Daily Archives: March 5, 2020

It has been a glorious couple of weeks for defenders of freedom of speech. Now theres even a union to join, led by father of the chapel Toby Young. You can imagine it: robust white men brandishing copies of John Stuart Mills On Liberty and bellowing ideas must fight it out in the marketplace of ideas.

But why, and why now? It seems to be part of a backlash against supposed censorship and political correctness, to say nothing of leftwing bias, bleeding over the university sector like a cheap red sock in a hot white wash. Policy Exchange, the rightwing thinktank, has just published a report, Universities at the Crossroads, intimating that the sector has lost the trust of the entire nation. Oops. That was careless of us.

They accuse: Following a very vocal and at times highly partisan participation in the Brexit debate, as well as an increasing number of unnecessary rows over freedom of speech, there is a growing risk that some on the right may begin to see the sector as actively and irredeemably opposed to conservative and British values.

Freedom of speech on campus, they say, has been pushed into the background by high-profile culture wars, and its time to reverse the trend. Limiting speech on campus isnt a good look. Mill, notoriously, argued if an idea is wholly or partially true, then cutting it off will obstruct progress. But even false ideas should be given voice. Otherwise truths will be become dead dogmas and we will lose our ability to defend them. Conclusion: never obstruct free speech. Yet others, sotto voce, intone: Its all a bit more complicated than that.

Mill himself, like many thinkers, distinguishes freedom of thought from freedom of expression, which, he argues, can be restricted if it is likely to cause serious harm, such as immediate violence. Hence the prohibition of hate speech and the offence of inciting racial hatred.

The question, then, is not whether there should be limits, but where they fall. This is the frontline in the culture war, where speakers have been subject to protest and boycott because opponents believe their views are akin to hate speech. The line will always be contested, and those pulling out a point of principle often use it to mask a political programme.

Policy Exchange is not the first to attempt to whip up the idea that universities are rotten with reprehensible leftwing, anti-British values, try to indoctrinate students, and pursue a woke agenda. If so, we are doing a spectacularly bad job, given recent election results. In my experience, students typically leave university with their political views unscathed, albeit a little better defended.

Nevertheless, it is in the interests of those in power to send a chill through higher education. Policy Exchange is right that many academics see their role as holding government to account. But we dont discriminate. Whoever is in power gets the same treatment. It is just that we havent had a chance to discomfit a Labour administration for a while.

Some criticisms of universities are well made and too often we enter a defensive mode rather unfitting to institutions of the higher mind. But other attacks have an ulterior purpose: to put universities on notice that they are being watched.

Universities are implicitly warned: stay in your lane, and look both ways before you cross us. Dare academics, and especially their leaders, criticise authoritarian government policy and identify dogma-driven stupidities? Before you open your mouth, keep half an eye on the next funding round, and the law around security of employment.

Darkness has not quite fallen. But ultimately speech and power cannot be detached. Who has the power to speak, who has the power to stop others speaking? And power works in multiple ways. It can be exercised by threat, overt or implicit. But most damaging of all, it can seep inside and make us self-censors. Iron has entered the soul of universities in many other countries. It mustnt happen here.

More:
Why Toby Young and other robust white men are using free speech to whip universities - The Guardian

Photo by Owen Stidman

ASGs weekly session. Senators heard two bills and voted on an emergency resolution and a previous weeks bill, passing both.

Associated Student Government Senate introduced three resolutions Wednesday regarding the census count, protection of students freedom of speech and the widespread release of a task force report that details institutional actions supporting genderqueer, non-binary and transgender students at NU.

They also passed a bill, introduced by ASG parliamentarian and Weinberg sophomore Elizabeth Sperti in a Feb. 26 session, that proposed the creation of an ad hoc committee to consider establishing a one-stop advocacy office for all student concerns.

Wednesdays session marked the Senates penultimate meeting of Winter Quarter. ASG officials were eager to roll out resolutions before the end of the term and elections season, which officially starts in the spring.

Weinberg junior James Crisafulli introduced a bill, supported by four Senate members, to affirm that ASG will commit to acknowledging and increasing outreach efforts toward collecting accurate information on Northwestern students for the 2020 census. It also says ASG will help students fill out census forms and fight miscommunication.

Our biggest goal with the resolution is just that people on ASG are sort of so tapped into off-campus life and student body and different organizations, Crisafulli said, that we just want them to be more aware of (census collection) as an issue and being able to spread awareness about the census coming up.

The census is a constitutionally mandated count of U.S. residents that occurs every ten years. It is particularly important for political representation of college students, because there is a misconception that they will be counted by their households, when in fact, off-campus students are responsible for counting themselves, he said.

Another resolution, authored by ASG chief of staff Henry Molnar and SESP senator Daniel Rodriguez, Bienen senator Megan Radcliffe and SESP senator Jenn Beardsley, proposes that the University establish concrete protection of freedom of speech. The lengthy set of proposals, which have been crafted by a Senate committee entitled FreeSpeechNU, chronicled recent campus incidents concerning free speech, such as the anonymous demonstration at The Rock and protests against Jeff Sessions visit to campus, which both occurred in Fall Quarter.

Its basically a really comprehensive (bill) looking at a bunch of different free speech policies at Northwestern and trying to expand those, Molnar said.

The resolution condemns the Universitys repainting of The Rock and issuance of citations, which were later dropped, to student protestors at the Sessions speech.

The bill proposed the University extend free speech policies to apply to The Rock. It added that the University should amend its demonstration and advertising policies to remove limitations on political expression as well as set clear policies on students and University employees conduct during a protest.

The final bill of the meeting concerned the Universitys release of the report by Gender Queer, Non-binary and Transgender Task Force, which was released last month. The 82-page report details key requests, action items, desired outcomes and deadlines to improve conditions of life for GQNBT individuals at Northwestern.

Co-authored by ASG vice president Adam Davies, Rainbow Alliance senator Alyssa Peterson and three other Senate members, the resolution proposes the administration disseminate the report through a University-wide email and that it clearly states the transgender and cis-gender leads of the task force, cementing its commitment to advancing GQNBT causes.

Peterson said even though the findings in the report were important and relevant to students at NU, it was listed as the third item of the University newsletter. The University should take responsibility and take the forefront in promoting its results, Peterson said.

Normally, a report of this scale would have been given a campus-wide all-scale email of its own separate from the newsletter, Peterson said. As Northwestern has demonstrated in the past, they continue to skirt from the experiences of the genderqueer nonbinary and trans student body under the rug.

As it is an emergency resolution, which according to ASGs laws, means that it is voted on during the same session it was introduced, the bill was passed.

The other two resolutions, which are on census collection and freedom of speech protection, will be put to a vote at the final meeting of Winter Quarter.

Isabelle Sarraf contributed reporting.

Email: yunkyokim2022@u.northwestern.eduTwitter: @yunkyomoonk

Related Stories: The Ripple: US Census Bureau, Evanston aim for complete census count Northwestern takes initial steps to reduce 2020 Census undercount Explaining ASGs constitutional amendments

More here:
ASG introduces three resolutions, votes on advocacy committee - The Daily Northwestern

The coronavirus outbreak has radiated to at least 77 countries, killing more than 3,200 people and infecting more than 93,000. It has paralyzed cities and towns, disrupted business, travel and schools. But no place has seen more devastation than China, where the overwhelming majority of deaths and infections have occurred.

The New York Times asked Chinese readers all over the world to share their views on how the country responded to the coronavirus outbreak, which originated in Hubei Province in central China. We heard from readers in Europe, Australia, China and the United States. One was living just miles from the market in Wuhan that is considered by many experts to be ground zero for the virus.

Most expressed serious disappointment in how the Chinese government has handled the crisis. But others argued China, as a developing nation, has responded effectively. Here are some of their stories, edited and condensed for clarity.

When the outbreak occurred, I was living about three miles north of the Huanan Seafood Market in Wuhan. I must have been one of the first people to have seen and been alarmed by Dr. Li Wenliangs screenshots on WeChat. That day I immediately ordered masks and disinfectant online for my family, and asked them not to leave our building complex unless there was something urgent. But then because the government dispelled the so-called rumors over and over again and blocked information, almost everyone began to let their guard down, and I was no exception.

No freedom of speech and the misconduct of government officials are the main culprits that brought about this disaster, and made everyone so angry.

Liang Yi, Tianmen, Hubei Province

I came to the United States with my husband, whos studying here. Now hes got a job, but I have to stay at home because of a visa issue.

Earlier this year, my husband and I had a serious discussion about our future. He has always felt that the systemic risks in China are too high, so we should not go back. But Ive felt that for a more comfortable and exciting life there, Im willing to sacrifice some things, like freedom of speech and internet freedoms. Whats more, I have felt life is short, and in todays peaceful era, the probability of suffering from systemic risks is so low.

I didnt expect that two weeks later, an epidemic would break out in China. All the management problems and human-rights issues that have been exposed make me sad and angry. For the first time I realized how important free speech is. This outbreak was like a slap in the face. It totally woke me up and it makes me very sad. I feel that I am growing farther and farther apart from my homeland.

Su Min, San Francisco

Before the outbreak worsened, my friends and I all thought that China was a digital totalitarian state that was invulnerable to attack. But all these halos were smashed because of the Chinese governments chaotic response to the pneumonia in Wuhan.

For me, this crisis exposed the cowardice and recklessness of the bureaucracy of the Chinese government. At the same time, it demonstrated that, in the absence of the bureaucracy, the Chinese people retain strong capabilities to self-govern and self-organize on the grass-roots level. This leads me to believe that contemporary China still has the conditions for a democratic revolution.

Wang Sheng-fan, Adelaide, Australia

As the Chinese Communist Party continuously uses authoritarian means to deal with matters, a humanitarian disaster is happening. I decided to drop everything and escape as soon as possible. But my parents are deeply brainwashed by Chinese Communist Party propaganda. They said that if they are going to die they would rather die here in this land, and live or die with the motherland.

I felt frustrated by this, but at the same time I knew thats probably what the majority of Chinese people also think.

I bought plane tickets and decided to leave with my 9-year-old daughter. My wifes passport is valid for less than six months, and the entry-exit department told us that theyve suspended all immigration services for Chinese citizens for the time being. So for now its just me and my daughter here in Thailand.

This epidemic made me sense deeply the split within my family. This division derives from our different views of the C.C.P.

Gao Enzhou, Bangkok

Im currently a university student in London. I went to Singapore for a job interview. Upon coming back, I developed symptoms associated with Covid-19. As a result, I was tested by the National Health Service and ordered to stay at home. The test results came back negative.

The outbreak has confirmed my belief that when looking at China, one must give it a fair assessment. I believe the critique of China during this outbreak is rather unfair.

When critically analyzing the situation, one must keep in mind, despite all of the development since Chinas economic miracle, China is still a developing nation. For a developing country, it has responded quite well. The mobilization of resources in response to the outbreak was only possible in a very centralized government. An infectious disease outbreak, combined with the largest annual human migration, spells a disaster for any country. While critiques of the early handling of the epidemic may be valid, it distorts the picture; no government has ever done so much to contain an outbreak.

Arthur Chan, London

Early last year, my wife got accepted to a Ph.D. program at the University of Washington, Seattle. She was pregnant, so she postponed her enrollment from September to March of this year. If it wasnt for the epidemic, we would have flown to Seattle with our daughter to begin our new life on March 1.

But now because of the ban on travel to the United States, and worries about traveling with our baby, we dont want to take the risk of going to another country and being quarantined for 14 days. We can only stay home and wish that things improve. Were facing a dilemma.

Mo Weicheng, Foshan, Guangdong Province

Im a student from Wuhan, studying in Ireland. Ireland isnt a mainstream destination for Chinese students. There are only two people from Wuhan in this city.

Over Christmas I went back to Wuhan. I returned to Ireland before the epidemic broke out. One week after I came back, Zhong Nanshan announced that there had been human-to-human transmission of the virus. That was right before the Lunar New Year. The Spring Festival gala organized by my schools Chinese Students and Scholars Association was scheduled for two weeks after I returned. I was a volunteer, and I wasnt sure if I should go. I sent a message to the chairman of the association, who reassured me. He said I should come since my quarantine period was over. But during the event, I could still sense murmurings of concern. It is human nature to feel afraid, but this still made me feel lonely and sad to be in a foreign land.

Zhang Yuqin, Galway, Ireland

I live in the city of Huizhou, in Guangdong Province. But Im currently in Chiang Mai, Thailand. I had planned to take the Graduate Management Admissions Test in February in Shenzhen. But the test was canceled because of the epidemic. So my wife and I decided to go to Hong Kong so I could take the test. I signed up to take the test in Hong Kong, but two days later I was informed that the test was canceled there, too.

We searched for the nearest test site and found it was in Thailand. After our visas were approved, we flew to Chiang Mai. I have taken the test in Chiang Mai, but my wife and I plan to stay here for now. This is not the most disappointing thing, there will always be greater disappointments.

If one soldier is a failure, its just one soldier. But if the general is a failure, its the whole army. The top leadership of China bears direct responsibility for losing control over the outbreak.

Zhang Zhida, Chiang Mai, Thailand

I came to Munich from Spain in mid-October last year to continue my studies. Before the outbreak of the coronavirus, I always felt that I was a Spanish resident and emotionally depended on that. After the outbreak occurred, I got a message from my German landlord on the morning of the fourth day of the Lunar New Year. She hoped that I could move out within five days, because her husband was afraid of the novel coronavirus. This was ridiculous. The last time Id been back to China was last August, and my hometown was not the center of the outbreak. I dont know how they could connect me to a virus that originated thousands of miles away.

Li Xiang, Munich

I am currently going to medical school on Long Island, where I am a third-year medical student doing rotation at a hospital. Ever since the coronavirus outbreak, I have heard hospital staff joking about pandemics. They taunt about the foods people eat in China, as if all Chinese people are barbarians. They make statements about how Huoshenshan Hospital is actually a concentration camp incapable of taking care of patients. They ignore the Chinese governments efforts to respond to the outbreak.

As a Chinese international student, I feel extremely uncomfortable about these false and arrogant comments, and I have personally stood up to one of the nurses, to educate them about what is actually going on.

Media in the United States are not committed to presenting the truth. They usually twist stories in a way that misleads Americans who want to believe China is a horrible place and all Asians have the Chinese virus.

I worry from time to time that my patients will refuse to let me examine them just because I am Asian and they think I am carrying the coronavirus.

Yujie Jiang, Long Island

Compiled by Emily Chan and Sue Tong

Read the original:
A Slap in the Face: Chinese Readers Share Their Coronavirus Stories - The New York Times

To the Editor:

Im going to assume that the writer of the first letter against Ted Nugent appearing here in The Villages, is from a Democrat. Thats fine an certainly within his/her rights. But theres a more serious issue here that sadly has been in evidence for some time now. Im referring to Freedom of Speech. Our very 1st Amendment!The left in general has changed the meaning of 1A. Their interpretation is that free speech is free and desirable if and only if it agrees with their views! We see this over and over again whether it applies to a conservative speaker at a university forum or a journalist being severely beaten by members of ANTIFA. As I said, the writer had a perfect right to voice his opinion on Ted Nugent. More importantly he can show his opposition by not attending whatever venue Nugent is appearing at. Thats the beauty of our Bill of Rights. Its important to remember that ones freedoms extend only up to the point where they interfere with anothers freedoms.

Gary MoscowitzVillage of LaBelle North

Here is the original post:
Opposition to Ted Nugent - Villages-News

The U.K. hearing of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assanges U.S. extradition on the week of February 24, 2020, presented a test of Western liberal democracy. The indictment of Assange under the Espionage Act for publishing classified documents which exposed U.S. war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan is recognized by free speech groups as an unprecedented attack on the First Amendment.

With the governments criminalization of journalism, we are seeing a deepening crisis of legitimacy that had begun to unravel a decade ago. Bitcoin emerged during the 2008 financial meltdown as a response to bank bailouts and a cycle of austerity. Over its 10 years of existence, the technology has steadily maintained its fundamentals of censorship resistance and permissionless usage. Now, more than ever, Bitcoin shows these defining features as its value proposition.

As the government becomes more authoritarian, those who speak truth to power are being punished more harshly. Bitcoin as a technology of dissent provides alternative forms of resistance that are much more peaceful and joyous. It offers an avenue for people around the world to express their opposition against their government without directly confronting with power; instead it is simply creating a new world that makes the old system obsolete.

The invention of Bitcoin didnt happen overnight. It was built on cumulative efforts of the past. The development of this technology of dissent can be traced back in the history of peoples liberation from the arbitrary power of the king and despotic government. In the United States, after the victory of the Revolutionary War, the Founding Fathers rejected the rule of British monarchy. In the Declaration of Independence, the premise was given for unalienable rights of Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness, expressed in the words of Thomas Jefferson that is to be applied equally to all people.

In establishing the U.S. constitutional republic, these premises remained no more than ideals and they were constantly threatened. The original Constitution ratified in 1787 lacked the guarantee to secure individual liberties that inherently belong to all people.

The proponents of the Bill of Rights demanded a safeguard against the government. They articulated the protection of essential parts of unalienable rights in the First Amendment to the Constitution as a freedom of expression; freedom of speech, religion, assembly, and the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Erosion of civil rights took place through a loophole in the security within the Constitution. While a wall of separation between church and state is placed in the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, separation of money and state was not. Under the First Amendment, individuals right to create, choose their own money and transact freely was not recognized as a part of freedom of expression that needs to be protected.

The central control over money production faced a major security breach. Attorney Ellen Brown explains how most people think money is issued by fiat, declared to be legal tender by the government, but the creation of money has been taken over by private corporations like the Federal Reserve.

Privatized national and corporate currencies, created out of thin air around the world, came to function as a medium of control, allowing big business to create market monopolies. This began to debase the intrinsic value of the natural rights of a person evidenced in the nations founding document. By transforming those inalienable rights into a permissioned form of legal rights that can be infringed upon by the government, corporations and private banks began to steal individual liberties. Freedom of expression became further stifled through economic censorship and financial blockage enacted by payment processing companies like Visa and MasterCard.

As the states assault on civil liberty has increased, rebellion came from the internet. On February 8, 1996, when Congress enacted the Telecommunications Reform Act that enabled media consolidation and monopoly of flow of information, John Perry Barlow, internet pioneer, wrote a Declaration of Independence of Cyberspace. Addressing it to governments of the Industrial World, he called for a creation of a world where anyone, anywhere may express his or her beliefs, no matter how singular, without fear of being coerced into silence or conformity.

Those who revolted against the arbitrary power of the national government became dissidents in the new frontier of cyberspace. They found each other and formed an association that came to be known as cypherpunks: loosely tied online activists who advocate social change by the use of strong cryptography.

Tim May, one of the influential cypherpunks and the author of The Crypto Anarchist Manifesto recognized money as speech. At the Computer Freedom and Privacy Conference in 1997, he described how Digital Cash = Speech. He then noted how untraceable digital cash is indistinguishable from speech and explained how any laws intended to control it will almost certainly impinge on speech in general. Cypherpunks began envisioning a stateless digital form of money that is uncensorable and their collaborative pursuit created a movement for a new Enlightenment.

Philosophers in the Enlightenment era advocated for conceptions of democratic rights based on natural law. In his seminal work The Spirit of Laws published in 1748, Montesquieu wrote,

Laws in their broadest sense, are the necessary relations which are derived from the nature of things: Once free from the yoke of religion, we should still be subject to the rule of Justice Law, like mathematics has its objective structure, which no arbitrary whim can alter, before there were any enacted laws, just relations were possible.

Cypherpunks understood that while alienable rights that are bestowed by law can be taken away by legislation, inalienable rights are not to be created but can be discoverable by reason. Thus, laws that secure inalienable rights cannot be created by man but can be found in nature.

Like Enlightenment thinkers who tried to explain the laws of society and human nature through scientific methods, the anonymous creator of Bitcoin instigated a scientific process of discovering a way to restore money in its original form as an enshrinement of an unalienable right.

Bitcoin is free software that gives the user full control of the program. Anyone can observe, share knowledge and contribute to the development of protocol through participating in reviewing, testing and experimentation.

Here, principles of nature that were discovered were applied to create a decentralized digital currency and a market that is free from the control of the government. They included breakthroughs in computer science that led to the invention of a consensus algorithm, the laws of thermodynamics (study of science concerning heat, temperature and their relation to energy), and three natural laws of economics (self interest, competition, and supply and demand) that were identified by Adam Smith, a father of modern economics.

In Bitcoin, based on the principle of game theory to create fairness, miners engage in a broadcast math competition. Aligning self-interests of all in a network, with a careful balance of risk and rewards, rules are enforced without applying any external pressure. Bitcoin regulates itself through the spontaneous force of nature, flourishing healthy price discovery and competition in the best interest of everyone.

As the British court wrapped up its fake judicial process in the deliberation of the U.S. extradition request for the persecuted and tortured journalist, Julian Assange, Western democracy shows its final decline. This irreparable system continues to suck people into an electoral arena trying to keep them under its control. While many engage in protest or petitioning, busying themselves with cheering on their favorite candidates in political contests, Bitcoin provides a formidable tool for dissent, allowing people to simply opt out altogether from this corrupted system.

The bureaucratic system of the modern nation-state, administered by central banks, magistrates, presidents and prime ministers, has alienated us from the harmonious state of the world we belong to, depriving us of our innate rights and liberties. Now, imagination from computer science inspires us to rediscover intrinsic value within ourselves the wisdom of nature that governs our behavior and our rights to express ourselves freely and create our own life.

We, Bitcoiners, are all dissidents in the Old World of trusted third parties. We defy the rules of empire states in order to trust our ability to become our own authority. Laws of nature that are higher than man-made laws, being enforced by mathematics, have begun to reorganize a society. The frictionless flow of bitcoin allows us to diverge from the mainstream of national currency that keeps us in a debt spiral; it allows us to transcend borders and bypass checkpoints. Voluntary association formed through this free speech money is creating a new economy, fueling innovations and opportunities for jobs.

Every 10 minutes, the heart of Bitcoin beats, setting computers around the world in motion. From developers to miners and users running full nodes that relay and validate transactions, together, all engage in computing as an act of civil disobedience, keeping the network decentralized. As we collectively dissent, the wealth of the network rises, securing equality and liberty as unalienable universal rights for all people.

This is an op ed contribution by Nozomi Hayase. Views expressed are her own and do not necessarily reflect those of Bitcoin Magazine or BTC Inc.

View original post here:
Bitcoin Is the Technology of Dissent That Secures Individual Liberties - Bitcoin Magazine

NASHVILLE, TN On the last Friday of February, the Resolutions Committee of the National Association of Religious Broadcasters (NRB) published six significant resolutions in conjunction with its annual convention in Nashville.The sixth and final resolution applies to the preservation of certain inalienable rights recognized by the United States Declaration of Independence and our Constitution.The Resolution Urging the Supreme Court to Uphold Religious Liberty as a Primary and not Secondary Right was drafted in response to the case of Obergefell v. Hodges in which the SCOTUS ruled in favor of the legality of same-sex marriages. That decision, carried by a vote of 5-4, requires that states must license same-sex marriages and recognize such licenses issued by other states.

The Supreme Court Ruling

The Family Research Council rightly concluded that the court had no jurisdiction that would permit it to take on the role of a social policymaker. Rather than ruling on a constitution issue, the court became an arbiter of flawed human reasoning.

Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in his dissenting opinion that:

With each decision that is unabashedly based not on law, but on the reasoned judgment of a bare majority of this Court we move one step closer to being reminded of our impotence.

Justice Clarence Thomas also dissented, saying,

The [courts] decision (has) potentially ruinous consequences for religious liberty.

Samuel Alito struck a similar chord warning that:

Those who cling to old beliefs will be able to whisper their thoughts in the recesses of their homes, but if they repeat those views in public, they will risk being labeled as bigots and treated as such by governments, employers, and schools.

The NRB Resolution

Recognizing the onset of potentially ruinous consequences foreseen by Justice Thomas, the NRB resolution noted, in part, that:

Lawsuits are arising across the nation where state or local laws that provide protection for sexual orientation and gender identity are colliding with the Free Exercise of Religion and Free Speech rights of Christian ministries, and Christian business people who find that aspects of such laws are a substantial burden on their rights of conscience and freedom of religion as well as freedom of speech.

Therefore, the NRB urged the United States Supreme Court to:

Resolve this tension that exists between recently created laws intended to protect the categories of sexual orientation and gender identity on the one hand and the historic and fundamental rights of free exercise of religions and freedom of speech on the other hand, by determining that religious freedom and freedom of speech are primary and not subservient liberties, and in the event of a conflict between those laws and such fundamental rights, that religious liberty and freedom of speech must prevail.

Being a Christian and being an American are two distinctly different things. To live in America as a Christian is a blessing which, if not fully recognized, could have a tranquilizing effect on us such that we lose it by taking it for granted.

Justice Alito summed it up when he said, upon rendering his dissent,

Most Americans understandably will cheer or lament todays decision because of their views on the issue of same-sex marriage. But all Americans, whatever their thinking on that issue, should worry about what the [court] majoritys claim of power portends.

Thank you to the board of the NRB for standing up to be heard on behalf of the faithful Christ-followers in America.

To read more news on Religious Liberty on Missions Box, go here.

Go here to see the original:
NRB Resolves that Religious Liberty & Freedom of Speech Must Prevail - MissionsBox

The line between freedom of speech and the freedom to incite violence is one of the hardest distinctions to put into practice. Toby Young, however, who has recently created the Free Speech Union, may have a better idea than most.

Two years ago, when Theresa May was still the prime minister of the United Kingdom, the Conservative Party appointed Toby Young as a member of the Board of the Office for Students. Despite it being an unpaid position, Young quickly accepted it, and yet within a few days, he had not only lost that job but four others.

Young suffered from the sordid affliction of conservatism, and because of this, his qualifications were overlooked. Almost as soon as he was appointed, legions of offence archaeologists began to excavate through decades of articlesinevitably digging up artifacts that would soon cost him his livelihood.

They dug up some stuff, took it out of context, and portrayed me as a bigot, said Young. It was trial by social media: guilty until proven innocent and, by the way, youre not going to have a chance to defend yourself. I ended up not only having to step down from the regulator, but also from four other positions, including my day job running an education charity. It was brutalI lost two stone.

By appointing Youngwho perhaps was even an overqualified candidatethe British Conservative Party had committed the unpardonable sin. They had appointed someone with the exact virtues needed for the position: industry knowledge, a public profile, and, most importantly, outspoken and lucid principles. And yet, it was precisely these qualities that led to Youngs downfall.

Within hours, the platoons of the progressives had trudged through decades of articles and social media posts. At one point, all ten of the Spectators most viewed articles in their archive, which dates back to 1828, were authored by Young. As the editor of Spectator noted, Youngs army of detractors were hard at work.

Youngs ordeal is not as remote as it may seem. These tacticsowing in part to their efficacyhave begun to seep into democracy itself. Take, for instance, Justin Trudeaus tactics in the 2019 election, where the Liberal apparatus took the form of a constant barrage of oppo research deployed against Conservative candidates.

Mercifully enough for the Conservatives, the state-funded offence excavator, indulgent in its smugness, was retired after Justin Trudeaus penchant for blackface emerged. Nevertheless, within a few weeks, the Liberal Party had time to craft and exhibit the online transgressions of six separate opposition candidates.

All this has sent an unequivocal message to Conservatives: If you dare oppose the prevailing orthodoxy of the dayor in the case of those Conservative candidates, dare oppose Canadas natural governing partyyou will suffer first public humiliation and then unemployment.

Free speech has never been in more peril across the Anglosphere than at any time since the Second World War, said Young. Why? Because the regressive Left has launched a ferocious attack on free speech and the progressive Left doesnt have the intestinal fortitude to defend it.

As a result of this, Young has launched the first major revolt against those who no longer value free-speech or ideological diversity. With a group of internationally recognized academics, public intellectuals, and journalists, Young has created the Free Speech Union,aimed at defending those who have exercised their right to free speech. I want to stop the same thing happening to other people, which is why Ive set up the union, said Young.

The Free Speech Union is perhaps the only available means to defend yourself against the tactics of the far-left. If you are a member, the union will mobilize an army of supporters to defend you against outrage mobs. They will also launch counter-petitions, defend you in the media, and provide legal assistance whenever it is reasonably possible.

We will challenge outrage mobs in a variety of ways, said Young. If bullies come after one of our members on social media, well go after them. If the woke witch-finders start a petition demanding that one of our members is fired, well start a counter-petition. If one of our British-based members faces a disciplinary processor is firedwell give them access to legal advice and, if necessary, help them crowd-fund to pay their costs. The enemies of free speech hunt in packs; its defenders need to band together too.

Speaking to The Post Millennial, the prolific Canadian editor of Quillette Jonathan Kay commended the ambition of the union. I hope it works, he said. Kay, however, did express caution over the capability of the union: the problem is that if somebody really wants to cancel someone, the pressure points come from within their own professional milieus. The cancellers dont care if youre in some kind of free speech union. It would only work if thousands and thousands of people joined it.

The good news is that the Free Speech Union is well on its way to garnering this support. Speaking about the reception the Union has received, Young said that it has been very well received by conservatives and by some members of the progressive left.

One example of this is the Conservative leadership candidate Erin OToole, who told The Post Millennial that free speech is the foundation of a free and democratic society. Conservatives need to stand united against the threat posed by cancel culture. The left is trying to intimidate into silence conservativesand even those on the left who question the most extreme views. This is a real threat that we need to take seriously.

The Free Speech Union has suffered some criticism from the usual candidates. The regressive Left, for instance, have done their best to portray it as an organization thats been set up to protect male, pale and stale conservatives like me from the consequences of hate speech.

This attempted portrayal may be a difficult task for Youngs army of detractors. So far, the five-person Board of Directors includes a gay man and a woman of colour, making the Free Speech Union, as Young said, more diverse, in every sense, than the BBC.

Speaking on the necessity for free speech, Young paraphrased Ira Glasser, the former head of the ACLU: speech restrictions are like poison gas. They seem like a great weapon when youve got your target in sight. But then the wind shifts.

Combative metaphors aside, it would be more constructive for the regressive left to join the union, or at least not work against it. After all, Youngs detractors proclaim themselves to be liberals. Shouldnt they commit to a cause that defends the central tenet of liberalism: free speech? To silence any voice is to impoverish the world and our decision-making capacity. The free speech Young is trying to protect is our individual liberty: we negate it at our cost.

Read more:
The Guardian is not a fan of Toby Young or free speech - The Post Millennial