Freedom of speech in America: A figment of their naïve imagination
Freedom of Speech As Long As You Agree With Me
“Die Gedanken sind frei.” —
“Thoughts are Free,” famous German song about freedom of thought, 1810-1820, author unknown
Shortly after I arrived in the U.S., I realized that the freedom of
speech Americans thought they had, was, let’s just say, with no
intention of offending anyone, a figment of their naïve imagination.
I
was naïve too, having escaped a communist dictatorship, I felt free to
speak my objective opinion, thinking that there would be no harmful
consequences since my freedom of speech was guaranteed.
I felt elated. I did not have to fear the security police day and
night; and I did not have to be mindful constantly of what I said around
friends, co-workers, strangers, distant, and close relatives.
Anything that disagreed with the communist regime’s tyrannical
propaganda sent anyone to jail, a gulag, or worse yet, disappeared them
permanently. If people had a strong constitution, when their jail or
gulag time expired, they were set free and hopefully re-educated
cheerleaders
of the narcissistic president and his wife who thought themselves to be
the grandiose parents of the nation. If people’s constitution was weak,
they expired in jail from malnutrition, verbal abuse, and daily
beatings.
As
soon as I came in contact with educators, I realized, there was a
problem with freedom of speech. The freedom to speak was not really
free. You could speak your mind but you were ostracized, ignored,
marginalized, or fired.
First, you had to have a license to teach, a
college
degree in arts and sciences and professional experience were not
enough. Economically speaking, every time someone needs licensure, that
limits the number of approved and qualified people to perform a specific
profession or trade. In this case, anyone could be a teacher as long as
they were willing to go through the College of Education indoctrination
program.
Interestingly, many licensed teachers were marginally qualified to
teach their subject area of “expertise” and scored poorly on the
National Teacher Exam, but passed.
Secondly, the teachers did not have the freedom to choose the
curriculum; it was dictated by the Department of Education of each
state, directly connected to the federal Department of Education.
In this system, teachers had to follow verbatim the liberal teaching
method of the day, and use textbooks designed to help them achieve
pre-set goals, very similar to the current Common Core nationalized
education curriculum. Could they object to the directives? Yes, but
their freedom of speech was neutralized by administrators and the fear
of losing their jobs.
As a teacher, I objected to certain irrational methodology and rules,
what I perceived to be socialized curricula, to which I got the same
canned answer, “This is how we do things in the U.S., if you don’t like
it, go back to where you hailed from.”
Later on, as political correctness became the number one weapon used by liberals to stifle freedom of speech,
the answer
became, “If you do it our way, you get to keep your job.” Some more
aggressive administrators said, since you are not a “team player,” we
will definitely not renew your contract next year. The threat never
materialized. America is a very litigious society, lawyers are
expensive, and schools are terribly afraid of being sued, particularly
when they don’t have a case.
At the college level, famous for academic freedom, conservatives did
not dare express their objective and logical opinions, often
contradicting the liberal talking points, lest they never make the
tenured professor list. Some conservatives escaped the progressive
scrutiny, thus receiving tenure, but it was a rare occurrence.
Conservative students suffered equally under the tyranny of
outrageous liberal professors who demanded from their students nothing
but total agreement with their belief system; if students were foolish
enough to speak their minds and question the “settled” scholarly
“authority” of their professors, they failed the class.
The current mainstream media talking heads read the
identically-worded paragraphs received from the same source daily, not
unlike the communist era radio and television reporters behind the Iron
Curtain, broadcasting the daily script from the national newspaper
called “Romania Libera,” (Free Romania) which was a terrible
contradiction, since we were such slaves. The paper reported as much
truth as the Soviet era newspaper, Pravda (The Truth).
Politicians today regurgitate the
positions
fed to them by advisors and lobbyists. Liberal newspapers repeat the
misinformation established by the Democrat Party, the union lobby, and
the non-governmental organizations lobby.
Conservatives writers and radio talk
show hosts self-censor their columns and
shows for fear of litigation by powerful billionaires, ethnic lobby groups, and NGOs.
Employees hide their political views for fear of losing their jobs.
Parishioners do not express their opinions in the ever more socialist
churches because they don’t want to lose their place of worship or the
community they’ve grown accustomed to.
Conservatives don’t plaster cars with bumper stickers that reflect
their world views for fear of having cars vandalized or destroyed.
Liberals are proud to display all their causes on bumpers and car
windows - they know the opposition is peaceful, tolerant, rational, and
non-violent. Yet liberals label conservatives “racist” and “hate
mongers” if they disagree with progressive points of view, thus shutting
down any opposition.
Recently, Rush Limbaugh discussed on his August 27, 2013 show the case of Mike Adams, “the only tenured conservative professor at the
University of North Carolina system, who simply said that marriage is a union between
a man and a woman.”
Anger and outrage from the faculty ensued, demanding that Adams be
fired because of his definition of marriage—so much for the world-famous
academic freedom.
Mike Adams wrote a “Dear Edward” letter to the professor who wanted
him fired and who called him “an embarrassment to higher education.”
“While I respect your right to conclude that I am the biggest
embarrassment to higher education in America, I think you’re wrong. In
fact, I don’t even think I’m the biggest embarrassment to higher
education in the state of North Carolina. But since you’re a liberal and
you support ‘choice’—provided we’re talking about dismembering children
and not school vouchers for those who weren’t dismembered—I want to
give you some options. In fact, I’m going to describe the antics of ten
professors, official campus groups, and invited campus speakers in North
Carolina and let you decide which constitutes the biggest embarrassment
to higher education.”
The ten examples cited were approved forms of free speech in liberal academia.
- A women’s studies professor and a psychology professor at Western Carolina University co-sponsored in the early spring semester of 2013 a panel on bondage and S&M with the goal “to teach college students how to inflict pain on themselves and others for sexual pleasure.”
- At UNC Chapel Hill, “a feminist professor believes that women can
lead happy lives without men. That’s nothing new. But what’s different
is that she thinks women can form lifelong domestic partnerships with
dogs and that those relationships will actually be fulfilling enough to
replace marital relationships with men.”
- “At Duke University, feminists hired a ‘sex worker’ (read: prostitute) to speak as part of an event called the Sex Workers Art Show.”
I am too embarrassed to repeat what the male prostitute did after his
speech. It involved the rectum, a burning sparkler, and the singing of
the Star Spangled Banner.
- “A porn star was once paid to give a speech at UNCG. The topic was
‘safe sodomy.’ After her speech, the feminist pornographer sold
autographed butt plugs to students in attendance.”
- “A few years ago at UNC-Chapel Hill, a feminist group built a large
vibrator museum in the middle of the campus quad as part of their
‘orgasm awareness week.’”
- “A feminist administrator at UNC-Wilmington sponsored a pro-abortion
event. During the event they sold tee shirts saying ‘I had an abortion’
to students who… well, had abortions,” a not so subtle way to
“encourage students to boast about the fact that they had killed their
own children.”
- “The same UNCW administrator sponsored a workshop teaching students how to appreciate their orgasms.”
- “A UNCW English professor posted nude pictures of under-aged girls
as part of an ‘art exhibit’ in the university library. The Provost then
ordered the nude pictures to be moved away from the library and into the
university union.” The incensed English professor asked the Faculty
Senate to censure the Provost for violating her ‘academic freedom.’ The
Faculty Senate sided with the feminist professor. The Provost was later
pressured to leave the university.”
- “A different feminist professor at UNCW accused a male professor of
putting tear gas in her office. She was later caught putting her mail in
a microwave oven. She did this because she thought people were trying
to poison her with anthrax and that the oven would neutralize the
toxins. She was not placed on leave for psychiatric reasons. Instead,
she was designated as the university’s official ‘counter terrorism’
expert.”
- “And then there is Mike Adams. He thinks marriage is between a man and a woman, and he is the biggest embarrassment on campus.”
Mike Adams, a criminology professor at Wilmington, wrote a book
entitled “Letters to a Young Progressive: How to Avoid Wasting Your Life
Protesting Things That You Don’t Understand.” I must hurry and order
this book before it is censored and disappears off the shelves.
At the end of the day in America, I still have my freedom of silence
and my thoughts are still free until they invent a computer that can
read my mind. Have they?
Posts
In
recent years US colleges and universities have undertaken drastic
measures to reduce piracy, but none comes close to the “copyright
awareness” campaign one of the top medical schools is currently running.
On the occasion of its 10th anniversary last Saturday, The Pirate Bay 
The
following reasons for the US-UK-France threats to launch unlawful
‘punitive’ airstrikes against the Syrian military are self evident. As
follows:
