Daily Archives: June 5, 2017

There is certainly no shortage of examples of progressive attempts to silence unacceptable political speech. From Charles Murray to Ann Coulter to David Horowitz, the Left has upped its game when it comes to censoring, and in some cases even silencing, its political opponents. Some Yale students have even gone so far as to petition for a repeal of the First Amendment in its entirety.

Nobody, however, has done more to reveal the true nature of modern progressives illiberalism than Fresno State professor Gregory Thatcher. Thanks to cell-phone video and a timely complaint filed by the Alliance Defending Freedom, Thatchers utter contempt for contrary political thought was exposed after he directed students to scrub pro-life messages that had been scrawled on campus sidewalks by the Fresno State chapter of Students for Life. This sort of mentality is endemic in American academia and increasingly in society at large.

A month prior to the incident, Students for Life e-mailed the appropriate authorities at the University, asking for permission to move forward with their chalking plans. Their request made clear that the plan would aim to convey different facts about development in the womb and celebrat[e] pregnant and parenting students hard work as they pursued their education with messages such as Support Pregnant and Parenting Students, Pregnant on Campus Initiative, and Know Your Title IX Rights. Ultimately, Fresno States Event Review Committee approved the request, just as it had approved many other similar requests in the past.

Pursuant to the approval, the students proceeded to chalk a sidewalk near Fresno States library on the morning of May 2. The messages included provocative statements such as love them both, choose life, save the baby humans, and unborn lives matter.

As seen in the video, after Students for Life chalked around three dozen of these hate-filled messages, students who admitted they had been deputized by Thatcher began scrubbing the sidewalk. Professor Thatcher then came rushing out to the pro-life students, demanding they put an end to the messages and directing them to an unidentified free-speech area. After the pro-life students informed him that they had received university approval for their activities, Thatcher himself began scrubbing, and told the students, You had permission to put it down....I have permission to get rid of it....This is our part of free speech. As if that werent enough, Thatcher concluded by emphasizing that college campuses are not free-speech areas.

Let that sink in for a moment: College campuses are not free-speech areas. If Thatchers right about that, its only because he and his progressive ilk have succeeded in perverting the sacred academic mission of free and open inquiry beyond recognition. Thankfully, they dont seem to have thus succeeded at Fresno State, which in the wake of the incident reaffirmed its policy that freedom of expression is allowed in all outdoor spaces on campus, essentially throwing Thatcher under the bus.

More important than the incidents specifics are what it reveals about the mindset of progressives such as Thatcher. Not only did he think he had the duty to erase messages he deemed offensive, he deputized students as censors to more efficiently fulfill that duty. Instead of encouraging pro-choice students to write their own messages alongside the pro-lifers, as would have been entirely appropriate, Thatcher exhorted his young charges to erase the pro-life messages and then chalk pro-choice ones in their place. Instead of engaging in a war of ideas, progressive such as Thatcher demand that contrary views must be silenced, lest innocent snowflake students be triggered by such provocative messages as, A person is a person, no matter how small. (Who knew Dr. Seuss could be so upsetting?)

Of equal importance is Thatchers distorted view of the powers that the First Amendment bestowson a political opponent. Though there is no more sacred a right then ones ability to express a political message, that right does not empower one to silence political messages one does not agree with. The Supreme Courts jurisprudence on the question of a hecklers veto is mixed, but as the ADFs complaint notes, Thatchers actions censored the content and viewpoint of Plaintiffs expression. (Fresno State appears to concur, noting that those disagreeing with the students message have a right to their own speech, but they do not have the right to erase or stifle someone elses speech under the guise of their own right to free speech.)

Thatchers mindset is, unfortunately, far from unique. On campuses across the country, the same illiberal attitude toward disagreeable speech is growing, and the broader public must take notice. As Nebraska senator Ben Sasse put it at a recent Federalist Society event, The idea that any American could think the First Amendment might go too far means that we as a people havent done the first things of teaching it.

We as Americans can and must do better to protect the vibrant and free exchange of ideas.

READ MORE: Liberal Bullies Threaten Free Speech Potemkin Universities: Breaking Faith with a Legacy of Free Inquiry The Roots of Campus Progressivisms Madness

Jake Curtis is an associate counsel at the Wisconsin Institute for Law & Libertys Center for Competitive Federalism.

More:
The Campus Speech Police Come to Fresno State - National Review

A few weeks ago Republicans in the Wisconsin legislature put forward a bill that would expel any student at a state university who disrupted or prevented speeches on campus. After the courage that Gov. Scott Walker and other Republicans displayed in the face of unrelenting protests in 2011, it is no surprise that they have the cojones to stand up to the little fascists that dominate our colleges and universities.

Now GOP lawmakers in Washington State are considering revoking $24 million in funding to Evergreen State College after the campus administration there supported the thuggish antics of left-wing students.

It is good to see some Republican legislators finally taking action to defend free speech on college and university campuses. But it is far from enough.

There have been plenty of opportunities for Republicans to take advantage of the threats to free speech on college and university campuses. For example, after protesters at Berkeley shut down Milo Yiannopouloss scheduled speech, President Trump signaled that he was ready to take action. (A useful summary of the violence may be found here.)

He tweeted:

Back in early May, the University of Arizona introduced a plan to pay students $10 an hour to be social justice advocates, whose responsibilities would include reporting bias incidents to the administration. The university faced a backlash from conservatives on the Internet, but that only resulted in administrators deciding to change the job title. Nor did it stop UCLA from going forward with a similar plan.

And the response of Republican legislators in D.C. and Arizona to all of this?

Crickets.

It is hard to understand their apathy. Taking legislative action to stop what is happening on colleges and universities would be good for the nation and good for the Republican Party.

It is clear that colleges and universities represent one of the greatest threats to free speech in the United States. From shutting down Milo and Ann Coulter to violence directed at Charles Murray, to the Antifa, to speech codes and sensitivity training, the totalitarian left is increasingly running the show at our institutions of higher education. If Congress and state legislatures were to start cutting off funding to those schools that violated free speech, it would be the first step in turning those institutions into beacons of open discussion and debate.

It would almost certainly boost the GOP. Fighting for freedom of speech and against university elites would not only help Republicans with their base, it could attract moderates who are horrified at the intolerance on display in places like Berkeley, Arizona, Evergreen, and Middlebury. Fighting university fascists certainly wouldnt hurt Republicans. University towns are not, after all, magnets for GOP voters. For example, Pima County, where the University of Arizona is located, voted for Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump 54 percent to 40 percent. Overall, Arizona went for Trump, 49 percent to 45 percent.

It seems like a safe win-win for Republicans, so why arent they making a big issue out of this? The only reason that makes any sense is Republican lawmakers dont want loud, obnoxious social justice snowflakes showing up to protest at their legislative offices.

Is the GOP really that feckless? It is easy to fear that such a question is rhetorical.

Read more:
Colleges, free speech, and GOP fecklessness - Canada Free Press

Writing in the New York Times recently, Montana governor Steve Bullock sounded awfully proud of his legacy of shutting down privacy rights and chilling free speech. Now that the special election for the U.S. House seat is over and the eyes of the world might linger on Montana for a moment, I thought now would be a good time to discuss one particularly insidious product of the governors legacy: the DISCLOSE Act.

The law, which the governor cites warmly as a tool for fighting the corrupting influence of money in politics, is in practice little more than a way to guarantee that politicians, who already have the loudest microphone, can shut down opposing viewpoints and make it harder for citizens to hold lawmakers accountable. The truth is no easier to find when the powerful have the only microphone.

Signed into law by Bullock in 2015, the DISCLOSE (Democracy Is Strengthened by Casting Light On Spending in Elections) Act limits electioneering communications within two months of the start of voting and requires non-profits to register their donors personal information with the government if the organization has the audacity to engage in issue advocacy too close to an election, specifically if that advocacy mentions a politician. Thats right, politicians dont want criticism, and they are trying to stop independent criticism using this law.

Donors to Montanas rich and diverse collection of non-profit civic organizations should have a reasonable expectation of privacy and should be able to voice their opinions on issues important to the state, free of intimidation, harassment, or fear of retribution from politicians or their fellow citizens. Unfortunately, many potential donors see the threat to their livelihoods posed by criticizing the politically powerful and decide that participating in the political process is not worth the risk. That kind of suppression of speech stifles the debate and makes us all worse off.

Governor Bullock paints a picture of his campaign to end dark money as a holy crusade to reverse the effects of the much-maligned (and widely misrepresented) Citizens United case. In reality, the push to force the release of private information was nothing more than a personal crusade to sidestep election-year criticism from Montanans who differ from the governor on the issues.

Its like Hollywood stars deciding who can review their movies, or pro athletes deciding who can write about them on the sports pages.

The governor, of course, did not impose this draconian restriction of liberty on his own. He had help. Montana and other states considering similar measures must come to terms with a harsh reality: In politics, it is often the politicians vs. the rest of us, and the DISCLOSE Act puts a thumb on the scales of power, as the well-connected cheer.

Why does this matter? Because laws that require the public disclosure of donors private information chill free speech, as those who wish to support organizations that hold government accountable are exposed to threats of violence. The New York Civil Liberties Union is fighting a similar disclosure law in that state, where its members have been subjected to vandalism and death threats.

And these laws dont work anyway. Study after study has shown that such restrictions do not result in less corruption or a more satisfied electorate. So, were losing freedom and gaining nothing.

Ever since the landmark Supreme Court decision in NAACP v. Alabama (1958), non-profits have had the right to protect their donors privacy, and with good reason. The racist politicians challenging the NAACPs heroic work were not interested in canvassing the neighborhood. They wanted to put the organization out of business. They wanted names and addresses for nefarious reasons. The Supreme Court stood fast against such intimidation.

Individuals should not have to fear violent reprisals for exercising their First Amendment rights, in segregation-era Alabama or in the Montana of today. That Governor Bullock takes pride in his crusade against free speech should be unnerving for all Americans who value free speech and freedom of association.

David Herbst is state director of the Montana chapter of Americans for Prosperity.

Excerpt from:
In Montana, an Election Law Chills Free Speech and Privacy Rights - National Review

PORTLAND, Ore. -- The suspect charged charged in the fatal stabbings of two Portland men who tried to stop his anti-Muslim tirade against two teenage girls was deeply concerned with his First-Amendment right to speech that others often regarded as hateful, a review of court documents and social media postings shows.

Jeremy Joseph Christian, who has spent much of his adulthood behind bars, littered social media with posts about his hatred of just about everything and everyone. He made death threats against Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump and ranted when Facebook deleted an update it regarded as anti-Semitic.

"There is no feeling like being muzzled. Cut out your tongue," he wrote in one post.

After years of spewing anger, prosecutors say, Christian acted on his fury last month aboard a light-rail train. He's accused of screaming anti-Muslim insults at the girls, ages 16 and 17, and then slitting the throats of three men who went to their defense. Two of the men died, and a third was seriously wounded.

Christian continued screaming about free speech in the back of a patrol car, according to court documents. "Get stabbed in your neck if you hate free speech," he is quoted as saying. "I can die in prison a happy man."

The 35-year-old has not yet entered a plea, and neither his court-appointed defense attorney nor relatives or acquaintances returned messages from The Associated Press. In a statement, his family apologized and expressed horror at the May 26 killings.

A review of court documents and social media postings paints a picture of a man who hardened as he spent years in prison. The violence and anger he marshaled against prison guards appeared to morph into a disciplined rage at the world upon his release as he struggled to find a job and a purpose.

After years of disciplinary infractions and self-imposed hunger strikes, Christian found himself selling comic books on the street, where he was once mistaken for a homeless person. He grew increasingly angry that people he met didn't want to talk about his views.

"In my Portland you can have a serious conversation about Politics Spirituality or Philosophy without being interrupted and informed you aren't being PC," he wrote shortly after being released from his most recent stint in federal prison. "Where I come from PC people are in Protective Custody where they belong so they don't get killed."

Christian grew up with several older brothers in north Portland, obtained his GED and attended some community college. He was a prolific writer both in and out of prison, and he penned a poem at age 18 titled "Prayers for Death."

His first encounter with the legal system came two years later when he was arrested on felony charges for robbing a corner market.

Christian had ridden his bike to the convenience store near his parents' home, donned a black ski mask and pulled a handgun on the market's owner. The owner recognized him as a neighborhood kid and at first thought it was a joke, according to an article in The Oregonian at the time.

He took about $1,000 in cash and cigarettes, then handcuffed the owner's wrists to a pole before leaving. A police officer spotted Christian on his bike, gave chase and shot at him three times, hitting him once just under the right eye.

Christian pleaded guilty to robbery and kidnapping and was sentenced to eight years in prison.

During his incarceration, Christian spent time in five Oregon prisons and, according to his own Facebook posts, was frequently in trouble for disciplinary infractions.

On one occasion, he lost 30 pounds in two weeks while on a hunger strike and refused to move to the medical ward. He talked back during roll call so he could get written up and insulted the staff during disciplinary hearings, he wrote.

Just two months after his release in September 2010, Christian was in trouble again -- this time with the federal government.

He pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a stolen revolver, was sentenced to time served and placed under supervision. While under supervision, Christian struggled to get his feet under him.

In 2013, he messaged with a former prison friend and expressed despair that he couldn't find a job. He was going to tattoo "unemployable sociopath" on his forehead, he said, or flee to Brazil. The friend encouraged him to get a job as a dishwasher instead and to find a girlfriend who could help him stay straight.

"Crazy talk. I'd be giving up my freedom either way," Christian wrote back. "Reading books in a single cell is just as pleasurable."

A few months later, he was arrested on a post-prison supervision violation and sentenced to federal prison, then released in May 2014.

He did more fasting and took up a crusade against circumcision. He joined a Facebook group for his middle school and reached out to old friends. Christian planned a barbecue with them at a local park but was rejected after he posted offensive comments on a group message board and insisted it was free speech.

"Jeremy dude you are ruining this whole experience for everyone," one childhood friend wrote.

In April, he was videotaped at a pro-Trump rally holding a baseball bat and making the Nazi salute while wearing a metal chain and the American flag around his neck. Police confiscated the bat and hovered nearby as counterprotesters surrounded Christian and pushed him away.

Two weeks later, Christian posted a video of the rally. In the background, a woman can be heard calling him "the dude who wrote all that crazy, ranting weird stuff."

Christian seems to approve: "That's me, the Lizard King," he wrote. "Nobody likes me."

A Section on 06/05/2017

Read more:
Suspect focused on free speech - NWAOnline