Speech police

I found the recent Associated Press article about Venezuela’s crackdown on political opposition interesting. It isn’t surprising that a totalitarian, socialist regime would jail people who spoke out about the central government. What was interesting, though, were the words that Venezuela officials used to justify their actions.

Supporters of Nicolas Maduro accused opponents of being “fascists spreading hateful messages.” They defended the new law, claiming it “promoted a peaceful coexistence.” Where have I heard those words and phrases before?

Currently, many U.S. colleges have frequent demonstrations that label those with politically incorrect views as fascists who “spread hate speech.” So they either stop the speakers from appearing or shout them down. Also, non-conforming students are denied the opportunity to complete their education. I guess “promoting peaceful coexistence” just isn’t what it used to be.

In addition, some U.S. politicians are promoting new laws to essentially reverse the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United. They want the government to decide what political speech is “hateful or unacceptable.” Even worse, giant internet companies currently decide what ideas and thoughts are acceptable for millions of Americans to read on a daily basis.

The parallels in actions used to control thought by the socialist Venezuelan leaders and those proposed by some Americans should concern all free- and independent-thinking people.