Monthly Archives: February 2022

In 2017, as fear and loathing of Donald Trump seized the nation, a U.S. mayor got a four-star resort to cancel a conservative conference by threatening to withdraw police and fire protection.

With all the media blubbering about attempts to DESTROY our democracy and violations of constitutional norms, its remarkable that this Howitzer blast to the First Amendment has received barely any attention, much less the front-page coverage it deserves, not even from the conservative press.The banned conference, you see, was about immigration.

Wow, our elites really dont want Americans thinking about immigration! (Remember, kids: Its a right-wing conspiracy theory and racist, to boot! to think that liberals are using mass immigration to change the country.)

The sponsor of the conference was VDARE, a long-standing immigration website espousing ideas that are basically identical to Trumps 2016 immigration promises both before he made them and after he broke them. The main difference is that the arguments on VDARE are expressed in proper English, and the writers actually believe what they say.

As the 2016 election demonstrated, these ideas are quite popular with a certain segment of voters. Not everyone, just enough to elect a president no one thought could ever be elected, who was loathed by the media, and who was outspent 2-to-1.

Named for Virginia Dare, the first European born on U.S soil, VDARE promotes the novel idea that U.S. immigration policy should benefit Americans. (Obviously, that includes white, Hispanic, Asian and black Americans whom, by the way, mass immigration hurts the most.) Naturally, therefore, it has been designated a white supremacist website by the countrys largest hate group, the Southern Poverty Law Center.

Four months after VDARE signed a contract to hold its annual conference at the Cheyenne Mountain Resort in Colorado Springs, the local mayor, John Suthers nominee for the Liz Cheney Profiles in Courage Award! issued a public announcement accusing VDARE of engaging in hate speech and urging the resort to cancel (OK, whatever), but also vowing to deny any support or resources to this event if the resort honored the contract.

Hey antifa, in case anybodys interested if you firebomb this conference, we wont be sending any firetrucks. And if you want to attack the attendees, there wont be any police showing up to stop you.The next day, the resort canceled the contract and, per the agreement, paid a kill fee. VDARE sued the mayor, alleging a violation of its First Amendment rights.

Heres the frightening part: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit (one Obama judge and two G.W. Bush judges; one dissent) found for the mayor on the grounds that its possible that the resort canceled NOT because the mayor announced that there would be no police or fire protection, but because of CHARLOTTESVILLE!

Which VDARE had nothing to do with. (Again, VDARE is an immigration website, not a street protest organization.)

If the Supreme Court does not agree to take up this case and brutally slap down the 10th Circuit, free speech will be officially limited to speech acceptable to antifa, working hand-in-hand with liberal mayors and governors.

I have long maintained that the left never truly cared about free speech. They merely pretended to in order to protect the people they actually supported: communists and pornographers. That was the sort of speech that used to get banned.

But today, the speech that gets banned includes statements like: There are only two genders; Maybe we shouldnt defund the police; Affirmative action is unjust; Masks dont work No they work! No, they dont work! Also, apparently, speech asserting that mass immigration has not been an unalloyed good for our country, contributing to our prosperity, cohesiveness and happiness.

One of Justice William Brennans hallowed quotes is: [T]he government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable. Those stirring words were in defense of flag-burning. And heres a famous one from Justice William O. Douglas: Restriction of free thought and free speech is the most dangerous of all subversions. It is the one un-American act that could most easily defeat us. That was about communists.

But ever since conservative speech became the target of censors, liberals adore governmental suppression of speech. (The one, lone exception that proves the rule: Nadine Strossen, former president of the ACLU and author of HATE: Why We Should Resist It With Free Speech, Not Censorship.)

As the 10th Circuit explained, conservative speakers should have no expectation of police and fire protection. Specifically, the majority opinion declared: What VDARE wanted, it had no right to demand municipal resources to monitor a private entitys private event. (Monitor? How about That the city not refuse to send police officers and firetrucks?)

So I guess we can forget that sonorous horse crap about the First Amendment protecting ideas that society finds offensive or disagreeable. The lefts new model is a public-private partnership to prohibit speech unacceptable to Joy Ann Reid.

Henceforth, blue states and cities will be free to shut down conservative speakers, MAGA meetings, Daughters of the American Revolution gatherings or anti-mask protests. Some jackass mayor will claim that the conservatives are threatening to engage in hate speech and deny them police and fire protection (then sit back and wait for the accolades from the media).

With midterms approaching, conservatives are feeling giddy. Everything the left holds dear open borders, racial equity, Defund the Police, critical race theory is toxic to voters. Woo hoo! Were winning!Not so fast, patriots. While you fist-pump, liberals are busy institutionalizing the censorship of conservatives throughout the nation. You want to talk about institutional bias? How about the systemic bias against any ideas unacceptable to progressives being baked into American society?

If the Supreme Court fails to overturn the outrageous opinion in VDARE Foundation v. City of Colorado Springs, free speechs gravestone will read: Bedrock principle of a nation; 1791-2022.

View original post here:
Have at em antifa! The new free speech - Lake County Record-Bee

The American Booksellers Association Town Hall, originally set to be held during its since-canceled Winter Institute, was held virtually yesterday afternoon. The hour-long program drew almost 200 participants, with booksellers celebrating the boards increased diversity, but also concerned about tweaks made this past fall to the ABA Ends Policies, when it committed to freedom of expression that excludes hate speech.

The meeting was presided over by Christine Onorati, the owner of WORD Bookstore in Brooklyn and in Jersey City, N.J., who became board president last month following the resignation of Bradley Graham, the co-owner of Politics and Prose in Washington.

Kelly Estep, co-owner of Carmichaels Bookstore in Louisville, Ky. continues as v-p and Angela Mara Spring, the owner of the Duende District pop-up outlets in the Washington, D.C. metro area and Albuquerque, N.M., has now stepped up to become co-v-p. Onorati noted that Spring represents both non-traditional store models as well as the Latinx community. The board, Onorati added, has prioritized its commitment to equity and representation, and we feel that having our leadership reflect that is an important start. Spring noted that she is the first person of color to become an ABA board officer.

Our current board of directors may be the most diverse in ABAs history in terms of race, sexuality, gender, neurodiversity, region, and store model, Onorati noted, These different perspectives represent the diversity of our membership, the diversity of our bookstore customers, and the future of our industry and the world. They also inform changes in Ends Policies which are the only direct influence the board has on ABAs work. Those changes may be departures from the past, but they are still very much in line with ABAs historical value of freedom of expression as well as its more recently stated values: anti-racism, representation, access, and equity.

This board fully believes that a welcoming, respectful, and diverse ABA is not at odds with the interests of our bookselling industry: in fact, it strengthens it, Onorati stressed.

ABA's Commitment to Freedom of Expression

In response to several bookseller questions about the ABAs new stance at a time when book banning is intensifying around the U.S., board member Danny Caine, the co-owner of The Raven Book Store in Lawrence, Kan. responded: As a board we determined we needed to make the change in order to better marry ABAs value of freedom of expression with its commitment to equity, access, and anti-racism. We felt the need to listen to under-represented voices and protect everyone, including the most vulnerable members of our community, while protecting vital freedoms. We firmly believe we can and must work towards anti-racism and against censorship at the same time. The Ends Policies are meant to reflect that.

ABA executive director Allison Hill added her voice to the discussion, noting that the ABA was one of the co-signers of the National Coalition Against Censorships recent statement against book banning. Hill also attempted to diffuse the controversy over the language of the Ends Policies by pointing out that one of the beautiful things about the Ends Policies is that its re-visited every summer."

When Books & Books [Coral Gables, Fla.] owner Mitchell Kaplan requested more transparency regarding the process leading up to board actions, board member Melanie Knight, a bookseller at Books Inc. in San Francisco, Calif. pointed out that ABA members have an impact on the board's direction by filling out surveys, participating in ABACUS, serving on councils," adding, "you cant vote on the Ends Policies, but you do vote to nominate candidates, the board of directors.

Onorati reiterated that the board wants member input. Were listening to our members. Were listening sometimes, to the people who are talking the most. Again, another plea to engage, to reach out. Were here to listen, we really do try to listen to what our members are saying. That was a big part in how we came to our decision.

Hill also updated members on Amazon. One of the top priorities, if not the very top priority, is antitrust work, she said, It has been since the day I got here. Noting that the ABA has to be very cautious about sharing information about what it is doing to counter Amazons reach into the marketplace, Hill said the lobbying and coalition-building are having an impact. Weve been asked about sharing some information from our White paper [about Amazons predatory business practices] which were updating. We had a meeting where we offered to share information and we had 80 people from the attorney generals offices across the country show up for that.

"The regulation and the break-up of Amazon is forthcoming," she insisted, "But its a long road. Weve been on it for a while, but were definitely seeing signs of hope. Were seeing signs of bipartisan hope and were prioritizing it. Its happening.

The ABA will hold its next Town Hall on May 26.

Excerpt from:
ABA Town Hall Focuses on Board's Commitment to Free Speech - Publishers Weekly

So, in 2012, we set out to understand what is really happening on campuses. This was no easy task. We spent five years visiting 10 vastly different campuses, carrying out over 2,000 intensive interviews, each lasting an hour, on average. On each campus, we interviewed approximately 50 incoming students and 50 graduating students, as well as faculty, senior administrators, trustees, young alums, parents, and job recruiters.

What we found surprised us, to say the least.

Contrary to what one might gather from the press, the vast majority of students are not preoccupied with political correctness, free speech issues, or even costs. What they are worried about, however, are their GPAs and resumes. They struggle with mental health challenges and widespread feelings that they dont belong and of alienation from peers, the academic agenda, or the ethos of their institution.

While there remains much to admire about our higher education system, the sector has lost its way and stands in considerable peril. And our sobering conclusion was reached well before the COVID-19 pandemic, which has proved disruptive for all institutions, most especially for the less affluent ones.

This is not to say the college experience is a lost cause. Indeed, at its best, it presents a unique opportunity to learn, explore, prepare for the future and even transform oneself. But if higher education is to be successful in the 21st century, it needs to be sharply reframed.

IF, IN 2012, YOU HAD ASKED US to list the biggest problems on campuses, we might have cited alcohol, sexual misconduct, or possibly free speech issues. Mental health probably would not have made the short list. A decade later, we can confirm what those who spend time on campuses have known for some time: Mental health challenges are a major problem.

While some might attribute this to students being overly coddled, or social media causing students to feel more loneliness and social anxiety, the majority of students in our study described a different cause altogether: an overwhelming pressure to do well and build the perfect resume.

Among students, the most common explanation about why mental health is the most important problem on campus was academic rigor the pressure of academics. But what exactly is that pressure? Is it about learning difficult content? Or preparing for exams or writing papers? Or building a favorable transcript to get a job or get into graduate school?

Their most frequent explanation focused on achieving external measures of success securing a high grade-point average, or doing well on an exam. I know a lot of kids who ... get super stressed out over grades and they get really anxious about it, one first-year student told us. Intense people make like, You have to have a good GPA, you have to have As and stuff.

Friendship issues were also a source of stress making new ones, as well as managing difficult dynamics. Some specifically linked feelings of loneliness with mental health issues.

Others described cutthroat social environments or an unhealthy school culture where students feel as though they are in constant competition with others, as well as having to be on all the time to keep up with peers. I think the atmosphere of competition and so much pressure to perform to be the best really, probably, is the driving factor behind a lot of mental issues, one student said. Its just not a place where people feel like they can talk about it with other people, because it would be admitting weaknesses.

Many others reported feeling like they dont belong to the academics of their school, their peers, and/or their institution. As one school administrator told us, Theres lots of strangers around here, and theyve come from a high school where they probably knew most of everybody, and they come here and they dont know hardly anybody.

IT IS ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE to speak about higher education or education at all without addressing diversity. Indeed, the majority of people in our study used the word without prompting. While some focused on diversity of thoughts and ideas, others considered its importance in terms of the wide range of academic disciplines, or highlighted demographic differences.

Students spoke about diversity in both positive and negative ways. On the one hand, they valued opportunities to get to know people with different backgrounds, become familiar with varying perspectives, and participate in new activities; but they also acknowledged and sometimes complained about the lack of diversity on their particular campus. Not a single student in our study maintained that there was too much diversity.

And while some focused on positive experiences that exposed them to people of different backgrounds, students also described a lot of problems with respect to these social groups. In general, they believe these problems are mostly caused by a lack of tolerance and empathy for difference, as well as the use of exclusionary language, such as racial and homophobic slurs.

Students complained that others did not truly understand them, and as a result, they separated into groups of students that are most like them. Some also believed that their peers didnt know how to conduct productive conversations about issues of race, which often led to frustration. Some talked about blatant discrimination, intolerance, and general insensitivity, aimed especially at minority groups.

The Black students, we feel that some people here dont really fully understand what it means to be a person of color in general, everything that you have to go through, one first-year student said. And definitely, there are people here who understand. But yeah, its just like sometimes you feel like you dont really fit in.

SO WHAT ARE THE CAUSES of these problems, and what are the solutions? One problem is what we call mission sprawl. Nearly all institutions of higher education have a mission statement. At most schools, they touch on numerous separate issues; it is a rare school that has a single major mission and adheres to it. Most schools, in effect, say they are trying to be all things to all people.

Our remedy? From the day of admission, if not before, students need to be introduced and guided toward the primary academic goals of their campus and encouraged to draw on its academic resources: faculty, library, museums, research labs, writing centers. Too often, key introductory experiences such as college tours focus on things like dormitories, food, clubs, sports, and other pointedly nonacademic features. From the start, the campus needs to onboard the students helping students to understand and belong to an entire community of learners, dealing with their health issues as much and as soon as possible, and supporting them throughout.

Another problem we see is what we refer to as projectitis, the seemingly endless proliferation of offices, positions, and centers that bewilder students, when they are even noticed.

On campus after campus, we found a multitude of extracurricular or other activities some initiated by students, some by faculty and staff, yet others due to endowments, newly acquired funds, or current buzzwords. To be clear, such activities can be meritorious; but on a campus, projectitis often exacerbates the problem of mission sprawl. Most people on campus do not know or care about the full range of possibilities offered, and what students need or want is often invisible, sidelined, or is overwhelmed by other glitzier entities on campus.

On occasion, it is salutary to launch new initiatives to meet newly identified priorities. But projects, centers, and initiatives need to be

curated over time and pruned or eliminated when no longer helpful. Keystone programs should be vetted by the community; they should reflect what the school truly values, embody how the institution operates, and be effective in demonstrable ways.

Its also important that courses and programs of study are clearly and carefully explained, with expectations spelled out and student progress monitored regularly. The launching of common courses taken by all students is strongly encouraged; as is the avoidance of high-stake grading, particularly in the opening years. In introductory courses, grading should be light and formative, with plenty of opportunity for feedback and support and, optimally, improvements in performance.

Imagine a situation where students believe that they are welcome, that they belong, that they understand the fundamental educational goal of college, are not having to serve many competing masters, and dont feel pressed to get only straight As. Under those favorable circumstances, students mental health stresses will be reduced, and they will be better prepared for the rewards that college can uniquely provide the opportunities to explore, and, possibly, to be transformed.

Wendy Fischman is a project director at the Harvard Graduate School of Education, where Howard Gardner is a research professor. This story was adapted from their forthcoming book The Real World of College: What Higher Education Is and What It Can Be by Wendy Fischman and Howard Gardner, published by The MIT Press. All rights reserved. Send comments to magazine@globe.com.

Go here to read the rest:
No, college students arent obsessed with free speech. Heres what they do worry about. - The Boston Globe

Content

This content can also be viewed on the site it originates from.

Listen and subscribe: Apple | Spotify | Google | Wherever You Listen

Sign up to receive our weekly newsletter of the best New Yorker podcasts.

The author William Deresiewicz, who formerly taught English at Yale University, describes what he sees as essential threats to free speechand ultimately to the process of educationon campuses across the country. Students, he says, are afraid to speak their minds, in fear of a backlash. Deresiewicz sees the impact of cancel culture extending well beyond newsworthy cancellations of prominent people. For every high-profile cancellation... there are a hundred, say, low-profile cancellations that dont get picked up, Deresiewicz tells David Remnick. And, even more importantly, for every one of those, there are a thousand people... who just keep their mouth shut.

Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, on the other hand, argues that cancel culture isnt real. Its largely, she says, an excuse made by those on the political right to lodge their own restrictions on what can be said in the public sphere. Kliph Nesteroff, a historian of comedy, agrees with that assessment. There used to be this conceit, a few years agoTheyre going to take your guns away, he says; now the refrain is Theyre going to take your jokes away. Theyre going to take your comedians! Its the same sort of element driving the narrative. Pushback to jokes at the expense of marginalized people is nothing new, Nesteroff explains. He offers the example of Native Americans protesting insulting portrayals in silent films more than a century ago. But social media has brought these criticisms into the public consciousness. Its not even cancel culture. Its just culture, Nesteroff says. The history of America is a tug-of-war between opposing forcespowerful forces versus weak forces.

Read the original post:
Free Speech in Comedy Clubs and on Campus - The New Yorker

Rudy Giuliani went on Newsmax this week and claimed to have evidence related to Hillary Clinton in either his bedroom or his den. The former New York City mayor said on air, they may feel that its gobbledygook. But its gobbledygook supported by about a thousand pieces of evidence, none of which has been revealed yet. I happen to have it in my bedroom, or my den actually. Ive had it there for years. If this supposed evidence exists, its possible that Giuliani broke the law by withholding it from the authorities.

At the very least, it wouldnt make sense for Rudy to be holding on to documents that would damage one of Donald Trumps key political adversaries. However, with Rudy Giuliani, the veracity of the claim itself has to be put into question because he has such a long record of lying to the public, most notably last year when he was going around the country claiming his boss was the victim of widespread voter fraud.

The David Pakman Show is a news and political talk program, known for its controversial interviews with political and religious extremists, liberal and conservative politicians, and other guests.

Missed an episode? Check out David Pakman on our Youtube Channel anytime or visit the show page for the latest clips.

#FreeSpeechTV is one of the last standing national, independent news networks committed to advancing progressive social change.

#FSTV is available on Dish, DirectTV, AppleTV, Roku, Sling, and online at freespeech.org

#davidpakmanshow Donald Trump Giuliani broke the law Hillary Clinton New York City Rudy Giuliani The David Pakman Show

Go here to see the original:
Rudy Giuliani Found Evidence Related to Hillary Clinton - Free Speech TV

[Editors note: WatchNot My Partyevery week on Snapchat.]

Various and sundry: Shh! Shh! Shh! Shh! Shh!

News anchor 1: The so-called Dont Say Gay bill

News anchor 2: The controversial bill

Ben Shapiro: Dont Say Gay bill.

Tim Miller: Wait, is this The Silence of the Gays?

Shapiro: I dont understand why this is remotely controversial. . . . Tim Miller, because hes gay and he has kids, hes very upset about this.

Miller: Damn right I am. And Im tired of your hypocritical free speech bull**** act.

This is Not My Party, brought to you by The Bulwark. For the past few weeks, the internets most brazen defenders of free speech have been yelling about how Joe Rogan is getting canceled.

Shapiro: Make no mistake . . . this is a freedom-of-speech issue.

Miller: They say that we must defend poor Joe and his hundred-Milli bag from the woke mob thats out to get him.

Peter Venkman: Poor, poor man.

Podcast February 18 2022

With two Arctic powers in crisis, David Frum joins Charlie Sykes to cover the waterfront:

Miller: In case you missed it, the backstory is that Rogan basically had some anti-vax lunatics on the show and said the N-word a few times back in the day. So the keyboard warriors are calling for Spotify to deplatform him.

Dakota Stanley (Whit Hertford in Glee): Get off my stage!

Miller: And well, my opinion is that Rogan has said some dumb s***, but isnt that kind of his brand?

Joe Rogan: F*** yeah.

Miller: If he wants to do deep dives with conspiratorial cranks on his show, its only natural that the internets gonna make fun of him for it. And from time to time hell lose a sponsor. But thats not a big threat to free speech. Thats the free market at work, baby.

Gordon Gekko: Capitalism at its finest.

Miller: But the cancel culture catastrophists seem to disagree with that.

Shapiro: We all understand what this is . . . which is an attempt . . . to deplatform Rogan!

Miller: So I dont know, I like free speech but I have trouble taking these complaints seriously cause (1) Rogan continues to kill ithes not canceled! And (2), the people always obsessing over left-wing cancel culture seem to change their tune when its the libs getting silenced.

Cletus Spuckler: Prove it!

Miller: Case in point: Have you heard about this new proposal in Florida?

News anchor 3: Dont Say Gay bill

Miller: Gay. Heres what it actually says:

Reporter 1 voiceover: Schools cannot encourage classroom discussion about sexual orientation or gender identity.

Miller: One Republican [state] senator gave an example of a type of homework assignment this would ban: If a word problem said Sally has two moms or Johnny has two dads.

Homer Simpsons: I never thought such a thing was possible!

Miller: To enforce the ban, the state would give crocodile Karens free rein to sue any school that got too gay for comfort.

iDubbbz: Im gay!

Lionel Hutz: Fine, well see you in court.

Miller: Now this is obviously insane, retrograde s***. It would mean a gay teacher couldnt even mention their husband? My kid could be banned for making this super-cute valentine? You would think the free speech-defenders would side with the gays on this one. Right?

Woman on How I Met Your Mother: Right?

Man: Right?

Miller: But nope, Trumps heir apparent and the top right-wing media personality are both all about it.

Reporter 2 voiceover: Governor DeSantis gave his clearest indication yet that he supports this bill.

Stan Smith: Gays!

Shapiro: As a family-values conservative, I do not feel that it is appropriate for you to be teaching my child about two lesbian mommies or two homosexual daddies. . . . I dont understand why the priorities of Tim Miller or the teachers should take priority over the parents.

Miller: This little Napoleon seriously wants the state to put teachers back in the closet? What, now they have to take their family photo off their desk and stuff it in the drawer just because this guy got stuffed in lockers as a kid?

Shapiro (singing Javerts song Stars from Les Misrables): Mine is the way of the Lord.

Miller: Heres Ben on whether teachers should fear reprisal if they dont obey.

Shapiro: First of all, they should always feel like theyre on thin ice.

Miller: So let me get this straight, when the Twitterati get #CancelJoeRogan trending, these free-speech activists rush to his defense. But when a teacher gets in trouble for mentioning their happy gay family, thats totally cool?

Leslie Knope: Does anyone else here see a double standard?

Miller: There are similar proposals in eight states. Texas is removing gay YA books, Kansas banning any depictions of homosexuality, and Tennessee anything that normalizes the gay lifestyle.

Stan Smith: You cant live a gay lifestyle!

Sassy Gay Friend (Brian Gallivan): Slow down, crazy, slow down.

Miller: Look, Im sympathetic to the view that left-wing cancel culture can go too far. We did an episode on it a while back. But you cant just stand up for free speech when it happens to be politically convenient for you. Barking about protecting speech and then leading a silencing campaign when it suits you is pretty sus.

Dean Pelton (Jim Rash on Community): Well, I guess we dont see our patterns until theyre all laid out in front of us.

Miller: As for Florida, hopefully cooler heads will prevail and the state wont put teachers and kids like mine in the closet. But in the meantime, if you live there, write to your state legislator and tell em what you think. And well see you next week for more Not My Party.

And hey Ben, since youve been watching, would love to have a longform debate with you anytime.

Shapiro: Bring the hammer.

Mushu: This is gonna be good!

See the rest here:
Ben Shapiro, Free Speech, and the Dont Say Gay Bill - The Bulwark

Does the First Amendment still protect free speech?

Cronkite School Dean Battinto L. Batts Jr. will join legal scholars Jody David Armour of USC and Eugene Volokh of UCLA, and attorney Jean-Paul Jassy to discuss how to protect free expression while also protecting society from the misuse of that freedom in an event sponsored by Zcalo.

This event will take place at the ASU California Center in Los Angeles and streamed online. The discussion will start at 7 p.m. PST in Los Angeles and 8 p.m. MST in Arizona.

Proof of vaccination (at least two weeks after the final dose) and face coverings will be required for those attending in person. It is recommended attendees have a negative COVID test prior to attending the event. You can find more information here.

Go here to see the original:
Does the First Amendment still protect free speech? - Walter Cronkite School of Journalism and Mass Communication

A bank used by MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell has chosen to cut ties with him due to fear of risk to its reputation. The Minnesota Bank & Trust terminated its relationship with Lindell after warning they would do so if he didnt voluntarily close his accounts. The pillow tycoon went on Steve Bannons show War Room to discuss the situation. Lindell said, I just got served the papers. Theyre closing my account at Minnesota Bank & Trust, thats Heartland Financial Inc. . . . Well the cowards served this paper on Friday afternoon after the close of business.

They didnt even bother to sign it. Of course, having a bank account, especially at a particular institution is not a legal right and Lindell is not being oppressed here. Conservatives used to argue all the time that private businesses have the right to choose the people with whom they want to do business. But now their talking points have changed so that when a right-winger isnt accommodated to, its all of a suddenly canceled culture and an infringement of free speech.

The David Pakman Show is a news and political talk program, known for its controversial interviews with political and religious extremists, liberal and conservative politicians, and other guests.

Missed an episode? Check out David Pakman on our Youtube Channel anytime or visit the show page for the latest clips.

#FreeSpeechTV is one of the last standing national, independent news networks committed to advancing progressive social change.

#FSTV is available on Dish, DirectTV, AppleTV, Roku, Sling, and online at freespeech.org

War Room #davidpakmanshow Heartland Financial infringement of free speech Mike Lindell Minnesota Bank MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell private businesses Steve Bannon

See the original post here:
Minnesota Bank & Trust Terminated Its Relationship With Mike Lindell - Free Speech TV

Image sourced from The Economic Times.

This article is published under the Opinions Section of The Skidmore News.

In May 2020, when the pandemic was still in its infancy, Spotify paid over $100,000,000 to become the exclusive platform of mixed martial arts commentator Joe Rogans popular Joe Rogan Experience (JRE) podcast. Now, nearly 2 years later, this decision, which received relatively little media coverage at the time, is coming back to bite them. In the interim, Rogan has built a reputation for medical misinformation, promoting unsupported alternative therapies for COVID-19 and telling his audience that they do not need to get vaccinated. He also has come under fire for using his platform to spread hatred toward minorities to his millions of listeners, having repeatedly used anti-Black racial slurs and compared transgender people to satanic ritual abuse.

This controversy came to a head on January 24, 2022, when multi-Platinum certified Canadian singer-songwriter Neil Young demanded that Spotify stop distributing Rogan or they would lose access to his own discography. Two days later, all of his music was removed from the site, and in the subsequent days, multiple other artists joined Young in pulling music and podcasts, most notably Joni Mitchell.

The effect was swift. Spotifys market value plummeted more than $4,000,000,000 in the week following the announcement, and many subscribers scrambled to cancel their subscriptions. In an attempt at damage control, Spotify published content guidelines (which still do not seem to affect Rogan) and claimed that they would place content warnings before podcasts discussing COVID-19. Meanwhile, after it was revealed that over 100 episodes of the podcast contained Rogan saying racial slurs, Spotify removed these episodes (though allowed numerous other episodes promoting hate to remain available).

Meanwhile, Rogan has become the latest right wing celebrity to play the victim of cancel culture, with others parading him as a warrior for free speech. However, commentators that reduce this controversy to free speech completely misunderstand the situation. This was never about free speech.

Free speech is one of the most frequently misunderstood topics in US political discourse, so it is important to remember the original definition:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. -Amendment I, US Constitution

Astute readers will notice that this law does not mention private corporations or platforms. This is because it does not guarantee a right to a platform. The First Amendments only stipulation about speech is that the US government may not restrict it by act of Congress. There is no right to a platform, nor a requirement for any other individual or entity to listen to, support, or amplify ones speech.

Spotify is a private corporation. As such, people are in no way entitled to hosting on Spotify, and Spotify can enforce its own terms of service. The same is true of all streaming services and social media platforms; since these entities are not parts of the US government, the First Amendment does not negate their terms of service and prevent them from controlling what they host on their site.

The issue of freedom of speech is therefore not relevant to whether or not Spotify should host Joe Rogan. If they were to remove his show, his First Amendment rights would not be violated, as the government would not be using any legislative means to restrict his speech. He would still be able to say anything he wants to, he simply would not have a multi-billion-dollar corporation broadcasting his words to millions of listeners every week. Additionally, Spotify paid Rogan over $100,000,000 for the exclusive rights to his podcast. There is no right to being paid for ones speech, either, and while Spotify cannot rescind the money they have given him, they could choose to avoid future deals.

Nor is Neil Youngs protest a violation of any individuals right to freedom of speech. As Young explicitly stated himself, I support free speech. I have never been in favor of censorship. Private companies have the right to choose what they profit from, just as I can choose not to have my music support a platform that disseminates harmful information. Young is also not the government, and in asking Spotify to choose between him and Rogan, he was allowing them as a corporation to make a choice. They chose Rogan, and Young exercised his own choice to remove the music. There is no obligation for Young to keep his music on any platform that he does not support.

As Young said, Spotify can choose whom they promote and profit off of, and they have exercised this choice before. In 2017, after the deadly Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, Spotify and other streaming services removed many artists who promoted white nationalism and racism, and the mainstream political establishment had no similar outcry about free speech at the time. This is not that different from the situation then, as Rogan has been criticized for repeatedly using racial slurs and for promoting false and hateful ideas about minorities. However, from an optics standpoint, defending Rogan is seen as much more acceptable than defending small racist artists, so the establishment rallies around him.

The public cannot control Spotifys decisions of what artists to platform, and can debate endlessly about whether or not Rogan should be removed from the site, but that is a separate discussion. The author of this piece is of the opinion that he should be removed, due to his promotion of vaccine misinformation and hate. However, framing this as a freedom of speech issue is incorrect from a legal perspective and distracts from actual discourse about the responsibility of corporations, disinformation, and platforming.

Read the rest here:
Joe Rogan and Spotify: It Isn't About Free Speech The Skidmore News - Skidmore News

The Conservative Party Chair and Minister without Portfolio, Oliver Dowden, made headlines on Tuesday after a speech at the Washington-based Conservative thinktank the Heritage Foundation. In his speech Dowden lambasted woke ideology, berated cancel culture and even argued that these concepts constitute a new brand of modern Maoism.

Despite this sabre rattling, it is clear that this is not an administration that cares about free speech. While Dowden uses the language of cancel culture to defend a free society, the government is fast finalising plans for a censors charter which Dowden himself helped craft during his time as Culture Secretary. The Online Safety Bill, as it is formally known, promises to be one of the most damaging pieces of legislation to free speech in the UK in living memory.

This Bill as currently drafted gives express state-backing to social media censorship and specifically targets lawful expression in a way that will do untold damage to free speech in Britain. Plans to tackle lawful speech free speech to you and me that the government believes to be harmful could include statements that risk, even indirectly, an adverse psychological impact. This is such an absurdly broad definition that it would encapsulate even the mildest bit of speech. Worse still, the Bill hands the government of the day sweeping powers to create a list of speech categories which it believes could be harmful, in a brazen attempt to strengthen executive power over online discourse.

Rather than rein in the big tech titans the legislation will strengthen their hand and actually entrench some of Silicon Valleys most nonsensical rules. These could include an absurd Facebook policy which has seen womens posts removed for saying that men are idiots under the guise of hate speech and Twitters censorious rules which have seen individuals of all persuasions removed from the platform for using the widely used terms cis and Terf when discussing trans rights. Under the Online Safety Bill, all of this Big Tech interference would become state-backed.

Far from being great protectors of free speech, this governments new Bill will stymie sensitive discussions on identity issues altogether. If Conservative MPs truly want to protect free speech, they should be demanding that the government entirely remove this notion of legal but harmful speech from its proposed legislation.

All the more worrying is that this seems to be another piece of anti-free speech law from a government which talks the talk when it comes to freedom of expression but legislates to stifle dissent at every turn. We are now weeks away from the passing of legislation which will make it materially harder to protest in the UK. Newly proposed measures in the governments policing Bill will give officers the power to curtail protests where they are considered to be too noisy. This should be any libertarians nightmare. The policing Bill fundamentally empowers the state at the expense of the individual, opens the policing of protests up to politicisation and will fundamentally stifle the expression of citizens on Britains streets. If Conservative MPs want to protect free speech and freedom of assembly then they must act quickly.

Concerns about so-called cancel culture are not unfounded. It is clear that liberal societies are going through a period of intolerance when it comes to accepting diverging and unorthodox views. At times this amounts to deliberate attempts at censorship, stifling alternative perspectives and even the ruination of individuals. Yet the acceptance of this intolerance as a problem means nothing from a government which is intent on making it harder for people to have their voices heard both online and in the streets.

Free speech is the bedrock of our democracy. The rights of people to be able to speak and consequentially think freely are paramount to human flourishing and development. That is why all of this matters so much. There is little doubt that societal intolerance is a problem in many Western nations in 2022 but political intolerance is too, and the spectre of state censorship is fast coming down the track. If the government wants to show a true commitment to protecting freedom of speech, it must demonstrate this where it matters in the coming weeks. The preservation of the free society that Oliver Dowden describes may depend on it.

See the rest here:
Do the Conservatives really care about free speech? - Spectator.co.uk