Category: Free speech

Turnabout

When I first read the predicament of this college professor I was delighted. Turnabout, I thought, is fair play. If right of center opinion is to be punished as a means to censor that opinion, then so too should be left of center opinion.

However, Prof. Eugene Volokh, in his column at the Washington Post, reminds us that we must apply our ideals uniformly. If we accept limitations on speech with which we don’t agree, we potentially open the door for others to place limits on speech with which we do agree. This will eventually have a chilling effect on speech that we actually need to hear.

Thank you, Professor, for the reminder.

1st amendment be damned…

If you had any doubt as to the pending demise of the 1st amendment in the far left’s version of the United States, here’s a quote from San Francisco mayor Ed Lee after one group’s attempt to use a city park for a press conference was thwarted.

“If people want to have the stage in San Francisco, they better have a message that contributes to people’s lives rather than find ways to hurt them,” Lee said.

“That’s why certain voices found it very difficult to have their voices heard today.”

Wow. Really; wow.

Berkeley Chancellor promotes free speech

Eugene Volokh’s column at the Washington Post, “The Volokh Conspiracy” (one of my daily stops on the Internet), recently posted a written statement by University of California at Berkeley Chancellor Carol Christ regarding free speech and safe spaces.

I am highly encouraged by Chancellor Christ’s statement, and would recommend it for all to read.

White toddler = racist propaganda

The ACLU has in the past posted pictures on their twitter feed of several babies wearing ACLU-sanctioned political messages about free speech, women’s rights, etc. with the caption “This is the future that ACLU members want”. However, when they posted a picture of a blonde-haired white toddler holding an American flag and wearing a “free speech” tee, all hell broke loose. Apparently, white = racist, even as a toddler.

It strikes me as strange that so many of those who are preaching for racial inclusivity are so insistent on exclusivity (examples here and here). Does anyone really believe that excluding any group will bring us together? Shouldn’t we be looking for ways to come together as a people – irrespective of race, gender, or religion – rather than identifying ways to divide us further?

The insidious nature of the claim that a child – or anyone, for that matter – represents racism solely as a result of the color of their skin should be alarming to all. It should be more alarming, however, that this premise has been accepted by so many.

Free speech and the social media moguls

In today’s digital world, free speech is largely dependent on services provided via the WWW marketplace – services such as those available through social media sites, web hosts, search engines and Internet name registrars. When those who control the ability to speak via these means put their thumbs on the scale in an effort to silence those with whom they do not agree, we should consider it an attack on free speech and act accordingly. I’ve warned about this possibility before here and here, but it seems to have reared its head on a massive scale much faster than even I thought possible.

We cannot allow this type of viewpoint discrimination and censorship to stand. Where would it stop? Today it’s so-called white supremacists; next week it might be conservatives, and the week after Republicans in general. Fifty years ago it was  Socialists; fifty more from now it might be Democrats. The point is that even if you agree with these actions today because they are taken against your enemy, one day it might be you on the other side of this debate. What would you do if it was your opinion being censored?

When social media moguls want their platforms to become the primary, necessary means of communication for the masses, their effective censorship of specific speech can be troublesome. If they want to act as political operatives and lobbyists, so be it – but then let’s regulate them as such.

(And you were worried about Russian interference in our elections? Wait till you see what a social media censorship campaign can accomplish…)

Social Media and Free Speech

Now, for the record, I don’t particularly agree with the views of the author who is the subject of this news article. However, he is entitled to his opinion nonetheless and he is free to disseminate his views to any who will listen. So long as his words falls within the court-established limits of free speech, he should be allowed to speak.

That being said, when a large social media service such as Twitter denies speech that would otherwise be protected under the 1st amendment then they have crossed a subtle line. At what point do they become political/social advocates who simply use censorship to mold society in their image? As these social media firms try to become the primary, necessary means of communication for the masses, such control over speech can be troublesome.

To put this into another perspective, what would you think if the telephone company refused to provide you telephone service because they didn’t agree with what you might say? What if the users of “free” email services had their emails scanned for “incorrect” thoughts, which were deleted or corrected by the overseers of these communication providers? Can you imagine the impact such activities might have on an election? Foreign interference with our elections be damned; social media censorship of political and social ideas should be of much greater concern.

Keep in mind that this is a special case: Twitter has not censored an account, but instead blocked ads from this entity from appearing on their service. However, we need to keep in mind that the same rules that apply to bakers and florists must also apply to advertising domains, i.e.: you cannot discriminate against those with whose beliefs you disagree. If a cake baker should not refuse to bake a wedding cake for a couple with whose lifestyle the baker does not agree, why should Twitter be able to refuse an ad from an author with whose philosophy Twitter does not agree?

Whether or not you agree with the views of the communications provider or the source of the censored speech, you should be concerned that one day it may be you who is at odds with Twitter.

I’ve covered a similar topic previously here.

“Racism cannot be fought with more racism”

Finally – something that makes sense.

According to a Washington Times article, Lisa Durden – an adjunct professor at Essex County College – has been fired after a heated discussion on the show “Tucker Carlson Tonight”.

In this discussion Ms. Durden defended a black-only “Black Lives Matter” event. When confronted by Tucker Carlson over the seemingly divisive nature of the event, Ms. Durden is alleged to have responded:

“Boo hoo hoo, you white people are angry because you couldn’t use your white privilege card to get invited to the Black Lives Matter’s all-black Memorial Day Celebration,” Ms. Durden told Mr. Carlson, who called her views “separatist” and divisive.

School President Anthony Munroe responded to Durden’s statement by saying:

“The character of this institution mandates that we embrace diversity, inclusion, and unity. Racism cannot be fought with more racism.”

Ms. Durden claims that her 1st amendment rights have been violated, but I disagree. She is free to say whatever she likes – clearly, no one stopped her – but having a right to speak does not free one from the consequences of such speech. Say something wildly offensive and you’ll likely pay the price.

Kudos to President Munroe for valuing inclusivity over divisiveness, and for placing the best interests of students over that of adjunct faculty.

Unmitigated gall

Kathy Griffin, the comedian who posed for photos holding what appears to be the bloody head of President Trump, blames Trump for the backlash she has experienced as a result.

“I’m going to be honest,” she said through tears. “He broke me, he broke me, he broke me.”

Maybe not. Maybe we’re all just tired of the left’s extreme disrespect for the President. He may not be “your” president, Kathy, but he’s still the President of the United States – no matter how large of a temper tantrum you throw.

Note that she also places blame on others as well, going so far as to pull the race card in an attempt to recover some support from the uber-left:

“It’s hurtful to me,” Griffin said. “There’s a bunch of old white guys trying to silence me and I’m just here to say that it’s wrong.”

She even tries to hide behind the 1st amendment:

She said she plans to continue to make fun of the president as is her First Amendment right, her lawyer, civil rights attorney Lisa Bloom reiterated at Friday’s press conference.

I agree that Griffin’s picture is a viable expression of her 1st amendment rights, and that she has the right to take, display, and distribute such a picture. However, the 1st amendment does not protect one from the resulting public backlash when their speech is offensive. You can say what you want, Kathy – but you should expect people to treat you accordingly.

And for those of you who believe this behavior is acceptable and should suffer no repercussions, let me ask you this important question: How would you have felt if a right-leaning comedian was photographed holding the bloody, decapitated head of President Obama?

Yeah; I thought so…

The thought police

California students sue after being suspended for ‘liking’ racist posts

The school has overstepped its bounds when it attempts to limit free speech by punishing those who’ve listened. No matter how much you disagree with someone’s viewpoint, the answer is never to silence them by force. Rather, you should win them over with logic and reason;  only then will you have the opportunity for change.

A clear media bias…

Daily newspaper columnist who defended NRA quits after suspension

Stacy Washington’s employer, The St. Louis Post-Dispatch,  claimed that her unpaid work for the NRA represented a conflict of interest with respect to her story in support of the NRA. Does that mean that all members of the NRA, who support the NRA through their donations, would also represent a conflict of interest for pro-gun articles? Who would you expect then to be qualified to write pro-gun articles? People who oppose guns?

The St. Louis Post-Dispatch’s position is an appalling attack on free expression, and is a perfect example of the bias in the press. Do you think they would have rejected an anti-gun article from Michael Bloomberg because of his extensive work to support anti-NRA efforts? Yeah; me neither…