Free Speech and the Divergence of Law and Custom

While I suspect this isn’t an original idea—I do a lot of reading and likely absorbed bits and pieces elsewhere—I think it can be plainly said that throughout much of the United States there is a yawning gap between our laws and the customs of this country’s assorted populations. That such divergence exists and is arguably widening is a natural outcome of both the ordinary passage of time and changes to the population itself. It is impossible to inoculate against time, but culture and demographics can nominally be controlled or influenced.

The problem, of course, is that customs have drifted from the status quo that produced the law. If the customs of a people give rise to laws, and those people are changed along with their customs, the respective laws will become increasingly arbitrary to those who are subject to them. In more loaded terms, we might refer to such a drift away from the original laws and customs—which reflected one another—as degeneration, the losing of one’s people or culture. And indeed, the drop from almost 90% to 62% White is a loss and something which has surely impacted our public culture and discourse. We are left with legacy laws and institutions of a people who seem almost alien to ourselves. Certainly this is how many on the left, as well as the cuckservative right, feel about the patrimony of dead White men.

This divergence happens in many areas of our legal tradition, but most prominent and publicly debated are those areas related to our rights as citizens. And nowhere is the split more obvious than over the First Amendment to the Constitution, as ratified in the Bill of Rights.

The First Amendment mainly protects freedom of speech, which is necessary in a free and literate society. It is the value system of a such a society that its members be allowed to exercise their intellectual faculties and speak their minds. Totally free speech regarding any issue without any repercussions, has never existed, however. Several of the Founding Fathers famously wrote under pseudonyms and Tocqueville noted that Americans with unpopular beliefs were subject to social exclusion by the tyrannical, if moderating, force of the majority. If freedom of speech is to be suppressed then, let it be by public opinion rather than the state—this was the rationality of the First Amendment.

But for many, particularly on the left, it isn’t enough to marginalize dissenting voices and let them languish in their own corner of the political spectrum. Freedom of speech itself is seen as a legitimate—and often emotional—threat to them and their ideology. (Because they're wrong about quite a lot). There is a push among the academic and Millennial left to ban ((((hate speech)))) and create “safe spaces,” which together would prevent them from ever encountering an unvetted idea ever again. This involves bringing in state, educational or corporate power—all of which function similarly—against heretics to make sure they are structurally denied a platform, rather than relying on traditional social sanctions, e.g. ostracism/shunning or condemnation. Their whole position is built around controlling the battlefield rather than actual combat, which is why leftists are so easy to troll once their perimeters are breached—we, the enemy, are armed with our hatefacts and rhetoric while they were hoping to play a static defense. But at an institutional level, those perimeters are massive and with potential for growth.

Let’s start with hate speech. I’m sure we’ve all heard the triggering phrase, ”Hate speech isn’t free speech!” But really, what is hate speech? How do we draw a box around this wholly subjective category and make sure it stays put? It’s one thing to ban actual threats or harassment; that’s hateful, it's speech, and it's already illegal in most cases. But banning hate speech isn’t about criminalizing threats. It goes without saying—on the alt-right anyway—that what is meant by hate speech is speech critical of multiculturalism, immigration or jews, or speech in favor of uniquely White group interests. It’s not even about political correctness at that point, but about banning heretical ideas and justifying said ban with loaded emotional language. On that front, our European cousins are far more dildo than we are, especially in Britain, France and Germany. The French mulatto comedian Dieudonné M'bala M'bala has run into legal troubles with the state over “anti-semitism,” an interesting kind of narrative collision in which Voltaire is vindicated and not even a miscegenated Gallia is spared the scrutiny of laws designed to enable its existence in the first place. In Britain, you can be arrested and jailed for tweeting to a jew. And mulignan, just thinking about Germany gives me agita.

We can make it happen!

Thankfully in Burgerland, hate speech is, in fact, free speech—all social sanctions withstanding. Legally, you are almost untouchable so long as you don’t cross some very well-established lines regarding threatening someone. The further problem, however, is that the channels people use to engage in and broadcast speech are not “free.” Three words: Terms of Service. We don’t need the state to ban hate speech because other actors already have. Anyone on the alt-right who has had experience with the massive internet platforms used to spread ideas and content knows this. Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Reddit and the comments sections of any major publication range from Soviet-tier censorship to reactive political correctness (in the sense that they will take down reported content). This is where politics happens for much of the rising generation of Americans and it is policed not merely by social sanctions but by site policy. Erecting institutional barriers to free speech is not something institutions derived from a free speech culture do—American customs have drifted.

“Safe spaces” are the other salient examples of how our culture has become anti-free speech, and they are pushed for by none other than society’s self-fancied most open-minded members, college students. Much like banning hate speech, the idea is to create spaces where everyone other than White people can express themselves on identity terms without “fear”—fear of being coddled by White liberals, I suppose. I’m pretty sure no one on college campuses with liberal or pro-POC beliefs is going to be persecuted for said beliefs. So safe spaces are essentially racial—and sometimes gender-based or sexual-orientation-based—exclusion areas. But it’s not segregation because reasons. The most important thing for these people is to keep White group interests or other illiberal thoughts from breaching the political spectrum in college spaces. That’s their idea of safe space, as opposed to a White majority community. If they weren’t so dogmatic they’d realize that they’re actually self-segregating away from us, and on some level I’m okay with this. I would just prefer they did so at a national level. My main problem with safe spaces is that their proponents are explicitly anti-white while at the same time claiming some sort of universal moral authority. Just admit you’re ethnocentric. I won’t be mad at you.

I don’t have a high note to end this on other than to keep on consuming (and supporting) alt-right media, and to shill as hard as you can for free speech and transparency. This is also an area the alt-right and the normie right align on, as they like the Constitution and we need the right of free speech in order to function. Legal protection for freedom of speech will not endure if a culture supporting it does not exist. We need to push back.

Also published at Atlantic Centurion

Author image
Another voice on the Alt-Right and a White nationalist. Macroaggression Consultant at Bagelbaum & Associates LLC. Like my effortposting? Gib e-shekels: 14HZJbFs3YL5oXVnxFpduXv5G3uqP85xoC
Amerikaner Free State Website