Why Defending Against Any Erosion of Rights Matters

In my last post I argued against support of an anti-race baiting petition.  Today I have a news story that illustrates why this sort of incremental erosion of rights is important.

picture from smh.com.au

The Sydney Morning Herald reports that Michaela Banerji was sacked for criticising the government department for which she works. Never mind that this was on her own private time. Never mind that it was from anonymous Twitter account. Never mind that it could not be definitively traced back to her. Her department investigated the tweets and when they were satisfied that there was a probability that the account was hers, they fired her.

Furthermore, Federal Circuit Court Judge Warwick Neville ruled that Australians have no ''unfettered implied right (or freedom) of political expression''. Not only that, but even if they DID have such a right, it would not trump her employment contract with the government.

How very alien that is to American ears... to hear that in a liberal democracy such as Australia, in this modern world, people do not have basic rights that we take for granted. Furthermore, how chilling it is to learn that this fundamental lack of protection cost Banerji her job because she was expressing her honest political opinion; and that opinion was deemed offensive to some politician. She took great care to separate her opinions (expressed in the Twitter account @LaLegale) from her job, and they were far less corrosive than statements we'd hear from late-night comedians on television.

Under the Fair Use provision of
Title 17 I can use whatever
gosh-darn image I like
to illustrate a political point,
because in America, the First
Amendment trumps copyright.

Folks, every thing you say is offensive to someone. That's why Ned Flanders is so gosh-darn doodle-y woodle-y annoying. There is nobody too good, and no speech too clean to be painted as "hate speech" by some paper-skinned clueless emotionally damaged half-witted cretinous political puppet (And yes, dear Reader, if you just took offense at that, I absolutely intended those comments to be aimed directly at you personally. Feel free to comment below. Anonymous comments will be deleted un-read, so be sure to use your name so we can see that you've voluntarily labeled yourself appropriately). This being the case, the only appropriate restrictions on free speech are NONE. 

(And yes, dear Reader, I know the irony of making that statement immediately after telling you I'd delete your comments un-read. When you do that by accident you're a hypocrite.  When you do it on purpose, like I just did, that's hella witty. Don't try this at home, I've had years of practice).

So even when I don't agree with a single word you say... even when I think you're a complete dick... even when you make me angry or hurt my feelings... even when any association with your bilious statements make me want to spew vomit on your hateful face... I will defend your right to be an annoying insensitive vermin of the first order. And I reserve for myself the right to call you all of those things in public. Is this "baiting"? More like "expressing an opposing opinion".  But when such opinions are expressed by a populace, government and courts who actually comprehend the value and meaning of free speech rather than the aforementioned brainwashed political puppets, amazingly, civil discourse ensues. This is because I value your right to speech as much as my own. It is only when someone values his own rights more than yours that he recommends you curtail your rights by force of law rather than exercising them with reasonable restraint. And that, my friends, is how you identify a manipulative proto-tyrant who should never be voted into any position of authority.