuy
July 29, 2015
Bobby Jindal’s Stand Against Religious Freedom
[I’m with her on this. And I extend this rational in regards to the 1st Amendment to the 2nd Amendment as well.

Only when the rights of others are infringed should the government step in. People inciting a riot, or falsely yelling, “Fire!” in a crowded theater are the classic examples of unprotected speech. There is no excuse for preventing the speech. This is called “a chilling effect” on speech and is unconstitutional. And so it is with preventing “gun violence”. Only when someone is actually put in danger of illegal injury (to their person or property) is it valid for the government to take action.—Joe]


5 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Tina Dupuy

  1. Joe, it is time to stop using the term gun violence, regardless of using quotes or not. Gun violence is a propaganda term made up, popularized, and bastardized by those who are themselves unwilling to except individual freedom and responsibility. You know and I know that guns are not violent. There are violent people. The tool they use is irrelevant unless we owe out of the antis to define the debate. The illegal, negligent, pure stupid misuse of any implement is the problem. Let’s call it what it is and never give those anti-constitutionalists any opportunity to misquote for misuse anything we say. Period

    • Some gun violence is justifiable. Some isn’t. All other types of violence are the same way. However, the lack of common terminology between the two camps is bad enough as it is. At least “gun violence” has a well-defined, universally understood meaning (violent acts perpetrated by people using guns), unlike many terms that get bandied about.

  2. This is the main thing that scares me about Trump. I have hated living the last 7 years under a petty leftist president. I don’t care to spend 4 under a petty rightist president. (Even though we know the media and the deeply entrenched leftists wouldn’t sit still while the pendulum swings that far right. But you get my point.)

  3. I desire government that ignores free people and only harms those that seek to separate us from our freedom. You see, morality cannot be legislated; it must be taught, from father to son, by God’s word.

  4. That bit about “repercussions” is exactly right.

    The claim that there is no right to shout “fire” in a crowded theater is just as wrong as all the things Bobby Jindal did, or most other politicians in both parties for that matter. The correct answer (which Neil Smith expressed very well) is that you have the perfect right to shout “fire” in a crowded theater, and take the consequences afterwards.

Comments are closed.