Hey Canadian free speech regulation lovers on the Left: Regulate THIS! Oh hang on I was only kidding.

Related Articles

Vacay, in case you didn’t notice

When I write new articles, this site's daily visitor...

NEW: Two negative quarters is a recession only when Republicans are in power.

This is a lie. Misinformation. Until they change the dictionary,...

Tweets that go together

We could say "one thing leads to another." Or...

Who’s running for the “Ottawa” party?

"Ottawa's" hypocrisy. Oh dear. Spot the irony. "Ottawa" is code...

The Article

Cross-posted from BoldColors.net, but edited to appease Canadian state regulators and future regulators and make it more “Canadian content”-ish with the addition of two added “eh”s (sorry it’s not also provided in French, but it’s just not. And actually, no, I’m not the least bit sorry):


Read quickly, eh! The tentacles of the progressives and other liberal-left advocates of big, growing, nanny-state government and enemies of free-speech are already feeling out possible additional avenues of government meddling in and intrusions into and political/social engineering of… the internet. This, to ensure their progressive agenda gets fully aired and ingrained into our brains while conservatives are shut up.

In “the true north strong and free,” Canada, its progressive “Conservative” government only just barely fought for and won a victory (barely fought by them, mostly fought by conservatives bloggers) over one of the latest attempts by progressives to usurp the freedom that doesn’t specifically work to their political advantage. That’s also the country where Ann Coulter (one of my former columnists — for 9 years in Canada, during which I was harangued daily by liberals and other leftists for daring to publish it) was physically shut down by progressive thugs and mobs before being allowed to speak publicly at a state-funded Canadian university.

John Stossel (who is also a former columnist of mine) makes another excellent free-speech point today.

Regulating Political Speech

It’s presidential season, so again pundits are indignant that money is spent on politics. Spent by corporations! And rich people! Because the Supreme Court allowed that, “2012 will be a miserable year,” says The Washington Post’s E.J. Dionne.

2012 may be miserable — but if it is, it won’t be because corporations spend on politics. And anyway, they have a right to spend.

In politics, money is speech.

The very first amendment that the Founders chose to add to the Constitution couldn’t be more clear: “Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech … .”

Yet most people support laws against political speech — when they don’t like the speakers. …

[**SPOILER ALERT**] – (I know! I did this in my last post too!). Stossel’s last paragraph is the bomb:

It is shameful that leftists let their hatred of corporations lead them to throw free speech under the bus. There is a smarter way to get corporate money out of politics: Shrink the state. If government has fewer favors to sell, citizens will spend less money trying to win them.

Read the rest. Eh.

Joel Johannesen
Follow Joel
Latest posts by Joel Johannesen (see all)

You can use this form to give feedback to the editor. Say nice things or say hello. Or criticize if you must. 

    Your Name (required)

    Your Email (required)

    Your Message

    Do you Have a File to Send?
    If so, choose it below

    This is just a question to make sure you're not a robot:

    This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

    — Normally this would be an ad. It's a doggy. —spot_img