Category Archives: Free Speech

Op-Ed Commentary by Chris Devonshire-Ellis December 20th, 2021

Amongst all the China and Asia noise that can be found online, it has become apparent from our own research that much is either repetitive or just plain wrong. Conducting an internal study of the 2,000 plus international media articles we covered in 2021 through our weekly Chinas Belt And Road & Beyond update, we found that of those written by Western journalists, 87% were negative, and of them, 78% were factually incorrect. That is an astonishing inditement of contemporary journalism. Far gone, it seems are the days when I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend your right to say it was the creed that balanced reporting adhered to. Today, much of the media is made up of total bias, to an extent that it can be hard to sort out the wheat from the chaff or distinguish the truth from blatant lies. In my opinion, this is extremely dangerous. I believe we have already seen the effects of this resulting in mass deaths the sheer nonsense that has been given credibility and airtime concerning Covid across all sections of media and not just the social part has directly resulted in the loss of millions of people. The impressionable and nave have at times been deliberately targeted with distorted views and this has led to their deaths. Society, and media at large has not done enough to protect those more easily lead astray in our society.

The right to defend free speech has given rise to allow anything in the media to be acceptable. Yet this has gone too far it has become a platform to allow the dishonest a platform, and the wickedly manipulative a veneer of credibility. There has been talk of dismantling Facebook in response to this, but the breakup of just one company will not result in the sudden change of society. That can only be achieved through pressures placed on mankind by the honest, the compassionate and the straight, all the while being aware that there are two sides to every coin. It is a far from easy job to balance this. However, Governments do try, although they are often castigated for it. Chinas recent laws concerning sedition and the jailing of prominent Hong Kong media figures has caused outrage in the West, seeing this as an erosion of civil liberties and free speech. Yet free speech can be dangerous when it calls for the overthrow of a Government, as China knows well to its cost. Estimates run to 20 million deaths during Chinas revolution, and about 8 million during Russias.

I first landed in Hong Kong well over 30 years ago, never did I expect to experience tear gas on the streets of Kowloon and riots at its Universities. What is China supposed to do? With a country with a population of some 1.4 billion, the notion of civil rights in China is understandably a little different and needs to be from that in the West. The answer lies not in analyzing Chinas laws on sedition, the answer lies in what motives individuals have in promoting revolution, chaos, and disorder. What purpose does it serve? And if a revolution succeeded, what then?

The media always appear to concentrate on the differences between East and West and seek to exploit them as irreconcilable and politically incompatible, even to the extent of suggesting a fight between good versus evil. International media has become politicized to the extent that impartiality is drowned out in all the noise. Yet what I and we at Asia Briefing have found is that it is the similarities between people that are the most striking, more interesting, and more likely to create human bonds, understandings, and comraderies. Yet today, this element of basic human nature is being eroded, and in some cases, despised.

At Asia Briefing we feel we have a responsibility to present a balanced view. Naturally, that is based on what we know, and as most of that is law and tax based, its relatively straightforward to present this in a way in which we can explain the consequences of new regulations to our readers. It can become a little trickier when we deal with geopolitical issues, which we tend to discuss more in our coverage of Chinas Belt and Road Initiative, however a difference here is that our opinion-based pieces in covering this are based on both statistical research and through our having first-hand experience on the region concerned. Asia Briefing content is drawn from internal editorial and research personnel, based throughout Asia. Staff are in situ in China, Hong Kong, India, Singapore, Vietnam, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Indonesia, the Philippines, and Russia. In non-Asian countries, we have staff in the UK, United States, Germany, and France. Sometimes we also bring in expertise to assist we will be looking for editorial assistance in Africa and Latin America during 2022 to better understand how these regions are interacting with Asia. Then of course we have numerous Dezan Shira & Associates legal and tax professionals to help clarify laws and their implications. It means we have a balance of both systematically researched regulatory work, combined with what hopefully amount to nuggets of occasional wisdom from our own experiences that we can pass on.

What we cannot tolerate is excessive opinionated or dishonest pieces, and when appropriate we will sometimes make comment against them, especially if we judge them to be harmful or disingenuous. We are here to provide a service one that is underwritten by Dezan Shira & Associates to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars every year and has been since 1999. It is important for us to maintain that credibility and our commitment to producing the facts, backed up by research, hard data, and experience. It is something we will continue to produce and provide during 2022. We will not be asking for money to do so in dubious ways. We see reporting as an honest service, not as an investment to make money for pandering to political views.

The early indications for the year as concerns global health are starting to show signs of optimism. Viral pandemics weaken over time and the Omicron variant, although more easily transmissible, does appear to be less effective in provoking serious illness than previous strains, and especially among the global population who have developed Covid antibodies. While much needs to be done in the poorer countries in terms of vaccination coverage, it does appear that things may ease up a little in 2022 with a brighter dawn approaching in 2023. I understand that China, for example, is considering travel relaxations in Autumn this year. Lets hope this comes to pass. In the meantime, stay safe, secure, and tolerant during the new year and look for where the truth, rather than overwhelming political noise can be found.

A complimentary subscription to Asia Briefing 2022 can be obtained here.

Best wishes

Disclaimer

Any views or opinions represented in this blog are personal commentary, belong solely to the contributor and do not necessarily represent the views of Asia Briefing Limited or Dezan Shira & Associates.

Back to News

Originally posted here:
Asia Briefing's Factually Based 2022 Reporting - With Some Opinions - Asia Business News - Asia Briefing

Oakland News Now

video made by the YouTube channel with the logo in the videos upper left hand corner. OaklandNewsNow.com is the original blog post for this type of video-blog content.

Download the GB News App to watch live wherever you are, catch up with all our shows and get the latest news from the GBN

via IFTTT

Note from Zennie62Media and OaklandNewsNow.com : this video-blog post demonstrates the full and live operation of the latest updated version of an experimental Zennie62Media , Inc. mobile media video-blogging system network that was launched June 2018. This is a major part of Zennie62Media , Inc.s new and innovative approach to the production of news media. What we call The Third Wave of Media. The uploaded video is from a YouTube channel. When the YouTube video channel for GBNews News Opinion Debate uploads a video it is automatically uploaded to and formatted automatically at the Oakland News Now site and Zennie62-created and owned social media pages. The overall objective here, on top of our is smartphone-enabled, real-time, on the scene reporting of news, interviews, observations, and happenings anywhere in the World and within seconds and not hours is the use of the existing YouTube social graph on any subject in the World. Now, news is reported with a smartphone and also by promoting current content on YouTube: no heavy and expensive cameras or even a laptop are necessary, or having a camera crew to shoot what is already on YouTube. The secondary objective is faster, and very inexpensive media content news production and distribution. We have found there is a disconnect between post length and time to product and revenue generated. With this, the problem is far less, though by no means solved. Zennie62Media is constantly working to improve the system network coding and seeks interested content and media technology partners.

Oakland News Online Links From Oakland's Only News Aggregator Blog

Oakland News Now Archives Oakland News Now Archives Select Month December 2021 (37227) November 2021 (32789) October 2021 (8926) September 2021 (1111) August 2021 (843) July 2021 (725) June 2021 (431) May 2021 (393) April 2021 (463) March 2021 (320) February 2021 (315) January 2021 (356) December 2020 (319) November 2020 (349) October 2020 (444) September 2020 (445) August 2020 (496) July 2020 (462) June 2020 (391) May 2020 (301) April 2020 (289) March 2020 (239) February 2020 (221) January 2020 (262) December 2019 (161) November 2019 (183) October 2019 (226) September 2019 (173) August 2019 (231) July 2019 (239) June 2019 (194) May 2019 (137) April 2019 (224) March 2019 (164) February 2019 (142) January 2019 (181) December 2018 (147) November 2018 (168) October 2018 (173) September 2018 (192) August 2018 (183) July 2018 (176) June 2018 (125) May 2018 (28) April 2018 (18)

See the rest here:
Free Speech Nation: Battle of Ideas | Wednesday 29th December - Oakland News Now

Ive taken a guilty pleasure recently in watching the faux intellectuals on MSNBC and CNN pass judgment on not just Donald Trump, but also on everyone who shares his disdain for authoritarian pronouncements on COVID-19, election integrity, climate change and a host of other issues.

From what I can tell after studying Rachel Maddow, Joy Reid, Jake Tapper and the late, lamented Chris Cuomo, liberalism today is characterized by a low regard for the intelligence of average Americans and a very high regard for the elastic nature of language.

Essentially, words are expected to mean whatever Democrats and their media enablers want them to mean. This has been most evident in the war against Donald Trump since the 2020 election, but it was certainly in play earlier. For example, saying that Donald Trump is a racist meant he supports border security. Saying Donald Trump is a Russian colluder meant that Hillary Clinton had paid a British spy to manufacture a phony dossier implicating Trump.

But the campaign to destroy Trump really lifted into the stratosphere after the Nov. 3 election. When they called his claim that the election was stolen the Big Lie, what they meant was they dont agree with him. When they said he made his claims without evidence, they meant without evidence that they agree with or that they would even look at.

Then after the Jan. 6 House select committee voted to hold Mark Meadows in contempt of Congress they pivoted and announced that the Big Lie was now the Big Coup. Meadows was chief of staff to President Trump, and since Trump clearly believed the election was stolen, it should be no surprise that Meadows was in constant communication with members of Congress and others who were working to prove that fraud had taken place. But in the Orwellian world of Democrats, trying to prove that fraud was committed by someone else means you are yourself guilty of fraud. Believing the election was stolen means that you yourself tried to steal the election. And worst of all, asking people to march peacefully and patriotically to the Capitol means that you were instructing them to riot and overthrow the government.

As we approach the anniversary of the Jan. 6 insurrection, the unspoken truth is that Donald Trump had nothing to gain and everything to lose by the violent assault on the Capitol that day. The only chance of keeping Trump in the White House was not by invading the Capitol, but by keeping it secure while our representatives debated the validity of the election using the entirely constitutional process taking place inside the halls of Congress.

The electoral votes of at least five states were being challenged not in a coup, but in a lawful manner also used by Democrats in earlier elections, following the procedures mandated by the Electoral Count Act of 1887. Republican senators and House members had lined up to make the case to the public and their fellow constitutional officers that something was rotten in the states of Arizona, Georgia, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan, and that the election was therefore tainted. But the violence outside resulted in a sharply truncated debate inside that was virtually ignored, if not outright mocked or shamed, by the mainstream media. The riot instantly doomed any chance Trump had of prevailing in his argument that the election was stolen.

So ask yourself who benefited from the supposed coup at the Capitol. Not Trump. Not the Republicans who had put themselves on the line to support him with evidence of voting irregularities in several states. Cui bono? Who benefits? None other than the very Democrats who for the last year have worked tirelessly to discredit Trump and to find some way to disqualify him from being elected president again in 2024.

The latest claim is that Trump had criminally obstructed an official proceeding of Congress by encouraging his supporters to Stop the Steal. This is an absurd claim on several fronts.

First of all, Trumps belief that the election was stolen is protected by his First Amendment right of free speech. So is his right to use the courts and Congress to seek redress of his grievances. There is no evidence he had advance knowledge of the riot or planned it in any way. As noted, the particular proceeding of Congress in question was the only hope Trump had of remaining in office beyond Jan. 20, 2021.

Moreover, the argument that Trump allowed the riot to take place because he did not send National Guard troops to intervene is wrong on both the facts and the logic of the case. As I showed in my last column, Trump did in fact request 10,000 National Guard troops to be deployed, but his request was ignored by the Pentagon, the speaker of the House, the Capitol Police and the mayor of Washington, D.C. Even more importantly, if Trump had used the power of the presidency to order a military presence at the Capitol, then the Democrats would have gotten exactly what they wanted the appearance of a coup ordered by a reckless, out-of-control authoritarian who was trying to bend Congress to his will. In other words, Trump could not win that day no matter what he did. The violence made victory impossible.

But to argue, as Liz Cheney and Nancy Pelosi do, that Trump didnt have a right to contest the election is to replace the rule of law with the rule of intimidation. The Democrats and their partners in the media have used all their assembled might to coerce Trump and his allies into silence. His only crime is that he wont shut up about the election being stolen. Nor for that matter is he the only one who thinks that the election was fraudulent. Millions of us independently reached the same conclusion. If any of those supporters had turned to violence at the Capitol, they should be appropriately tried, convicted and punished for their misdeeds, but thats not on Trump any more than it is on the rest of us who encouraged our fellow citizens to work to prevent the installation of Joe Biden as president as long as doubts persisted about his legitimacy.

But the Jan. 6 committee and its supporters dont care about logic or facts. They trotted out text messages from Trump supporters condemning the violence and said that meant Trump himself must have supported the violence. They showed messages that indicated Trump had a strategy to try to prove to Congress and then to the Supreme Court that his rights had been violated, and they said that proved the Big Coup.

Goodness, they really didnt need to wait this long if thats all it takes to prove a coup! They could have just read Trumps speech from the morning of Jan. 6. He never hid the fact that he thought he had been cheated out of victory, nor did he ever pretend he would go gentle into that good night the way Democrats hoped he would. But they already knew all that. In fact, they impeached him over the same speech and failed to convict him. If they tried to convict him on the same charges again, under any guise, they would have violated the intent of the Constitutions protection against double jeopardy. Not that they care.

One last point: In general, the liberal elites appear to be incapable of recognizing that every argument has two sides. They honestly believe that whatever the Democratic leadership says is true, and whatever Donald Trump or his supporters say is false. Although this condition existed prior to the 2020 election, it was exaggerated afterwards to the point where we no longer have the expectation of honest debate. And that, contrary to the claims of politicians like Adam Schiff and Liz Cheney, is the real danger to democracy.

When half the people are considered by the other half to be malignant, prevaricating miscreants, there is no hope for true democracy rule by the people. The best you can expect is demi-democracy, rule of the people by half of the people. That may be the hope of the liberals, but they should be careful what they wish for. Despite their frantic attacks on the Deplorables, it is not yet certain who will prevail in the war they have unleashed. Not a war of weapons, but a war of words and a war of ideas.

On the Democrat side, there are threats and intimidation, warning American citizens not to step out of line. Wear your mask. Get your shot. Turn in your gun. Do what we tell you, and keep your head down. Youll be fine if you obey.

On the other side, there is a rising chorus of voices, moms and dads, black and white, free-thinkers all, who ask for the right to raise their children as they see fit, insist on medical autonomy, expect elections to be fair, and dont bow before authority unless it is legitimately wielded.

The choice of two diametrically opposed futures has not been so clear since the Civil War, and Democrats just as they did in that great conflict seem intent once again on proving the truth of Lincolns dictum that A house divided against itself cannot stand.

Go here to see the original:
The Big Lie and the Elastic Truth: How to Invent a Coup - RealClearPolitics

Maybe it was because Id just picked up Kim from Union Station in Kansas City, and had time to ponder the grim symbolism of a genuine World War II-era German freight car temporarily installed outside. The car is part of the touring exhibit, Auschwitz. Not Long Ago. Not Far Away.

Perhaps it was the current political climate, where white nationalism has become part of the American conversation. Or it might have been the approaching anniversary of the Jan. 6 insurrection, in which neo-fascist Proud Boys from Kansas, including William Chrestman, have been charged with breaching the Capitol.

But it was likely all of the above that contributed to my outrage when, on the ride back on Interstate 35, Kim, my wife, read me the story on her iPhone that somebody had spray-painted swastikas on the back door of a drive-in restaurant in our hometown of Emporia, but that it wasnt being treated as a hate crime.

The swastikas were sprayed in white paint on the back door and elsewhere at the Sonic drive-in on West Sixth in Emporia. The incident seemed like random criminal damage to property, according to a police captain quoted in the Emporia Gazette. The restaurant owners didnt know of a reason why the drive-in would be targeted, and police said the vandalism did not appear to be motivated by hate or bias. Also, it was noted, there is no law against hate crimes in Kansas.

I was outraged by the act itself and dismayed by the casual manner in which the authorities in my hometown seemed to be treating it. Theres nobody on the face of the earth who can wield a spray can who doesnt know what the swastika means. Its a symbol of hate, bigotry, intolerance, mass slaughter.

Some years ago, the city of Emporia was so worked up over gang graffiti that letters were sent to property owners warning it was their responsibility to clean the stuff up. I know, I received one of the letters. I spent a couple of hours painting over the alley side of my shed, which had been tagged with symbols I had to use a reference sheet to interpret. They hadnt been there more than a week or so, and I would have eventually painted over them anyway.

Dont swastikas on a local business merit some level of concern? Had our tolerance for hate so thickened that, as a community, as a state, as a country, we are no longer capable of recognizing the danger posed by public displays of bigotry? The police, of course, were in a tough spot, faced with what appeared a single act of petty vandalism. Sure, I got it. Maybe it was just some kid who sprayed the swastikas at the Sonic to provoke a reaction. Perhaps there was no real threat. After all, it wasnt like the swastikas were painted on a school or a synagogue. But any swastika anywhere is an affront to the community, particularly because Emporia promotes itself as the founding city of Veterans Day. John Cooper, the soldier whose death inspired his stepfather to lobby to make Armistice Day a holiday for all veterans, had been killed in Belgium, fighting the Nazis.

I would have liked to have seen some acknowledgment from the mayor or the chief of police that, no matter what the motivation for the vandalism, swastikas are a symbol of hate and would not be tolerated.

Once back in Emporia, before even going home Wednesday afternoon, we drove around the Sonic to see if anything remained of the vandalism. The ghost of one swastika remained, after obvious attempts to remove it, on the bricks near the back door. It made me sad, because the drive-in seemed the unlikeliest of targets. It is a pleasant place, especially in summer, for a cold treat.

But later that afternoon came the news that Sonic was just one of the places smeared by hate. Similar graffiti, including swastikas, had also been left at Emporia High School, Emporia State University (where I teach), another restaurant and a convenience store. Police said they had arrested a 19-year-old Emporia man, Isaac Lawrence, and charged him in municipal court with criminal vandalism. The case was later referred to the county attorney for consideration of felony vandalism charges because the damage exceeded $1,000. Meanwhile, Lawrence, a 2020 graduate of the high school, was held in the Lyon County Jail.

At Emporia State, swastikas and other graffiti were left on the east face of Visser Hall, which houses the National Teachers Hall of Fame. On Thursday afternoon, Mani Rico, a worker for a local restoration company, told me it had it had taken half a day for him and a crew member to scrub and power-wash the symbols from the brickwork. In addition to the swastikas, Rico said, there was a message. He did not remember what the message was, he said, but I suspect he was understandably reluctant to repeat it.

Watching as the crew finished up, I could taste the detergent they were using on my tongue. I could also still taste my outrage. I burned at the thought that anyone would deface a building that is dedicated to helping produce our states elementary and secondary school teachers. Seeking to make sense of things, I reached out to Rabbi Sam Stern, who came from San Antonio in June to lead Temple Beth Shalom in Topeka. There are no synagogues in Emporia.

A swastika is obviously and always an expression of hate, Stern told me. The Jewish community is concerned any time we see swastikas in public places because it was not only a symbol used by the Nazis during World War II, but is also used by neo-Nazis and white supremacist groups today.

Antisemitic hate is at its highest level in decades, Stern said.

In 2020, the largest single category of hate crimes reported to federal authorities involving religion targeted Jewish people, according to the Department of Justice. In 2014, a gunman killed three people at the at the Jewish Community Center of Greater Kansas City, in Overland Park. The shooter, avowed racist Frazier Glenn Miller Jr. of Missouri, died in prison.

While not passing judgment on whether Lawrence was responsible for the graffiti or not, or what the motive may have been, Stern said he was happy to help provide education to whoever is responsible. I asked Stern what he would say to whoever left the graffiti, if he had to make just one point. He knew immediately.

Id borrow the phrasing of the Auschwitz exhibit in Kansas City, Stern said. These events werent long ago and not that far away.

I had not told him of seeing the Nazi-era railway car at Union Station, where I picked up Kim from her trip to St. Louis on Amtrak.

Kansas is one of the few states without a hate crime law. While there are statutes which provide for stiffer sentences for existing crimes, attempts to pass a comprehensive hate crime bill have been defeated in the Legislature. One of the most recent attempts, in 2017, sponsored by Sen. David Haley, a Kansas City Democrat, died in committee. It was introduced the same year an Indian man was killed in an Olathe bar by Adam Purinton, who shouted get out of my country before opening fire.

Both Miller and Purinton were convicted using the federal hate crime law, which is typical in murder cases where there is an obvious bias. But the vast majority of hate crimes reported in the country are smaller, community affairs. Nearly 75% of such crimes reported against property are vandalism, according to the FBIs most recent report.

Tag a fence or a business or a public building with a symbol of hate and you might be dealing with more than just a vandalism charge. It might make your average, garden-variety community racist think twice.

Some Kansas prosecutors may be reluctant to endorse a hate crime law, because it may be more practical to seek a conviction for an established crime and then seek additional penalties as appropriate. Hate crime prosecutions depend so heavily on proving the motivation and mindset of the perpetrator that otherwise sound cases might collapse when faced with the additional standard to prove bias against a race, a religion or a sexual identity.

But a Kansas hate crime law would not be for prosecutors.

It would be to send a message.

Tag a fence or a business or a public building with a symbol of hate and you might be dealing with more than just a vandalism charge. It might make your average, garden-variety community racist think twice. Swastikas make many people feel legitimate fear, and that fear extends beyond our Jewish neighbors. Black people, leftist thinkers, those of Roma ancestry and the LGBTQ community have been targets for jack-booted thugs.

All of these groups were hated and killed by the Nazis.

The First Amendment rightly protects speech that most of us would find offensive. Its the price of living in a free society. But the swastika and the noose can be used as tools of intimidation, to inspire fear in others, to make them afraid for their lives. Swastikas should not be outlawed, not in history texts, not in private homes, not in popular culture. Indiana Jones is defined, in large part, by his archenemy. When the symbol is used to inspire genuine fear? Thats where free speech protection ends, when a swastika is the equivalent of fighting words.

A Kansas hate crime law would send the message to vulnerable groups that hate and intimidation will not be tolerated here. Not on our fences, not on our buildings and not in our hearts.

Well, well have to work on that last part.

See the article here:
My Kansas hometown was tagged with swastikas. We shouldn't tolerate even casual displays of hate. - Kansas Reflector

At the eve of a new year, its traditional to make a resolution or two. I have no such list for myself or others, but I do have a wish. For 2022 and beyond, I wish that all of us who still cherish liberal values will band together to oppose the worrisome rise of authoritarianism around the world.

For decades, those inclined toward free markets have focused on authoritarianism coming from the political left. We have spared no energy denouncing and opposing it. Weve rightfully been concerned about the push to centralize more power in the hands of federal governments and to increase the scope and size of all government. We have warned that these policies, pursued consistently, pave what the great F.A. Hayek called the road to serfdom.

This fight should continue. However, its time to be equally harsh toward those on the Right who want to use state power to control individuals choices and destroy those with whom they disagree. In America, this illiberalism was visible in many of the policies pushed by former President Donald Trump, including industrial policies riddled with favoritism and hostility to foreign workers and immigrants. It peaked during the last months of his presidency with claims of stolen elections and other conspiracy theories.

Sadly, this right-wing illiberalism has continued with Trump allies pressuring election officials to reverse the result of the 2020 election, and its found plenty of advocates in Congress. With some exceptions, the Republican Party has turned away from free-market ideas and embraced what can best be described as central planning: more government handouts; a continued affection for crony privileges including protective tariffs bestowed on its favorite industries; and a newfound opposition to free speech and enthusiasm for hyperactive antitrust campaigns against industries it doesnt like.

Illiberalism has also taken root among many conservative intellectuals. While there have always been different strains of thinking among neoconservatives, populists and other thought leaders on the Right, these groups increasingly define themselves by their opposition to the Left while endorsing policies that are just as terrible.

Certain thinkers would even like to see the government impose a kind of religious order. As Kevin Vallier explained at The UnPopulist Substack, a few have begun embracing the doctrine of Catholic integralism, which includes ideas that all political and legal authority comes from God and that the Church can call on the state to help advance its mission by directing the state to impose civil punishments for violating church law, such as punishing heretics, among other things.

While this development is alarming on its own, it carries an additional danger. As Shikha Dalmia and Arthur Melzer argued, if the Right uses the illiberalism of the Left to justify its own as happened in post-World War I Weimar Germany America would risk falling into authoritarianism.

Unfortunately, the rise of right-wing authoritarianism isnt unique to America. Its taking root in many countries, including Sweden, Hungary, France and India.

Swedens Democrats a nativist, right-wing party had so many racists and xenophobes within its ranks that even it had to implement a zero-tolerance policy against such rhetoric. Yet, the country has still turned against immigrants, who are blamed for problems caused by its progressive welfare state.

In Hungary, President Viktor Orban has implemented massively generous welfare payments like a $35,000 child tax credit for parents with over three children but also made his ultimate mission to crack down viciously against any left-wing opposition. This has made him a role model for some American ideologues.

In my native France, rising star and presidential candidate Eric Zemmour has been open about his desire to return to a time when the country was run exclusively by and for French folks and immigrants who truly embraced French culture preferably Christian and gave their children names such as Jacques, Pierre and Marie.

So, as I wish you a happy New Year, I also ask you to join me in opposing illiberalism in all its forms. It means opposing the draconian regulation and unsustainable government welfare advanced by the Left. It also means opposing rising right-wing illiberalism that is hostile to LGBTQ and immigrant cultures, itches to ban books and generally wants to use government power to achieve its cramped vision of an American society.

Veronique de Rugy is the George Gibbs Chair in Political Economy and a senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University.

Today's breaking news and more in your inbox

See the article here:
A call to everyone to fight rising authoritarianism, in 2022 and beyond - Alpena News

Shamira Ibrahim Shamira Ibrahim is a Brooklyn-based writer by way of Harlem, The anti-intellectual that advocates for free speech and dismisses the root purpose of terms like woke and cancel culture, has become more prominent this year. And certain high-profile members of the Black bourgeoisie have become some of its biggest supporters.

The insurrection of January 6, 2021 was a shocking international affair, a jarring display of the violent nature of Americas foundational values of entitlement and white supremacy. For many who had been following the post-2016 trajectory of Trumpian conservative acolytes and their adherence to the various conspiratorial cabals littered among the vast corners of the internet from the Proud Boys and QAnon supporters to the organizing, strategy, and recruitment taking place on now-banned apps such as Parler and in private rooms of social audio apps like Clubhouse it was a tragic culmination of years of warning coming to fruition, long-ignored and minimized as fringe and unimpactful. As investigations have proceeded, it has continued to be revealed that there has been active awareness from political leadership, making the reality of the events of the day even more grim.

What even fewer expected, however, is the involvement of powerful Black public figures in these fiascos. Namely, Kanye West, agitator extraordinaire and once-2020 presidential candidate, who has been revealed to have sent delegates to harass Ruby Freeman who was accused of rigging votes to deny Donald Trumps reelection and also masked his own campaign connections to GOP operatives, which could go against FEC laws. This should come as little surprise from someone who once donned an MAGA hat. However, a sense of whiplash remains, particularly since the information was revealed on the heels of a joint benefit concert held by Kanye and Drake under the pretense of working to free Larry Hoover, co-founder of the Chicago gang Gangster Disciples (an undisclosed portion of the proceeds will be going toward community organizations around prison reform and community reintegration organizations).

While Kanyes actions might be the most salient, he is not nearly as much of an outlier as it may seem. The year 2021 is peppered with high-profile members of the Black bourgeoisie working to figure out the best way to craft a path forward as the bottom falls out of the cratering present, tepidly acknowledging that the establishment has failed to serve their populace to the best of their abilities. The problem remains, however, that anti-establishment positions, when left unstructured and absent from any real political framing or consistency, just devolve into anti-intellectualism and contrarianism that can be easily co-opted by conservative and far right actors. Even more dangerously, left unchallenged, their largest fan bases accept these unfounded presumptions as self-evident truths.

As one of the largest pop stars in the world, Wests long track record of success in music and fashion has led to him being heralded as a creative genius. For those who place him on a pedestal (whether fans, critics, or colleagues), however, there is a subconscious transitive property applied, deeming that his artistic prodigiousness extends to all domains that pique his interests. Marilyn Manson a man who has been accused by over a dozen women of psychological and sexual abuse, ranging from confinement in a soundproof cell to being raped, electrocuted, and chased with an ax has found refuge in the uninhibited acceptance that is part and parcel of Wests fan base, making a return to the public eye in the blinding spotlight of the Donda show at Atlantas Mercedes-Benz stadium in August. Nestled to the left of West in the porch of a replicate model of his childhood home (refashioned into a church), Manson looms over West as an ominous devil over his shoulder before debuting the collaboration Jail Pt. 2, a macabre and disjointed retort to the various misinterpretations of cancel culture set to melody, with an added verse from DaBaby making for a hat trick of artistic reprobates masquerading as iconoclasts.

When inquired as to the motivation for inviting Manson to work on the song during his impromptu appearance on the Drink Champs podcast, West dismissed the pushback as mob mentality.

Theyll hit you with the accusations or somebody who you was with 10 years ago theres women whove been through very serious things, pulled in alleys against they will thats different than a hug, but its classified as the same thing, he said. Its power and politics. You know, power-hungry maniacs and just, control. This is Nineteen Eighty-Four mind control that we in.

Its a shame that West genuinely seems to believe that feminism operates in absolutes, and that no one until 2021 had written fundamental literature around white supremacist patriarchy and the ways we can work to intentionally define harm and violations of consent in a caring, anti-carceral manner (perhaps he can start with the recently departed bell hooks The Will to Change: Men, Masculinity, and Love). Regardless, the irony in his statement lies in his implication that Manson is being demonized for the outsized offenses of torture and assault. Out of the 10 million views to date on YouTube, how many people will fact check his statement and hold him accountable? Fellow collaborator DaBaby has adopted similar tactics, misleadingly claiming that the LGBTQIA+ community absolved him of his accountability to the violent statements he made about the queer community and HIV earlier in the year a recent report also revealed that the financial commitments he was supposed to make to the organizations that took the time to educate him havent received any donations at all furthering a false narrative to his fan base that there is a shadowy cartel of white queer power brokers that negotiate fealty and penance to anyone who seeks to succeed in entertainment, and emasculate cisheterosexual Black men. Despite DaBabys failure to genuflect to said amorphous entities, he has resumed booking shows, returning to the Rolling Loud stage that triggered his public relations freefall earlier in the year, Hot97 Summer Jam, and announcing a tour sponsored by Rolling Loud.

Similarly, Dave Chappelle has been playing a game of intellectual dishonesty between his fans and the media. A longtime sharp thinker on race in his comedy, his more recent years have been punctuated by diversions in the space of gender and sexuality that reveal harmful gaps in his understanding which is to say, not at all largely shaped by the universe that he interacts in. The ensuing critique, however, prompted a wave of support not just from his fans and close friends in the comedy community including Joe Rogan but also prominent media conservatives on FOX News, all decrying attempts to cancel Chappelle who, ironically enough, resented his earlier work on the Chappelles show and standup special. The credits for his most recent special, The Closer, include a slideshow peppered with a whos who of free thinkers: Kevin Hart, Talib Kweli, Joe Rogan, and yes, Kanye West and DaBaby all while Gloria Gaynors I Will Survive streams defiantly in the background.

When critics attempt to point out the logical inconsistencies in these matters, they are lambasted as woke police or part of a cancel culture brigade, incapable of accepting a world of free speech and embracing free thinkers. Knowledge-seeking is an admirable venture; its part of any writers remit and something that everyone should aspire to continually engage in throughout their lifetime. Left unchallenged and unformed, however, anti-establishment ideals can easily be contorted into profiteering by those who you were looking to disrupt in the first place. Black entertainers the world over have expressed frustration after ascending in class position, only to be continuously confronted with roadblocks to creative empowerment and autonomy. The compulsion to recoil from many long-held neoliberal beliefs of economic and political freedom are understandable. Where the fracture begins is when an interrogation of that foundation has a prerequisite of preserving not only your wealth status, but the same celebrity that props up the same vultures that shook your foundation in the first place. That rejection of mainstream ideals rarely goes further left, which would require concessions that youve already eschewed, instead dissolving into a vacuous tantrum that can easily be molded at will on nightly airings of Tucker Carlson or Ben Shapiro YouTube videos, slowly being duped into the premise that these bad-faith platforms are the few people willing to embrace your plight. You are no longer in solidarity with the people; you are demanding that the working class rise up in solidarity with your fight under the misguided notion that these templates are a facsimile of their own interpersonal power dynamics with white supremacy in their daily lives.

In a time of complete disarray, its normal to look for exceptional answers to exceptionally troubling times. It helps many of us try to reconcile what seems incomprehensible and intangible about the ever-shifting present. But left unattended, many are susceptible to being co-opted by bad faith actors and other methods of co-optation, shaping still unformed thoughts into fully articulated arguments. As bell hooks articulated in her excellent essay Eating the Other, White racism, imperialism, and sexist domination prevail by courageous consumption. It is by eating the other that one asserts power and privilege. No matter what class position Black people reside in, we will always exist a product to be commodified in a white supremacist system, and any spiral into conservative, free-thinking anti-establishment is a danger thats actually more frighteningly average than uniquely exceptional. Reframing the enemy as a nameless, powerless voice, these entertainers believe theyre doing something for the greater good and extending that to their fan bases when, in reality, theyre only adding to the problem.

Banner Photo Credit: David Livingston/Getty Images

Shamira Ibrahim is a Brooklyn-based writer by way of Harlem, Canada,and East Africa who comments on culture, identity, and politics. Her work has beenfeatured in Teen Vogue, NYMag, and The Root. You can follow her comings and goings on Twitter at@_Shamgod.

Go here to see the original:
2021 Was The Year Of The Anti-Intellectual - Okayplayer

Logan Paul hasn't posted a new YouTube video in over six months. His last two uploads were titled "I'm Fighting Floyd Mayweather This Week" and "My Last Words To Floyd Mayweather." Then, silence. If you didn't know better, you'd think he died in the ring.

What else but a fatal boxing incident, after all, could have led one of the most famous YouTubers in the world a controversial but charismatic web presence who helped shape the template for modern e-celebrity to leave his 23.2 million subscribers on radio silence for half a year and counting?

"Demonetization; being blacklisted; being shadow-banned," says Paul, 26, rattling off the different ways YouTube and other mainstream social networks have alienated him. "It's really demotivating when you are yourself, and the platform that you're on because of the advertisers, because of public sentiment, whatever it is no longer wants to support you."

In search of a corner of the internet where he can be his full, unfiltered self, Paul has traded in YouTube for Subify, the company that runs the back-end tech for his boutique fan network the Maverick Club. Part of Subify's pitch is that there are almost no restrictions on what Paul can post in the Maverick Club, or what other celebrities can post through their own Subify-enabled channels.

"It really feels like free speech is dead in America right now, because a platform can literally shut you down and take away your microphone," co-founder Zak Folkman said. "At Subify, we will literally never do that to a creator unless they are promoting terrorist acts or child pornography."

In an era when social media censorship is a top-of-mind concern for everyone including content creators and members of Congress, it's a vision with appeal to some. But it's also one that raises a lot of messy, ethically fraught questions as a recent discussion between Paul, Folkman and Subify co-founder Chase Hero showed.

"If we had a Nazi on the platform that just wanted to talk about their beliefs," Folkman said at one point during the Zoom call, "I personally would have a very hard time telling them 'You're not allowed to do that,' unless they're inciting violence."

This, apparently, was news to Paul.

"Look, I love your sentiment," he said. "But as another creator on the platform, you'd be hearing from me."

"The real answer is, I think that we just take everything as it comes," Hero said. "All these people are gonna have different beliefs and giving them a platform to communicate with their people is really all we care about. Right? And obviously, I'm kind of with [Paul]; I'd be really hard-pressed about someone who's a Nazi."

"Obviously we don't support ," Folkman said, before Paul cut him off, saying it was a terrible example.

Folkman continued: "We'll take it on a case-by-case basis. But I really can't see too many creators that we wouldn't feel comfortable with supporting their right to freedom of speech."

Paul didn't seem convinced. "I will f--- up a Nazi," he said.

"Bad example," Folkman said. "Bad example."

After the call, the company told The Times that Folkman had misspoken. "We absolutely do not allow hate speech of any kind for example no Nazis or anything of that nature," an email statement attributed to Folkman read. "We take pride in giving a platform to creators of all kinds. We believe that everyone is entitled to have their voice and opinions heard."

If Subify's leaders are conflicted about what running a haven for free speech actually entails, they're not alone. The internet has long been seen as a refuge for untrammeled expression, but as large social media platforms have come to dominate the web, that ideal has run up against concerns about extremism, misinformation and user safety. What moderation steps tech platforms do take have become controversial and highly politicized.

Subify isn't the first tech company to build a brand around the promise of near-absolute free speech, but it does differ from many such apps in its focus on influencers' creative freedom rather than Trump-era culture wars.

"The simple fact is that no company in its right mind would ever throw its hands up and cede control of its product solely to the users of that product," said Sarah T. Roberts, an associate professor at UCLA and co-founder of its Center for Critical Internet Inquiry.

Because social media companies in America enjoy wide legal immunity to moderate what their users post, Roberts added, "this therefore becomes a question of tolerance from a business perspective. That's why I consider content moderation to be primarily a tool of brand management for firms; the firms themselves have to assess what risk they're willing to take by having distasteful, abhorrent material on their site."

For Paul, these aren't abstract questions. Back when he was primarily known as a YouTuber, that platform demonetized him or took away his ability to make money from his videos after he posted a series of controversial clips in which he tasered dead rats, endorsed the "Tide Pod challenge," and, most notoriously, filmed a suicide victim in Japan's Aokigahara forest.

Other scandals have found Paul saying he would "go gay" for a month; using women as a "human bicycle;" and, in one video, appearing to lasso unsuspecting women.

These days, Paul hasn't entirely abandoned YouTube his podcast Impaulsive has its own channel, with 3.53 million followers, that still updates regularly but he has moved much of his creative output, including his signature autobiographical vlogs, over to Subify.

"You're creating it for an ecosystem of people who really like you," Paul said of the Maverick Club. "It's not for the masses to judge or make assessments or make mean comments. As someone who in the past has been polarizing, there's people who don't like me; there's people who do like me. I really love the idea of leaning into people who do like me."

An "Oops! All Logan Pauls" social network might sound hellish to those who find Paul's patent mix of stunts and self-documentation obnoxious. But super-fans are willing to pay $19.95 a month for access, and Paul is happy to oblige them.

Behind the safety of a paywall, on a platform all his own, Paul said he's able to post "a bit more explicit content; a bit more risque content."

"It's that 10% of me," he said, "that whether for legal reasons, whether for public sentiment, whatever, I'm unwilling to show the world."

Subify declined to say how it would've handled the "suicide forest" and rat-tasering videos, instead pointing to "adult related content, conservative and other alternative viewpoints" and "hunting and firearms content" as areas where it's more permissive than YouTube.

As Paul was growing disenchanted with mainstream social media, Subify offered him an out. Folkman and Hero, who have a background in e-commerce, had initially built a proto-Subify for personal use: "It was so that we could power our own brands," Hero said.

But while hanging out with Paul one day Hero and Paul's manager are longtime friends the YouTuber suggested they open it up more widely.

"He's like, 'Man, I think this would be really good for a person. What do ya think?'" Hero recalled. "I was like, 'If you're willing to be that person, we'd give it a shot.'"

The result was the Maverick Club, Subify's first entry into celebrity fan platforms; it's now been up and running for about a year and a half, Paul said. (Paul is one of Subify's top creators, but according to a spokesperson, he has no other financial stake in the company.)

In the meantime, Subify expanded its suite of features and began finding new celebrities to work with: rapper Flo Rida, Jackass stuntman Steve-O, NASCAR driver Hailie Deegan. Hero said that "tens and tens of thousands of creators" have applied to join, and that he and Folkman are "constantly vetting, asking questions, and then doing our due diligence" to filter out poor fits.

Despite Subify's promise of near-absolute free speech, not everyone makes the cut.

"There's a guy who wanted to come in and revive the old bum fights, if you remember that make homeless people fight," Hero said. "We're like, 'Yeah, that's just not gonna work here. I love you to death, but that's just not something that we really condone.'"

The company's laissez-faire attitude also doesn't extend to its nonfamous subscriber base. Celebrities may get wide latitude to post things they couldn't put up elsewhere, but in the interest of building an environment that the co-founders describe as a "safe space" and an "echo chamber" for content creators, their fans are subject to more rigorous scrutiny.

"We have moderators so if we see anybody who's being actively negative or anything like that, it's actually a violation of the terms and conditions," Folkman said. "We'll usually send a warning if it's pretty mild, and then from there, if they violate it again, they'll be banned and blacklisted."

Entry into that walled garden isn't free. In exchange for building each client a stand-alone platform with support for multimedia posts, livestreaming, tipping, direct messaging, mobile apps and push notifications, the company which a spokesperson said has been valued by third parties at approximately $100 million takes a cut of everyone's earnings. The specific percentage "depends on the individual platform size and functionality," the spokesperson said.

As the internet becomes more and more paywalled, it's an increasingly popular business model. Startups such as Patreon, Substack, Cameo and Bandcamp now help influencers, artists and other online entrepreneurs mint a buck off of content they might otherwise put out for free. The company Fanfix offers monetization tools similar to Subify's but according to co-founder Simon Pompan adheres to more traditional moderation policies, including not allowing nudity.

OnlyFans is another such competitor. Although it's best known for selling amateur and independent pornography, the platform has feinted at ambitions of becoming a more generic content-monetization platform; this summer it briefly moved to ban sexual content, only to reverse course days later.

While Subify allows pornography too, its co-founders hope to avoid being pigeonholed as an overtly sexual platform.

"I've been recruited to OnlyFans," Paul said. "The business model is great. But the platform has this stigma I have no interest in being a part of."

Subify has proved to be a suitable alternative. By combining OnlyFans' monetization features, YouTube's more flexible branding and a free-speech ethos all its own, the company has helped Paul build his own little internet oasis, free from the censors, haters and trolls who soured him on the open web.

"Subify has kidnapped me from YouTube!" he exclaimed at one point during the Zoom call.

"It's been a great abduction," Hero responded.

2021 Los Angeles Times. Visit at latimes.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

View original post here:
Logan Paul and the elusive quest to build a free-speech platform that's not a cesspool - The Bakersfield Californian

An Associated Press article recently published in the Press Herald (Pentagon issues rules aimed at stopping rise of extremism, Dec. 21, Page A3) states that the Biden administration using the justification that a few Jan. 6 Washington rioters had military connections is now directing military commanders to review the online social media accounts of their service members. If it is brought to officials attention that a service member may have reposted or even liked a posting from what officials have determined is an extremist group, the service member could face expulsion.

The most disturbing part is that there is no precise determination about what constitutes an extremist group, so even religious groups could be included. As a retired Navy veteran with three children currently serving in the military, Im deeply concerned at the Biden administrations directive for the military to purge so-called extremists from the military.

Weve seen how internet trolls have destroyed peoples reputations and livelihoods by digging up their present or past online activity. Now military careers could be destroyed if a service member does not adhere to the new woke ideology the Biden administration is trying to impose.

Ted SiroisSaco

Invalid username/password.

Please check your email to confirm and complete your registration.

Use the form below to reset your password. When you've submitted your account email, we will send an email with a reset code.

Previous

Next

Link:
Letter to the editor: Service members' free speech rights unfairly restricted - pressherald.com

Understanding the constitutional and legal definitions as well as restrictions of free speech

In the wake of the war cry targeting minorities at a religious congregation in Haridwar, its high time India recognised hate speech as the vilest affront and the greatest dishonour to the freedom of speech as conceived and cherished by the Indian Constitution. Hate Speech as defined by the 267th report of the Law Commission of India is an incitement to hatred primarily against a group of persons defined in terms of race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief and the like. Any attempt to casually pass off such demagogic claptrap under the political tapestry of free speech in an election-bound State (Uttarakhand) amounts to the denial of all that the Constitution of India represents.

THE GIST

As the Constituent Assembly deliberated on Article 13 of the draft Constitution, which would later become Article 19 in the enacted Constitution, intense apprehensions were expressed on the proposed proviso to Article 13 listing restrictions to the freedom of speech and expression. These restrictions finally became Article 19(2). The exceptions under the same clause fell under four broad categories: libel , slander, defamation, contempt of court, offends against decency or morality and undermines the security of or tends to overthrow the state. The proposed restrictions were resisted on the ground that these sought to rein in free speech and are not seen in the American Constitution, which had tremendously inspired members of the Constituent Assembly. Dr. Ambedkar sought to douse the fire of concern by declaring, It is wrong to say that fundamental rights in America are absolute. The difference between the position under the American Constitution and the Draft Constitution is one of form and not of substance. That the fundamental rights in America are not absolute rights is beyond dispute. In support of every exception to the fundamental rights set out in the Draft Constitution one can refer to at least one judgment of the United States Supreme Court. It would be sufficient to quote one such judgment of the Supreme Court in justification of the limitation on the right of free speech contained in Article 13 of the Draft Constitution.

As the original text of Article 19(2) did not contain the term public order, the pre-publication ban on newspapers/weeklies in Delhi and Madras under the state laws were invalidated by the Supreme Court on the ground that the amplitude of the restriction under Article 19(2) did not cover public order. This prompted Parliament to amend Article 19(2) by way of The Constitution( First Amendment) Act, 1951, to include public order among other additional grounds, but with a general rider that such a law shall impose (only) reasonable restrictions.

Jawaharlal Nehru, the protagonist of the proposal, defended the First Amendment. In his address to Parliament, he said, It has become a matter of the deepest distress to me to see from day to day some of these news-sheets which are full of vulgarity and indecency and falsehood, day after day, not injuring me or this House much, but poisoning the minds of the younger generation, degrading their mental integrity and moral standards. It is not for me a political problem but a moral problem. How are we to save our younger generation from this progressive degradation and the progressive poisoning of the mind and spirit? The laws enacted under the public order restriction included Section 153A , Section 153B, Section 295A and Section 502(2) of the Indian Penal code. However, the mesh of law was perforated by weak as well as selective enforcement.

In Pravasi Bhalai Sangathan vs Union of India & Ors.(2014) the Supreme Court said: Hate speech is an effort to marginalise individuals based on their membership in a group. Using expression that exposes the group to hatred, hate speech seeks to delegitimise group members in the eyes of the majority, reducing their social standing and acceptance within society. Hate speech, therefore, rises beyond causing distress to individual group members. It can have a societal impact. Hate speech lays the groundwork for later, broad attacks on [the] vulnerable that can range from discrimination, to ostracism, segregation, deportation, violence and, in the most extreme cases, to genocide. Hate speech also impacts a protected groups ability to respond to the substantive ideas under debate, thereby placing a serious barrier to their full participation in our democracy.

On the proliferation of hate speech, the Supreme Court pointed out that the root of the problem is not the absence of laws but rather a lack of their effective execution. Therefore, the executive as well as civil society has to perform its role in enforcing the already existing legal regime. Effective regulation of hate speeches at all levels is required as the authors of such speeches can be booked under the existing penal law and all the law enforcing agencies must ensure that the existing law is not rendered a dead letter.

Further, the Supreme Court requested the Law Commission of India to examine the issue. The 267th report of the Law Commission was of the clear opinion that new provisions in IPC were required to address the issue.

It suggested the insertion of new Sections 153C (prohibiting incitement to hatred) and section 505A (causing fear, alarm, or provocation of violence in certain cases) to curb the menace of hate speech.

Despite a draft Bill being annexed to the report, none has been presented to Parliament so far.

Neither has the law been strengthened, nor the existing law strongly enforced. This sums up the citizens predicament

Abhilash M.R is lawyer practising in the Supreme Court.

Read the rest here:
Is the freedom of speech absolute? - The Hindu

When anyones civil rights are violated, everyones civil rights are in jeopardy.

Like a warm quilt, our constitutional rights protect us against government actions that directly or indirectly chill our exercise of free speech, peaceable assembly, and other basic liberties. Extending the analogy, whenever the fabric is torn there is a risk of the tear widening, threatening the integrity of the whole, unless it is promptly mendedthe proverbial stitch in time.

We have recently seen how damage to civil rights can affect communities far from the source. On Nov. 19, a riot broke out in Portland, Ore., protesting Kyle Rittenhouses acquittal on charges based on his shooting of three men in Kenosha, Wis., 2,100 miles away. The physical damage was small, mostly broken windows.

Most protests are peaceable. The Washington Post reported on Oct. 16, 2020, that its four-year study of 7,305 political crowd events found fewer than four percent of them resulted in property damage or vandalism. Injuries to people, including protestors and peace officers, occurred in fewer than three percent of the events.

Thats not always the case. In the aftermath of George Floyds cruel, senseless murder on May 25, 2020, in Minneapolis, protest demonstrations were held in over 140 U.S. cities by June 13, 2020, according to the New York Times.

Most were nonviolent, though small, violent factions caused massive insured property damages, estimated by the World Economic Forum to have exceeded $2 billion by February 2021.

Abridgments of civil liberties can lead to violence, often on the side obstructing those liberties, and opportunists on the other side who exploit peaceful, fervent demonstrations to wreak mayhem. The losses in such instances are, in this writers view, more devastating that the monetary losses. Though such people do not speak for the vast majority of peaceful demonstrators or peace officers, they speak the loudest, fueling the prejudices that gave rise to, and still motivate, the opposing sides worst natures.

Imagine the emotional costs that fear, anger, and distrust impose on a person, or a society, especially amid a global pandemic. Many readers will not have to imagine.

On the macro scale, and over decades, movements to defend precious liberties push society forward, in fits and starts. Think of the 19th Amendment, enfranchising 50% of the population; the Civil Rights movement of the 1950s and continuing to today, which goaded Congress to enact the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts. The MeToo movement doesnt change the law, but empowers victims of abuse to stand up to and expose their abusers.

On the micro scale, we have another remedy: lawsuits that challenge and chip away at governmental encroachments on civil rights. These cases can achieve economic justice, a.k.a. damage awards. Without getting too deeply into lawspeak, the Civil Rights Act encourages such lawsuits by allowing federal trial courts to award to prevailing plaintiffs their attorneys fees and costs.

More rarely, civil rights cases can confirm the rights of others, as well as the plaintiffs. Some such cases have moved from the law books to our vocabulary. Such cases define the proper role of government with respect to individual and associational rights of privacy, advocacy, assembly, and equal protection of the law.

On July 1, the U.S. Supreme Court decided a civil rights case I had tried, won, and lost on appeal. The high court issued 64 decisions in its 2020-2021 term. Mine was the 64th to be decided. We filed it to defend one nonprofit organizations right to keep its donors confidential from a state regulatoranonymous advocacy being at the heart of the Founders case against King George IIIthough we also sought to hold the regulation unconstitutional on its face, and thus applicable generally to nonprofits.

As the case wended its way to the Supreme Court it became clear the facial challenge was the right one to pursue. With the leadership of experienced Supreme Court advocates as co-counsel, we presented the case and, on July 1, won it as a facial challenge.

The case spanned six years from filing to decision. It was certainly worth the effort for the client and similarly situated 501(c)(3) nonprofits, and will be the highlight of my career.

As a lawyer of 41 years tenure and an adjunct professor of law, youd think I would be all for civil rights lawsuits. I am, but wish they werent necessary, just as I wish that protest marches werent needed to advance societal decency, one notch at a time. An ounce of preventionrecognizing and respecting established civil rightsis worth $2 billion of cure, or six years in the courtroom.

Civil unrest is not a natural disaster. We make it. We could end it, though it would take a long time. After all, it took nearly four centuries to get us where we are.

This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. or its owners.

Write for Us: Author Guidelines

Louie Castoria is a partner in Kaufman Dolowich & Voluck LLP and teaches litigation classes at Golden Gate Universitys School of Law in San Francisco. He urges measures to strengthen the security of our most cherished freedomsstill very much works in progress.

The opinions expressed are the authors, and not necessarily those of his law school, law firm, or its clients.

Originally posted here:
When Will Civil Rights Lawsuits No Longer Be Necessary? - Bloomberg Law