The Absurdity Of Modern Free Speech

In light of yet another Talmudic spectacle of intentional despoilment of any respect America might have left in the world, isn’t it time to admit that from within the arsenal of complex patriotic weapons used as universal excuses for downright bad behavior, the free speech card has been well overplayed?

Watching the people of America being strung along like fiddles in quite forced romantic support for an at best mediocre movie before its release through a poorly-staged conspiracy worthy only of the lowest freak show display was painful. Despite the false dialectic of public outcry created by the now infamous ‘corporations are people too’ comment by Mitt Romney last election cycle – ridiculous not in its insanity but in its utterly soul-saturating truth – the collective dichotomy has now been sublimely shifted into supporting a corporation’s free speech in its release of a mainstream movie. For the doctrine of free speech is equally yoked in natural and artificial persons, thanks to the virtually unlimited exceptionalism given to the chartered 1st amendment.

No such demand would have been artificially created, plugged, and asserted through the magic of media trickery if the movie at question would have been a true historical documentary relating to a sympathetic view of Hitler and the easily proved false-history pertaining to the so-called “Holocaust.” In fact, even the very thought of public support for “free speech” as an excuse for the desire of making and releasing such a documentary film without protest or political barrier, provable as every fact would be, is a generally repugnant public opinion. For when push comes to shove, the responsibility that is implied in the creation of and thus use of this notion of free speech is being disappeared and then reappeared in the legal setting whenever it serves the interests of powerful men in their rewriting of current and past history.

Would a “comedy” put forth by the same two Jewish film-maker/actors and by the same Jewish-run media corporations with the plot of assassinating specifically the current President Obama through clandestine, covet means be acceptable free speech as well in this free speech society? By the current standards regarding “The Interview” movie it would. How about a snuff film about stabbing Mother Theresa to a bloody pulp with a crucifix, or better yet a splintery Dreidel? Does the amorphous, ambiguous term “free speech” also somehow protect such efforts in the purview of public opinion?

The question I pose today is a difficult one… Is free speech really to be considered an unrequited absolute?

Bearing in mind that the term “free speech” is not in any way defined in its constitutional proclamation in the articled 1st amendment, does the rational man truly believe that this is the legal version of anything goes? Can there be law without a foundation of some moral compass as a limit to the absoluteness of that law, especially when we consider that we are all forced to accept that even the most immoral speech is publicly acceptable because public opinion says all speech must be free and accepted?

And how soon will the element of freedom turn into the chains of subjection as the gavel of the supreme court resounds the new law that free speech and expression of opinion about certain Zionist factions only equals hate speech, as has happened in so many other “civilized” nations?

From both a logical and Biblical perspective, the answer is touted in support of the duties invoked by natural law (God’s law-order) to do no harm rather than to just accept this supposed unabashed liberty-without-responsibility assumed in the modern interpretations of constitutional theory. Here, Rousas John Rushdoony says it best in his foreshadowing warnings:


“…[A] society which makes freedom its primary goal will lose it, because it has made, not responsibility, but freedom from responsibility, its purpose. When freedom is the basic emphasis, it is not responsible speech which is fostered but irresponsible speech. If freedom of press is absolutized, libel will be defended finally as a privilege of freedom, and if free speech is absolutized, slander finally becomes a right. Religious liberty becomes a triumph of irreligion. Tyranny and anarchy take over. Freedom of speech, press, and religion all give way to controls, totalitarian controls. The goal must be God’s law-order, in which alone is true liberty.”

“Whenever freedom is made into the absolute, the result is not freedom but anarchism. Freedom must be under law, or it is not freedom…. Only a law-order which holds to the primacy of God’s law can bring forth true freedom, freedom for justice, truth, and godly life. Freedom as an absolute is simply an assertion of man’s “right” to be his own god; this means a radical denial of God’s law-order. “Freedom” thus is another name for the claim by man to divinity and autonomy. It means that man becomes his own absolute”

–Rousas John Rushdoony, The Institutes of Biblical Law
(The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1973) p. 581, 583–


As a rational man or woman, can the reader truly accept that this simple term “freedom of speech” was intended to equate to freedom from responsibility, ethics, respect, and from the very notion of the law itself? Can laws against such freedom of speech such as slander and perjury truly be subservient and bypassed by the right to free speech itself?

We have certainly defined the word freedom before on this blog, and so we know that political freedom is under the state of a false legal capacity. No matter which dictionary of law and court opinion we open, we find the same definition of the term.

FREEDOMLiberty; the right to do what is not forbidden by law. Freedom does not preclude the idea of subjection to law; indeed, it presupposes the existence of some legislative provision, the observance of which insures freedom to us, by securing the like observance from others. –Bouvier’s 1856

FREEDOM – The state of being free; liberty; self-determination; absence of restraint; the opposite of slavery. The power of acting, in the character of a moral personality, according to the dictates of the will, without other check, hindrance, or prohibition than such as may be imposed by just and necessary laws and the duties of social life. The prevalence, in the government and constitution of a country, of such a system of laws and institutions as secure civil liberty to the individual citizen. –Black’s Law 1st


The fact is that this notion of “free speech” in the constitution needs to be taken for its intent, not in its stretched out modern usage as an excuse for immorality and irresponsibility.

To be free in speech means to not be forced to say something against your will. This negative right, with regards to the legal setting, is designed to avoid false witness under coercion and to avoid self-incrimination, which means that the law cannot harm a man for speaking his mind or even the truth as a defendant or witness. Here though is assumed a sense of personal control and responsibility with our speech that it should not defame or arbitrarily defraud another, which the laws are clear to punish in perjury. And this free speech doctrine was not intended to apply to all aspects of personal life, only to political ones regarding rights and duties.

Does this specific notion of freedom from being forced to say something against ones will really imply too that a man (as a citizen) must thus allow any degrading, debilitating, slanderous opinion or untruth to be uttered at any time, tossing personal responsibility out the window while hiding under the false notion that all speech is protected by the god of the constitution; the god without substance known as We, The People?

This author believes the answer here to be no, at least with regards to the intent of the notion of what this doctrine of freedom of speech is with intent designed to protect. The concept of law is not designed to be used to force all speech upon others, any more than it is designed to force actions and political participation.

Frederick Nymeyer in Progressive Calvinism stated that:

“What gold is to money, the law of God is to liberty.”

When comparing this notion of personal responsibility with the modern perversion of the seemingly unlimited liberty of modern free speech, one must question just where the foundation of that doctrine may be found? Just as our U.S. dollar, as an unlimited currency, has no foundation in intrinsic physicality or morality (i.e. it is not “backed” by a foundation of gold) and is therefore without actual limit in its liberty of production, the currency of free speech in its projected unlimited capacity seems to be as well without foundation or principle in the modern era – totally misused, abused, and out of control! Both of these things seem to be killing us slowly; the bankrupting not only of our bank accounts but of our prosperity, integrity, and national reputation as well.

The public relations spectacle that was the Sony/Franco/Rogen/North Korea/Obama public opinion dilemma, as poorly played as it was, was quite effectual not only in positively publicizing the immorality and societal subversion of the Zionist Protocols of the Elder’s agenda, but also in the art of the swaying of public opinion without a day in court. It was a hoax of hoaxes; a successful subversion of reality and lawful intent. It was a typical American meme from the meme machine of Hollywood proper.

Should free speech be religiously used to protect all forms of speech?

Should this unlimited doctrine be protected even when the speech itself is offensive to law and freedom itself?

Should free speech be allowed to intrude upon the private rights of others?

And at what point does free speech become indistinguishable with forced speech, where you must hear it pumped into your living room and at work 1984 style and thus pretend to agree with it because the law forces you to accept and live by it as an unlimited right guarded by the thought police?

When is freedom actually redefined as objectified tyranny?

You decide…

And after your own contemplations, ask yourself why you allow others to define what is right and just in your own mind, what is correct and moral by the justice of legal code, and why it is that “entertainment” is now a legitimate title and excuse for pure unadulterated corruption and subversion protected by law?

The answer is simple and clear in all cases. Government is the supreme god (magistrate) from which all public opinion now flows.

MAG’ISTRATE, noun [Latin magistratus, from magister, master; magis, major, and ster, Teutonic steora, a director; steoran, to steer; the principal director.] A public civil officer, invested with the executive government of some branch of it. In this sense, a king is the highest or first magistrate as is the President of the United States. But the word is more particularly applied to subordinate officers, as governors, intendants, prefects, mayors, justices of the peace, and the like. The magistrate must have his reverence; the laws their authority. –Webster’s 1828

GODnoun – 2. A false god; a heathen deity; an idol. 3. A prince; a ruler; a magistrate or judge; an angel… 4. Any person or thing exalted too much in estimation, or deified and honored as the chief good.- verb transitiveTo deify. –Webster’s 1828


Is the law exalted too high? How about the magistrates as the law-givers and administrators? Do you as a subject of the body politic (e pluribus unum) even recognize that you worship the law of the gods as magistrates?

As the saying goes: Change your god, change your law… before God’s law becomes illegal.

P.S… This is what responsible speech looks like!!!


–Clint Richardson (
–Thursday, January 8th, 2015