That Joe Scarborough would make a grand announcement first chance Monday morning to renounce his previous stand against gun control surprised absolutely no one. But without even a hint of evidence, before we even know what motivated the wicked loser who shot up an elementary school, Scarborough is also calling for restrictions on the First Amendment: [emphasis mine]
I knew that day that the ideologies of my past career were no longer relevant to the future that I want, that I demand for my children. Friday changed everything. It must change everything. We all must begin anew and demand that Washington’s old way of doing business is no longer acceptable. Entertainment moguls don’t have an absolute right to glorify murder while spreading mayhem in young minds across America. And our Bill of Rights does not guarantee gun manufacturers the absolute right to sell military-style, high-caliber, semi-automatic combat assault rifles with high-capacity magazines to whoever the hell they want.
What is it about these coastal left-wing elites, that whenever something dramatic happens, their very first instinct is to restrict our liberties?
Of course it was entirely predictable that Scarborough would come out against the NRA and our Second Amendment civil rights. He could see the writing on the wall over the weekend and knew that not renouncing his stand against gun control would pit him against the entire media complex and its Narrative, for days, if not weeks. I'm not asking for miracles from this guy
But what in the world is this nonsense about entertainment moguls not having "an absolute right" to do whatever they want within the realm of the entertainment they choose to create?
What, did Scarborough think his call to restrict the entertainment industry's First Amendment protections and their God-given right to artistic expression would somehow buy him points with the Right?
And who exactly would Scarborough put in charge of creating the standard for and censoring entertainment, that in his opinion, "glorify[ies] murder while spreading mayhem in young minds across America"? What law would he pass? What is his definition of a reasonable right?
How about some specific examples of, say, past films Scarborough would see outlawed.
Did Peckinpah not have the "absolute right" to make "The Wild Bunch?" Did Arthur Penn not have the "absolute right" to make "Bonnie and Clyde?" Is Quentin Tarantino exercising some sort of "absolute right" he shouldn't have? Maybe it's Scorsese?
And here's the other thing: this deafening drumbeat of calls to restrict individual liberty is all coming from a media-complex that doesn't yet know the facts. We know nothing about this monster or his family life or his psychology or his history. Sure, we know some details, but if Scarborough and company are going to use this incident as an excuse to water down our civil rights, couldn’t they at least pretend to be doing so based on the facts?
If people want to have a discussion about how nihilistic rap and porn and video games and films are damaging our culture, I am all for that. The poisoning of the human spirit through popular culture has been a passion of mine for years. But to start the conversation based on the premise of "you don’t have the right" is nothing more than bullying and fascism.
What conservatives are supposed to believe in is fighting speech with more speech, not less -- and most certainly not through spine-chilling pronouncements from coastal elites about what they choose to define as my "absolute right."
Follow John Nolte on Twitter @NolteNC