Monthly Archives: March 2017

Stand on Tradition – The Weekly Standard

Posted: March 10, 2017 at 2:58 am

"To put it in a nutshell, Joo Carlos Espada tells us, his book "aims at providing an intellectual case for liberal democracy." This aim puts The Anglo-American Tradition of Liberty on a crowded shelf of mostly desiccated husks. What gives his work vitality is his wish to clarify why European democracy differs from England's and ours, and his search for what is common among various figures from the past 60 years whom he admires, and earlier thinkers similar to them.

These goals lead him to defend the substance and conditions of our Anglo-American life of liberty, not to attempt to explore freedom's deathless merits. To accomplish his task, Espada briefly discusses a large number of philosophers, statesmen, and scholars. This breadth means that he does not attend to scholarly minutiae, chains of philosophical abstraction, or detailed questions of policy. Each of his discussions is interesting, although some are more telling or reliable than others. I would especially recommend his remarks on Karl Popper, Michael Oakeshott, and Edmund Burke. His discussion of Alexis de Tocqueville is as good a 20-page presentation of what matters in him as one is likely to find.

Espada's concern is more with tradition than principle. John Locke's principled arguments promoting free government were useful in Britain and America because they entered countries that already practiced or defended limited government and the rule of law. In France, however, the "effect of the importation of Locke's doctrines," Espada tells us, quoting Anthony Quinton, "was much like that of alcohol on an empty stomach." Lockean principles came to light there as a wholesale reordering or destruction of traditional ways.

In general, indeed, the Europeans made themselves dizzy with rationalistic schemes. Their hope, stemming from Descartes, not to ground politics and morals on anything that we merely assume is, however, doomed to fail. In fact, it leads finally to relativism. For if all is not completely rational, then it seems that nothing is. Along the path to such relativism, however, came the disasters of the Marxist and Nazi attempts at total amalgamation and control. These were liberty's very opposites.

If the Anglo-American tradition of liberty is vital to liberty's existence, how can liberty prevail where this tradition never existed, or is now withering? Espada's answer to this pressing question is not simple, partly because of what he has in mind with "tradition." Sometimes he points to matters that were, or are, primarily English, quoting John Betjeman and T.S. Eliot on peculiar English tastes that range from "boiled cabbage cut into sections" and dartboards to Tennyson's poetry and Elgar's music. Other times he includes American practices advocated or instituted by Madison or noticed by Tocqueville. Occasionally, he points to tradition as attachment to one's own familiar routines. But we can see that such attachments could, in many places, as easily be illiberal as liberal.

What we most usefully learn from Espada's approach is that liberty requires (or is strongly aided by) a public and private disposition to allow competitive spheres of social, political, and economic influence rather than social and political monoliths; a proclivity to let people lead their lives without much interference from others; and support of government that is "limited and accountable." These dispositions and their objects are broader than "traditional" ways simply, and we can see how several concrete practices could be compatible with them. Espada, however, does not explore the varied ways to advance these liberal dispositions.

To what degree are these dispositions the seedbed or material of liberty, and to what degree are they liberty itself? Espada's intelligent discussion of liberty's tradition leads him to downplay some of its concrete institutions and principles. There is occasional mention, but little discussion, of religious toleration, a free and responsible press, free speech, good character, and the rule of law. There is mention, but little analysis, either of the place of expanding economies in modern liberal countries or of their disruptive effects on traditional ways.

Some of these practicessay, religious tolerationcould perhaps be dealt with within the general dispositions I just discussed. Some omissions might also be explained by Espada's wish not to identify liberal democracy with any current political party or movement, or to allow figures who range from Hayek to Oakeshott to near-socialists and social democrats such as Raymond Plant and Ralf Dahrendorf exemplify the Anglo-American tradition. Liberal democracy covers a wide range. Nonetheless, it is important to discuss these practices because instituting them clarifies areas where the limits, accountability, competition, and variety in authority that Espada connects to liberal democracy must be won and defended, and cannot merely grow. Tradition, habit, or "political culture" are not enough to support them, whatever their importance. This is especially clear with religious toleration and competitive economies.

In general, Espada downplays the place of principles, or the revolutionary ground, of American and even British liberty. He is taken with Hayek's notion of spontaneous order, and is wary of the schemes of founding and constructing that he believes belong to the hyper-rationalism that is one of liberalism's enemies. Yet the United States was founded explicitly, England had its own principled revolution in 1688, and the Locke (or Lockean) principles that thrived in welcoming Anglo-American traditions or practices are not identical with those traditions. The meaning and benefits of equal rights, religious toleration, voluntary action, liberated acquisitiveness, and limited government all needed to be rationally explained, justified, and defended, even in welcoming situations.

Indeed, relativism or irrationalism arises not only from an extreme reaction to reason's disappointed hopes but from eschewing reason in favor of guidance from race, nation, tribe, or other identities. From Nietzsche on, in fact, relativism is defended by some thinkers themselves. Liberal democracy deserves (and its founders present) an intellectual defense that can bring out what is true in it, even if this is not the whole truth about human affairs. Espada offers little defense of liberty itself, or even of the liberal way of life, beyond its moderation and the growth in economic and other information it might provide. He writes thoughtfully about the possibility of truth in the absence of comprehensive certainty, but he reaches no firm conclusion.

We should also point out that liberal democracies do not rely completely on already-friendly soil. They also produce resources with which to buttress their traditions, and favor practices that are conducive to them. Among these are virtues of character such as responsibility, tolerance, and industriousness that citizens need in order to live successfully in liberal democracies, and the attraction of friends and family that reasserts itself even amidst liberalism's geographic dispersal. In this regard, restless American individualism buttresses free government somewhat differently from the mixture of tradition, respect for authority, limited government, and "inner contentment with life which explains the Englishman's profoundest wish, to be left alone, and his willingness to leave others to their own devices."

It is not clear why the basic goals of liberal democracy could not be approached within several "traditions" were these virtues and natural charms to assert themselves, within limited, accountable institutions. Liberal principles must be asserted and defendednatural rights examined as true guides not arbitrary onesif one is to see why we should protect them, and how, when their traditional soil seems increasingly barren.

One virtue of Espada's wariness of rationalistic schemes is his distrust of experts and his keen sense of the current gap between ruling elites and many of the people they purport to help. This view informs his discussion of the European Union. Here we should remind ourselves that "experts" do not understand better than their clients the ends they serve, that much specialization is false, and that legalistic or pseudo-philosophic expertise in "just" distribution and "correct" behavior is often mere political imposition.

We cannot take freedom for granted todayanywhere. Liberalism cannot rely on practices, traditions, or dispositions alone, but also requires reasonable, convincing argument. Still, Joo Espada is correct to point to the importance of liberal traditions, and to the importance of the writers and statesmen who defended them. This thoughtful book will be valuable for all lovers of liberty.

Mark Blitz is Fletcher Jones professor of political philosophy at Claremont McKenna College and the author, most recently, of Conserving Liberty.

More:

Stand on Tradition - The Weekly Standard

Posted in Rationalism | Comments Off on Stand on Tradition – The Weekly Standard

Martyn Lawrence Bullard’s Sumptuous Palm Springs Hideaway – Architectural Digest

Posted: at 2:58 am

When one discusses the midcentury-modern architecture of Palm Springs, its best to be specific. On the one hand, there are those archetypes of classic California modernismperhaps best exemplified by Richard Neutras famed Kaufmann Housethat echo the language of the International Style, all glass and steel and elegant rationalism. But then theres another, more playful school of modernism, one that embraced historicist elements, purely theatrical effects, and no small portion of camp to conjure a suitably sybaritic mise-en-scne for the leisure class at play. To the surprise of absolutely no one familiar with interior designer Martyn Lawrence Bullard or his sumptuous settings, the effervescent British expat selected a prime example of the latter for his own Palm Springs hideaway.

Bullard and his partner, property developer Michael Green, soak up the sunshine in a 1963 house by James McNaughton, a Hollywood set designer who found the ultimate canvas for his flights of fancy in the desert sands of the Coachella Valley. With an arched exterior canopy that segues into interior colonnades, the structure looks a bit like an early maquette for Wallace K. Harrisons Metropolitan Opera House at Lincoln Center. The analogy is apt, given the unapologetic drama of the design, which is centered on a semicircular living room that is completed in a bowfront wall of glass overlooking the swimming pool and a black-banded terrazzo floor that was originally intended for dancing.

Its all a bit mad but divine, Bullard says of the house. Hugh Hefner supposedly owned it in the 70s, then Roger Moore, who had it tricked out in fabulous James Bond finery. This place was built for relaxation and fun, so we use it in that spirit.

1 / 12

Bullard largely preserved McNaughtons floor plan, restoring sections of the home that had been altered over the years. To make the place more accommodating for visitors, he converted a pool cabana and what had been a lavish dressing room into additional guest quarters. Bullard also transformed an erstwhile library into a seriously plush screening room bathed in emerald-green lacquer and furnished with topographical de Sede Terrazza sofas covered in Ultrasuede.

During the holidays, we hole up there with our dog, Daisy, a bunch of screeners, and a lot of candy, the designer says. (For those unfamiliar with Hollywoods mysterious customs, screeners are copies of the latest movies that are distributed by the studios to industry bigwigs and apparatchiks at the end of every year, in advance of awards season.)

Bullard describes his interior appointments as a mix of swinging 60s with a touch of disco 70s. In specific terms, that vision translates into a roster of stellar furnishings by Vladimir Kagan, Willy Rizzo, Paul Evans, Milo Baughman, Angelo Mangiarotti, Karl Springer, and Charles Hollis Jones, among other avatars of groovy modern furniture. There are also more idiosyncratic pieces, like the Pierre Cardin stools at the bar and the living rooms vast zebra-skin rug (a gift from model Cheryl Tiegs, it once graced Andy Warhols Factory).

For the full story, subscribe now and get the digital edition immediately.

The rest is here:

Martyn Lawrence Bullard's Sumptuous Palm Springs Hideaway - Architectural Digest

Posted in Rationalism | Comments Off on Martyn Lawrence Bullard’s Sumptuous Palm Springs Hideaway – Architectural Digest

Anti-Catholic Irish Politician Wants Gov’t to Take Over Catholic Hospitals – Church Militant

Posted: at 2:58 am

DUBLIN (ChurchMilitant.com) - An Irish political leader is calling for all Catholic hospitals to be taken over by the state.

Irish Republican Party (Fianna Fil) leaderMichel Martinis suggesting that since the government has been funding Catholic-run hospitals, it should be able to take possession of them.

Others have expressed concern that religious orders, who administer hospitals like Mater and St. Vincent's hospitals in Dublin, "forbid the provision of modern contraceptive services, IVF, sterilisation operations and gender reassignment surgery."

WATCH MORE LIKE THIS

Martin spoke with "Today" show host Sean O'Rourke and commented:

In my view, any area in education or health, where fundamentally the State has made a large investment and continued to make the investment for over 30 or 40 years, when that comes to an end, the utilization of that facility for those purposes, I think those facilities should then revert to the State.

Some hospitals have already been turned over to the Irish government but still carry the stipulation that procedures conducted at the hospital cannot violate Church teaching.

The Sisters of Mercy sold Mater hospital to the government in 2001, which still holds to the sisters' ethos to respect "human dignity, respecting the sacredness of human life and the dignity and uniqueness of each person."

Both Martin and J.P. Rogers, another guest on the show, referred to the ongoing investigation in Tuam of the Mother and Son home where the remains of nearly 800 infant bodies were uncovered. Martin is adding to the highly-sensationalized anti-Catholic bias over the current investigation into what happened there between 19251961.

Rodgers had spent some time at the Mother and Son home as a child before it closed. He does not think the investigation will yield anything useful, commenting, "I do realise some people may feel aggrieved and they are entitled to their views, but a criminal investigation into these deaths is pie in the sky." He continued, "Common sense has to prevail. Any survivors of that time in the Bon Secours order would be very elderly and not in a position to be interviewed on this."

The story, however, is being called "sensational" and not just by Church Militant. Since the media picked up on the story in 2014 and fomented a flurry of anti-Catholic sentiment, even secular media sources have called for a more measured reading of the facts.

Brendan O'Neill, an atheist who wrote an op-ed piece for The Irish Times,asserting, "I have no interest in defending the Catholic Church. I want to defend science, rationalism and approach history in a measured way."

He commented, "But the mawkish discussion of Tuam, the transformation of it into fodder for tabloid outrage and ostentatious emoting on Twitter, is an ugly spectacle."

He further noted, "There is something deeply disturbing, ghoulish even, in the media and political discussion of the Tuam mother and baby home."

Have a news tip? Submit news to our tip line.

Like our work? Support us with a donation.

See the article here:

Anti-Catholic Irish Politician Wants Gov't to Take Over Catholic Hospitals - Church Militant

Posted in Rationalism | Comments Off on Anti-Catholic Irish Politician Wants Gov’t to Take Over Catholic Hospitals – Church Militant

Where Have All the Free Speech Fans Gone? – Reason (blog)

Posted: at 2:57 am

Starting in the '70s, the General Social Survey has periodically asked Americans if they think someone should have a right to give a racist speech in their community. John Sides has charted the responses over at The Washington Post, dividing the people surveyed into four groups: Americans aged 18 to 25 who have had at least some college education, Americans aged 18 to 25 with no college education, older Americans with at least some college education, and older Americans with no college education. The results are striking:

Washington Post

The first thing you'll probably notice is that the percentage of the college-age crowd supporting the racist's freedom of speech has decreased dramatically over those four decades. Another thing you'll notice is that the college kids aren't leading the way so much as they're converging with the non-college crew. But what really leaps out for me is when most of the drop happened. For the people who are actually on campus, the big plunge ended in the late '80s. Things then flattened for a while, sliding slightly but not severely in the 1990s; the decline didn't accelerate again until the 21st century.

This flies in the face of folk memory, which tends to treat the '90s as the first age of political correctness. But it's probably better to remember that period as a time of backlash against political correctness. That first big wave of "P.C. Kids Gone Mad!" stories that hit the national press in 1990 wasn't a sign that pro-censorship sentiments were taking off; it was a sign that more people were resisting those sentiments. When there's a backlash against some social force, many people assume that force is surging, just because they didn't really notice it before. That doesn't mean it's actually on the rise.

But that's not all that happened in the '90s. Sides also charts the percentage of Americans in each group who support free speech for communists. Here the decline in the college crowd isn't as severethe share supporting the communist's rights is well north of 50 percentbut there's still a noticeable drop at the beginning, followed by a flattening in the '90s and then a resumption in the post-9/11 era:

Washington Post

So the fall-off in campus tolerance for controversial speech doesn't just affect the right. The good news here is the trend among those 26-and-uppers. The ones with a college education didn't see any decline, and the ones without a college education have actually grown steadily more tolerant. (A third chart, which I won't repost here but you can find in Sides' article, shows a similar jump in the number of non-college-educated older Americans willing to back the free-speech rights of an atheist.)

The biggest question for me, looking at those data, is why the decline in collegiate civil libertarianism resumed after the '90s. One possible factor: The further you get into the 21st century, the more college-age people there are who don't remember the '80s. Backlashes fade with memory.

Excerpt from:
Where Have All the Free Speech Fans Gone? - Reason (blog)

Posted in Free Speech | Comments Off on Where Have All the Free Speech Fans Gone? – Reason (blog)

Disruptive Protest Report Suggests Creation of Free Speech Deans … – The Chicago Maroon

Posted: at 2:57 am

The final report from the Committee on University Discipline for Disruptive Conduct (CUDDC) was released on Tuesday, detailing several recommended changes to the way the University handles protests, event disruptions, and related disciplinary cases.

Among the reports recommendations are proposals to implement Deans-on-Call specifically trained to respond to disruptive conduct, make more efforts to publicize rules and punishments regarding disruptions, and to create a system by which protests would be authorized in advance.

The report lists framing principles, including a statement that argues that [d]isruptive conduct may itself be a form of speech, but that does not mean that it is a protected form of speech. Like other forms of civil disobedience, disruptive conduct may lead to disciplinary consequences for those engaged in such conduct. Other listed principles for the report include affirmations of the Universitys commitment to creating a welcoming and inclusive campus climate and to an approach to free speech centered around individual expression by members of the community and upheld by the Universitys administrative authority.

The reports recommendations are divided into five sections covering different aspects of University responses to disruptive conduct. One of these sections proposes that the All-University Disciplinary System be replaced by a new central process with a five-member panel of three faculty, one student, and one University staff member presiding over individual disciplinary conduct cases. The report also suggests that information about audience rules and Dean-on-Call and UCPD roles for speaking events, as well as consequences for disruptions, should be included in the Student Manual and posted on a new University website.

One of the reports sections recommends that the University change its policies toward disruptive conduct by people who are not affiliated with the University, who are able to attend many University events but cannot be handled as easily as students or faculty under existing guidelines. In the future, according to the recommendations, [w]hen appropriate, unaffiliated individuals who engage in disruptive conduct can be barred from all or part of the University permanently or for discrete periods under standards and processes set forth in the Universitys No Trespass (Ban) Policy.

The report recommends revising the University statute that defines disruptive conduct to highlight that disciplinary actions can be taken against individuals who act as part of a group. The new statute would also note that individuals could face punishment for involvement in multiple obstructive incidents over a length of time, because [p]ersistent and serial conduct may in the aggregate rise to the level of disruptive conduct even if a single instance of such conduct does not.

The CUDCC was created in June of 2016 following a charge by Provost Daniel Diermeier to review and suggest modifications to the existing All-University Disciplinary System, which was first implemented in 1970. The committees charge noted that the current system is inefficient and, as a result, rarely used. In recent years, the University has seen an increased frequency of protests at events featuring invited speakers, including former Cook County States Attorney Anita Alvarez and Trump staffer Corey Lewandowski.

Read more here:
Disruptive Protest Report Suggests Creation of Free Speech Deans ... - The Chicago Maroon

Posted in Free Speech | Comments Off on Disruptive Protest Report Suggests Creation of Free Speech Deans … – The Chicago Maroon

Who had the Impudence to Change our Values Regarding Free Speech? – Dissident Voice

Posted: at 2:57 am

Desperation tactics to shut down discussion of the Israeli regime's mega-crimes reach new heights of absurdity

A fake anti-semitism campaign masterminded by the usual Zio suspects, their Israel lobby colleagues and their stooges in the corridors of power, continues to sweep across UK universities and our political parties, especially shambolic and rudderless Labour.

The University of Central Lancashire cancelled an event due to be held last month entitled Debunking Misconceptions on Palestine and the Importance of Boycott Divestment and Sanctions organised by the Universitys Friends of Palestine Society. The University said it would contravene the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliances new definition of what constitutes anti-semitism and would therefore be unlawful. The event went ahead, off campus, at the premises of a local voluntary organisation.

Exeter University banned students from staging a re-enactment called Mock Checkpoint, in which some dressed up as Israeli occupation soldiers while others acted the part of Palestinians trying to go about their daily lives. The event was approved by the students guild but banned for safety and security reasons less than 48 hours before it was due to take place. An appeal was rejected.

At Leeds former British ambassador Craig Murray was asked by the trustees of the University Union to provide details of what he was going to say in his talk Palestine/Israel: A Unitary Secular State or a Bantustan Solution just 24 hours before he was due to speak. Craig reluctantly gave them an outline to allow the lecture to go ahead. He writes in his blog: I have just been told by Leeds University Union I will not be allowed to speak unless I submit what I am going to say for pre-vetting.

I am truly appalled that such a gross restriction on freedom of speech should be imposed anywhere, let alone in a university where intellectual debate is meant to be an essential part of the learning experience. I really do not recognise todays United Kingdom as the same society I grew up in. The common understanding that the values of a liberal democracy are the foundation of society appears to have evaporated.

Also at Leeds the student Palestine Solidarity Group was refused permission to mount a visual demonstration outside the Leeds Student Union Building or to have a stall inside.

At Liverpool Professor Michael Lavalette was contacted the day before he was due to speak with a demand that he sign the Universitys risk assessment for the event. This included reading the controversial IHRA definition of anti-semitism and agreeing with it. He emailed his response in which he carefully avoided mention of the dodgy definition and the meeting went ahead.

The University of Manchester allowed a series of talks marking Israeli Apartheid Week (IAW) to go ahead, but only after several meetings and imposing strict conditions which the organisers called unheard of. other societies and groups do not face the same problems. University authorities, however, vetoed the students choice of academic to chair an IAW event on BDS over concerns about her neutrality, and other speakers had to acknowledge the British government-endorsed definition of anti-semitism.

Meanwhile some reports say that a conference with the title International Law and the State of Israel: Legitimacy, Responsibility and Exceptionalism to be held at University College Cork at the end of this month has been cancelled thanks to pressure from Zionist groups. StandWithUs Israel, in cahoots with Irish4Israel, claim the University has been persuaded to impose added security stipulations and other limitations that amount to a de-facto cancelling of this hateful event. But these are desperation tactics. Checking with the organisers Im told the event is 100% going ahead. The Irish, it seems, are not as easily pushed around as the English. The conference, if you remember, was chased away from Southampton University two years ago by a similar campaign against free speech. The official reason, as usual, was security concerns.

Now comes the scandal of the 26 year-old Exeter student, noted for her work on anti-racism, being smeared by the Zionist Inquisition for her Pro-Palestinian activism.

She is accused of having tweeted two years ago: If terrorism means protecting and defending my land, I am so proud to be called terrorist. So what? As everyone and his dog knows, or ought to know, the Palestinians are perfectly entitled, under international law, to take up arms and resist a brutal illegal occupier. As Malaka Mohammed herself says:

It may appear as a radical statement that could raise serious concerns at both the University of Exeter and its Students Guild. However, it is my honest belief, and as I will attempt to explain, these kind of statements by Palestinians in general, and me in this instance, are most commonly in response to efforts by Israel advocacy groups and the Israeli government to demonize and dehumanize Palestinians. This is done by using the emotive dog whistle by Israeli descriptors of terrorist and terrorism whenever referring to the Arab population. Palestinians who throw stones in response to Israeli soldiers invading their villages are labelled violent thugs, rioters and terrorists. Palestinians who non-violently protest the illegal occupation are portrayed as violent individuals who terrorize Israeli Jews. Practically any Palestinian who resists the Israeli occupation and its plethora of human rights violations, war crimes and serious violations of international humanitarian and human rights law is stigmatized in this way.

After reading that, I dropped the Vice-Chancellor a line:

Sir Steve Smith, Vice-Chancellor University of Exeter

Dear Sir Steve,

Im writing as a graduate of Exeter University with fond memories of the place, and because Im shocked to see its good name besmirched by ludicrous accusations linking Palestinian PhD student Malaka Mohammed (aka Shwaikh) to anti-semitism and supporting terrorism.

As an acknowledged international relations specialist you will know the score regarding Israels decades-long illegal occupation of the Palestinians homeland and its brutal subjugation and merciless dispossession of the Palestinian people. You will also, I imagine, understand who the true terrorists and anti-semites are.

Lest we forget, the US defines terrorism as an activity that

(i) involves a violent act or an act dangerous to human life, property, or infrastructure; and

(ii) appears to be intended

to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;

to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or

to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, kidnapping, or hostage-taking.

And the US has used this definition to terrorise and degrade individuals, groups and countries it doesnt happen to like.

Ironically its a definition that fits the US administration itself and the thuggish Israeli regime like a glove.

I sincerely hope that amidst the flurry of investigations going on you will take steps to ensure that plucky Ms Mohammed/Schwaikh ceases to be victimised by tiresome Zionist Inquisitors and is allowed to get on with her studies, and from now on free speech prevails across the beautiful Exeter campus.

Sir Steve is said to earn 400,000 a year according to this report. Perhaps he and many other university bosses need rousing from their plumptious comfort zone.

Im with Craig Murray on this. I too dont recognise our society today as the same one I grew up in. Who had the impudence to change our values regarding free speech?

Stuart Littlewoods book Radio Free Palestine, with Foreword by Jeff Halper, can now be read on the internet by visiting radiofreepalestine.org.uk. Read other articles by Stuart.

This article was posted on Thursday, March 9th, 2017 at 8:08am and is filed under BDS (Boycott Divestment and Sanctions Movement), Censorship, Freedom of Expression/Speech, Ireland, Israel/Palestine, Narrative, Propaganda, United Kingdom, Zionism.

See the article here:
Who had the Impudence to Change our Values Regarding Free Speech? - Dissident Voice

Posted in Free Speech | Comments Off on Who had the Impudence to Change our Values Regarding Free Speech? – Dissident Voice

Rep. Taylor defends booting opponents off Facebook page; critics claim free speech rights violated – Virginian-Pilot

Posted: at 2:57 am

Some opponents of Rep. Scott Taylor are crying foul that the Virginia Beach Republican is blocking their comments on his personal Facebook page.

Its true that some peoples comments or postings are removed, but Taylor is well within his rights to do so, his political director, Scott Weldon, said Wednesday. Democrats arent allowed to rabble-rouse on the legislators personal page, Weldon said.

However, the head of the American Civil Liberties Union of Virginia said Wednesday that Taylor may be violating the Constitutions First Amendment protection of free speech.

Taylor and Weldon, who have conferred with House of Representatives administrators, disagree. They argue that constituents have many other ways, including another Facebook site, to speak to the lawmaker.

The dispute, sparked by some members of local groups formed to oppose President Donald Trumps administration, centers on one of Taylors two Facebook pages.

He has removed several comments that he or Weldon decided were disagreeable from Taylors self-described unofficial political page that he started almost a decade ago.

However, they say no public comments are removed unless they are deemed abusive or profane from his official Congressman Scott Taylor page that was set up after he took office in January but wasnt used until three weeks ago.

Beach resident Kimberly Anne Tucker, who oversees the anti-Trump Indivisible 757 Facebook group, said Taylor is wrongly blocking critics or those he disagrees with from posting on his personal page.

Its a venue for constituents in the 2nd Congressional District to reach their representative, said Tucker, who led protest chants at Taylors town hall forums two weeks ago.

My major concern is accessibility, said Tucker, who contacted the ACLU seeking assistance. It was not our understanding that it was a personal Facebook page because he had been holding town halls, doing surveys.

Taylor said his personal page is not a platform for his opponents to have free rein to speak out to its more than 55,000 followers. The page has been used regularly by Taylor and his supporters for election or legislative information, comments and news reports, as well as for offering live and recorded video of his town halls.

Every campaign in this nation does that. We have that discretion, he said. If you want to be able to come on my unofficial Facebook and troll it say bad things and be offensive or abusive I dont think so.

Taylor notes that his relatively new official page, which has just under 200 followers, does not remove comments as long as they dont violate his standards for abuse or profanity. He said comments that offer different political views are not removed.

Claire Guthrie Gastaaga, executive director of the states ACLU, said Taylors personal page can be viewed as a protected limited public forum that constituents use to reach their congressional representative.

Its no different than a city council meeting, she said.

I think there are some pretty significant questions raised about whether hes engaged in viewpoint discrimination in violation of the First Amendment in a limited public forum, Gastaaga said. He was using the Facebook page as a place to meet his constituents and engage them. It means you cannot discriminate based on the content of the speech.

Taylor argues there is no free-speech restriction because all of his constituents can reach him or his staff by many mediums including Facebook, email, traditional mail, telephone or a visit to his office.

He acknowledged his decision to remove comments that he dislikes can upset opponents.

Its the members discretion, and then of course you have to deal with your constituency, he said.

The Congressional Research Service advised federal legislators in an October report that they can have non-official social media accounts, such as campaign or personal accounts separate from their official web pages. Those non-official accounts cant use government resources.

Weldon, who said he is paid by Taylors campaign to be its part-time political director in addition to his full-time congressional job as Taylors communications director, noted he works on the unofficial page only while away from his government duties.

Here is the original post:
Rep. Taylor defends booting opponents off Facebook page; critics claim free speech rights violated - Virginian-Pilot

Posted in Free Speech | Comments Off on Rep. Taylor defends booting opponents off Facebook page; critics claim free speech rights violated – Virginian-Pilot

CN student helps push ‘Free Speech’ legislation – The Standard Banner

Posted: at 2:57 am

Carson-Newman Political Science major Mickey Shelton II got some real life experience when he attended a post-election protest rally at UT dressed as President Trump complete with wig.

I believe students shouldnt have to have a permit from a university to exercise their right to freedom of speech, claims Shelton.

Last month, Shelton continued to explore the right to freedom of speech on campuses. He went to a press conference at the Tennessee State Capitol and spoke in favor of State Rep. Martin Daniels bill, the Tennessee Student Free Speech Protection Act.

He told his story about the five-hour UT campus protest attended by over 100 students and faculty. Trump supporters were outnumbered and police were called in after several reports of physical violence, including one involving Shelton.

In addition to the bills author, the Carson-Newman student got to hear the opinions of others including Senator Joey Hensley and political commentator Scottie Nell Hughes at the press conference.

The bill states that students enrolled in a university should be able to exercise their first amendment right. Members of the public who are not enrolled as students or employed by the institution may be required to obtain a permit.

Tennessee Students Free Speech Protection Act mainly outlines ways all state institutions of higher education can confirm their commitment to free, robust, and uninhibited debate by students whether on or off campus. It states that institutions shall include such policies in the student code of conduct that guarantees students the broadest possible latitude to speak, write and discuss any issue that presents itself on campus.

The bill continues with the statement that a state university shall not shield individuals from opinions considered unwelcome, disagreeable, or even deeply offensive as long as activities do not disrupt the essential processes of the institution.

Shelton says he thinks it is a public universitys job to provide an environment where freedom of expression and thought can thrive Students can hear both sides of any issue and formulate their own educated opinions.

See the original post:
CN student helps push 'Free Speech' legislation - The Standard Banner

Posted in Freedom of Speech | Comments Off on CN student helps push ‘Free Speech’ legislation – The Standard Banner

U. Lincoln | students censored | over lack of free speech – legal Insurrection (blog)

Posted: at 2:57 am

We feel the decision that was made is misguided and disproportionate

A conservative student group at the University of Lincoln in the UK criticized their students union over a lack of free speech over criticism of an online magazine. In response, the students union shut down the groups social media accounts, thus proving their point.

A student paper called The Linc reported:

Conservative Society suspended from Twitter by SU after criticising their record on freedom of speech

The University of Lincoln Conservative Society has been forced to hand over control of their twitter account to the Students Union.

It follows a tweet sharing a report which said the University of Lincoln had a bad record on freedom of speech.

The university as a whole was given a red status by online magazine Spiked, which means the institution has banned and actively censored ideas on campus.

On Monday afternoon the society tweeted confirmation their twitter account will be suspended until May, however they plan to appeal the decision by the SU.

A spokesman for the student group made this statement:

On the 6th March 2017, the University of Lincoln Conservative Society, in compliance with a decision by the Student Union (SU) disciplinary panel, handed over control of all social media accounts to the University of Lincoln Students Union, with the accounts to be suspended until the 1st of May 2017.

This decision was reached by the SU following an anonymous complaint over two tweets by the society account. The first, in relation to freedom of speech, linking an article from Spiked and the second was in relation to an SU questionnaire that had to be completed before voting in recent SU elections

We feel the decision that was made is misguided and disproportionate, as the society was simply trying to raise the important issues of free speech and democracy, and the tweets in question have been taken out of context.

Here is part of a statement by the Students Union, also courtesy of The Linc:

Freedom of speech is a fundamental value of the Students Union. The SU is built on a foundation where students can express opinions and ideas freely within the law.

The Students Union is run by students for students. There are agreed policies in place based on national guidance for charities which protect students and aims to provide a safe environment in which complex issues can be discussed and debated.

Ahh, a safe environment. That almost sounds like a safe space doesnt it?

Robby Soave of Reason has more on this:

University of Lincolns Conservative Student Group Censored for Complaining About Censorship

Talk about proving a point. The University of Lincolns student union has suspended a conservative student groups social media accountsan act of retaliation against the group for daring to criticize the student unions hostility toward free speech.

In effect, the British universitys student government is censoring students because they objected to censorship.

Just to reiterate the irony of this situation, wrote a different conservative club at another university, their student union, upon being criticized for being anti-free speech, have silenced those complaining about a lack of free speech!

The story has gone international as concerns over free speech are growing throughout academia. Heres a video report from the BBC News:

Even though the group being censored is conservative, there are student protests being planned.

Heres more from The Linc:

Protest organised against SU over freedom of speech clampdown

A sit-in protest is being organised at the Engine Shed a student union venue on Friday in opposition to the University of Lincoln Students Union (SU).

It follows the SUs decision to suspend the Conservative Societys social media accounts after they tweeted a link to a report which criticised the universitys approach to freedom of speech.

Lincoln MP Karl McCartney has also described the SUs actions as intolerant, illiberal and totalitarian.

The SU have defended the suspension saying there was a suspected breach of the code of conduct and freedom of speech is a fundamental value of the Students Union.

The event is called the UoL Free-Speech/Repeal the Conservative Society Ban Protest.

Featured image via YouTube.

Read the original post:
U. Lincoln | students censored | over lack of free speech - legal Insurrection (blog)

Posted in Freedom of Speech | Comments Off on U. Lincoln | students censored | over lack of free speech – legal Insurrection (blog)

These Networks Are Now Airing Once Banned Atheist Commercial – CBN News

Posted: at 2:56 am

For the first time, an ad inviting viewers to join the Freedom from Religion Foundation is airing on multiple cable news networks.

The 30 second spot features Ron Reagan proudly proclaiming his atheist views.

It originally aired in 2014, but had been refused by CBS, NBC, ABC and Discovery. The ad had aired on some regional network markets, as well as CNN and Comedy Central.

Now the spot will run on "Morning Joe" and the "Rachel Maddow Show" on MSNBC through March 12. It will also return to CNN.

Michael Reagan, the adopted son of the late President Ronald Reagan, is boycotting MSNBC and CNN for airing the commercial featuring his atheist brother.

Now a conservative commentator, Michael Reagan took to Twitter to denounce the ad and called for a boycott of media outlets running it.

He said his father was "crying in heaven" about Ron's endorsement of the atheistic organization.

"Our father is crying in heaven! MSBNC, CNN airing FFRF's Ron Reagan endorsement ad - Freedom From Religion Foundation," he tweeted.

He also wrote, "I AM BOYCOTTING BOTH. MSNBC, CNN, airing FFRF's Ron Reagan endorsement ad - Freedom From Religion Foundation."

Michael Reagan tweeted this response when asked about the ad.

"Not upset with Ron as much as CNN and MSNBC for reairing it...3 years later as we begin the Holy Days leading up to Easter," he wrote.

"I'm Ron Reagan, an unabashed atheist, and I'm alarmed by the intrusions of religion into our secular government," Ron Reagan says in the ad.

"That's why I'm asking you to support the Freedom from Religion Foundation, the nation's largest and most effective association of atheists and agnostics, working to keep state and church separate, just like our Founding Fathers intended."

He ends the ad with a wry smile, saying, "Ron Reagan, lifelong atheist, not afraid of burning in hell."

According to the New American, Michael had seen the ad back in 2014.

"I remember having dinner with my father - with our family," he recalled. "And he (Ron) was talking about his atheism at dinner one night and my dad leaned over to me and grabbed my hand and said, 'My only prayer is that my son becomes a Christian'...and that was his prayer."

Read the rest here:
These Networks Are Now Airing Once Banned Atheist Commercial - CBN News

Posted in Atheism | Comments Off on These Networks Are Now Airing Once Banned Atheist Commercial – CBN News