Category: Free speech

A story on Fox News describes how a Kansas Department of Transportation (KDOT) worker posted a rant against Donald Trump on the department’s Twitter account. The tweet was in response to a Trump tweet criticizing a Fox News reporter. Here’s what the KDOT worker had to say:

“You’re a delusional Communist. You know it’s Communist countries that try to control media, right?”

Unfortunately for this worker, he is wrong. Criticizing the press is an exercise of free speech (you know, that pesky first amendment of the Constitution), and Trump’s criticizing of the press in no way “controls” the media. Trump is as free to express his opinion of the press as you are to express your opinion of Trump.

You know what’s really “communist”? Denigrating the exercise of free speech.

The biological differences between a person born one sex but having transitioned to another and someone born of that other sex are difficult to deny. In some cases, one would expect physical advantages to exist. For instance, a person born male who grows through puberty as a male before transitioning to female would be expected to have greater physical size and strength than a typical woman. The question arises: should such transgender women be allowed to compete as women, against women, in championship sporting events?

Martina Navratilova, a former women’s tennis champion, believes the answer should be no. And she makes a good argument for her case.

Of course, some are calling this opinion transphobic – like Rachel McKinnon, the transgender woman who recently won a women’s cyclist world title. Navratilova’s response to McKinnon’s position:

“McKinnon has vigorously defended her right to compete, pointing out that, when tested, her levels of testosterone, the male hormone, were well within the limits set by world cycling’s governing body,” wrote Navratilova on Sunday. “Nevertheless, at 6ft tall and weighing more than 14 stone, she appeared to have a substantial advantage in muscle mass over her rivals.”

Given Navratilova’s past history as a gay rights activist, I just don’t see this as a transphobic issue. Some facts support Navratilova’s position, and McKinnon is an excellent example of how the physical effects of being born male are often difficult to undo.

I believe in the absolute freedom to live your life – by your own means – any way you choose. I have no animus towards any particular sex or sexual orientation, regardless of one’s birth gender. But when sporting events are divided by sex to promote fairness due to significant physical/genetic differences, it is unreasonable to ignore the advantage provided in some cases to transgender athletes.

Also, having a difference of opinion on the physical effects of birth gender does not make one “transphobic”. However, using such slurs to silence your detractors – well, that seems a bit intolerant to me.

… than just the press.

I’m always impressed when editorials are published without specifically listing authors – like this one from the “editorial board” at the Boston Globe. It lets me know that they are just being petulant children who don’t want to be called to the carpet for their personal attacks.

Their gripe? President Trump doesn’t like them, and lets the public know. They seem to have forgotten an important lesson regarding the 1st amendment: as much as the press is free to criticize the President, the President is free to criticize the press. I find it interesting that the press seems to forget this key lesson whenever it is convenient.

But in this editorial they go much further, insinuating that Trump is trying to eliminate freedom of the press by his (constitutionally-protected) criticism of their work. Here’s the relevant statement from the editorial:

“Replacing a free media with a state-run media has always been a first order of business for any corrupt regime taking over a country.”

This statement implies that Trump is attempting to eliminate 1st amendment protections for the press, which is completely unsupported by the facts. Such an act is far beyond Trump’s capabilities, even if it were his goal. Rhetoric – yes; but abolishing the 1st amendment? Not a chance, and the press knows this intimately. To suggest such an absurdity is … well, absurd. In reality they are simply mad at being called out for their biased attacks on Trump, and this is their retaliation.

The editorial also makes another interesting statement:

“The press is necessary to a free society because it does not implicitly trust leaders…”

Yes; and freedom of speech for the people – including the freedom to criticize the press – is necessary because we cannot implicitly trust the media. Just because we have instituted freedom of the press in our constitution does not mean that the press will never misreport (and I’m being kind here by using the word “misreport”). Freedom of speech to criticize the press is as essential as the ability of the press to criticize our leaders. When the press shows obvious and significant bias, it is up to the people (including the President) to call them on their partiality.

In another interesting statement they admit that Trump cannot eliminate freedom of the press, but at the same time compare his actions to those who have:

“Trump can’t outlaw the press from doing its job here, of course. But the model of inciting his supporters in this regard is how 21st-century authoritarians like Vladimir Putin and Recep Tayyip Erdogan operate; you don’t need formal censorship to strangle a supply of information.” [emphasis mine]

Uh… yes, you do. Just ask Putin and Erdogan; jailing reporters and taking over press outlets – i.e.: formal censorship – are exactly what these two have done. The President criticizing the perceived reporting bias of the press is a far cry from actually locking up reporters and seizing press outlets.

Maybe it would be better if – instead of whining about how President Trump doesn’t like their reporting – the press simply worked on being more neutral in their reporting of the news. And it would be really nice if the press stopped acting like a reality show (yes, I’m talking about you Jim Acosta).

Yeah, yeah, I know… the same request can be applied to the President (and I agree).

A recent NPR article is (in my opinion) gloating about how an alternative social media site, Gab, has been effectively shut down by internet and financial service providers. Before those of you who disagree with the ideas and people found on the Gab web site start giggling with glee over their predicament, maybe we should examine the matter a little closer. I’ve said this before, but it is worth repeating: we should be particularly concerned when those who control the means of speech use it to effectively limit speech – even that of our opposition.

Some of my concern emanates from the implication that Gab is simply a private haven for right-wing zealots (who, by the way, have just as much of a right to exist and communicate their views/opinions as the rest of us), and thus deserves to be shut down. For instance, this quote from a Wired article on the Gab social site:

“For a group that’s so outraged by the idea that their voices aren’t being heard, they sure have created an insulated corner of the Internet for themselves.”

However, it was not the purpose of Gab to isolate anyone. The isolation is instead an unintended consequence of such people being systematically excluded from mainstream mechanisms for personal expression. What if left-wing thought had been excluded from social media platforms? How would Gab have evolved then? Demonizing a group for being isolated – particularly when that isolation was not self-imposed – and using this as justification for silencing their opinions is wrong.

Another, more serious concern is the denial of basic services required for speech to be heard. What if phone companies refused to provide you telephone service because they didn’t like what you might say, or simply left you off of all their phone directories and directory assistance systems? What if banks refused to allow you the ability to process financial transactions for the same reason? What if this was a coordinated effort among Internet service providers specifically to silence some opinions? This appears to be what is happening to Gab. According to a Washington Post story, Gab has been: banned from a popular online payment processing system; given 24 hours to move their domain to another provider; and had both their internet service provider and hosting service suspend or pull their service.

Some might argue that Gab should simply find a different service provider, hosting company, or even bank under these circumstances. But what if someone refused to bake a cake because of the message it sent – say, a wedding cake for a homosexual couple? Would you say the same to them – that they should simply find another provider? I think not; why, then, is that an acceptable response now?

When the mechanisms for popular speech are used in such a way that some few get to say who can speak and what can be said, we are violating the spirit of free speech enshrined in our constitution. When these mechanisms are part of a limited resource with significant barriers to entry for the common people, and as a result are effectively able to shut down speech, then these mechanisms should be regulated as the oligarchy that they have become.

Think of it this way: What are you going to do when it is your opinion being silenced? And if you’re too dim to realize that possibly, then fear not; you will eventually get exactly what you deserve.

When a senior Facebook executive expressed his support for Brett Kavanaugh, internal online discussions criticizing him and forced an apology.  In addition, an internal company “town hall” was called to discuss the matter.

Says Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg regarding the incident:

“We support people’s right to do what they want in their personal time but this was by no means a straightforward case.”

I’ve got news for you, Ms. Sandberg: There can be no “but” after “We support people’s right to do what they want in their personal time.” This freedom cannot be conditional. The fact that Facebook has taken any action regarding this executive’s personal activities shows just how biased Facebook has become.

It’s time we let Facebook know that these types of blatant partizan politics will not be tolerated. Close your Facebook account and refuse to do business with Facebook advertisers. Only then will we be assured free speech via social media platforms.

And remember – next time it might be your thoughts that are suppressed.