The Left’s decades-long attempt to suppress, distort, or outright censor speech that discredits their various narratives, deceptions, and bald-faced lies is obvious to most Americans — including Democrat lawmakers and the sock-puppet media who are loath to admit it.
Never forget: the Left is virtually never about protecting the truth; it's about protecting their power — real or perceived. Moreover, Democrat political figures and their simps in the media will stoop to virtually any low to protect that power.
The thing is, even innumerable numbers of Democrat voters privately recognize the Left's blatant hypocrisy, as more than a few of my Democrat friends have confirmed. They see how the media they once trusted has devolved into a propaganda arm of the Progressive Left, which includes today's Democrat Party. Yep, the so-called Fourth Estate now functions less as a watchdog of power than as its PR department for the Democrat Party — and against President Donald Trump and conservatives.
Compelled Speech
In addition to censorship, the Left is all about compelled speech; demanding its adherents stick to the narrative, including the strict use of words and terms, with deviation considered a hypocrisy.
As many of us know, the Left demands public submission to its narrative, polices every word, and treats deviation as heresy. Approved slogans about “equity,” “inclusion,” “gender identity,” “systemic racism,” “democracy, and of course ”Trump is a fascist" (or worse) must be repeated without question.
For example, the narratives about "tax cuts for the rich," "threat to democracy," "MAGA extremists," "Republicans want to gut health care," and other such nonsense. If you reside on the leftist plantation, you must stick to the script, lest you be ostracized — or destroyed, if necessary.
Related on RedState: Democracy Dies in Groupthink, Democrat Party Hardest Hit
Intellectual Diversity: Abhorred by the Hypocritical Left Like Nobody's Business
Noted law professor and political commentator Jonathan Turley weighed in on the issue of compelled speech in a Monday column, while also providing several examples (emphasis, mine):
Democrats in some blue states are moving from censoring speech to compelling speech in renewed attacks on free speech. They are facing resistance in the courts despite determined efforts to force others to mouth approved viewpoints.
More than five years ago, I wrote in these pages of a growing trend on the left toward compelled speech — the forcing of citizens to repeat approved views and values. It is an all-too-familiar pattern. Once a faction assumes power, it will often first seek to censor opposing views and then compel the endorsement of approved views. This week, some of those efforts faced setbacks and challenges in blue states like Washington and Illinois.
In Washington state, many have developed what seems a certain appetite for compelled speech. For example, Democrats recently pushed through legislation that would have compelled priests and other clerics to rat out congregants who confessed to certain criminal acts. Despite objections from many of us that the law was flagrantly unconstitutional, the Democratic-controlled legislature and Democratic governor pushed it through.
The Catholic Church responded to the enactment by telling priests that any compliance would lead to their excommunication.
U.S. District Court Judge Iain D. Johnston enjoined the law, and the Trump Administration sued the state over its effort to turn priests into sacramental snitches. Only after losing in court did the state drop its efforts.
In the meantime, the University of Washington has been fighting to punish professors who refuse to conform to its own orthodox values. In 2022, Professor Stuart Reges triggered a firestorm when he refused to attach a prewritten “Indigenous land acknowledgement” statement to his course syllabi.
[...]
Instead, he wrote, “I acknowledge that by the labor theory of property, the Coast Salish people can claim historical ownership of almost none of the land currently occupied by the University of Washington.”
Kudos to Professor Reges and those like him for refusing to succumb to those attempts to compel speech that runs contrary to their own views.
