Freedom of Speech and Expression – The New York Times

Posted on June 26, 2017 by Dook Domini

Free speech rallies happening today in Washington, DC – WXIA-TV

Posted on June 26, 2017 by Dook Domini

John Henry and WUSA , WXIA 1:03 PM. EDT June 25, 2017

WASHINGTON (WUSA9) - Rallies have become a common sight in DC this year, but Sunday might be a little unique.

A handful of groups plan to hold dueling rallies about political rhetoric and free speech.

The "Freedom of Speech Rally" will kick off at 12pm at the Lincoln Memorial. Colton Merwin, 19, of Baltimore organized the event as an outlet for conservatives to discuss political ideas, topics regarding free speech and immigration.

That event will have multiple speakers including Alt-Right figurehead Richard Spencer. His appearance has sparked controversy, but Merwin defended the rally's decision to have him speak.

"To support free speech, you have to support all aspects of the conservative right and libertarian right as well," he said.

DC United Against Hate will hold another rally to directly oppose the Freedom of Speech Rally at the Lincoln Memorial. It is scheduled to start at 11am. Organizers plan to bring attention to the multiple acts of racist behavior that have popped up around the DMV. Reverend Graylan Hagler, of Plymouth Congregational United Church of Christ, told WUSA9 that hate speech is something that cannot be tolerated.

"Given the history we have in the United States of America, disparaging speech leads to violence," he said.

At 12pm, another rally will kick off outside the White House. The event is called the " Rally Against Political Violence" at the White House.

Political operative Roger Stone and former Virginia gubernatorial candidate Corey Stewart are scheduled to speak. According to the rally's Facebook page, the rally will condemn violence such as the shooting of Louisiana Rep. Steve Scalise.

Finally, also at noon, protesters will gather at the DC Police headquarters to oppose the right-wing agenda and police brutality. The rally has been nicknamed the "Really Really Free Speech Rally".

DC Police told WUSA9 it will monitor that protest just as it would any other protest. Park Police released the following statement regarding the other rallies.

"The United States Park Police maintains a robust patrol presence. We consistently analyze information to detect and deter threats to public safety. In order to protect the integrity of our operations, we are unable to discuss the logistics of our security footprint. The USPP makes no distinction regarding a groups message or political standpoint. Our intent is to protect our treasured icons and the people people who visit them."

2017 WUSA-TV

Free speech rallies happening today in Washington, DC - WXIA-TV

Attacks On Trinity Professor: Free Speech Or Intimidation? – Hartford … – Hartford Courant

Posted on June 26, 2017 by Dook Domini

Trinity Professor Johnny Williams was added this week to a national "Professor Watchlist," a list that academic leaders say conservative groups use to attack professors with views antithetical to theirs.

Williams, who made national headlines last week because of two controversial Facebook posts, joined a roster of 200 faculty members who have been selected for advancing "a radical agenda in lecture halls."

Academic leaders say the Watchlist is part of a playbook employed by conservative groups and publications that threatens academic freedom if it causes professors to self-censor their remarks to avoid threats or possible job loss.

The longtime Trinity sociology professor was in the news after a conservative online publication called Campus Reform picked up the two Facebook posts, including a profane hashtag and, Williams says, misconstrued them as saying things he never said or intended: that he endorsed the idea that nothing should have been done to save white victims in the recent shooting at a Congressional baseball practice.

Williams tried to clarify his position saying that he wants to see an end to white supremacist ideology not to let white people die as the online publication said but the Facebook posts and Campus Reform's interpretation of them went viral, resulting in death threats to Williams, threats to the Trinity Campus, and calls for Williams to be fired.

Trinity President Joanne Berger-Sweeney shut down the campus for a day and has launched an investigation into whether Williams violated college policies, while Williams and his family are in hiding far away from Connecticut to protect their safety.

The targeting of left-leaning professors like Williams and what some professors say is a misreading of their words is a scenario that Williams' supporters and national experts say is becoming more common, and has made minority professors with views that may be discomforting for some all the more vulnerable.

"I do think there is a concerted campaign to try to target and intimidate certain kinds of public intellectuals," Maurice Wade, a Trinity philosophy professor, said. "They want a certain kind of right-wing orthodoxy to be the curricular and education agenda in higher education."

Williams, who is married to a white woman, has taught at Trinity about race and racism since 1996 and is known as an outspoken opponent of white supremacist ideology who challenges students to explore territory related to race that can be uncomfortable for some.

Landing On The Watchlist

Hans-Joerg Tiede, an associate secretary with the American Association of University Professors, said "it's not new that public remarks that professors make somehow cause controversy. ... It's not even completely new that news outlets specifically try to find instances and quote them out of context or even incorrectly."

What is new, he said, is that such instances "generate this response of inundating individuals with threats and harassment... There are often threats of violence." He noted that The Evergreen State College in Olympia, Wash., was shut down for several days earlier this month because of threats and security concerns after comments by a professor.

"It is already disconcerting for individuals to be subject to such threats. ... But then to also basically cause entire institutions of higher education to close because of them that's really an attack on higher education quite broadly," Tiede said.

He said there have been instances in which students have recorded professors' comments in class and then posted excerpts on social media that cause an uproar.

"All of these are concerns that faculty increasingly have," Tiede said, "that they are going to be subject to surveillance by students recording things, surveillance of social media posts ..."

The impact of the Professor Watchlist, which many have likened to McCarthy-era blacklists, is hard to assess, Tiede said. "As you know with the way it is with blacklists, no university will publicly say that they are not hiring somebody because they are [on the list] ... but it could in principle dissuade someone from hiring. I certainly don't know whether it does."

Noel Cazenave, a UConn sociology professor, said he is concerned that such efforts could threaten academic freedom and the diversity of faculty.

In letter to Trinity College Faculty Dean Tim Cresswell, who will be reviewing Williams' case, Cazenave wrote that organizations such as Campus Reform and Turning Point have launched a highly organized effort "to remove critical voices from college campuses."

He said Williams is the fourth "progressive faculty of color to be attacked by such groups within the last month or so." Cazenave said he sees the developments as tied to the election of Donald Trump as president. While that is unclear, the Professor Watchlist was established soon after the election on Nov. 16.

Cazenave said he's concerned that Berger-Sweeney is going to get pressure from Trinity alumni and possibly significant donors. "They may take punitive action against Johnny, and I think the African-American community is going to put Trinity on notice that that we are not going to stand around idly and let that happen."

Who Gets Targeted?

Matt Lamb, who manages the Professor Watchlist for Turning Point USA, said in an email that "professors are on the list for targeting students, shutting down debate, or otherwise using hyperbolic language which would tend to silence debate."

He called the list "a wonderful example of free speech because professors can say whatever they want, news outlets can report on what they said (free speech as well), and then we can post what is said (using our free speech rights) and people can then make a decision for themselves."

Their website says that students parents, and alumni "deserve to know the specific incidents and names of professors that advance a radical agenda in the lecture halls."

Lamb said he relies on news stories done by other organizations such as Campus Reform to determine which professors make the list.

The listing under Williams' name on the Professor Watchlist quotes the Campus Reform story as saying that Williams said first responders "should have let the congressmen die for being white" and that Williams said white people should "[expletive] die."

Williams did not say those things, though he shared on Facebook an online essay titled "Let Them [expletive] Die," which was written by another writer and explored those topics, and used that title as a hashtag in a post. That article, on Medium.com, discussed the Congressional shooting, asked what it means "when victims of bigotry save the lives of bigots" and urged a show of indifference to the lives of bigots.

Williams has said he did not defend or support the article but shared it as a "teaching tool" for readers. He said his Facebook posts, which called for an end to the "white supremacy system," referred to the fatal police shooting of a black mother in Seattle on June 18. He said the use of the hashtag and sharing the article were meant simply to offer another point of view.

Sterling Beard, the editor-in-chief of Campus Reform, said the the goal of the online publication is to "operate as a higher education watchdog and expose liberal bias and abuse in America's colleges."

The publication has student journalists on campuses all over the country who work with professional journalists to produce stories.

Beard stood by the Campus Reform story, saying the "juxtaposition" of Williams' Facebook share of the controversial essay and the hashtag constituted "an endorsement" of the essay and, coupled with the Facebook posts, backed up the story.

He added that he "condemns in the strongest terms any and all threats" received by Williams and his colleagues. "We do not advocate for any harassment of the subjects of stories on campusreform.org and we are sorry to hear that he's received that harassment."

Williams' Message Lost?

A professor's message condensed in a Facebook post or a tweet is often misunderstood because academic language can be technical and theoretical, experts say.

Wade, the Trinity philosophy professor, said it was clear to him in Williams' Facebook posts that he was attempting to make a distinction between white "as a skin color and a socially constructed white identity, deeply rooted and tied to white supremacy."

"Johnny is a dogged and relentless opponent to and critic of white supremacy," Wade said. "You know Johnny does not attack people on skin color. This is ludicrous. ... He attacks white supremacy, a certain kind of socially-constructed white identity that is linked, tied to white supremacy."

Wade said he is deeply disappointed by the "vitriol and threats that are directed at a professor because of his legitimate exercise of his freedom of speech, when there is far less distress and concern shown over the murders of innocent black people."

Cazenave said he doesn't think "European-Americans understand how racially tense the situation in the U.S. is for people who perceive that they are under constant attack by their president and by his followers. ...

"Today we have African Americans trying to respond to the intense anguish that has been caused by these police killing. That's what Johnny Williams was trying to express, that outrage."

Rory McIlroy said he enjoyed his first experience at the Travelers Championship and he will return.

View original post here:

Attacks On Trinity Professor: Free Speech Or Intimidation? - Hartford ... - Hartford Courant

4 dueling rallies scheduled for Sunday in DC | WTOP – WTOP

Posted on June 24, 2017 by Dook Domini

WASHINGTON The nations capital is a hub for rallies and protests, but this Sunday, D.C. will be home to four different ones all in opposition to one another.

The Freedom of Speech Rally will take place at the Lincoln Memorial from noon to 3 p.m. Some of the speakers include alt-right figure Richard Spencer and white nationalist Nathan Damigo, who has been recruiting other white nationalists on college campuses.

Critical of Spencers attendance as a speaker at the Freedom of Speech Rally, conservative Mike Cernovich created the anti-political-violence rally, The Washington Post reported. The rally will be held at the White House from noon. to 2 p.m. Their purpose, as stated on their Facebook page, is to condemn political violence such as the attack on Steve Scalise as well as depictions of gruesome displays against sitting US national leaders.

Corey Stewart, who lost the Virginia gubernatorial primary election, will be making an appearance at that rally, as well as former Trump adviser Roger Stone and son of former national security adviser, Michael Flynn Jr.

D.C. United Against Hate will also rally at the Lincoln Memorial at 11 a.m. to oppose the Freedom of Speech Rally. Their Facebook event page states that the group opposes hate speech and that their presence will be a peaceful protest to oppose racism, Islamophobia and hate.

The Really Really Free Speech rally will take place miles away at the D.C. police headquarters from noon to 3 p.m. According to their website, the rally will host speakers from communities that are actually having their rights threatened, such as immigrants, Muslims, brown and black people, women and other marginalized communities.

Like WTOP on Facebook and follow @WTOP on Twitter to engage in conversation about this article and others.

Read the original:

4 dueling rallies scheduled for Sunday in DC | WTOP - WTOP

Republicans’ campus gag rule means free speech for me, not for thee – Wisconsin Gazette

Posted on June 23, 2017 by Dook Domini

State Representative Terese Berceau, D Madison, is the ranking Democratic member of the Wisconsin Assembly Committee on Colleges and Universities. She issued the following statement regarding the Assembly's passage of AB 299, the legislation to gag campus protestors:

I find the claims by some of my Republican colleagues that they are the vaunted defenders of free speech and the First Amendment laughable given the way they do business in the Capitol.

Theyve gone on fishing expeditions with professors emails.

They place arbitrary limits on the amount of time we can debate bills on the floor.

Theyve so restricted expression in our galleries that people cannot even sit silently with small signs taped to their shirts.

They routinely end public hearings while people are still waiting to testify. They hold floor votes on bills that have never had committee hearings.

They tried to gut the open records law in their last budget.

Now Republicans want to abrogate the UWs existing free speech policy entirely in favor of a big-government, legislatively-mandated, ill-defined gag rule.

Students could be accused of violating free speech rights and hauled before an Orwellian, kangaroo court based on allegations from any two people, who dont even have to be students.

Multiple offenses result in mandatory suspension or expulsion a draconian penalty that isnt currently imposed for any other violation, not even harassment, stalking or rape.

In McCarthyite fashion, the authors spoke of intimidation on campuses, but offered only anonymous, anecdotal evidence. They pointed to unruly protests at other universities, but dont have any substantive examples from Wisconsin.

The only case here they could cite was a speech by Ben Shapiro that was interrupted for about 5-7 minutes. Mr. Shapiro was then able to continue and gave his remarks in their entirety. UWMadison decided that disruption didnt constitute a sanctionable offense. But some paternalistic members of the Republican caucus seem to think they know better than the university what discipline students deserve.

But even this bill isnt extreme enough for some of my colleagues. One of the authors said students who organize protests should be punished. Not disruptive protests. Not violent protests. Apparently ANY kind of protest whatsoever. I think that speaks volumes about his true feelings regarding protecting the First Amendment and the freedom of speech. This is Big Brother at its worst.

Are conservative speakers so fragile they need a cocoon of protection, where their ideas are never subject to criticism or protest, where they dont have to face how unpopular some of their beliefs might be with a wider audience, or how unsupported they are by the facts? With AB 299, Republicans now want to disrupt campuses and divide students the same way theyve successfully polarized our communities and our country.

See more here:

Republicans' campus gag rule means free speech for me, not for thee - Wisconsin Gazette

Symposium: Most important free speech case in many years – SCOTUSblog (blog)

Posted on June 22, 2017 by Dook Domini

Hugh C. Hansen is a professor of law at Fordham University School of Law.He is the founder and director of the Fordham Conference on IP Law and Policy and the Fordham IP Institute. He submitted amicus curiae briefs in support of Simon Tam in both the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and the Supreme Court.

Matal v. Tam is one of the most important First Amendment free speech cases to come along in many years. The result is not much of a surprise. For the record, on October 24, 2016, I tweeted: TAM prediction: from doctrinal, policy, realist analysis + cert before 4 cir op = 2A disparage violates 1st Amend; scandalous reserved. What was a surprise was how strongly all eight justices viewed the applicable free speech protection.

Justice Samuel Alitos opinion meticulously addressed all arguments, making sure there were no loose ends to clutter future cases. His style was critical and even mocking. He left no doubts on the merits of the free speech issues. Justice Anthony Kennedys opinion took more of a Gordian knot approach. No need to worry about untying various threads and arguments; viewpoint discrimination allows us to just cut right through them. The purpose of both opinions appeared to be to make sure that there was no way around the Supreme Courts conclusions in the future. The court also seemed to take offense at the governments and amicis arguments as to why there was no viewpoint discrimination. The opinions together amounted to a serious defeat for the government and its amici supporters.

The government and amici put up a strong effort defending Section 2(a) of the Lanham Act. This in part derived from their admirable concern for the feelings of minority groups and the value of Section 2(a). This is the reason the Patent and Trademark Office in effect rewrote the Section 2(a) disparagement provision, years after passage of the act in 1946, to how it is applied today. There is no problem with any of this until someones free speech rights become involved. One reason the government and amici are so emphatic in their defense of Section 2(a) is perhaps that free speech took no serious part in their consideration of the issues.

If so, they are not alone. Free speech has never had many true friends. It receives plenty of lip service. We are generally in favor of free speech when we like the speech for which protection is sought but lose interest in it when we do not.

In his 1919 dissent in Abrams v. United States, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes extolled the idea that freedom of speech in the First Amendment is based upon a marketplace of ideas. No ideas are sacrosanct and all have to withstand scrutiny and debate. Truth will win out in this process and democracy will benefit.

Although that is a very worthy ideal, it is difficult to find any such marketplace today. Newspapers are in decline. Television news shows are divided ideologically, with viewers driven by confirmation bias. The Internet is primarily a gathering place for digital mobs ready to tar and feather those who hold opposing views.

The rest of us have gathered not in the public square but in private groups to which admission is dependent upon adherence to politically correct orthodoxy. It is safe inside these groups, where shared views are sacrosanct and never have to withstand scrutiny. Opposing views are there too, but only to be mocked from a distance.

In this environment, free speech is permitted for somebody with the same views but is disdained when it comes to opposing ones. Political correctness is the new tribalism.

It was upon this highly fraught platform that the government argued that it should be able to enforce politically correct views through Section 2(a). It tells those that are distressed, and are in the right private group, that it will challenge offensive marks on their behalf or allow the distressed to do it themselves. It will not debate these marks in the public square but rather seek to exclude them from it.

Simon Tams mark, which encapsulates the groups controversial ideas, is barred because of those ideas. Yet it is such use of expressive marks that today ironically, considering this case are the best hope to keep alive a marketplace of ideas. No private group can exclude these ideas in an effort to insulate themselves from exposure. Moreover, people receive access to the mark without warning and in neutral territory. They are in a setting where they might actually consider the ideas on their merits before they can jump-start their ideological protective screening.

In sum, I think that court saw that the use of marks for expressive content provides an important nascent marketplace for the reception and debate of ideas. The governments construction of Section 2(a) effectively stifles this marketplace.

I think it that might be the reason the courts opinion is so bold and unyielding. The court realizes that there is a serious fight for free speech and this is the beginning of an effort to free it from current cultural confines. (In any case, that is my personal view, and you cant criticize it because it might seriously hurt my feelings.)

Well, enough of that. What does this opinion then mean for related issues? The most obvious issue concerns the constitutionality of the Section 2(a) bar on scandalous and immoral marks. The government took the position after the en banc decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that these were covered as controlled by that decision. Yet it reserved the right for the solicitor general to distinguish this case and argue that the PTO can still bar such marks from registration. That issue is currently being litigated in In re Brunetti in the Federal Circuit.

Analytically, this is an easy issue. Matal v. Tam controls. But first lets look a little at the history of case law on the issue. The major case was In re McGinley (C.C.P.A. 1981). There the precursor to the Federal Circuit held that the Section 2(a) ban was constitutional. It reasoned that PTOs refusal to register the appellants mark did not affect the right to use it and that no tangible form of expression was suppressed.Since then three panels of the Federal Circuit and the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 1st, 3rd and 5th Circuits have all followed that reasoning.

McGinley was a mainstream (and Main Street) approach to the First Amendment. It was not an outlier. It was decided the way most if not all courts would have decided it. This is especially true for the Federal Circuit, the overseer/guardian of the PTOs trademark registration system.

Disparagement and scandalous and immoral provisions are similar but different. The latter does not ring First Amendment free-speech bells with most people. This is because (1) the marks at issue are smutty, vulgar or worse and not intended to send any larger expressive message; (2) registration is not perceived as economically necessary for these mark owners; (3) when there are serious free speech issues they can be ameliorated on a case-by-case basis by careful or limiting application of the statutory tests; (4) this provision provides a desirable civilizing effect on what could be registered as marks; and (5) courts had already made Section 2(a) more First Amendment-friendly through a construction that effectively eliminated immoral.

On the other hand, the result of declaring a First Amendment violation would include: (1) disruption of the status quo a removal of provisions in the law since 1905; (2) outrage in Congress and the public; and (3) a potential smut-bath of new applications.

For most who would balance these policies and effects, the choice is not difficult. And balancing is what courts do. The fact that neither the en banc Federal Circuit nor the Supreme Court addressed this question indicates the lack of appetite for deciding it. I think some courts might still try to find ways to uphold the scandalous and immoral provision. But this time the whole world will be watching and, ultimately, I think they will conclude it is covered by Matal v. Tam. And they can pass on the blame by saying the Supreme Court made me do it.

What is more interesting are the suggestions by some very smart people that this case threatens the viability of the tarnishment provision in dilution law and even the whole law of dilution. I dont think that is the case for several reasons. First, the Supreme Court did not actually reach its result Matal v. Tam by applying or construing language from prior cases. It reached it by looking at public policies, possible conflicts in those policies, and other real-world issues. So the court will not seek to derive an answer on dilution and the First Amendment from language in Tam. Even if it did, I am doubtful it would reach the same conclusions as those that have been suggested.

Furthermore, the decision in Tam was based in part on the fact that the disparagement provision had nothing to do with the goals of trademark law. The court in fact was supportive of trademark law, noting that the Lanham Act provides national protection of trademarks in order to secure to the owner of the mark the goodwill of his business and to protect the ability of consumers to distinguish among competing producers. Dilutions law whole purpose from the beginning was to protect the goodwill of the mark owner. It protects against the whittling away of a marks goodwill by unauthorized users. It also protects against increased consumer search costs. Tarnishment protects the goodwill of a products mark by preventing it from being associated when there is no likelihood of confusion with inferior or undesirable products. And finally, it is highly unlikely that a court will feel comfortable eliminating state dilution laws that are over 65 years old or federal laws, whatever the reason.

Free speech up until now has been a hothouse flower. It was beautiful to look at in its protected state, but out in the elements it rarely survived, let alone thrived. Matal v. Tam creates the possibility of breaking down those glass walls. The question is whether that is premature or whether free speech can survive outside on its own. I guess that will depend to some extent on what you and I do.

Posted in Matal v. Tam, Symposium on the court's ruling in Matal v. Tam, Featured

Recommended Citation: Hugh Hansen, Symposium: Most important free speech case in many years, SCOTUSblog (Jun. 22, 2017, 11:52 AM), http://www.scotusblog.com/2017/06/symposium-important-free-speech-case-many-years/

The rest is here:

Symposium: Most important free speech case in many years - SCOTUSblog (blog)

Chad’s Morning Brief: Free Speech In America – News/Talk 790 KFYO

Posted on June 22, 2017 by Dook Domini

Subscribe to News/Talk 95.1 & 790 KFYO on

In an Op-Ed for the L.A. Times, a writer argues that we would all be better off if the United States banned hate speech. What is hate speech and who decides what is hate speech the author never fully addresses, but instead describes how its hard to justify the non-ban on hate speech to her undergrad students. In other words, college kids dont understand how freedom of speech works and their feelings are being hurt so we need to restrict speech.

No thanks.

The Chad Hasty Show airs 8:30-11am on NewsTalk 95.1 FM and 790 AM KFYO.

Tune into The Chad Hasty Show weekday mornings 8:30-11am on News/Talk 95.1 FM and 790AM KFYO or click on the Listen Live link above.

The opinions expressed in this article belong solely to the authorand are not representative of the opinions of Townsquare Media Lubbock, its advertisers or affiliates.

See more here:

Chad's Morning Brief: Free Speech In America - News/Talk 790 KFYO

Competing Alt-Right ‘Free Speech’ Rallies Reveal Infighting Over White Nationalism – Southern Poverty Law Center

Posted on June 21, 2017 by Dook Domini

Tim 'Baked Alaska' Gionet posted a meme aimed at the 'alt light' rally.

Although the alt-right presents itself as a new kind of white male nationalism rewired for the 21st century, it is proving in practice to have many of the same qualities as its old 20th-century forebears: Riddled with infighting and internecine quarrels, the product of a movement whose sociopathic agenda attracts similar personalities, ego-driven and contentious.

The infighting, which first erupted last week between far-right Oath Keepers and whitenationalist alt-righters, deepened this week when two factions outright white nationalists and committed racists on one hand, and alt-righters (dismissed as the "alt-light") who disavow them and their politics while embracing the movement agenda squared off on social media over a series of free speech events aimed at provoking left-wing counter-protests and, potentially violence.

The result is that there will be two competing free speech events this Sunday in Washington, D.C.;one a Rally Against Political Violence hosted by alt-right provocateur Jack Posobiec, planned for noon at the White House; the other a Freedom of Speech Rally hosted by Colton Merwin at the Lincoln Memorial, and featuring such whitenationalist figures as Richard Spencer, Nathan Damigo of Identity Evropa, far-right neo-Pagan Augustus Invictus, blogger Jason Kessler, and social-media celebrity Tim Baked Alaska Gionet.

The White House rally will feature alt-right figures such as Laura Loomer (who recently made headlines by taking the stage during a performance of Julius Caesar in New York City), Kekistan fan Cassandra Fairbanks, and Kyle Prescott of the alt-right fight club Proud Boys. It apparently was organized by alt-right figure Mike Cernovich and Posobiec in response to the roster of speakers invited to the Lincoln Memorial rally; speakers such as Loomer (whose background included a stint as a writer for hate-group leader Pamela Gellers Islamophobia operation) had originally been scheduled to speak there but then canceled.

Organizers explained the rally is intended to condemn political violence such as the attack on Steve Scalise and US Congress recently, as well as depictions of gruesome displays of brutality against sitting US national leaders. All sides must join together to condemn violence and the violent rhetoric that inspires it!

The Lincoln Memorial rally organizers expressed their regrets: I'm sure some of you have already heard by now, but several speakers have dropped out due to the confirmation of Richard Spencer as a speaker. Now, not only is this horribly hypocritical, but is also bordering on an Antifa principle. By not sharing the platform with someone you disagree with you are therefore not supporting their right to speak.

I don't know Spencer, I have been famously ambivalent toward the man, but I am looking forward to meeting with him and to defending his right to say whatever the hell he's going to say on Sunday, chimed in Augustus Invictus. That is where I stand.

The two sides began sniping at each other on social media. All of you guys pulling out of the Freedom of Speech Rally are cucks, posted a critic on the Facebook page of the Political Violence rally. It's flat out hypocritical to be speaking at a Freedom of Speech rally only to pull out of the event because someone you disagree with is speaking. That makes you a hypocrite with no balls and no conviction. Grow a pair.

On Twitter, Spencer labeled Posobiec a cuck, and taunted him: Oooosh... Jack Posobiec is a great war hero. No one can criticize him. He dismissed the rally as the "Alt Light," and called them "a collection of liars ... perverts ... and Zionist fanatics."He also made fun of them for changing the focus of their rally: Apparently, these dorks blushed at the idea of calling their little meet-up a free speech rally. He added: The Tea Party, at least at its inception, was an authentic expression of American nationalism. These people total zeros.

Jason Kessler posted a video demonstrating that Posobiec had plagiarized his work while he was employed at the Canadian alt-right website The Rebel; in response, Posobiec blocked him. Posobiec also apparently blocked Baked Alaska for criticizing one of his media stunts.

Baked Alaska also got into a Twitter war with Loomer after he posted a meme with her face Photoshopped into a gas chamber, outside which stood Donald Trump in a Nazi uniform, ready to pull the switch: Et tu, brute? it read.

Loomer responded in shock: Wow. I'm calling on @bakedalaska to fully condemn anti-Semitism after posting this pic of me inside a gas chamber.

He laughed at her: It's a fucking meme. You're an SJW [Social Justice Warrior] now and it's hilarious.

The poster for Kessler's Aug. 12 event.

A similar feud threatened to break out over another free speech event, this one an Aug. 12 Unite The Right rally in Charlottesville, Va., organized by Kessler as part of his ongoing protest against the threatened removal of a Confederate monument to Gen. Robert E. Lee.

The lineup for that event includes Spencer, Augustus Invictus, white nationalist Matthew Heimbach, and League of the South president Michael Hill.

Infighting is part of every movement - but it doesn't have to be, posted Augustus Invictus on his Facebook page, along with a poster for the event.

A white nationalist commented: Very happy to see that Based Stickman, the anti-white civic nationalist cuck and shameless mountebank, has apparently been removed from the line-up. Good. He would've been fundamentally at odds with the other speakers.

Responded Kessler: He's planning to be here in a non-speaking role to back-up our attendees in the event of Antifa violence. For that, he is a friend to the event and to the First Amendment rights of our speakers.

In the meantime, another would-be participant posted: "Will the Oath Cucks be there?"

It might be time to stock up on the popcorn.

Go here to see the original:

Competing Alt-Right 'Free Speech' Rallies Reveal Infighting Over White Nationalism - Southern Poverty Law Center

The Tyranny Of A Tiny State: Connecticut Against Free Speech – The Daily Caller

Posted on June 21, 2017 by Dook Domini

Connecticut is taken with an authoritarian mood. The Constitution StateI deferentially refer to it as The Eminent Domainis in the beginning stages of passing hate crime legislation that lords the authority of correct thinking cognoscenti over the states subjects. Or, using the linguistic benignity of legislators, organizations committed to decreasing hate crimes and improving diversity awareness.

The blue blood branch of the northeast states aims to institute aHate Crimes Advisory Council committed to decreasing hate crimes and improving diversity awareness by coordinat[ing] programs to increase community awareness and reporting of crimes motivated by bigotry or bias.

Delegation is a funny thing. Before you know it, quasi-governmental councils and independent agents transform to monsters. Theres the special prosecutor who bites the hand that feeds, the government agents accountable to no one who shut down the simple toymaker, and Claire Guadiani, the Christina-Kirscher-esque supervillain of Kelo v. New Londonall of them and their commissions and councils simply contemporary star chambers run by power-graspers.

All you need to know about the direction Hate Crime Councils will take is in the history of similar bias patrols, informer networks, and homogeneous political climates structured throughout America. More specifically, we can look to the universities. Thats where diversity councils draft their first-round picks.

At Suffolk University, micro-aggression training was mandated after a sociology professor questioned a young Latina womans use of the word hence. (Cry out a hysteria hosanna for hence!)

If tenured professors at universities arent shielded from the petty rebukes of infant tyrants, what makes you think that lone, powerless adults facing the full power of the state will?

Maybe youre shopping for a subtler orthodoxy. In that case, I offer to you Old Dominion University, which has instituted a Safe Space Committee, reserving housing specifically for students who are of a progressive/multi-sexual orientation. Irish Republicans Need Not Apply. But its not discrimination. Its inclusiveness.

Go look at any of FIREs cases and see whether you like the result of universal progressive hegemony. FIRE, that laudable center of First Amendment fervor, has ventured into film in its efforts to expose higher educations collective farcical take on free speech, helping to produce the tragicomic documentary Can We Take a Joke? But if I were to chronicle Connecticuts high-handed hijinks on celluloid, Id call it The Day the Government Finally Told You to Shut Up (coming soon to a Theatre of the Absurd, check local listings for movie times).

But what about hate speech?! Ah, that old chestnut.

One of the tricks progressives use to define hate speech upmeaning they use hyperbolic language to describe what would otherwise be recognized as impolitic gaffing or uncouth mannersis by referring to hate incidents. Hate crimes are actionsbomb threats aimed at synagogues, epithet-layered graffitiwhile hate incidents involve sending messages that are objectionable but protected by the First Amendment.

There are many problems with the proposed Connecticut legislation, not least that its unclear whether simply saying stupid Jew or black sonofabitchor whatever elsewould render those utterances criminal in character. (This, of course, would ruin my annual Nubians v. Jewbians Passover Seder in New Haven.) The statute appears to cover hate incidents, too.

Remember, though, the truism that objectionable free speech is really the only kind that needs First Amendment protection. If youre a man (or a woman, or whatever) of the left, consider what one of your luminous lords, Noam Chomsky, said about free speech in Manufacturing Consent: Goebbelswas in favor of freedom of speech for views he liked. So wasStalin. If youre in favor of freedom of speech, that means youre in favor of freedom of speech precisely for views you despise.

Normally when I find myself agreeing with Noam Chomsky, I do a thousand jumping jacks, take a freezing cold shower, and then ask a friend to hit me in the face with a pan. (A jarring physical reset helps clear the brain.) And yet, still, Im in agreement with Brother Noam of the Hater of All-Americana Congregation.

Theres a big problem even with using the hate crime classification. Like every other issue in life, I use South Park to determine my views on hate crimes: Mayor, it is time to stop splitting people into groups. All hate crimes do is support the idea that blacks are different from whites, that homosexuals need to be treated differently from non-homos, that we arent the same. Thats Stan Marsh wisdom, people. Its problematic to continually bisect grievance-mongers into tinier sub-classified groups. This taxonomy of minorities can continue ad infinitumblack Jews, lesbian Mongols, trans-Latinas, inuit-differently-abled-trans-species-race-non-conforming-dolphinistasuntil the only basis for claiming equal or fair treatment is the newness of the classification and the historical oppression experienced by the identities that make up the fresh grievance category. The logical result is that only the inuit-differently-abled-trans-species-race-non-conforming-dolphinista can have a claim to being discriminated against, resulting in a Rule of Law that is inherently discriminatory. There are certain people who have an algorithmic type of thinking when it comes to politics and ideologytheyre ideologically possessed, as Dr. Jordan Peterson puts it.

Most people will look at a situation and decide how to handle it based on the facts in front of them. The ideologically possessed, however, subconsciously know how theyll respond to any scenario long before it occurs. They may, for instance, favor discrimination so long as it comports with their algorithmic worldview. The ideologically possessed are those who make up the whole of diversity committees, inclusion programs, and so on. Its from those groups that the Hate Crimes Council will recruit. The result will be the arm of the state twisting careless speakers into compliance. Or as Nat Hentoff put it: Free speech for mebut not for thee.

The Tyranny Of A Tiny State: Connecticut Against Free Speech - The Daily Caller

Bernie Sanders Tells Progressives to Stop Suppressing Free Speech on College Campuses – Heat Street

Posted on June 21, 2017 by Dook Domini

Sen. Bernie Sanders has spoken out against the progressive lefts ongoing efforts to suppress free speech on campus, stating that it only contributes to rising political tensions in the United States.

Sanders statements come in the wake of James Hodgkinsons mass shooting of GOP congressmen during a morning baseball practice in Alexandria, VA, which hospitalized Majority Whip Steve Scalise and wounded several others. Following the shooting, Sanders deplored Hodgkinsons actions, describing the violence as despicable and unacceptable in our society.

I condemn this action in the strongest possible terms. Real change can only come about through non-violent action, and anything else runs against our most deeply held American values, said Sanders at the time.

Speaking on CBS, Sanders said that efforts to suppress free speech contributed to the rising tide of political violence.

Look, freedom of speech, the right to dissent, the right to protest, that is what America is about, he said, per PJ Media. And, politically, every leader in this country, every American has got to stand up against any form of violence. That is unacceptable. And I certainly hope and pray that Representative Scalise has a full recovery from the tragedy that took place.

The senator stated that people have a right to speak on campus, even if their speech is considered disagreeable or problematic. In February, leftist activists at UC Berkeley shut down a speech by conservative provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos using violence.

And you have a right, if you are on a college campus, not to attend. You have a right to ask hard questions about the speaker if you disagree with him or her, Sanders said. But what why should we be afraid of somebody coming on a campus or anyplace else and speaking? You have a right to protest. But I dont quite understand why anybody thinks it is a good idea to deny somebody else the right to express his or her point of view.

What is very clear is, we are in a contentious and difficult political moment in our countrys history, he added. I have very grave concerns about the Trump agenda right now.

Ian Miles Cheong is a journalist and outspoken media critic. You can reach him through social media at@stillgray on Twitterand onFacebook.

Go here to read the rest:

Bernie Sanders Tells Progressives to Stop Suppressing Free Speech on College Campuses - Heat Street

Left-wing smear group scorched as ‘enemy of free speech’ – WND.com

Posted on June 21, 2017 by Dook Domini

Theres been asurge in recent months of violence andthreats on university campuses from left-wing activistswhointend to silence opposing viewpoints.

It happened when conservative commentator Ann Coulter was scheduled to speak at the University of Californiaat Berkeley. Activiststhreatened violence and school officials closed down the scheduled event.

So on Tuesday, the Senate Judiciary Committee, chaired by Sen. Charles E. Grassley, R-Iowa, held a hearing to take testimony about how school officialscan protect freedom of speech as well as their students.

The committee took comments from Richard Cohen of the Southern Poverty Law Center.

Thats thegroup cited by Floyd Corkins as his source of informationwhen he attempted to commit mass murder at the evangelicalFamily Research Council office in Washington, D.C.

Get the Whistleblower Magazines revelations about SPLC in its The Hate Racket issue, which shows how the group fools government into equating Christians and conservatives with Klansmen and Nazis and rakes in millions in the process.

Its also the group that was liked on social media by James Hodgkinson, the man who tried to kill Republican members of Congress last week at a baseball practice.

Hodgkinson was merely swimming in the pond created by the SPLC and other groups like it, said Lt. Gen. William Boykin, FRCs executive vice president.

Boykinwrote a letter to the committee on the occasion of the SPLC testimony, warning members of the groups true agenda.

I have provided this background information in order to disabuse the committee of any notion it may have that the SPLC cares about the preservation of free speech rights on college campuses for those with whom they disagree on key issues, he explained.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

The hearing, titled Free Speech 101: The Assault on the First Amendment on College Campuses, took testimony from students, college officials and others.

It is extremely ironic that one of your witnesses is actually an enemy of free speech, wrote Boykin. I write here of Richard Cohen of the Southern Poverty Law Center.

The retired officertold senators SPLC has refined a method of defaming its political opponents that is extremely effective when combined with the massive war chest it can rely upon an amount that totals over $319 million as of late 2016.

He said the organization targets victims with hate and extremist labels.

The SPLC bullies and dehumanizes many ordinary Americans by calling them names and portraying them grotesquely in terrible photographs and sketches, he wrote.

The group does not want open debate,said Boykin.

One of the targets of SPLCs hate label in 2016 was then-presidential candidate Dr. Ben Carson.

Boykin pointed out that in2007, SPLCs Mark Potok gave an address in which he made this observation about SPLCs modus operandi: Sometimes the press will describe us as monitoring hate crimes and so on . I want to say plainly that our aim in life is to destroy these groups, to completely destroy them.

Boykinsaid SPLC has no interest in an exchange of ideas, even with peaceful, mainstream groups like Alliance Defending Freedom, the Center for Family and Human Rights (C-FAM), the Family Research Council (FRC), and the Pacific Justice Institute whose views may differ greatly from theirs.

He cited the Corkins case that linked SPLC to domestic terror.

Corkins came to the FRC building with the intention of using a semi-automatic pistol to kill everyone there and then place Chick-fil-A sandwiches by 15 of those bodies. In a chilling interrogation video released by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and played in court, Corkins said he picked his targets by relying on the SPLC websites Hate Map.

Boykin said it was not surprising then that Hodgkinson had liked SPLC on Facebook.

Boykin chargedthe depth to which the SPLC will sink knows almost no bottom, citing an SPLC attack on human rights activist Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who opposes a darker, violent side of Islam.

Ali suffered female genital mutilation as a child and wrote about it in her book Infidel.

SPLCs characterization was that she says she sufferedFGM.

Boykin said: It is mind-boggling that a progressive organization like the SPLC would cast doubt on her claims in a personal matter like this.

In his comments, Cohen claimed presidential politics and growing white nationalist activity are making campuses increasingly polarized.

WND reportedHodgkinson, who was killed by police when he shot at members of Congress, apparently was a fan of SPLC.

Hodgkinson also liked many anti-Republican, far-left Facebook pages, including Dump Trump, Liar, Liar, Republican campaign on fire, Republicans ARE the problem, Berniecrats United to Resist Trump and Fire the Republican Government.

Overtly anti-Republican groups were not the only things he liked on Facebook. His liked TV shows favored by the left-wing such as Last Week Tonight with John Oliver on HBO, The Rachel Maddow Show on MSNBC and The Daily Show with Trevor Noah on Comedy Central.

Get the Whistleblower Magazines revelations about the SPLC, in its March 2015 edition of The Hate Racket, the complete story of how one group fools government into equating Christians and conservatives with Klansmen and Nazis and rakes in millions doing it.

The legal team at Liberty Counsel, criticizing SPLC for falsely and recklessly labeling Christian ministries as hate groups,' noted SPLC is responsible for the first conviction of a man who intended to commit mass murder targeted against a policy organization in Washington, D.C.

On August 15, 2012, Floyd Corkins went to the Family Research Council with a gun and a bag filled with ammunition and Chick-fil-A sandwiches. His stated purpose was to kill as many employees of the Family Research Council as possible and then to smear Chick-fil-A sandwiches in their faces (because the founder of the food chain said he believed in marriage as a man and a woman). Fortunately, Mr. Corkins was stopped by the security guard, who was shot in the process. Corkins is now serving time in prison. Mr. Corkins admitted to the court that he learned of the Family Research Council by reading the SPLCs hate map.

WND reported a video showed Corkins entering the FRC offices and confronting Leo Johnson.

Corkins later was sentenced to prison for domestic terrorism. It was during an interview with FBI officers that Corkins named SPLC as his source of information.

Central to the case, according to the governments document, was that Corkins had identified the FRC as an anti-gay organization on the Southern Poverty Law Center website.

FRC officials repeatedly have explained that they adhere to a biblical perspective on homosexuality but are not anti-gay.

SPLC also exhibited behavior so egregious that it was reprimanded by the far-left administration of Barack Obama.

Judicial Watch, citing a letter to Michael M. Hethmon, senior counsel for the Immigration Reform Law Institute, and others, said the DOJ reprimand came in 2016 but was kept quiet at the agencys request.

[It] involves the SPLCs atrocious behavior during immigration court proceedings. Two groups that oppose illegal immigration, the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) and the Immigration Reform Law Institute (IRLI), were the target of personal, baseless and below-the-belt attacks from SPLC attorneys during official immigration court proceedings. The SPLC filed a motion attacking and defaming the two respected nonprofits by describing them as white supremacist, eugenicist, anti-Semitic, and anti-Catholic. In its reprimand the DOJ says it is troubled by the conduct of SPLC lawyer Christopher Strawn and that his conduct overstepped the bounds of zealous advocacy and was unprofessional. Furthermore, SPLC made uncivil comments that disparaged FAIR and its staff, the rebuke states, adding that the language constitutes frivolous behavior and doesnt aid in the administration of justice, Judicial Watch explained.

The Obama administration kept the reprimand confidential and asked FAIR and IRLI to keep it under wraps. In the meantime, SPLC continues to publicly trash the groups and escalate attacks against them by putting them on the official hate list. The executive director and general counsel of IRLI, Dale Wilcox, says his nonprofit and FAIR will keep fighting for immigration policies that put America first. The SPLCs latest tactic in its never-ending witch-hunt and the federal governments resulting reprimand should send the following message to the mainstream media, Wilcox said: Stop using the SPLC as a legitimate hate-watch source in your news coverage. That a cabal of biased list-keepers can play such an important role in distorting the immigration debate in this country is testament to the utter failure of much of the mainstream media which frequently publishes their inflammatory commentary and refuses to question their baseless methods or financial motivations,' Judicial Watch said.

The letter explained the DOJ stopped short of formal disciplinary proceeding[s], instead opting for the rebuke in the letter.

We take this opportunity to remind the attorney practitioners involved in this misconduct that practitioners before EOIR should be striving to be civil and professional in their interactions with each other, the public, the board and immigration courts. Attorneys owe a duty of professionalism to their clients, opposing parties and their counsel, the courts, and the public as a whole.

To really understand the war zone America is becoming, read the June issue of WNDs acclaimed monthly Whistleblower magazine, RAGE AND VIOLENCE: Why the Left has gone insane in the Age of Trump.

Read this article:

Left-wing smear group scorched as 'enemy of free speech' - WND.com

Trumpkins Cry ‘Free Speech’ And Stab It in The Back – Daily Beast

Posted on June 20, 2017 by Dook Domini

Four Donald Trump supporters who claim to be hardcore free speech fundamentalists revealed themselves as opportunistic hypocrites when they repeatedly disrupted two New York City Shakespeare in the Park performances of Julius Caesar (which features an obvious Trump stand-in as the assassinated title character) over the weekend.

Adopting the very same "shutdown" tactics they claim to abhor when utilized by left-wing activists, this past Friday right-wing blogger Laura Loomer marched onto the stage during the assassination scene, screaming, Stop the normalization of political violence against the right! before being ejected from the amphitheater.

The incident was filmed by Jack Posobiec a popular right-wing Twitter personality and propagator of debunked Pizzagate and Seth Rich conspiracy theories who also filmed his own ejection from the arena for standing up and screaming at the audience, "Goebbels would be proud!"

Posting the video to Twitter, Posobiec boasted, "BREAKING: Julius Ceaser Gets SHUTDOWN" (sic). He later tweeted that the crowd applauded the assassination of Caesar, but provided no evidence to back up that assertion. Naturally, that didn't stop the rumor from spreading throughout the #MAGA Twitterverse as evidence of the bloodthirsty perversity of "leftist" New York theatregoers.

During the final performance of the play this Sunday, two members of the self-described Western chauvinist group Proud Boys rushed the stage, one during the assassination scene, another later leaping on the stage screaming "Goebbels would be proud" and "CNN is ISIS." The irony of defenders of Western civilization trying to shut down one of Western civilization's most classic works of art was apparently lost on the Proud Boys.

Mainstream conservative media figures like Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham have applauded the protesters, defending the attempted shutdown of the play on the always intellectually shaky ground of "whataboutism," as in, "what if Obama was depicted as the murdered Caesar?" One easily identifiable flaw in that argument is an Obama figure was depicted as Caesar, in a well-received 2012 production that was received positively by both The New York Times and The American Conservative. There were no instances of liberals (or anyone) storming stages, nor any public or media outrage, perhaps because anyone with an even cursory knowledge of Julius Caesar knows that it is in no way pro-assassination.

Its unlikely that this weekend's stage stormers are really offended by this staging of the playor believe the production caused the attempted assassination of Republican congressmen last week. Rather, the disruptions were staged stunts, as partially evidenced by the FreeLaura.com domain registered well before Loomer's arrest by her employer, Rebel Media boss Ezra Levant, who is using the site to solicit donations for a "legal defence fund." A separate crowdfund has already raised over $10,000 for Loomer's defense, even though the fines she faces for misdemeanor trespassing and disorderly conduct would be closer to $1,000 (a high estimate at that). In other words, deliberately getting arrested may prove to be a smart business strategy for Loomer.

The rank hypocrisy of those who have built their media brands on no-holds- barred political rhetoric and no-feelings-spared edginess is evident enough. And while some defend the attempted "shutdown" of Shakespeare as a righteous example of the left getting a taste of its own medicine (a childish excuse to justify public tantrums while attempting to stifle others' free expression) the tyrannical instinct from these so-called "free speech fundamentalists" wasn't born this weekend. They've tried to shut down college speakers they disagree with, but insist that when their allies have their events shut down on college campuses it is evidence of a kind of thought-policing unique to the left. When the cast of Hamilton lectured then-Vice President-elect Mike Pence after a performance last year, Loomer tweeted, "Will Democrats ever let Republicans just enjoy a play?"

Loomer and the other theater disrupters may think of their actions as fearless civil disobedience, but you can't have it both ways. If disrupting a conservative's speech is wrong, then disrupting a play is wrong. If easily offended college students are snowflakes, then shrieking men's rights activists are snowflakes, too.

For those of us truly interested in defending freedom of speech from both government censorship and the heckler's veto of authoritarians on both the left and the right, the self-exposure of the #MAGA crowd is helpful, for it makes plain that they are not allies in the struggle, but rather, unprincipled opportunists bastardizing the phrase "free speech" to fluff up their inflated sense of ballsy rebellion, as well as using the First Amendment as a rhetorical shield to say obnoxious things under the guise of bold truth-telling.

These particular professional trolls don't believe in free expression for all, nor do they respect the right of their ideological opponents to express themselves provocatively. But perhaps their greatest shame lies in their unapologetic deployment of the dreaded "Saul Alinsky tactics" long decried as the embodiment of leftist mind-controlling evil as a means to bilk their followers for donations while they masquerade as wounded martyrs.

Read this article:

Trumpkins Cry 'Free Speech' And Stab It in The Back - Daily Beast

The Universal Notebook: Freedom of speech is just an expression – The Forecaster

Posted on June 20, 2017 by Dook Domini

One of the battle lines in Americas culture wars runs straight through the First Amendment.

Cultural conservatives seem to think liberals dont really believe in free speech because we are all too willing to silence what we see as hate speech and what conservatives seem to see as expressions of their core values banning Muslims, closing the southern border to Hispanics, preventing the LGBTQ community from gaining their rights, defending police violence against black people, etc.

While conservatives such as Milo Yiannapolis, a British agitator who got banned from Twitter for his racist tweets, have felt the sword of the censor fall upon them, so has liberal comedian Kathy Griffin, who lost her job as CNN New Years Eve co-host for displaying a picture of Donald Trumps severed head. Trump makes people on both sides crazy.

If you thought things were tense between right and left, conservative and progressive before, Trumps ascension has made things much worse, emboldening bigots and incensing liberals. Comedian Bill Maher, champion of all things politically incorrect, caused a recent controversy when Sen. Ben Sasse jokingly invited him to come to Nebraska to work in the fields.

Work in the fields? Maher replied. Senator, Im a house (N-word).

Maher apologized for using the N-word and invited a pair of prominent African-Americans rapper/actor Ice Cube and Georgetown University sociologist Michael Eric Dyson on his show to gently flog him for his verbal sin.

For the record, Yiannopolis, Griffin and Maher were all way out of line.

The volatility of the free speech issue is greatest on college campuses, not only because academia is seen as inherently liberal, but also because colleges and universities are laboratories that test social norms and advance culture. Sometimes they get it right and sometimes not.

Harvard University was in the news this month because it rescinded the acceptances of 10 students who posted offensive memes on a Class of 2021 Facebook chat site called Harvard memes for horny bourgeois teens. Being horny and bougie were the least of these teens troubles; they got kicked out of Harvard before they even got there for being just plain stupid.

Why would any intelligent, college-bound student post things that make fun of the Holocaust, sexual assault and the deaths of children? Insensitivity? Shock value? Peer pressure? Who cares? Harvard could fill every class with valedictorians with 800 SAT scores, so it doesnt need to coddle creeps who think its cool to be crass. Harvard got it right.

Out at Evergreen State College in Olympia, Washington, that redoubt of hippie academics and anarchists turned itself inside out over one professors objection to the colleges Day of Absence, an annual exercise in racial awareness inspired by Douglas Turner Wards play of the same name, in which all the people of color disappear from a small Southern town.

In the past, the Day of Absence had been a voluntary affair where students of color met off-campus to discuss issues of race. This year, the college asked white students to leave campus for a day because students of color felt unwelcome in the wake of the 2016 election.

There is a huge difference between a group or coalition deciding to voluntarily absent themselves from a shared space in order to highlight their vital and under-appreciated roles, wrote Bret Weinstein, a professor of evolutionary biology who describes himself as deeply progressive, and a group or coalition encouraging another group to go away.

In response, 65 Evergreen State faculty and 34 staff members signed a solidarity statement, not in support of Weinstein, but calling on him to be punished because he endangered faculty, staff, and students, making them targets of white supremacist backlash by promulgating misinformation in public emails, on national television, in news outlets, and on social media.

It did not help Weinsteins deeply progressive cause that he wrote a guest editorial in the conservative Wall Street Journal and appeared on Fox News with conservative commentator Tucker Carlson. A group of 50 students confronted Weinstein and shouted him down as a racist because he objected to the authoritarian way college President George Bridges had re-ordered a Day of Absence.

Evergreen State got it wrong. Professor Mike Paros, the one Evergreen State faculty member who stood up for Weinstein, got it right.

When one is confronted with truths that contradict closely held beliefs, wrote Paros to his colleagues, the mind begins to make outlandish rationalizations. The faculty email response will someday be used in psychology textbooks as a case study in group thinking.

The First Amendment only prohibits the government from infringing on your free speech. It does not not prevent your employers, your opponents or even your colleagues from doing so.

Freelance journalist Edgar Allen Beem lives in Brunswick. The Universal Notebook is his personal, weekly look at the world around him.

Visit link:

The Universal Notebook: Freedom of speech is just an expression - The Forecaster

Defuse Some Political Tension by Allowing Campus Free Speech, Says Sanders – PJ Media

Posted on June 20, 2017 by Dook Domini

After a campaign volunteer of his shot the GOP House whip last week, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) stressed that toning down heated political rhetoric in America should include letting controversial guests speak on college campuses.

James Hodgkinson, 66, of Belleville, Ill., reportedly arrived in the Beltway a few weeks before the shooting and was found to have a list with a handful of GOP congressmen's names. He opened fireWednesday on the Republicans' early-morning baseball practice across the street from the YMCA in Alexandria, Va., where he had been spending his days. Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.), Rep. Roger Williams' (R-Texas) aide Zachary Barth, Tyson Foods lobbyist Matt Mika and two Capitol Police officers, David Bailey and Krystal Griner, were wounded.

That morning, Sanders said on the Senate floor, "I have just been informed that the alleged shooter at the Republican baseball practice is someone who apparently volunteered on my presidential campaign. I am sickened by this despicable act. Let me be as clear as I can be. Violence of any kind is unacceptable in our society and I condemn this action in the strongest possible terms. Real change can only come about through nonviolent action, and anything else runs against our most deeply held American values."

Sunday on CBS, Sanders agreed that efforts to stop free speech can contribute to creating a powder keg.

"Look, freedom of speech, the right to dissent, the right to protest, that is what America is about. And, politically, every leader in this country, every American has got to stand up against any form of violence. That is unacceptable," the senator said. "And I certainly hope and pray that Representative Scalise has a full recovery from the tragedy that took place."

Asked about protests on college campuses in an effort to stop controversial speakers, the senator emphasized that "people have a right to speak."

"And you have a right, if you are on a college campus not to attend. You have a right to ask hard questions about the speaker if you disagree with him or her," Sanders added. "But what -- why should we be afraid of somebody coming on a campus or anyplace else and speaking? You have a right to protest. But I don't quite understand why anybody thinks it is a good idea to deny somebody else the right to express his or her point of view."

"What is very clear is, we are in a contentious and difficult political moment in our country's history. I have very grave concerns about the Trump agenda right now."

The shooting, followed by congressional comity at the annual baseball game, spurred more lawmakers to talk about how they can set an example for the country through civility.

Even After Trump’s Victory, Why I Still Fight for Freedom of Speech – Townhall

Posted on June 18, 2017 by Dook Domini

Posted: Jun 18, 2017 12:01 AM

LA County for Trump is not hiding their love for our President. Sure, our votes didnt swing the election in his favor last year, but his electoral win has turned into political, moral, and cultural victories which even conservative refugees in blue states can relish and celebrate.

We have not rested since Election 2016, when the real estate/media mogul took the political establishment by storm. This past weekend, we celebrated President Trump and his successes in Palisades Park, right along the Santa Monica coastline. The Peoples Republic of Santa Monica is one of the most elite yet entrenched hubs for the anti-Trump resistance in California. FYI, Santa Monica used to be reliably red, including such conservative firebrands as Robert B-1 Bob Dornan as Congressman.

Yet even along the deep Blue coast (where students married the ocean in creepy yet benign ceremonies), there are Trump supporters, and they gathered to us right there along the coastline of a beautiful, breezy, if slightly warm, weekend afternoon.

What makes us want to come out for freedom of speech, especially when we could have taken a nice swim or walk along the Santa Monica pier? Why do LA County Trump supporters make their case for the President in a deep blue area? Isnt freedom of speech well-protected already?

Sure, we love free speech, but we want to celebrate and exercise our right to speak our minds without fear, and engage others who do not agree with us to share their thoughts too. After all, the restoration of this sacred right is one of the reasons I love our President. He freed this countrys citizenry from the PC chokehold which had shamed and silenced conservatives for nearly 30 years. This deafening incapacity to punch back hamstrung Republican activists from making gains. Why? Much of the time Republican lawmakers, whether in Washington or among the 50 states, were obsessed with how the media would portray them. They didnt know how to play the media, and even individual Americans and conservative interest groups played cautious and limited their own First Amendment capacities.

This kabuki theater of fawning moderation from the grassroots and the conservative political class came to end with street fighter Donald Trump. He thrived on the media attention, for better or for worse. The media had to cover him, especially because they wanted to smear him, and he in turn thrived off the negative coverage as it prospered his profile.

For the longest time, Americans had been tired of and frustrated with a lying, fawning media telling them what to think and which facts to pay attention to. Shouldnt the media simply report the facts, paying attention to the evidence rather their bias and ideological bent? Americans were particularly furious with the political correctness cult that suppressed sensitive yet necessary information, like the murder of American citizens by illegal aliens or the destructive nature of trangenderism. Beyond that, 95 million Americans out of work were not just tired, but irritated by the chronic reports of a strong economy, when they couldnt scratch two dimes together or find a stable, full-time job.

The culture wars agitated Americans even more. Do I want transgender bathrooms in a local restaurant, when everyone with two eyes in their head knows that there are two genders, two parentsand very likely two terms for Trump? If they were so angry, why werent Americans speaking out? Shame and the fear of widespread smears. The Democratic Party, with Barack Obama at the helm, worked hard to impose this cultural Marxist sentiment of silencing dissentwithout force of law or violence. Shame is an effective tool for demolishing ones opponents. Alinksy understood the power of condemnation all too well. With this psychological warfare in the hands of our leftist opponents, freedom of speech posed no threat to their powerful, tyrannical ambitions. Furthermore, they could rely on the complicit media, a corrupted education system, and the funding of liberal corporations to induce average Americans to shut up and say nothing.

But illegal immigration carried a cost which exceeds the potential shame that follows from speaking out. More importantly, Candidate Trump was not afraid to speak his mind, as vulgar as it may have sounded to others. He touched the latent anger of Middle America, and he gave them a voice which they had been shamed into not using. He understood the Art of the Deal, but recognized that negotiation with the totalitarian left would end in failure. Playing along had already failed. Being nice simply does not work. Trump understood that, and he knew that all of us had known that for a long time, but didnt want to say it. What his successful campaign has done for this country is incalculable. But one tangible feature is the resurgence of free speech as an essential aspect for our culture.

For the greater part of my life, I never gave a second thought to my First Amendment rights, whether they would be in danger or not. After seeing bakers losing their businesses and civil servants losing their liberties over their First Amendment rights, I finally how endangered the First Amendment was becoming. Donald Trumps victory showed that the assault on our freedom of speech would not end in inevitable tyranny.

But the battle has only begun. The Democratic caucus in Washington attempted to gut the First Amendment. They still want to cut the funding from free speech exercise, i.e. repeal the Citizens United decision with a constitutional amendment. Since those efforts have failed, now the Left resorts to violence. From the Black Lives Matter domestic terrorists to the Antifa thugs shutting down free speech ralliesto the attempted massacre of House Republicans on a baseball diamond in Alexandria, Virginiathe Left and their Democratic Party puppets are determined to stop freedom of speech from flourishing in the heart of every American.

And that is why I will continue to stump for Trump and attend free speech rallies in the most liberal sections of Los Angeles County.

UN Mission Official Says Terror Attack Underway in Mali Resort Area Popular With Foreigners

Read this article:

Even After Trump's Victory, Why I Still Fight for Freedom of Speech - Townhall

Michael Savage thinks there’s too much freedom of speech going on … – Salon

Posted on June 18, 2017 by Dook Domini

In the wake of Wednesdays shooting of a Republican congressman, conservative talk-radio host Michael Savage on Wednesday suggested something he wouldnt have dreamed of doing a few months ago. He saidthe government should take control of the media.

In between references to Rachel Maddow (whom he mockingly referred to as Rachel Madcow), Savage wondered ifthe haters [should] be removed from the airwaves by the federal government for their constant drumbeat of hatred against [Donald] Trump and Republicans. Turns out, he thought, Yes, they should be, because of their constant drumbeat of hatred against Trump and Republicans, calling for, amongst other things resistance, with theirsneers every night.

Savages theory came at the end of a long monologue in which he sprinkled in his hatred of liberals while coming to the conclusion that angry liberals are going to kill everyone. Watch the segment viaMedia Matters:

We know that the coming civil war that Nancy Pelosi, Bernie Sanders, Barack Obama, Eric Holder I would even say Rachel Maddow have been screaming for. You know the words like resist.You know resist means something. It means kill, it means shoot, doesnt it?

Am I allowed to ask the question: Who do you blame for this? We know that the baseball gunman was a Trump-hating, white, male Bernie supporter.

And communism has consequences. Socialism has consequences. Screaming about hatred, hatred, hatred and hate and hate and hate, like that sneering, creature on MSNBC does every night, with that filthy sneer on her face. Every night hating Trump. Every night calling for resistance.

Well, he (James Hodgkinson) went off like a rocket, as I feared would happen. James T. Hodgkinson from Belleville, Illinois, went on a rampage. Staunch Democrat threatened to destroy Trump and company on social media before the shooting, coinciding with President Trumps 71stBirthday. He campaigned of course for the communist Bernie Sanders who says he is not a communist but he is a communist. Communism is violence and death. Well he opened fired on a group of guys playing baseball.

I predicted this would happen, but its not about me; its about you.

This message would come as a shock to none other than conservative radio host Michael Savage, who, in the late 1990s, created a manifesto of sorts called Beware the government-media complex, which is pretty popular in right-wing circles. Savage said at thattime the relationship between the government and media wastoo cozy,adding thatin order to keep the government relatively honest, you need a media thats constantly poking at them.

Until Wednesday Savage has been consistent inadhering to the idea that free speech should be protected.

In 2009 he criticized British Home Secretary Jacqui Smith, who banned Savage from entering the U.K. because he was fomenting hatred.

Savage fired back at Smith, saying, She wanted communications gathered by the government. She wanted emails and phone calls guarded by the government. . . including those from social networking sites such as Facebook. He added thatany liberal listening to the show should be quite alarmed by this movement in England because perhaps you will be next.

In Savages book, Trumps War,publishedin March, he declared, The First Amendment will be safe under Trump. No matter what else he does or does not do.

But theres one pointSavage made on Wednesday that may not be completely off base:

Should Trump take control of Twitter for not monitoring haters?You heard me. Is it time for the government to take control of the out of control pirates on social media like Facebook and Twitter.

That would be quite a feat, assuming the government would be able to silence the biggest Twitter troll of them all.

See the original post here:

Michael Savage thinks there's too much freedom of speech going on ... - Salon

Experts: Free Speech on Campus in Constant Crisis – Diverse: Issues in Higher Education

Posted on June 16, 2017 by Dook Domini

June 15, 2017 | :

WASHINGTON The American Association of University Professors, with the help of the Newseum Institute, held a symposium where two groups of panelists were asked whether they believe freedom of speech and the press is in a crisis and is being threatened.

John Wilson, co-editor of AAUPs Academe Blog, summarized the prevailing sentiment at the event, saying, The fact is free speech has always been in crisis.

Newseum CEO Jeffrey Herbst

Gene Policinski, chief operating officer at the Newseum, served as the moderator on the first panel of experts comprised of Wilson; Jeffrey Herbst, Newseum CEO and former president of Colgate University; and Catherine Ross, professor of law at George Washington University.

Ross, honing in on freedom of political speech in higher education, said administrators need to allow offensive and hateful speech, even if they dont agree with it. The First Amendment protects even intentional hate speech, she said.

When discussing a teachers role in educating students, Ross added, Whether K-12 or college you cannot tell a court OK, I silenced speech, but I did it to protect someone else from hurt feelings.

Wilson went on to say that administrators hold the power of maintaining freedom of speech, not the students. He explained that those with money or power have the ability to and often do influence colleges and universities and the speakers or lecturers that school administrators invite to campus.

Wilson then spoke out against the idea that millennials deserve the title snowflakes they so often receive on campuses across the nation for fighting hateful speech. Those darn kids are not destroying free speech in America, he said.

Related: Female Faculty Putting Productivity in Writing

Herbst pointed out, in response to a question from the moderator, Its not an issue, as big as it is, that colleges and universities can address by themselves. Its a societal issue.

In the second panel on freedom of the press on college campuses, Frank LaMonte, executive director of the Student Press Law Center; Hank Reichman, vice president of AAUP; and Courtney Rozen, editor-in-chief of The Eagle at American University, tackled questions from Policinski.

Reichman first agreed with Wilsons assessment, then went further by saying, The crisis of the student media is, I think, significantly worse than it has been in other times.

To buttress his point, he quoted the Joint Statement on Rights and Freedoms of Students, drafted and approved by AAUP almost 50 years ago in comparison to todays climate: Student publications and the student press are valuable aids in establishing and maintaining an atmosphere of free and responsible discussion and of intellectual exploration on the campus.

LaMonte spoke out on administrators shutting down students freedom of speech. He referred to a recent ruling by the Minnesota Supreme Court that supported the action against Central Lakes Community College nursing student Craig Keefe. The student vented his anger with a fellow classmate on Facebook and was expelled as a result.

LaMonte claims this restricts students speech, citing the law, if an offender steps outside the boundaries of accepted professional standards, he or she is no longer protected by the First Amendment on a public college campus.

LaMonte cited the ruling as an example of the government overstepping its authority and used it as a segue into his discontent with many colleges claiming the right to prohibit students from standing alone for interviews with either campus or other newspapers and media outlets.

Related: Regents Approve Albany State, Darton State Merger

Rozen then recounted the experience of one of her predecessors as editor with the gag rule for athletes at American University. As a swim team member, a reporter could not interview her own teammates and peers without the presence of the coach or athletic director.

At the end of the event, the panelists agreed that significant advancement is needed in order to protect freedom of speech and press on campuses.

Excerpt from:

Experts: Free Speech on Campus in Constant Crisis - Diverse: Issues in Higher Education

Locals pick sides in ‘free speech, hate speech’ debate – Boulder Weekly

Posted on June 16, 2017 by Dook Domini

Free speech? Hate speech? Both? Neither?

Depending on who you talk to, all of the above were on display on Saturday, June 3 in downtown Boulder in front of the County Courthouse, where roughly 30 members of Proud Boys Colorado and the groups supporters held a Free Speech Rally.

Penned in behind two rows of metal fences erected by the Boulder Police Department, the free speech ralliers waved American, Dont Tread On Me and Trump flags. They also held signs reading Muh Feelings! and Working Class Against AntiFa. Outside the fences, a far larger crowd of around 250 gathered, made up of those protesting the Proud Boys, those voicing their support, and others just curious about what was going on.

The scene was loud and chaotic, with people yelling, chanting, beating buckets and drums, and setting off smoke bombs. About 25 members of the Boulder Police Department and other law enforcement agencies were on the scene, including some in riot gear who brandished pepper spray and what appeared to be pepper ball guns, which shoot projectiles filled with a powdered form of pepper spray.

One protester was arrested for throwing a firecracker and several more were detained by police per media accounts.

Who are the Proud Boys?

The organizer of the rally, Proud Boys Colorado, is a chapter of the national Proud Boys organization, which was formed in 2016 by writer, comedian and co-founder of Vice Media, Gavin McInnes. According to Proud Boy Magazine, the Proud Boys are a fraternal organization of Western chauvinists who will no longer apologize for creating the modern world.

J, a Proud Boys Colorado member from Denver, defines Western chauvinism as being prideful [of] the great things that have been achieved through Western culture. For instance, J points out that its Western countries that have led the charge when it comes to gay rights.

Proud Boys support some traditionally right-wing positions such as minimal government, closed borders and gun rights, while also championing libertarian views like opposition to the drug war and taking a stand against political correctness.

Despite their political stances, Proud Boy Vince Hubbard of Elizabeth says, Were more like the Shriners or the Knights of Columbus than a political organization. We are mostly about cracking cold ones with the boys.

While not a member of Proud Boys, Denver resident Martin Meyers, 27, joined the group behind the barricades to advocate for the promotion of liberty, for people to be able to say what they want.

Dressed in a Trump T-shirt, Jennifer Archer, 31, from Louisville, stood with the Proud Boys to show solidarity for free speech and to express her concerns about illegal immigration.

Mingling with the larger crowd outside the fences in a Make America Great Again hat, G, a 27-year-old Boulderite, says he supports the right to free speech, and voted for Trump as a gigantic middle finger to [Washington,] D.C. He says he voted for Barack Obama in previous elections for the same reason.

Tyler, 27, from Denver, attended the rally in support of allowing people to say what they want. He sees this and similar free speech events popping up across the U.S. as a backlash to events in Berkeley, California, in February and April, where protests from the political left some of which turned violent compelled conservative speakers Ann Coulter and Milo Yiannopoulos to cancel speaking engagements.

Sticks and stones

Though the rally was billed as promoting free speech, not everyone buys that claim.

A flyer circulated by the Peoples Protection League and the Front Range Socialist Party maintained that groups such as the Proud Boys use free speech to conceal their intentions to people who do not know who they are or know about their violent goals.

Free speech is code for the normalization of far right organizing and violence in public discourse, read the flyer.

I do not think hate speech should be free speech, says B, a 30-year-old resident of Longmont and member of AntiFa, a loosely knit international movement opposed to fascism. Like a dozen or so other protesters at the rally, B dressed in black with a bandana covering the lower half of his face to hide his identity.

AntiFa tends to be comprised of leftist anarchists who often view themselves as the polar opposite of white nationalists, white supremacist or alt-right groups.

If you read the Constitution, free speech is what the government will or will not allow, it has nothing to do with people versus people, says B. Even if it is free speech, we dont have to stand out here and take it.

Kyle Newbrough, 23, from Boulder, believes the concept of hate speech is all too often used to silence opposing viewpoints. You cant say that just because I say something that makes you feel bad, that thats illegal.

Thomas, 23, of Denver agrees, adding that, Words arent hurtful, actions are hurtful.

Yet the Peoples Protection League and the Front Range Socialist Party have a different take, with their flyer insisting that speech is inseparable from action and organization.

I think that they have a right to be here, says Kaila Spencer, 27, from Boulder. While not a supporter of the Proud Boys, she says, freedom of speech is allowed for everyone. But once that starts to harm other people

Dialogue lacking

In one sense, those opposed to the Proud Boys and their supporters communicating their message accomplished their goal, in that it was nearly impossible for attendees to hear them over the noise of protesters. While this was a relief to some in the crowd, a number of locals were disappointed that they didnt get a chance to listen to what the organizers had to say.

Eighty-five-year-old retired Boulder high school teacher, Jacqui Goeldner, has lived in Boulder for 50 years. As a Bernie Sanders supporter, she assumes her politics dont align much with the Proud Boys. Still, she wanted to find out what they stood for in hopes of starting some sort of dialogue. This was an opportunity for communication, she says. An opportunity that we missed.

Boulders David Rosdeitcher, aka street performer Zip Code Man, says that while his own politics are not on the spectrum, hes curious about the Proud Boys take on things. They have a point of view and you might be surprised that you might agree with them.

If Rosdeitcher had his way, hed take these police blockades away and get representatives from this group to speak and this group to speak.

Tanya, in her mid-40s, lives in the Boulder area and says shed like the Proud Boys to be given the opportunity to speak so as to expose their agenda. Once they show what they are to the town, she says, more people are going to reject them.

Racist?

Do the Proud Boys have a Neo-Nazi, white supremacist, and/or fascist bent or not?

The Peoples Protection League and Front Range Socialist Party flyer contended that groups such as the Proud Boys organize in order to spread their hateful ideology and incite violence with their thinly veiled white-supremacist views.

Recently in Colorado Springs, the Colorado Springs Anti-Fascists hung up flyers with the name, address and photo of a member of Proud Boys Colorado under the heading Our Neighbor is a Fascist.

The poster read, We cant say decisively that [the individual] holds racist, anti-semitic, homophobic, or misogynist views, but he has chosen to affiliate himself with an organization that does, and should be considered a danger to the community.

Ethan Au Green, 37, of Boulder, thinks the Proud Boys and their supporters are a mix of Nazis, fascists, white supremacists and Trump supporters. I dont know if they all share the same identity, but they surely keep company with each other, which implicates them all with the worst noxious ideologies present in their group.

Yet the Proud Boys say their support for Western chauvinism is about culture, not race, which is why they have adopted anti-racism as one of their main tenets.

We arent racists. Period, says Proud Boy Vince Hubbard. If we were racists, we wouldnt have people from other races in our group.

Proud Boy J adds that, we have had tons of people contact us looking to join up with our group, many of [whom] are minorities who heard about the rally through some of the lies being pushed about it.

A handful of individuals thought to espouse pro-fascist and white-supremacist views did attend the rally, one of whom wore a Proud to Be a Fascist T-shirt. A YouTube video is circulating of a Proud Boy confronting this individual, saying, As Proud Boys we do not believe in fascism. We do not appreciate you coming out here. If I wouldve known you were coming out here, I wouldve told the police not to let you up here.

Minutes after the confrontation, the Proud Boys disbanded the rally. Proud Boy supporter Jennifer Archer admits that the arrival of these folks was the reason organizers ended the rally early. We dont want to be associated with that kind of thing, she says.

Conflicting ideologies

Asked whether he supports violence against the Proud Boys, AntiFa member B says, I actually do.

Their ideology is violence. Against my family, against other families, against my neighbors and my community, says B. So I dont think we should just sit around and wait.

The new political spectrum is freedom to authoritarianism, says Proud Boy supporter Martin Meyers. He says AntiFa and other anti-fascist groups lean heavy towards authoritarianism, because they want people to be controlled. Thats really their ultimate goal. They want their ideology to impose itself on everyone else, while we want people to be free to do what they want.

While concerned about racism in the community, Boulder resident C.T. Hutt, 34, is neither a proponent of Proud Boys nor AntiFa. Standing quietly by himself throughout much of the rally, he says he was there simply to keep calm and bear witness.

Hutt doesnt believe violence will accomplish anything worthwhile for either side, but will only exacerbate the conflict. Anger, he says, breeds anger.

The views of those behind the barriers and those protesting in front of them make it clear that in the era of Trump, free speech is up for debate. An increasing number of folks on the left seem unwilling to view speech they perceive to be masking hate and discrimination as protected. And those on the right claim that it is most often the left these days who use violence to impose censorship on the political speech of those who see themselves as pro-white or pro-American rather than anti anyone else.

And lastly, there are those of all political stripes who still believe free speech is more important than anything that might be said and allowing all viewpoints, no matter how repugnant to others, is always better than forcing silence on anyone.

Hate speech is controversial because the line our words must cross to be considered such is drawn in a different place by each of us. Hate speech to one group is simply patriotic free speech to another.

What is certain is that limiting anyones speech today will nearly always lead to someone elses speech being limited tomorrow. Thanks to the current political environment, that is a lesson Boulder County residents will be learning one way or another over the next few years.

Read this article:

Locals pick sides in 'free speech, hate speech' debate - Boulder Weekly

Friday’s letters: Victory for freedom of speech – Tampabay.com

Posted on June 16, 2017 by Dook Domini

'Docs vs. Glocks' battle ends quietly | June 13

A victory for freedom of speech

Once again, the courts have rescued the people of Florida from the extremism of their own Legislature. Attorney General Pam Bondi and Gov. Rick Scott let the deadline pass to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court the decision striking down the gag order on doctors in the infamous "Docs vs. Glocks" case.

Whether this was an intentional decision to throw in the towel on this dangerous and unconstitutional restriction on freedom of speech or simply neglect, we don't know. But any threat to strip a doctor of his or her license for talking to patients about the safe storage of guns in the home has been removed.

The ACLU worked for six years on behalf of more than a half-dozen medical, pediatric and children's rights organizations in support of the doctors who courageously challenged the state's effort to gag their discussions with patients about gun safety and especially keeping guns out of the reach of children.

Yes, there is a constitutional right to own a gun. But our Legislature was conned into swallowing the fiction that talking about guns and gun safety somehow threatened this constitutional right.

What is important now is that every doctor in Florida knows that the First Amendment right guaranteeing freedom of speech once again provides protection for the medical community to honor its mission to protect the health and lives of patients. And this includes counseling patients who own guns to ensure that they are safely stored to prevent suicides and out of the reach of children to prevent tragic accidental shootings.

One of the many reasons that this case was so important is that Florida became a test case. If the courts didn't stand up for the free speech of doctors, you could be sure that the NRA would have had this dangerous law introduced in every state legislature. But the strong affirmation of free speech by the federal appeals court hopefully ends this deadly threat here.

Howard Simon, executive director, American Civil Liberties Union of Florida, Miami

Cuba progress reversal feared | June 2

Cuba policy needs rethink

As Americans wait for President Donald Trump to announce his new Cuba policy today, U.S. Rep. Kathy Castor urged the president to consider that expanded engagement would benefit the American people, the Cuban people and small businesses on both sides of the Florida Straits. The Tampa Democrat is oblivious to the facts.

With the monthly salary for an average Cuban set at $30, it is difficult to imagine how increased trade would benefit U.S. businesses. With a socialist economy determined to severely regulate the flow of capital to its citizens, it's impossible to envision the Cuban government allowing the birth of a middle class. With the Cuban authorities giving asylum to New Jersey cop-killer JoAnne Chesimard, it is unthinkable to extend an olive branch to those who don't respect American lives.

Since U.S. flights to Cuba were authorized in August 2016, American Airlines, Fort Lauderdale-based Silver Airways and Frontier have canceled or reduced their flights to the Caribbean island. And, after a year, Carnival is ending its Fathom line sailings to Cuba. "If American can't earn the profit that it requires from these routes, they're going to cut back on the flying. It's as simple as that," said Henry Harteveldt, the founder of the travel consultancy Atmosphere Research Group.

With the arrival of American tourists, the demand for rooms increased jacking up hotel prices to as high as $500 a night. Increased visitor numbers have also generated periodic shortages of beer and bottled water. Moreover, the Cuban authorities do not recognize the U.S. nationality of Cuban-born U.S. citizens and require them to procure Cuban passports thus creating an added expense for these travelers. All these inconveniences have tempered the demand for repeat visits.

President Barack Obama's Cuba opening was a one-sided gift to the Cuban government. Freedom-loving Americans await the unveiling of a Trump Cuba policy that would be a gift to Cuban and American citizens and businesses. My hope is that the president's policy will undo some of the one-sided concessions that Obama granted the Cuban authorities and demand an improvement in human rights.

Jorge E. Ponce, Trinity

Saving history, saving a nation | May 28, commentary

Understand our past

I don't often agree with Peggy Noonan's viewpoints, but this article was not only informative but spot-on. A nation that does not value its history has no soul. A sad testimony to this fact is that the victors of war write the history books.

Throughout my education, history was more than just memorizing dates; it was a written pictorial that gave me the unique gift of living vicariously through legendary, illustrious men and women so I could cherish their accomplishments within the context of their era. More importantly, it gave me an insight into their humanity.

Noonan's article adeptly dramatizes the need to change our school curriculums so that they represent an honest reflection of our past. Those who have no knowledge of history are destined to repeat it, and they are the poorer for it.

John Helleis, Spring Hill

My wife was a talented professional, not a racist | June 13, commentary

Officials let principal down

The Pinellas County School Board, administration heads and the superintendent definitely failed to support this wonderful educator.

They falsely said race is never considered when setting up class lists. Having been a teacher in Pinellas for 30 years, I know this is not true. Our county used to bus children to schools based on racial percentages. There has been talk of going back to that.

This poor principal was sacrificed so that county leaders did not have to deal with negative press and protesters. Shame on our school leaders. Shame on the person who leaked this information out of context to the press, and shame on the press for printing it!

Frances Glisson-Doyle, St. Petersburg

Friday's letters: Victory for freedom of speech 06/15/17 [Last modified: Thursday, June 15, 2017 5:41pm] Photo reprints | Article reprints

More here:

Friday's letters: Victory for freedom of speech - Tampabay.com

LETTER TO THE EDITOR: Preserve history, freedom of speech – MDJOnline.com

Posted on June 16, 2017 by Dook Domini

EDITOR:

I enjoyed your article about this museum (Battle brews over Confederate flags at Nash Farm museum in Hampton), but I am disturbed that in 2017 the concern about Confederate flags would close a museum.

The flags in and around this museum and others like it do not worry me; its history. The saying, lest we forget, has special meaning to me, maybe a bit more than to others as Im Jewish and we take that comment very seriously.

There is a strong history in our time, remembering the slave camps of the Egyptian Pharaohs and the death camps of the Nazis where I lost many family members; fortunately not all.

Im also offended as a 90 percent disabled veteran who served 25 years on active duty to assure Americas freedoms, such as freedom of speech.

Howard May

Success! An email has been sent with a link to confirm list signup.

Error! There was an error processing your request.

Master Sergeant, U.S. Air Force (Retired)

Milton

Read the original:

LETTER TO THE EDITOR: Preserve history, freedom of speech - MDJOnline.com

Futurist Transhuman News Blog

Category Archives: Freedom of Speech

Freedom of Speech and Expression – The New York Times

Free speech rallies happening today in Washington, DC – WXIA-TV

Attacks On Trinity Professor: Free Speech Or Intimidation? – Hartford … – Hartford Courant

4 dueling rallies scheduled for Sunday in DC | WTOP – WTOP

Republicans’ campus gag rule means free speech for me, not for thee – Wisconsin Gazette

Symposium: Most important free speech case in many years – SCOTUSblog (blog)

Chad’s Morning Brief: Free Speech In America – News/Talk 790 KFYO

Competing Alt-Right ‘Free Speech’ Rallies Reveal Infighting Over White Nationalism – Southern Poverty Law Center

The Tyranny Of A Tiny State: Connecticut Against Free Speech – The Daily Caller

Bernie Sanders Tells Progressives to Stop Suppressing Free Speech on College Campuses – Heat Street

Left-wing smear group scorched as ‘enemy of free speech’ – WND.com

Trumpkins Cry ‘Free Speech’ And Stab It in The Back – Daily Beast

The Universal Notebook: Freedom of speech is just an expression – The Forecaster

Defuse Some Political Tension by Allowing Campus Free Speech, Says Sanders – PJ Media

Even After Trump’s Victory, Why I Still Fight for Freedom of Speech – Townhall

Michael Savage thinks there’s too much freedom of speech going on … – Salon

Experts: Free Speech on Campus in Constant Crisis – Diverse: Issues in Higher Education

Locals pick sides in ‘free speech, hate speech’ debate – Boulder Weekly

Friday’s letters: Victory for freedom of speech – Tampabay.com

LETTER TO THE EDITOR: Preserve history, freedom of speech – MDJOnline.com