Monthly Archives: August 2017

It was 1934 and fascism was on the march not only in Europe but in America. People who admired Adolf Hitler, who had taken power in Germany, formed Nazi organizations in the United States.

The American Civil Liberties Union, represented by lawyers who were Jewish, faced an existential question: Should the freedoms it stood for since its founding in 1920 apply even to racist groups that would like nothing more than to strip them away?

Ultimately, after much internal dissent, the ACLU decided: Yes, the principles were what mattered most. The ACLU would stand up for the free-speech rights of Nazis.

We do not choose our clients, the ACLUs board of directors wrote in an October 1934 pamphlet called Shall We Defend Free Speech for Nazis In America? Lawless authorities denying their rights choose them for us. To those who support suppressing propaganda they hate, we ask where do you draw the line?

Once again, the ACLU is wrestling with how to respond to a far-right movement in the U.S. whose rising visibility is prompting concerns from elected officials and activists.

In response to the deadly violence at a rally in Charlottesville, Va., last weekend, the ACLUs three California affiliates released a statement Wednesday declaring that white supremacist violence is not free speech.

The national organization said Thursday that it would not represent white supremacist groups that want to demonstrate with guns. That stance is a new interpretation of the ACLUs official position that reasonable gun regulation does not violate the 2nd Amendment.

Officials in Charlottesville had initially denied organizers of the Unite the Right rally a permit to hold the event at the site of a Robert E. Lee statue. But the ACLU filed a lawsuit defending protesters rights to gather there. The rally ended with one woman killed and dozens of people injured as neo-Nazis and other far-right groups that had come armed with shields, helmets and even guns clashed violently with counter-protesters.

Now, with more far-right events scheduled in California, the states ACLU affiliates are warning that there are limits to what they will defend.

We review each request for help on a case-by-case basis, but take the clear position that the 1st Amendment does not protect people who incite or engage in violence, said the statement, which was signed by the executive directors of the ACLU affiliates of Southern California, Northern California, and of San Diego and Imperial Counties.

If white supremacists march into our towns armed to the teeth and with the intent to harm people, they are not engaging in activity protected by the United States Constitution, the statement continued. The 1st Amendment should never be used as a shield or sword to justify violence.

That statement drew some criticism from former ACLU board member Samuel Walker, a history professor at the University of Nebraska in Omaha, who supports the ACLUs historical stance on far-right groups. He called the remarks irresponsible.

How is the 1st Amendment being a shield for violence? he said. They need to be clear on that, and this statement is not clear.

Ahilan Arulanantham, the legal director of the ACLU of Southern California, said it was not the organizations perspective on civil liberties that had changed, but the nature of the far-right groups themselves a willingness to come to events ready for violence.

The factual context here is shifting, given the extent to which the particular marches were seeing in this historical moment are armed, Arulanantham said.

For decades, the ACLU has defended the speech rights of far-right groups like neo-Nazis and the Ku Klux Klan on the principle that if those groups rights are not upheld, the government will try to restrict the free-speech rights of other groups as well.

Most famously, the ACLU successfully defended the rights of neo-Nazis to march in the Chicago suburb of Skokie, Ill., in 1978, which was home to many Holocaust survivors.

But the ACLUs stance was costly. The groups membership and donations which had soared during the Nixon administration declined sharply after the Skokie case, with thousands of supporters abandoning the group. A left-wing civil liberties counterpart, the National Lawyers Guild, accused the ACLU of "poisonous evenhandedness.

The group has seen its membership and its donations soar under the Trump administration as left-leaning Americans embrace the organization as a bulwark against the administration.

But some emerging factions of the left do not share the ACLUs values on free speech and assembly. Surveys have shown that young people are more likely than older Americans to support a government ban on hate speech, which is constitutionally protected.

Leftists who call themselves anti-facists and in many cases endorse illegal violence, viewing it as a morally just tactic to prevent neo-Nazis from gathering publicly, have also seen their numbers grow since Trumps election, which was supported by far-right groups.

The ACLUs decision this month to file a 1st Amendment lawsuit on behalf of right-wing provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos whose rhetoric about immigrants and minorities has made him a target of violent protests prompted a high-profile ACLU attorney to publicly object.

Though his ability to speak is protected by the 1st Amendment, I don't believe in protecting principle for the sake of principle in all cases, wrote Chase Strangio, who stressed he was speaking in a private capacity. His actions have consequences for people that I care about and for me."

The outcry from the ACLUs California affiliates prompted the groups national leader, Anthony D. Romero, to respond with a statement of his own.

We agree with every word in the statement from our colleagues in California, Romero said. The 1st Amendment absolutely does not protect white supremacists seeking to incite or engage in violence. We condemn the views of white supremacists, and fight against them every day.

But, Romero added: At the same time, we believe that even odious hate speech, with which we vehemently disagree, garners the protection of the 1st Amendment when expressed non-violently. We make decisions on whom we'll represent and in what context on a case-by-case basis. The horrible events in Charlottesville last weekend will certainly inform those decisions going forward.

See original here:
Tensions grow inside ACLU over defending free-speech rights for the far right - Los Angeles Times

The University of California at Berkeley is a place where right-wing provocateurs such as Ann Coulter and Milo Yiannopoulos know they can get a rise. But maybe less so, starting now: On Tuesday, the school's recently-appointed chancellor, Carol Christ, declared this year to be a "Free Speech Year" on campus, and marked that the school would be doubling down on not only protecting speech, but also teaching the value of discourse to college students that seem to have forgotten.

In February, campus protests became violent, shutting down a Milo Yiannopoulos appearance. This upcoming academic year, he's slated to speak again. A less controversial (but still somewhat cringe-worthy) Ben Shapiro will be speaking on campus later next month. This time, though, new policies will be in place to bolster security and event preparation, regardless of viewpoint. "We have not only an obligation to protect free speech but an obligation to keep our community safe," said Christ.

Other Berkeley events during this upcoming year will center around core constitutional issues, the school's history as the forefront of the student activism movement, and employ a "point-counterpoint" format for panels, where participants can practice civil exchange of ideas in a public forum.

In Christ's own words, Berkeley "would be providing you less of an education, preparing you less well for the world after you graduate, if we tried to protect you from ideas that you may find wrong, even noxious."

She's completely right, and it's wonderful to see a university administrator choosing not to mince words when it comes to defense of free speech, especially at a place such as Berkeley. If administrators were more fervently clear that hateful, offensive speech is protected under the First Amendment too, we might see more ideologically-tolerant college students.

Of course, Christ isn't claiming that every year can't be devoted to free speech rather, she's making it abundantly clear that there is, and will always be, immense value to civil discourse. And she is making it clear that the birthplace of the student free speech movement shouldn't be desecrated by violent protesters who don't understand the most challenging aspects of a liberal democracy that one should extend free speech rights to those you find abhorrent, lest your own be taken.

Perhaps Berkeley will, once again, lead the campus free speech movement.

Liz Wolfe (@lizzywol) is a contributor to the Washington Examiner's Beltway Confidential blog. She is managing editor at Young Voices.

If you would like to write an op-ed for the Washington Examiner, please read our guidelines on submissions here.

More:
Free speech might be coming to Berkeley in a shocking turn of events - Washington Examiner

Some speakers have dropped out of the Boston Free Speech rally planned for Saturday on the Common, but at least two right-wing extremists, including a Clinton conspiracy theorist and a founder of a group dubbed by hate watchdogs as an Alt-Right Fight Club, will still address the crowd at the event, which expected to draw counterprotesters and a heavy police presence.

The rally organizers said early Thursday in a Facebook post that the four headliners will be Kyle Chapman, Joe Biggs, US Senate candidate Shiva Ayyadurai, and congressional candidate Samson Racioppi.

Advertisement

So its been a little tumultuous running up to the 19th. Weve attracted much love from the Alt Left aka Antifa and their trolly bits, the post said. We apologize for the upheaval of our speaker list.

Of the four speakers, Chapman and Biggs appeared likely to draw the most ire.

Get Fast Forward in your inbox:

Forget yesterday's news. Get what you need today in this early-morning email.

Chapman gained notoriety earlier this year after a video went viral of him smashing a wooden post over the head of an anti-fascist protester at a march for President Trump in Berkeley, Calif.

No weapons, no backpacks, no sticks, Mayor Walsh said. If anyone gets out of control at all it will be shut down.

Chapman, who became known on the Internet as Based Stickman, then started a group called the Fraternal Order of Alt Knights, which the Southern Poverty Law Center describes as a New Alt-Right Fight Club ready for street violence.

The Alt Knights are linked to another extremist group, the Proud Boys. According to the SPLC, Chapman says his new militant, highly-masculine group will be the tactical defensive arm of the Proud Boys, another group that shows up at pro-Trump rallies looking to rumble with counter-protesters.

Advertisement

The Proud Boys were founded by Gavin McInnes, who was originally scheduled as a speaker at Saturdays rally but dropped out earlier this week.

Biggs, a former US Army staff sergeant, worked until recently for Infowars, a website founded by Alex Jones, the notorious conspiracy theorist. Biggs was among those promoting the Pizzagate conspiracy theory that claimed a pedophile ring with links to Hillary Clinton was operating out of a Washington, D.C., pizzeria.

The conspiracy theory almost went horribly wrong when a man showed up at the pizzeria and fired a miltiary-assault-style rifle. He was later sentenced to four years in prison.

Biggs previously told the Globe that Saturdays rally is designed to promote free speech not hate or violence.

These events are not violent in nature at all but people will defend themselves if provoked and thats what happened in Charlottesville, he said.

He was referring to the rally in Virginia that turned deadly when white supremacists and neo-Nazi demonstrators clashed with counterprotesters, and one white supremacist allegedly plowed his vehicle into Heather Heyer, killing the young woman who was part of the counterprotest.

Tensions have been high in the leadup to the planned rally in Boston, with Mayor Martin J. Walsh telling hate groups that the city does not want you here. City officials have granted the organizers a permit allowing them to rally on the Common from noon to 2 p.m., with restrictions on objects that attendees can bring into the area.

Among the banned items for demonstrators on both sides: bats, sticks, and backpacks. Walsh said police will have a zero-tolerance policy.

Walsh is not the only political leader to condemn bigotry ahead of the rally.

During an ornate State House ceremony on Thursday, Governor Charlie Baker was joined by a number of elected officials including Lieutenant Governor Karyn Polito, House Speaker Robert DeLeo and Senate President Stanley Rosenberg in submitting an official resolution decrying white nationalism in the wake of the Charlottesville violence.

The officials took turns reading portions of the resolution, including one excerpt read by Baker that said the state strongly denounces the bigoted ideologies promoted by white nationalists.

Meanwhile, the rally organizers continue to insist that the event is open to a range of political views and not a forum for hate groups.

We are STILL offering our platform for left groups to join us and have open slots for speakers if any left groups would like to furnish some, the Facebook posting said. We will, of course, ask that speakers stick generally to the subject of Free Speech. We will not tolerate advocacy for hate against any ethnic/racial groups, as stated on our recent release.

Ayyadurai, a Cambridge Republican who has staked out a populist stance in the early months of the GOP Senate primary in Massachusetts, recently told the Globe via e-mail that he was concerned Saturdays rally could turn violent.

He added that racial strife is manufactured and fueled by the Establishment to distract from the economic problems that they have caused and profit from. ... The Establishment creates and funds groups like Antifa, KKK and Black Lives Matter with the aim of dividing everyday poor black and white Americans.

Racioppi, the fourth speaker who is also running for Congress, is enrolled at Suffolk University and served as a Cavalry Scout in the US Army for three years, according to his campaign website.

Speech is such an important thing to me, a blog post says on his site. It is the most important value a society can recognize for free people to stay that way.

The site also includes a YouTube video of Racioppi speaking under a headline that says, How drug legalization reduces addiction and overdose deaths.

See the original post here:
Speaker list for 'free speech' rally includes right-wing extremists - The Boston Globe

On Wednesday afternoon, a Canadian university, Ryerson, decided to immolate its educational principles. It cancelled a discussion between conservative journalist, Faith Goldy, and Professors Jordan Peterson and Gad Saad.

Let's be clear, the excuse the school offers is fake. What's really going on here is that Ryerson has decided to sacrifice intellectual curiosity at the altar of far-left fascism.

Declaring that it is "prioritizing public safety" over free speech, Ryerson is offering a false choice. For one, Ryerson is in Toronto, a city with more than 5,000 police officers and named the safest city in North America in 2015. Had Ryerson sought to preserve free speech, it could have requested and enacted a security envelope around the event.

A warped sense of political correctness is at blame here. The individual who led the effort to force Ryerson to cancel the event, Christeen Elizabeth, explained that "Transphobia is violence, Islamophobia is violence. Violence is contextual."

Sure.

Regardless, to sabotage the discussion, Elizabeth told the National Post that she "inundated Ryerson with calls and emails protesting the panel. She said she also collaborated with the school's student union, who added to the pressure." The pressure campaign worked as Ryerson yielded to the threats and abuse.

Still, what's most troubling here is the degree to which this situation shows how far the far-left's "no speech" platform now extends. After all, the panelists who were no-platformed are hardly neo-Nazis.

For one, Faith Goldy bears nothing in common with Hitler. She works for an online conservative media outlet, The Rebel, which revels in being controversial and cheeky. But that website is not a malevolent entity. Indeed, this week, Goldy gave a compelling defense of her viewpoints. "I do not bathe in tears of white guilt, that doesn't make me a white supremacist. I oppose state multiculturalism and affirmative action, that doesn't make me a racist. I reject cultural marxism but that doesn't make me a fascist."

Indeed.

Similarly, Professor Jordan Peterson isn't Himmler, he's a Professor of Psychology at the University of Toronto. His great crime against social justice? Making intellectual arguments against the subjective appropriation of gender pronouns. But search for any video of Peterson.

And Gad Saad? His topic is consumer choices.

In the end, there's only one takeaway from what's just occurred. Goldy, Peterson, and Saad, are far better people than Christeen Elizabeth, her fascists, and Ryerson's administrators. Professor Peterson proved as much when he offered a very measured response to the cancellation of his event. He told the National Post that "We're drifting into a scenario of increased polarization, and it's not an advisable time to contribute to that, wittingly or unwittingly."

Read more:
The far-left strikes another blow against free speech - Washington Examiner

Reuters:

Apple Inc CEO Tim Cook has joined a chorus of business leaders who have voiced their opposition to President Donald Trump after he blamed white nationalists and anti-racism activists equally for violence in Virginia over the weekend.

I disagree with the president and others who believe that there is a moral equivalence between white supremacists and Nazis, and those who oppose them by standing up for human rights. Equating the two runs counter to our ideals as Americans, Cook wrote in a note late on Wednesday to employees, according to technology news website Recode.

Cook also said in the letter that Apple will donate $1 million apiece to the Southern Poverty Law Center and the Anti-Defamation League and will match two-for-one their donations to the organizations and other human rights groups until Sept. 30.

Let me note first that I am not very impressed (to put it mildly) with the way that the president has responded to the events in Charlottesville.

That said, lets concentrate on this: Cook is spending $1m of shareholders money on a gift to the Southern Poverty Law Center.

The SPLC has, shall we say, its issues. You can find some interesting commentaryover at that well-known bastion of the right, Harpers Magazine, here, here and here.

But Id like to focus on the SPLCs Field Guide to Anti-Muslim Extremists, and two of the names included in that guide (something already discussed by Ericka Andersen on this very Corner back in June).

Firstly, theresMaajid Nawaz a British activist and part of the ex-radical circuit of former Islamists who use that experience to savage Islam.

Amongst the evidence of his extremism is this:

According to a Jan. 24, 2014, report in The Guardian, Nawaz tweeted out a cartoon of Jesus and Muhammad despite the fact that many Muslims see it as blasphemous to draw Muhammad. He said that he wanted to carve out a space to be heard without constantly fearing the blasphemy charge.

So Apple is funding an organization that deems taking a stand in favor of free speech as evidence of extremism. The company that once advertised itself as the antithesis of Big Brotheris now a de facto supporter of controlling blasphemy. Times change.

Doubtless this will play well in Apple (Saudi Arabia), so theres that.

Heres (part of) what The Atlantic had to say about Nawaz last year (my emphasis added):

Nawaz is a star in certain anti-terror circles, thanks to a compelling personal narrative: A self-described former extremist who spent four years in an Egyptian prison, he has changed approaches and now argues for a pluralistic and peaceful vision of Islam. He stood for Parliament as a Liberal Democrat in 2015, and advised Prime Ministers Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, and David Cameron.

Nawazs work has earned him detractorscritics claim he has embellished or neatened his narrative, some attack him for opportunism, and others question his liberal bona fidesbut calling him an anti-Muslim extremist is a surprise. Unlike the likes of Gaffney and Geller, he doesnt espouse the view that Islam itself is a problem; unlike Ali, who now describes herself as an atheist, Nawaz identifies as a Muslim.

Ali? Ah yes: Someone else who is on the SPLC extremist list is Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Hirsi Ali knows a thing or two about Islam, having been brought up in thatfaith (at one point in her youth she was very devout) and then broken with it publicly and, yes, abrasively, something that put her life in danger (which goes some way to backing up what she has to say about Islam). Sometimes she has, in my view, overreached in her rhetoric (others will disagree), but to go from that to claiming that she is an extremist in the way that the SPLC use that word is absurd, no more than that, its sinister.

Another prominent atheist, Sam Harris, has described the labeling of Hirsi Ali and Nawaz as extremists as unbelievable. After Hirsi Ali was snubbed by Brandeis in 2014 (two years before the SPLCfield guide came out), Richard Dawkins referred toher as a hero of rationalism & feminism.

Over at Patheos,Hemant Mehta. the Friendly Atheist (and no rightist)called the SPLCs designation of Hirsi Ali and Nawaza f****** joke :

If criticizing religious beliefs makes them extremists, then it wont be long before other vocal atheists end up on that list, too. And make no mistake, thats what Nawaz and Hirsi Ali are doing. Thats all theyre doing. Theyre not anti-Muslim; they work with moderate Muslims. Theyre critical of the worst aspects of Islam. For goodness sake, theyre not attacking Malala Yousafzai.

Hell, Hirsi Alis foundation works to end faith-based honor killings and female genital mutilation. Who knew that would make her the Worst Person Ever?

Mehta added:

Essentially, while her words may have been harsh, they should be seen with the understanding that she has been personally affected by the worst aspects of the faith. As I wrote before, it takes a very uncharitable interpretation of Hirsi Alis words to think her goal of defeating Islam means we should commit violence against peaceful law-abiding Muslims or descends into hate speech. Her goal is full-scale reform of Islam, not genocide against all Muslims.

She has repeatedly said that her goal is to prevent the spread of Islamic radicalism, not to prevent peaceful Muslims from practicing their faith.

Yet sheand Nawaz have attracted the ire of the Southern Poverty Law Center.

But all of thats fine with Apples Tim Cook, so fine that hes prepared to throw one million dollars of his shareholders money SPLCs way.

See original here:
Silicon Valley and Free Speech: Tim Cook Edition - National Review