Jump to content
SASS Wire Forum

Charlie T Waite

Super Moderators
  • Content Count

    4,592
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    43

Posts posted by Charlie T Waite


  1. BELLEVUE, WA – Four more high-profile names have been added to the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms “Don’t Feed the Gun Prohibitionists” roster of businesses that support gun control by banning guns in their establishments.

    CCRKBA launched the educational effort earlier this month to identify businesses, and CEOs, who close their premises or openly support gun control. “Don’t Feed the Gun Prohibitionists” initially listed almost 200 businesses and CEOs. The “Don’t Feed the Gun Prohibitionists” project has developed a dynamic list of businesses and CEOs who have been pushing for new legislation designed to impair the rights of law-abiding firearms owners. The list may be found at www.ccrkba.org/antigunbusinesses.

    “Today, we’re adding Subway, Chipotle, Sonic and Panera Bread to the list,” CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb announced. “All of these businesses have banned guns in their establishments, which is an insult to the millions of law-abiding, legally-armed citizens who have harmed nobody and committed no crimes.”

    CCRKBA’s list includes such recognizable names as Costco, Burger King, Delta Airlines, Dick’s Sporting Goods, Hallmark, the Hard Rock Café, Levi Strauss, Microsoft, Progressive Insurance, Sara Lee and Yelp. These companies and their corporate leadership that have made donations and/or advocated on behalf of gun control organizations, including sending an open group letter to the United States Senate urging additional restrictions and firearms bans.

    “We’re not calling for a boycott of these companies,” Gottlieb explained, “but we are providing this information to American gun owners so they can make informed decisions about where to spend their hard-earned money without unknowingly supporting efforts to erode an important constitutional right.

    “As we said earlier,” he added, “Businesses and the people who own them can support whatever kind of philosophy they want, and gun owning consumers can likewise not spend any money with those firms. Let the marketplace decide.

    “Over 100 million American gun owners represent a sizeable consumer bloc,” Gottlieb said, “and they will vote with their wallets. Businesses that work against their interests should lose the benefit of their patronage.”


  2. A functioning republic requires the free expression of thoughts and ideas. This is why the right to free speech and assembly are enumerated so clearly in our Constitution's Bill of Rights. Today, California Attorney General Becerra and 19 other state attorneys general called on Facebook to more “aggressively enforce” the platform’s policies against so-called hate speech and “hate organizations.”

    As is clear to anyone, this is merely a call by agents of the state for Facebook to regulate content; something that Facebook would be unable to do if it were a government entity, because it would be unconstitutional. This naked attempt on the part of government to use online platforms to accomplish what it could not do itself is concerning for many reasons.

    A.G. Becerra claims his goal is to prevent harassment and intimidation, to prevent discrimination against minority groups, and to stop unlawful activity. The truth, though, seems to diverge from this assertion. What Becerra and company are trying to do is deputize third parties to engage in “audits of hate content.” 

    But what is hateful content, and how is the line drawn between it and protected speech? How can we know what is hate, and what is simply repulsive?  Given Becerra’s uncompromising support for massive abrogations of civil rights, such as gun control, it does not take a substantial leap to see that content regulation may include the regulation of things that have nothing to do with hate, but that which is simply deemed unfavorable by the ruling establishment.

    As more of our interactions and expressions occur on private platforms like Facebook, tensions between the right of the hosting parties and of those expressing themselves grow. This instance of government’s self-insertion, and urging these platforms to more vigorously restrict speech, is among the most dangerous interactions of business and government to occur in our nation’s history.

    The year is 2020, not 1984. If we as a society permit the government to bully private businesses into acting as lackeys of the state, to suppress speech, to ban individuals from freely engaging in ideas, no matter how controversial, we will fail as a modern republic. Thought regulation is something that occurs under dictatorial regimes like the People's Republic of China, not in modern, liberal societies. Not only does the Attorney Generals’ call for censorship fly in the face of liberal philosophy, it could only have a negative impact: driving controversial actors to engage in subversive activity in the darkness, fomenting resentment, and inspiring actual hate-driven incidents. As the old adage goes, sunshine is the best disinfectant.

    If Attorney General Becerra is genuine and wants to reduce harassment and intimidation, he should focus on good-faith efforts to educate people in his own state. After all, these AGs were elected to a state position, not a dictatorial one. Facebook and other media platforms should disregard the Attorney Generals’ letter because nothing good can come from it. These companies already struggle to remove actual criminal content because of the volume of information that continually flows through the web. It would be a waste of their time and resources to serve as thought police, and acting as government lackeys to accomplish tasks the government is forbidden from pursuing rubs salt in the People’s already wounded rights.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.