Conte asked Spencer, “Are we even pro-free speech?”
“No, of course not,” Spencer said. “But we have to use this platform in order—“
“So, we’re being radically honest, here?” Conte asked.
“Yes, radically pragmatic,” Spencer replied.
That exchange came from Alt-Right icon Richard Spencer and his podcast co-host Gregory Conte on an episode of their podcast last month. When I first
came across this I brushed it off as Spencer simply being his controversial self. Yet the more I think about it, the more it seems like Spencer was
being 100% honest. But it seems like this extends far beyond just free speech and to the Constitution as a whole.
For a while now the Alt-Right have tried to position themselves as staunch Constituionalists and defenders against a power mad government. When one
actually looks at their history though it becomes very obvious that they only care about the Constitution when it suits their needs.
Take the recent example of Roseanne. The second it was announced that her show was cancelled there were mass calls on the Right that her free speech
was being violated and that she should not be punished for something she said on Twitter. Yet there are numerous instances where the Right has
demanded the head of someone over someone they wrote online. I have a friend that was a professor at a public university in New York. He made a
controversial tweet in his free time. The Right lost their heads over it so much that the New York Post ran it as their front page story and De Blasio
was forced to come out and condemn him.
So why is it a violation of free speech if a private corporation fires their employee over a controversial tweet but it's expected for a person to be
fired if they work at a public institution?
Another example of this double standard comes when you compare the reaction to the J20 protesters and the people at the UTR rally. For the past 18
months it was been shown time and time again that the government doesn't really have a case against the J20 protesters. It's also become more and
more clear that despite this lack of evidence the government will violate the defendants Sixth Amendment rights in the hunt for a guilty verdict. This
all culminated within the last week.
First it was revealed that the prosecution was withholding a clip from a video that was being used as their primary evidence against the protesters.
Because this clip could be used to help the defendants the prosecution was slapped with a Brady violation but it looked like it was still going to
trial. Fast forward to this work and it reveals that the prosecution was actually withholding 69 pieces of exonerating evidence. This led to the judge
dismissing with prejudice felony charges in seven cases and forced the prosecution to state they will no longer be using that video as evidence, which
pretty much destroys their remaining cases.
What was the Right Wing reaction to this revelation that the government was violating the Sixth Amendment rights of 200 people in order to justify the
violation of their First Amendment rights? Pretty much silence. There were a few people the were abhorred at these actions but most of the people that
did respond said that the government was justified in their actions.The reasoning I saw behind these statements was that because the J20 protest was
planned as a violent event (even though the evidence the prosecution was withholding showed organizers instructing people how to de-escalate hostile
situations and telling them not to resort to violence) that anyone there should be arrested and found guilty.
Compare this to the Alt-Right's reaction to the UTR rally. Even though it has come out that the UTR organizers planned this as a violent event (they
even discussed using a car against counter-protesters) it seemed like there was strong opposition to the UTR attendees from being punished. We even
saw people trying to justify the terrorist attack as the fault of the counter-protesters.
To this day very few people have actually been arrested despite going to Charlottesville with the intent to commit violence. Meanwhile the government
rounded up 200 people at J20, denying them their First Amendment rights, then stripped them of their Sixth Amendment rights in order to get a guilty
verdict. And let's not forget that in pursuit of this case the government also stripped thousands of citizens of their privacy when they forced the
J20 website to release the IP addresses of everyone that visited the site.
So why is it that the Alt-Right are so quick to jump to defense of Nazis and white supremacists but ignores the fact that the government violated
multiple Constitutional rights of 200 citizens? The answer, at least from where I'm standing, is that the Nazis and white supremacists, as horrible
as they may be, bolster the numbers of the Alt-Right. Meanwhile the J20 protesters are Leftists that stand opposed to the Alt-Right so they don't
care if their rights are violated.
Feel free to prove me wrong ATS. But from what I've seen the past 18 months, at least, the Alt-Right doesn't actually care about the Constitution.
They care about what they can get out of it but they'd just as soon wipe their ass with it if those opposed to them try to use it.