First Amendment Apocalypse - Part I

Burn, baby, BURN!

I get a kick out of the “Save Mickey” Facebook page.  There, you have a bunch of degenerates PUBLICLY CELEBRATING a worthless mutt with not one but TWO notches in its belt (another dead dog and a kid with his face ripped off), yet these miscreants have the unmitigated CHUZPAH to demand the SILENCE of their critics.  Additionally, the page has now “evolved” to protect the interests of OTHER known maulers.

Hey “Save Mickey”:  YOU run one of the most offensive sites on the internet.  YOU should be grateful for freedom of speech every day!  You don’t like what other people have to say?  You want to shut everyone else up?  How would you like it if WE shut YOU up?  I don’t think you would like that too much.  Facebook COULD pull your forum, you know.

Pursuant to that, it looks like Mickey’s lawyer, John Schill, flunked his Constitutional law AND his ethics classes:  Note that I added a few comments of my own in [brackets].

We have been asked to post this message.

To Dogs Suck:

Rarely, if ever, do I get involved in the workings of this Page. However, today you tested my patience with your vile hatred towards Mickey. Mickey, a dog whom I have worked very hard to save, and care very much about.

I am sorry you do not understand people's love for dogs, and for that I feel sorry for you.
For myself, I do love Mickey. Yes, he has a checkered past [that is one way of putting it… Ted Bundy had a “checkered past” too!], there is no denying it. However, I do care very much about him, and I was devastated today when I found out he may have cancer.....

Now I see your posts, in which you hope Mickey dies, and they infuriate me. Whom are you to wish that upon any dog or any of God's creatures?  [Pit bulls are a creation of Man, genius.  They are consumer products designed and produced by one group of people to meet the needs of another group of people].

It was easy to ban you from this page, all it took was the admin to press a button. However, I still cannot get your harsh words out of my mind. [Kind of like the rest of us can’t get the image of Kevin’s face out of our minds?]

So Dogs Suck or whomever is hiding behind that name, I am calling you out. Post as yourself, and take responsibility for your posts. [how about YOU take responsibility for the carnage your monsters create. Words don’t rip faces off, counsellor] Then agree to meet me, so we can openly debate the value of dogs in our lives. I would be more than happy to pay for you to fly you to Phoenix, pick a neutral location, and even arrange to have the media present for this debate. Then you and I could debate this issue in the open, rather than hiding behind a keyboard. [So you and your dog-nut buddies can pile on?]

So Dogs Suck, it is time to put up or shut up.

John Schill

Somebody said something bad about dogs on the internet!  O the Dogmanity!

I am half-tempted to tell Schill that *I* am “Dogs Suck” (I am not) or at least filling in for the guy in this “Debate”.  I would be glad to debate Schill ON MY TERMS. 

Now, I grant that simply purging someone from your forum, by itself, is not outside the (legal) boundary of the Bill of Rights:  A right to speak does not translate into a right to be heard and no one should be forced to grant you a forum to promote your agendas.

That said, dog fanatics have clearly stepped over those bounds as they DO appeal to authorities to silence anyone critical of dogs:  Consider this essay from a couple of years ago.

Additionally, these fanatics will employ physical threats to silence their opposition. For example, the last “Walk for victims of Pit Bulls and other dangerous dogs” was cancelled due to death threats.  That sounds like an infringement to me.  What’s the point of the first amendment if anyone and everyone can bully others into silence?  Is it any wonder those who critique this status quo want to remain anonymous?  

It seems to me that these folks have escalated to "outing" their critics, which seems like a thinly veiled threat to me.

Moreover, freedom of speech is not merely a rule, it is an ETHIC.  It is simply what is right.  I catch flak from various people on this forum on a frequent basis:  Defenders of Jerry Lenton, folks who believe dogs are “persons”, left wing nuts on my “public assistance” essays, flak from the “HaterZ”, and a few other examples.  All these “Critiques” are left up for all to see*.  I don’t HAVE to do it, but I do so for the following reasons:

1)      Silencing your opposition is unethical and counter to the civilizational values that we ALL LIVE BY.  The bill of rights is not merely a set of laws used to limit what the government can do (it does that) it lays down our core rights as people.

2)      My critics do an excellent job of making fools of themselves, so why would I prevent them from doing so?

3)      (This is a knockout blow).  Your position either stands on its own or it doesn’t.  If you are in a position where you MUST silence your critics, you are admitting you own a lost cause.  “Save Mickey” CAN’T be criticized, simply because it can’t hold up to any criticism.  To them, facts and logic are like sunlight and holy water to a vampire.  

(* note that I DO delete commercial spam and there are a couple of other scenarios where I might censor a commenter – freedom of speech is not an “unlimited” right).

Everything I put forth has a foundation in First Principles.  When considering the Mickey/Kevin fiasco, it’s important to consider that there were FACTS of the matter that were DELETED from the “Save Mickey” page, such as:

-          Mickey had attacked and killed another dog prior.

-          Kevin was a GUEST on the property at the time NOT a trespasser.

-          The “bone” was lying on the ground.  Kevin did NOT take it from Mickey’s mouth.

Not that the above factoids really matter too much, in my opinion:  There is no reason for a dog to rip the face off of a 4 year old, so Mickey should have been destroyed on the spot and the owner jailed regardless.  However, the “Save Mickey” people will delete anyone posting the known FACTS of the matter as that conflicts with their agenda.

This tracks back to the overarching topic of the blog – what we are seeing here is the product of a degenerating society – one that puts the interests of individual killer animals about that of all people.  

More on this later… Happy Lucky Friday!