Liberal free-speech defenders aren’t as free-speechy as they may seem

Unctuous liberals faking deep love for the First Amendment are a dime a dozen right now, what with their educational spawn on U.S. campuses turning out to be every bit as totalitarian as they taught them to be.

And, yeah, I know. Arizona Republic contributor Mike McClellan is a very minor-league example of the genre. But he wrote a classic case study this week depicting why the Left really doesn’t mean it when mumbling their “I cherish free speech” mumbo-jumbo.

So let’s yank him by the collar out from behind the “antifa” crowd he’s helped create.

If you’re going to establish your “Mr. Reasonable” bona fides and argue that even disagreeable people have a right to the public square, quit with the insufferable virtue-signalling pejoratives about what awful human beings they are.

As wicked as they are… as evil as they are… as contemptible as they are… as… Republican as they are… we simply must, for the sake of our own precious nobility, let the heathens speak!

Ann Coulter is “a publicity-seeking shill.” Charles Murray has “written about the alleged genetic inferiority of blacks.” Along with a white nationalist whose bad-guy rep until recently couldn’t raise four figures for that great, liberal fundraising machine, the Southern Poverty Law Center, McClellan says “all three stake out various degrees of putrid points of view.”

Let these intellectual empty vessels speak, he says: “Are they afraid Coulter and Co. will win the day and influence students to adopt their repulsive views?”

Be kind and gentle to these “objectionable folks,” he says: “”Chances are you’ll find them ridiculous, offensive and lacking substance as they present their distorted, often fact-free opinions.”

Let’s remember who McClellan’s audience here is: our darling campus snowflakes, who have learned their sense of unchallengeable  nobility from people like McClellan, a retired high-school teacher. Does he really think these charming knowledge-seekers are interested in listening to the arguments of people that even Mr. Reasonable considers “repulsive?”

Are they? How about them? Or maybe this lovely bunch?

These very illiberal children of McClellan’s corn already believe very strongly that conservative speakers are repulsive. All conservatives. They believe they’re objectionable. That their points of view are distorted and fact-free (even though, like McClellan in reference to Murray, they don’t know jack, themselves).

What do liberals like him think they’re actually telling to these kids if not to hate the haters? McClellan obviously does.

Does he really think that they make a moment’s distinction between an Ann Coulter and, say, a Heather Mac Donald, who is the country’s most eloquent, fact-based thinker on behalf of cops? Or the Vice PresidentBecause they don’t.

And don’t get me started on this guy’s insultingly disingenuous posture pretending to have just discovered this free-speech hub-bub on campuses (“There apparently is an informal speech police present” on campuses… well, freaking DUH!)

I’m sure that campus unrest dismays the land’s McClellans. It seems to have kinda, sorta dismayed this one. And I’m sure they all have a nostalgic fondness for the First Amendment.

But if you really want to call off the campus hounds, try not to justify every hate-thought they already have.