This week I was given the chance with Michael Vasquez to interview political activist and journalist, Laura Loomer. She is considered to be incredibly controversial among many due to over the top stunts and confronting those she disagrees with. Some of these include her handcuffing herself to Twitter HQ and confronting Hillary Clinton on her book tour to ask about her email scandal.
Preparation and interview
Now preparing for the interview, I blasted out the livestream and asked friends to send me questions to ask her. The most common question I got was if it was true or not that she wanted to ban Islam. Now looking into the claim, I could not find any evidence of her saying such a comment. So during the interview wanted to ask her if the claim was true or fake news. I wanted her answer on the record, not secondhand. and for her to explain her opinion.
I felt the interview was very good. When discussing the topic of social media having a bias toward far left creators, I absolutely agreed with Laura’s take on the situation. However when I asked her about the supposed quote about banning Islam, her response and opinion was something I disagreed with.
Free speech and freedom of religion
Her response was that she couldn’t remember saying that specific phrase but she did support a ban of Islam. I completely disagree with this sentiment and idea. I am an advocate of complete free speech. Whether I disagree or agree with what is being said. This comes directly from our first amendment which clearly states that,
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances”
This means that no matter what, the government can not restrict your beliefs. Now when brought up this counterpoint Loomer argued that Islam wasn’t a religion anymore but a political ideology. I don’t agree with that at all.
Muslims may vote a certain way with specific political leanings but they still are an ideology based on a holy text. Even if Laura Loomer is correct however, the first amendment still protects political ideologies and parties existence. In America, there is still a Communist Party. An ideology behind some of the most horrendous crimes of history. I personally think Communism is one of the most evil ideologies ever conceived. However they have a right to exist.
The flaw in the logic
This is where Laura Loomer falls apart in her argument. One can not talk extensively about censorship and banning from social media for conservativism (a political ideology), yet want the banning of a specific religion with your argument being that it is a political ideology.
No one can ban an idea or ideology they do not like simply because they do not like it. The left shouldn’t be trying to shut down free speech on college campuses. Nor deplatforming voices such as Laura Loomers.
However free speech is a two way street. Just because certain speech offends you doesn’t mean that it shouldn’t exist. Their is a recent wave of support for banning something known as “hate speech”. Hate speech doesn’t exist. All speech is free speech whether it offends you or provokes you. Now there’s a difference between that and a call to action under the law. Inciting criminal action or violence is very different than voicing a controversial opinion or idea you present.
We are all protected under the first amendment and no one should be banning speech or ideas that they disagree with. This goes for every political ideology, Conservatives, Progressives, Democrat, Republicans, doesn’t matter. The constitution protects us all and we should all remember that.