The local San Antonio News reported the tyrannical violation of free speech like it was business as usual, while the liberal echo chamber reverberating around the San Antonio City Council Chambers was oblivious to the volcanic outrage.
As San Antonio, Texas, investigative reporter Jaie Avila described on Twitter:
“Resolution being voted on by San Antonio City Council this morning labels terms ‘Chinese Virus’ and ‘Kung Fu Virus’ as hate speech and ‘all persons are encouraged to report any such antisemitic, discriminatory or racist incidents to the proper authorities for investigation,” he said.
Antisemitic? Chinese virus? Yeah, it doesn’t add up.
“It’s not racist at all. No, not at all. It comes from China, that’s why. It comes from China. I want to be accurate,” Trump told reporters in mid-March.
Texas Sen. Ted Cruz lambasted the San Antonio City Council saying:
This is NUTS. SA City Council behaving like a lefty college faculty lounge, triggered by Chick-fil-A & the words “Wuhan virus.” If they want to investigate someone, start with NYT & CNN who both repeatedly (and rightly) referred to it as “the Chinese coronavirus.” #NoSpeechPolice https://t.co/a10BZAvleQ
— Ted Cruz (@tedcruz) May 7, 2020
“Hate speech is more dangerous than the virus itself,” council member Manny Pelaez said during the voting process, according to Avila.
Actually, tyranny is far more dangerous than the virus itself, but even pointing that out maybe the next criminal act, as the Rutherford Institute discovered after defending the right for pro-immigration consultant Evelyn Sineneng-Smith, who was charged with and convicted of violating an immigration statute making it a crime to “encourage” or “induce” an alien to reside in the U.S. in violation of the law.
On appeal, she argued that she had not misled the workers and that statute’s ban on “encouraging” another to stay in the country violates the First Amendment.
Whichever side you may stand on the issue of immigration is moot. Refusing to strike down an overly-broad law criminalizing pro-immigration speech, the U.S. Supreme Court has paved the way for the government to punish anyone engaging in so-called “anti-government” speech that encourages resistance to tyranny through civil disobedience.
The Rutherford Institute, in conjunction with the ACLU and the Service Employees International Union, filed an amicus brief in the case arguing that the statute is over broad and could serve as a model for laws used to punish anyone who urges resistance to government tyranny.
Is it not those with which we have entrusted with wielding the acumen of governance who are promoting their own hate speech toward the foundations of individual freedom? Shouldn’t they be held accountable to know the difference between the the First Amendment and the fallacy of their reliance on tyranny?