Hate Mail - The "More Speech" Dodge Is An Obvious Failure

I wish I knew the etymology, as it were, of that use of the phrase "more speech" as the answer to hate speech.   I seem to recall first reading it way back when I could still stomach having a subscription to The Progressive, where that biggest windbag of that sort, Nat Hentoff, would say that as if it were an adequate answer to those who really had something to fear from hate speech.   I know it's been at least thirty five or so years that I've read it, and for that entire time hate-talk radio, cabloid-hate talk, hate talkers in roman collars who bought time and worse have been successfully destroying the past and far from total progress that was bought with blood and souls to achieve.  Generally those I've read it from were far from in danger, far from poor, far from being silenced as most of them had newspaper and magazine columns and were regularly heard on the very TV and radio stations that black balled anyone who would be saying what that "more speech" would be saying.  And if they were on, they were on with roughly two of the hate talkers and their supporters to every one who talked that "more speech" very occasionally.

If "more speech" were the answer, Republicans would never have had control of the congress, Reagan, Bush I, Bush II and now Trump would not be presidents and so-called presidents, I'm not even sure that Bill Clinton or Barack Obama would have been president and we would not be witnessing the destruction of the Voting Rights Act, Medicare and Medicaid.

More Speech  is one of the most cynical slogans that came from and flows from the corporate media and the lawyers and law firms they hire to further thier interests and profits.  If it worked, we wouldn't have gone steadily to hell for the whole time it has been said to silence those who never will be allowed "more speech" as they are silenced by the real and truly effective "more speech" that was created when the Supreme Court, including such liberal icons as Thurgood Marshall issued the Buckley v Valeo decision and all of those others I mentioned this morning.

For more, see my early piece, back when I went by the pseudonym "olvlzl" on Process Liberals.  Liberalism is all about the non-negotiable ends of equality - including economic equality - and the moral obligation to respect rights or it is a fraud.  The liberalism of the likes of Nat Hentoff and Fred Wertheimer is a fraud because it really doesn't care about that, it is a media industry fraud.