By Donald Jeffries
I Protest
August 10, 2026
I'm a civil libertarian. We're practically extinct now. There were never very many of us, but there used to be a lot more. Most people simply don't support your right to say something they disagree with. And therein lies the rub, as the Bard once said. Political correctness, "hate speech," call it what you want. It destroys liberty.
I have recounted many times the origin of the expression "you can't yell fire in a crowded theater." Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes used that phrase to explain why Woodrow Wilson had the right to throw WWI protesters into prison. They weren't yelling fire, in a theater or otherwise. But the American public of that day and age accepted it. Didn't offer up a whimper of dissent. In 1942, the Supreme Court, in a 9-0 decision, decided that "insulting or 'fighting words', those that by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace" are among the "well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem." Now, Americans in 1942 were in full WW2 war fever mode. They were too busy buying bonds and planting Victory Gardens to worry about any "Fighting Words" exception to the First Amendment. We had Nazis to defeat- screw free speech!
Think of all that could potentially be construed as "fighting words." If someone says something bad about your wife, do you have the right to respond with physical violence ? This was the Supreme Court kind of validating the Creed of the Hood, forty years before Hollywood started celebrating the "hood." I don't have to tell you what can happen if someone "disrespects" your mama. Ghetto culture especially benefits from this flawed decision, which put yet another asterisk on the Bill of Rights. I grew up well after 1942, but we were still taught that "sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me." And now, emboldened by a Supreme Court decision none of them are even aware of, our ghetto culture uses the "fighting words" exemption to enable angry Blacks to batter hapless Whites, and then attribute it to being assaulted by certain words. Fighting words. Well, if you hear fighting words, what else can you do but fight ? Usually starting with a sucker punch.
I abandoned my liberal roots because the Left had already become unduly concerned with policing language, in the late 1970s. When the term "politically correct" was invented, and not met with incredulity, the die was cast. After all, if something is politically correct, that means that society has determined that there are opinions, words, that are politically incorrect. Not permissible in a country supposedly protected by a First Amendment. We should be free to be politically wrong, politically stupid, politically deranged. We should be able to say basically anything we want. Sure, saying something mean and confrontational to a person may result in you being punched. And if you're injured seriously enough, you may sue that person for losing his cool and injuring you. But no one should ever be able to justify a physical attack based upon anything that someone else said. The Left today thinks otherwise. They declare that words are violence. They support punching "nazis" in the face.
This authoritarian mindset resulted in the creation of cancel culture. Which was all based on words. Words that are protected under the First Amendment. Innocent Whites- and make no mistake- cancel culture, political correctness, and "hate speech" are all tyrannical concepts directed exclusively towards Whites- lost their jobs over things they posted on social media. On their own free time. It doesn't get much more unconstitutional than that. And this heavy handed policing of speech began to spill over into genuine insanity. Medical students got into trouble for stating the most obvious truth imaginable; that only biological women can give birth. You couldn't challenge the changing of "pronouns." You had to take seriously some indoctrinated student who declared that her new "pronouns" were "they/them." A plural. Don't even think about what might happen if you "misgendered" one of these mentally ill persons in a land lacking mental institutions. Instead, we have institutionalized "Wokeness."
But the Right has shown over the past few years, that they have their own version of insane cancel culture. While the Left wants to censor any criticism of any nonwhite, or any non-heterosexual, the Right is trying desperately to make criticism of Israel illegal. Both the Left and the Right want to censor their political opponents. Nobody wants to defend to their dying day the right of someone to say things, even if they find them thoroughly objectionable. That is so eighteenth century. If they had a public referendum to vote yay or nay on the First Amendment, I honestly believe most Americans would vote nay. You can't just say anything you want ! What if it's racist ? What if it's anti-Semitic ? What if it's sexist ? What if it's homophobic ? What if it's transphobic ? Today, what someone says seems to be more important than what they do. We're policing speech as much as we police conduct. No more speeches about sticks and stones. We're all ghetto single mothers now; don't let no one disrespect you!
If a man (and I'm pretty sure it has to be a White man) compliments a woman on some part of her anatomy, or perhaps even how pretty her outfit is, he may be in danger of getting in trouble. For speech. And most people- certainly most women- would agree that he should get in trouble for offending that woman. The word "offended" isn't in the Constitution. You're not supposed to have a "right" to not be offended. That seems self-explanatory, but the vast majority of people now believe that there is a protection against being "offended" somewhere in the Bill of Rights. Slander and defamation is one thing, and there have always been laws against them. But who determines what "offended" means ? It's a subjective, not objective term. It cannot be legally quantified, much like "hate," another favorite term of censorship advocates. It's based on emotion, not reason. So it's perfect for today's "Woke" Left, but also for today's Zionist Right, which gets "offended" by "hate" directed at Israel.
If there is any group in America 2.0 which still has free speech, it's our second largest, but most noticeable minority group. I'm glad someone has free speech, but many Blacks use it primarily to bash all White people, and immerse themselves in historical victimization over slavery. They possess a 24/7 persecution complex, and they feel compelled to share it with everyone. The problem with their free speech, however, is that it often results in infringing on the free speech of others. Saying the World's Most Dangerous Word can result in criminal prosecution now. Ask Shiloh Hendrix. Some words have become sticks and stones in our society. If they offend Blacks. Or the non-Irish. Or transgenders. Or plain old White feminists. But no one else has these "being offended" rights. Least of all, average White males. Rich White males, like all rich people, have unending rights. But, if they get caught saying the wrong thing to the wrong people, they'll be shuttled off to another high paying position.
It's a short leap from monitoring and punishing speech to monitoring and punishing thoughts. Literal Thoughtcrime. While Black street criminals have the "right" to call out some hapless White for "looking" at them, some White females have taken to confronting certain hapless White males for "staring" at them. Perhaps staring at the "wrong part" of their body. Sexualizing them. Which is related to thought, if their thoughts are indeed impure. At any rate, that's an incredibly slippery slope, but no one seems to feel that White men, like everyone else, have a right to look at other people. This includes hyper sensitive Blacks and attractive females. The rationale- which isn't remotely rational- is that such "looks" can make Black people, or women, feel "uncomfortable." This is another special right granted only to selected groups. The ones called "marginalized," but in reality overtly favored. Gay Pride parades and drag brunches make many of us "uncomfortable," but those feelings don't matter.
All the "experts" are quick to inform you that some speech is not protected by the First Amendment. As the illustration above shows, this includes "Hate Speech," which is a modern Orwellian concept that is indistinguishable from Thoughtcrime. The word "hate" can not be found in the Constitution. Hate is a human emotion. We all hate some things, and some people. We have a right to hate, as much as we have a right to love. One person's "hate" is another's reasonable disagreement. In fact, we have a right to be genuinely racist, to discriminate against each other. At least in our daily lives, in terms of who we want to associate with. Or to be genuinely anti-Semitic. Or genuinely misogynistic. Or to be repelled by the transgender agenda. We discriminate all the time. Will it become illegal to not like the taste of certain foods ? How about collard greens ? They are an essential part of "soul" food, after all. That's probably a form of "hate" that's not allowed in America 2.0. If someone Black complains, that is.
What if we publicly criticize the "talent" of a Snoop Dogg, or a Queen Latifah ? Is that kind of discrimination, of choosing what music to listen to and what television shows to watch, "protected" under the Bill of Rights ? What if we insist that the Anti-Defamation League is an unregistered foreign agent, as President Kennedy once did ? Can we still say a fat woman is fat, or is "body shaming" not protected speech ? Why can't bald guys get upset if someone points out that they have no hair ? Isn't that "hair shaming?" As I pointed out recently on X, women can be "offended" by "body shaming," but why can't men be "offended" by "income shaming?" You know, pointing out that 80 percent of them don't make enough to meet the ever increasing costs of living ? Outrage has become politicized. Christians cannot be "offended" over things they consider blasphemous. But Jews can be "offended" over the mildest criticism of Israel, where they don't live. Can we even say Tyler Robinson is innocent?
As for "obscenity," it has never been legally defined, because it can't be legally defined. If it's merely nudity, then a lot of beautiful works of art that are centuries old would be banned. As the Supreme Court judge said, with typical 'Murrican wisdom, "I know it when I see it." I don't think very many people talk about obscenity any more. Porn is mainstream. A rabbi owns one of the biggest sites- Pornhub. Another holy rabbi, Rabbi Shmuley, who is RFK, Jr's handler, sells sex toys on the side. With his daughter. That's how the "chosen" roll. "Ridicule" is perhaps the slipperiest of all these slippery slopes. Again, how do we define it ? Clearly, an angry Black or a self- hating White declaring that "all White people should die" is not ridicule. Or "hate." But saying that "transwomen" (men pretending to be women) shouldn't play women's sports is. A Sarah Silverman saying she hopes Jesus comes back so "we can fucking kill him again" is not ridicule or hate. But a gentile merely saying "Jew" can be.
Words can hurt. Good people try not to hurt other's feelings. But in anger, we sometimes say things we shouldn't. Why can't there be an "anger" clause to protect the White non-non-Irish from using "fighting words?" Which can be used against them in a court of law. I hate the word "retard," because of my very special late niece Denise. It's become one of the most popular words in America 2.0, which tells you something about the state of the crumbling culture. But I don't want people prosecuted for saying it. It offends me, but I'm not "marginalized" enough, and definitely not "chosen" enough, for it to matter. Suck it up buttercup. I hate all the gratuitous male nudity onscreen now. I guess you could say I'm "offended" by it. But I enjoyed the female onscreen nudity which used to prevail in America 1.0, so I don't want to be a hypocrite. That's what happens in a matriarchy. I "hate" the transgender agenda, but I will always try to treat those troubled souls fairly and decently.
Some free speech is freeer than others. Some "being offended" is more offended than others. Some "uncomfortable" feelings are more uncomfortable than others. We've gone full Orwell here. Now, I want to make clear that even the favored groups don't have full civil liberties. Blacks, for instance, can lose their magical status if they offend the non-Irish. Ask my friend Cynthia McKinney. Jamaal Bowman was a typical entitled Black "representative" in Congress, and even got away with pulling a fire alarm inside recklessly. Black Privilege, I believe it's called. But he couldn't get away with being too critical of Israel, and AIPAC saw to it that he was defeated by a pro- Zionist candidate in his primary election. Feminists can get in trouble for "offending" Blacks or the non-Irish. So can the transgenders, I presume. But the non-Irish don't seem to get in trouble for "offending" anyone. They're kind of like the Beatles of the Bill of Rights. With some exceptions, they're fully protected. Unlike the rest of us.
It's lonely being a civil libertarian in the modern dystopian world. I want to protect the rights, and the speech, of all the Blacks who hate White people. Of all the Jews who hate the inferior Goyim. Of all the women who hate men to show interest in them. Of all the transgenders who are confused and lashing out irrationally. Of all the illegal immigrants whose presence has helped to lower wages and eliminate benefits to poor and working class Americans. Even for the rich elitists who conspire against all of us each and every day. I would want Hillary Clinton to get a fair trial. If any of us is denied our God-given rights, all of us are in jeopardy. One verbal miscalculation away from being "cancelled." One misinterpreted look from being assaulted. We're almost at the Minority Report level, so don't fantasize about committing any crime. The flock cameras and the data centers are coming. Watch your step, and be careful what you say, and who you say it to. You're being watched, and you aren't protected.