If You Limit ANY Free Speech, This Is What You Get

By Joe Jarvis

The law originally targeted the KKK. Now it has been used to arrest people protesting against white supremacists.

And that is why free speech is so important.

Plenty of people would love to see new laws to stop white supremacists from exercising their–albeit offensive–free speech.

But as this 1951 law demonstrates, the law as it is intended is not always how it is applied.

Faced with hundreds of demonstrators rallying against a crowd of neo-Nazis in Newnan, local and state authorities turned to a little-known Georgia law adopted in 1951 to combat the Ku Klux Klan.

The law, which makes it illegal to wear a mask at most public events, was cited in several of the arrests of counterdemonstrators who joined a protest Saturday against white supremacists.

And the irony was not lost upon the organizers of the counterdemonstration, who were fuming Sunday that a law aimed at weakening white supremacists was used to arrest protesters who opposed a neo-Nazi rally.

There are so many problems with this law. Why are masks not protected forms of expression? What about hats, hoods, and sunglasses? At what point do those fit the definition of a mask?

Ironically, police routinely wear gas masks and face-covering riot helmets at these kinds of events. Apparently, the law doesn’t apply to them. But that is fitting since most laws don’t apply to the people who enforce them.

Have you ever threatened to shoot someone with a rifle because they had a mask on? Me neither. Police are a different breed.

A video posted on social media by freelance journalist Daniel Shular appeared to show authorities scuffling with counterdemonstrators. Authorities demanded that the counterprotesters remove their masks, and the footage showed an officer raising his rifle at demonstrators.

This is another good reminder that police will enforce any law handed down on high from politicians–even dead politicians who passed the law in 1951. The only actual violence at the rally was committed by police, in the name of the law.

But free speech, the very First Amendment in the blueprint for this country’s government, is not so important to law enforcement. Police have no problem throwing people to the ground, handcuffing them, using pepper spray, billy clubs, and aiming deadly weapons at peaceful protesters because they wear a piece of cloth obscuring their faces.

And any other anti-free speech laws will be enforced with equal vigor.

Hate speech. Offensive displays. Fake news. Laws aimed at combating these will absolutely limit free speech. Maybe, maybe, at first they will only be used against the neo-Nazis and the white supremacists, just like this anti-mask law was at first only used against the KKK.

But it is only a matter of time until innocent people find themselves in the crosshairs of these freedom crushing laws.

State law bans the wearing of masks, hoods or other devices that conceal a person’s identity if they’re on public property or on private property where the owner has not consented. It includes exceptions for holidays, theatrical productions, civil emergencies and sporting events.

The laws have been adopted by about a dozen states, most aimed at weakening the KKK in the middle of the 20th century. The Georgia Supreme Court in 1990 upheld the state’s ban after a Klansman donned a hood on the Lawrenceville Square, citing his First Amendment rights.

The law has mostly been used to target KKK demonstrations, though it has also been employed before to arrest demonstrators who are objecting to white power groups. At a 2016 rally, the law was used to arrest eight demonstrators protesting a white supremacist rally at Stone Mountain Park.

This is just one of many laws in the arsenal of the police state. There are enough laws that you can be arrested for basically anything. It gives an official appearance to entirely arbitrary policing. You can be arrested on any officer’s whim, and then he will be able to find an excuse.

Other counter-protesters were arrested for “resisting arrest,” a classic joke of a charge. How can you be charged with only resisting arrest? It means there was no reason for them to be arresting you, and only once they illegally tried to arrest you did you commit a crime.

If common law reigned supreme, where attacking someone is always wrong, these police would not have the protection of the State to shield their violent actions.

A blot of ink on a 70-year-old piece of paper would not protect these cops from charges that they threw people to the ground without provocation, that they chained and kidnapped people, that they aimed loaded guns at people who had done nothing aggressive or threatening.

Make no mistake, ANY anti-free speech law will be used against innocent, non-violent, peaceful people. And the American police state will enforce those laws on its victims with glee.

You can read more from Joe Jarvis at The Daily Bell.

Activist Post Daily Newsletter

Subscription is FREE and CONFIDENTIAL
Free Report: How To Survive The Job Automation Apocalypse with subscription

14 Comments on "If You Limit ANY Free Speech, This Is What You Get"

    • Well, I nearly agree if your FTP means F*** The Police. Nearly because I know some police that are actual Peace Officers and bonded. That means if they screw up you can go to the magistrate or Justice of The Peace for the district/parish they serve and claim their bond cash.

      Say for example Peace Officer Jones had been doing well as Peace Officer for ten years, his bond is held in trust as a fund based upon his merit. After ten years he’s earned his bond of say $25,000, it’s his “insurance policy” and/or “pension” when he retires. So he uses excessive force in arresting you for jay walking, it’s proved he did too. You can file charge against his bond. Some places allow up to a certain percentage, others let you wipe out the Peace Officer’s bond in full. Then, he needs to start over earning his bond back.

      Some of these Peace Officers I know do uphold their oaths to keep the peace and follow Common Law. They’re the “good guy” cops if you will. They want to earn a good bond paid to them via the citizenry through their magistrate, Justice of The Peace. Some also simply want to do “the right thing” for the sake of doing it. So, this is why I nearly agree with you. Police en/in”force” policies and don’t give one whit about upholding the peace or Common Law. Policy law is also called Statute Law, Admiralty Law, Law of the Sea. Common Law is called Law of the Land, everyone knows Law of the Land too it’s innate to all good folk.

      Don’t hurt others or their property, don’t commit fraud in your dealings, honor the peace and that’s about the extent of Common Law. Law of the Sea on the other hand lets Pharisees, dictators write laws up as policies on a whim and give no notice save to have it en/in”force”d. So, yes I agree with FTP to the extent that we don’t need or desire thugs aiding thieves, liars, outright crooks. I do reserve gratitude for Officers of the Peace though and in that grace enough to not lump them into your FTP.

      My apology too if this was tl;dr material or seemed confrontational. Did not exactly intend it to be either. I merely sought to convey my thought/s/opinion/feeling regarding the police and officers of the peace. There’s a fair difference between the two, think we ought to recall that at times. People are going to people until time ends and we all need to watch out for one another.

      • Proof that bonding is an excellent idea is that it is not very publicized. It would solve most of the problems with police. In what jurisdictions is it in effect?

        • I’m not sure here in America. Although I’m sure it wouldn’t be too difficult to ferret out. Do note that it has long been practiced in the U.K.. Like you say though it’s not publicized. The Officers of the Peace prefer the citizens not know about it. I need to research further, will get back in touch. Thought at some point it was used in Louisiana. Might be in error, if so my apologies. Think you might look into ICC, International Criminal Courts which is a facet of the International Court of Justice in the Hague. They employ Officers of the Peace all over the world. At one time I had given it some thought here in WV. The ‘lead’ Peace Officer for our area in Philadelphia, PA, I believe had a first name of Greg. Never followed through as I figured some of the physical aspects of the work might be daunting.

      • cop insurance?..pretty good idea

        • Well that’s one way to see it. *grin* Actually it’s the oath and their merit the Officers need to uphold. If they’re not up to doing that then yes they’re ‘breaking contract’ in effect. That contract is with the people they serve. They can also face criminal charges. Often simply the fear of punitive charges taking the purse of money in their bond is enough to keep them ‘above board’ and not apt to be corrupted. I’m sure corruption still does happen, yet it seems rare to hear of it.

  1. Do not trust any elected person and NO one who wears a badge and a gun. When I see a badge and a gun I go to condition yellow, when that person is on the street near me I go to condition red. I am ready to shoot to kill because they will do the same to me and get away with it.

  2. I’ve been telling people for years that the reason for all these intrusive, arbitrary, and agenda based laws, many of which are ‘unenforceable’ unless applied in tyrannist totalitarian fashion, is for no other reason but to eventually, at will of the tyrannist government, target focus activist Patriots who are non-compliant and in pro-active opposition dissent to the governments agenda…and totally disarm them. Therefore eliminating any potential of Jeffersonian resistance to a tyrannical government.

    Now it’s painfully obvious. They do not want you to have 1st Amendment rights of vocal, active discontent directed at their authority. They want you easily identified for all their anti-4the Amendment surveillance state electronics.

    The only way to reverse this is to repeal all gun control laws that make people who get convicted of a crime permanently punished–even after they pay their penalties or serve their time and reintegrate into society as a rehabilitated law-abiding citizen again–by permanent bans from gun ownership.

    Without all these unconstitutional overkill Fiat laws, they’d NEVER be able to confiscate your firearms no matter how many useless behavior laws they make to create a nation of criminal felons. (See ‘Battlefield America’ by John Rutheford). This is one of the greatest agenda based frauds ever committed on Free American citizens.

    • you forget that every single gun control law is illegal – that’s an oxymoron, but it is however true
      the second amendment does not allow you to be a gun owner, by its very definition, it requires every law-abiding free man (and woman) to be armed (at all times) – because you are the militia, you are the enforcers of the law – the one and only law – the Constitution of the United States (and its first ten amendments)
      an armed society is a polite society – Heinlein (it doesn’t matter if the politeness is due to respect – your neighbour – or because of fear – a criminal, even one with a badge)

  3. In one particular instance of mine the police went out of their way to show me that they could kill me and get away with it because they ran off all witnesses. I was convinced that day that they are organized crime, not government.
    Most people will not question authority to the point that they point guns at you, but this is how I learned. I am just waiting for enough people to wake up and see them for the traitors that they are. Judges especially.
    It is because of corrupt judges that cops do not obey laws because they don’t have to. The system of evil will protect them.

    • Likely what you call Judges, are not judges at all but Judicial Administrators. Yes, there’s a big difference. A judge operates in a court de joure, by Law of the Land, will grant you trail by jury. Judicial Administrators on the other hand operate the court of straw man and policy, or Law of the Sea/Law of Commerce. All they care about is doling out money, hopefully more to STATE so as to secure their own coffers. They abide the legal but not always the lawful. Also they will bow to policy, the most freshest ones too. Do not argue based on precedent with them, they’ll see no cases or opinions before around 1940 or so.

      No, I’m not a lawyer or attorney. I’m just somebody that gets these curious notions and goes and looks stuff up just to learn, to keep my mind around. *grin*

      • However you look at it they are really judicial impersonators. When asked if they are lawful Article 3 judges they respond that they are Article 1 ‘judges’. That is the admission on their part that they are impersonating judges. A criminal offense. They are outside the judicial arm of what is supposed to be our government. I believe them to be traitors who should be strung up. They are either aiding and abetting our enemies or they are our enemy. All 10 elements of communism are in affect because they refuse to uphold the Constitution. That is their sworn duty. That is the job we pay them to do. Try to get them to obey the Constitution and see how they treat you.

        • “That is the admission on their part that they are impersonating judges.
          A criminal offense. They are outside the judicial arm of what is
          supposed to be our government. I believe them to be traitors who should
          be strung up. ”

          I may concur with your sentiments on that although hesitate in the expression of it from myself. This in part due to still holding value to what I also believe to hold merit, that uncanny dream we Americans so desperately cling to despite seeing it in tatters. That and knowing there are some who are well, trying at least to honor the right thing to do gives me hope. Yes, I’m aware of what Socrates said of hope. Everyone needs something though and I would as soon take hope and love over a grave at my own hand. I think Socrates was ultimately wrong too. His taking of his own life admitted the STATE was correct, I do not believe the STATE to be correct. See how we can find inspiration and cause to live in rebellion? 🙂 Camus had a few good points.

          Excuse me and you have a good one. Have a friendly hug or half dozen, if you get extras pass them along to anyone you see needing them and give them extras as well. We’ll hug bomb it back to being right, maybe. 🙂

  4. Cops are thugs.
    Freedom is tolerance.

Leave a comment