The First Amendment is a powerful thing.  It defines our right to say whatever the heck we want.  In the United States, no government can stop anyone from speaking their mind.

But can it also protect you from someone forcing you to say specific things? 

No. 

Not yet anyway.

A few days ago, I received a notice from Google informing me that my latest post “Hate the Player” violated their policies and contains dangerous or derogatory content.  As such, they would no longer show ads on that page.

They didn’t tell me what issue they had, only that they had one.  It was up to me to guess what they took objection to and correct it if I wanted ads on my page.

It took some digging, but I finally found a description of the issue they have with my article.

Well, sort of.

Clear as Mud

According to Google, they do not allow content that:

• “exploits others through extortion” – OK.  This one clearly doesn’t apply.  I’ve never extorted anything from anyone.
  
  
• “threatens or advocates for harm to oneself or others” – Nope.  Didn’t do this one either.  Must be something else.
  
  
• “relates to a current, major health crisis and contradicts authoritative, scientific consensus” – It can’t be this one because I didn’t talk about any major health crisis.  Well, I did. But what I talked about isn’t recognized as a health crisis so that doesn’t count.
  
  
• “harasses, intimidates, or bullies an individual or group of individuals” – I think we may be getting closer.  Though I don’t see why telling the truth should be considered any of those things.
  
  
• “incites hatred against, promotes discrimination of, or disparages an individual or group on the basis of their race or ethnic origin, religion, disability, age, nationality, veteran status, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, or other characteristic that is associated with systemic discrimination or marginalization” – OK.  Now they’re just being ridiculous.  This one is so vague it essentially says that you can’t say anything bad about anybody. Which obviously I’m going to do.

I clicked on the “examples” link for clarification.  That didn’t help much.

There, it specifically states that it’s against their policy to advocate anorexia.  I think everyone can get on board with that.  After all, anorexia is a mental illness.

But so is gender dysphoria.

Even though both anorexia and gender dysphoria are recognized as mental illnesses, Google says you can’t try to convince someone with anorexia to starve themselves, but you can try to convince someone with gender dysphoria to cut off their body parts.

“Scientific Consensus” Does Not Equal Facts

Now let’s talk about someone going against scientific consensus during a major health crisis.  I’ve done that plenty of times.  I said that the COVID jabs weren’t actually vaccines.  And that the COVID numbers were wildly inflated, and that the PCR test is useless.  I also said the vackseens were neither safe nor effective.

I said all those things.  Multiple times.  Lots of people did.  And we were right.  And yet according to Google, saying any of those factual and truthful things violates their policy. It still does.

So, if I want Google Ads to appear on my pages, I must say, among other things, that the vackseens are safe and effective, and that men can become women.

The biggest problem I have with this isn’t that Google is just telling me what I can’t say.  It’s that Google is telling me what I MUST say. 

And that’s where I draw the line.

A private company shouldn’t have the ability to require people to say certain words.  I mean, the government doesn’t even have that power.  Right?

Wrong.

Stupid Government Tricks

In Scotland, a law was recently passed that made it a criminal offense to simply state that a man pretending to be a woman is still a man.

But that’s Scotland.  And there’s no First Amendment protection in Scotland.  It could never happen here.  Right?

Wrong.

States here in the US have been passing laws similar to the Scottish law for years.  In California, employees MUST use someone’s preferred pronouns and call them whatever pretend name they wish to be called.  In fact, employees must use the preferred pronouns and name of any customer they encounter.  Both preferred pronouns and name can be changed on a whim and it’s up to everyone to keep track of the nom du jour.

The Supreme Court has already decided that the government can’t force a baker in Colorado to bake a cake for a homosexual wedding because that would go against his strongly-held religious beliefs, and his First Amendment rights.

Now, I’m not a religious person, but there are a lot of people who are.  And undoubtedly, being forced to call a dude she/her and say that a man is a woman goes against someone’s strongly-held religious beliefs.  Probably against a lot of people’s religious beliefs.

Some of you may be thinking that if a baker can’t be forced to bake a cake, Google can’t be forced to allow me to say what I want.  That’s likely true, but I say there’s a difference between the two examples. 

The baker didn’t want to bake a cake because doing so would conflict with his First Amendment rights.  On the other hand, Google doesn’t want people like me to use certain words because it conflicts with their political agenda.  And silencing me conflicts with my First Amendment rights.

Just like how the State of California is forcing people to say things they don’t want to say in order to support the State’s political agenda.

The thing is, forcing someone to use “preferred pronouns” in a workplace is different than forcing a baker to bake a cake.  In fact, it’s worse.  Much worse.

Hobson’s Choice

In the case of the Colorado baker, the two dudes who were trying to buy a wedding cake didn’t sue the baker because they couldn’t get a cake.  They were suing the baker to make a point.  They had other options and could have easily bought a cake someplace else. 

The baker had lots of other customers so denying service to a few potential customers wouldn’t have a big impact on his business.

But a worker in California?  If someone employed in California finds it repugnant and offensive to pretend that a man pretending to be a woman is perfectly normal, he (or she) has only one option.  To find a job somewhere else.  As long as it’s not in California.

And that’s not really a choice at all. 

Even worse, it’s not a reciprocal law.  If some dude complains because I called him a…well…him…I can get fired because I offended him.  But, if I complain because someone calls me a “cisgendered male”, which I find incredibly offensive, that’s perfectly OK. 

But, my instance, it’s all moot.  Google has resumed displaying ads on my page.

I have no idea what made Google reverse its decision just like I have no idea why they blocked the ads in the first place.  They didn’t even bother to tell me that the ads were appearing again.  If I hadn’t looked for myself, I would never have known.

Common Sense vs. The State of California

So that just leaves the State of California. 

How can forcing me to say something I don’t wish to say NOT violate my First Amendment rights?

Look at it this way.  The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States guarantees my right to be able to call the President of the United States a doddering old fool who was a moron long before he lost his mind.

But, in California, if I call Richard in Accounting, who thinks he’s Rachel in Accounting, “Dick”, I can be fired.  Even trying to meet him halfway and calling him “Dickless” would get me a pink slip.  Which would be ironic because that’s probably what Dick is wearing.

By extension, we can easily infer that there’s nothing stopping Biden from taking a page out of Kim Jong-Il’s playbook and signing an executive order saying everyone MUST refer to him as our “beloved leader”.  And everybody knows how much he loves signing executive orders.

We all know where this is heading.  Like the baker the State of Colorado forced to bake a cake for two dudes, this is going to end up in court.  And, like the baker, the employee who gets fired for not saying what the State of California tried to force him to say will win.  Because the First Amendment clearly has his back.

And then this whole nonsense will be behind us.

The First Amendment guarantees that I can say whatever I want, whenever I want, wherever I want.  But, apparently, it doesn’t guarantee my right not to say something I don’t want to say.

Not yet anyway.