Contrast the applications of rights to speech.

As we watch progressive activists disrupt life in America, apparently with impunity, progressive attorneys general are happy to provide contrary examples dependent upon political viewpoint:

Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell is suing an increasingly active neo-Nazi group and two of its leaders for an escalating pattern of harassing, intimidating, and confrontational conduct at anti-immigration protests and demonstrations against drag queen story-hours around the state.

The Nationalist Social Club, or NSC-131, and its leaders, Christopher Hood, of Newburyport, and Liam McNeil, of Waltham, repeatedly have showed up at public libraries hosting the story hours and hotels providing emergency shelter to new immigrants …

The group is distasteful, to be sure, but their rights are our rights. As we saw with the Harvard and MIT presidents, we’re not merely looking at a situation in which the law is a somewhat shifting the line between speech and action (harassment). The proposition is that the very same action would be speech by a politically favored group and harassment by a disfavored group.  The ruling Party protects its own and persecutes those with whom it disagrees. This is not freedom.  It’s not democracy.  It’s not equality.  It’s tyranny, and if we accept it to dispatch with people we don’t like, we’ll soon find ourselves disliked by the authorities and with nobody to stand up for us.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Show your support for Anchor Rising with a 25-cent-per-day subscription.