Considering the jihadist attack in Garland Texas, it will not take long for the professional left to begin espousing the familiar tome: “free speech, but“….

There is no “but” in any sentence about “free speech”. It is, it exists, -or-, it is not, it does not exist. It is that simple.

The fact that a simple event depicting pictures of Muhammad needs to spend $10,000 to hire security -IN AMERICA- should be the real story. The fact that a simple event depicting pictures would be considered “controversial” -IN AMERICA- should be the sub line of the real story. Alas, these simple considerations will be lost amid the “but” crowd.

“But”, free speech does not protect offensive speech – is another familiar, perhaps the most frequent, refrain from the “but” crowd. Insufferably wrong. The only speech that needs first amendment protection is “offensive speech”, if your speech wasn’t controversial or offensive it would not need protection.

As BigFurHat accurately opines:

[…] This event was to see if ordinary Americans could draw a F*CKING CARTOON without the penalty of death. Apparently not. So why would you be sympathetic to hair-trigger unreasonable monsters in our midst? Why would you cower, rather than say, “ya, right, if I doodle your prophet I’m going to die. Not in America, Omar.” (link) And, in a larger sense, showcasing this absurdity is exactly the purpose of the event. Why do marchers march? Why do protesters protest? Why can every American carry their soapbox to any street corner or public square and stand atop it? Because the central tenet of our foundational principles says We Are Free To Speak. Period. “But”, you must accept the consequences therein – yet another similar refrain. And what “consequences” should be allowable? “Consequences” yes, but drawing out those consequences while contrast against the foundational principle of freedom is exactly what the event was highlighting. Authentic Islam, carried out to it’s fullest political construct, is antithetical to our U.S. constitutional freedom. If the central tenet of any belief commands a person to kill another person for drawing a picture – it’s the belief that must be confronted within a society that values freedom, not the artist drawing the picture. “But”, other progressive societies restrict “provocative speech“ – another espousal from the “But” crowd. We are not ‘other societies’, we are a formed national society based on valuing ‘individual freedom’ not ‘collective freedom’. Our foundation puts the freedom of speech as the first freedom, the first amendment – a bill of unalienable rights endowed not by government or man. We, our nation, were born as a constitutional republic, not a democracy. The outlined rights of the individual are embedded as more valuable than the rights of the state, so long as the expression of those individual rights does not impede upon the same rights of another – nor form a delivery obligation unto another individual. “But”, your expression of freedom (drawing a picture), is by measure and consequence, having an impact upon my ability to believe in my religion. A statement finally reached when having a conversation with anyone practicing Authentic Islam. This is where it is claimed that the tenet of their belief demands they must not allow depictions of the Prophet Muhammad; and therefore an individual freedom of expression or belief is impacting their first amendment right to their religious belief. That part of the argument is exactly evidence that Authentic Islam is antithetical to our U.S. constitutional freedom. That part of the argument is exactly what the purpose of the event in Garland Texas was drawing out. Free Speech, you either have it or you don’t…. ….there is no “but”. The Unwavering Failsafe – Just to make sure there never would be a “but” our forefathers cemented the first amendment with the establishment of the second amendment to protect it. Last night in Garland Texas their foresight worked seamlessly.