Not comfortably fitting the accepted narrative.
Ignored by the liberal media; exposed by Fox News; free speech supported by conservatives.
Weird, right?
//On May 26, Friday morning, Fox News called. It was Tucker Carlson’s producer. The show was going to run a segment on Evergreen that night. Did Bret want to be part of it? No, he didn’t want to. But he felt he needed to. Fox was, at that point, the only member of the national news media that had shown up. YouTube was on fire with videos that protesters had posted, but most journalists were staying away, presumably because the story didn’t fit comfortable, mainstream narratives.
Two notable things happened after Bret went on Fox. One was that a substantial minority of our colleagues at Evergreen called for a “disciplinary investigation” against him. Why? Apparently, people on the Left aren’t allowed to talk to those on the Right. It is against the rules. Prohibitions against talking to “the other side” widens the intellectual fissure opening up in our society. It creates the very silos we are warned against. By speaking to others, Bret was breaking rank, and so treated like a deserter, or traitor. One thing we know is that when you’re being told by your antagonists who you’re not supposed to talk to, it’s probably a good indicator of who you should be talking to.
The other thing that happened after Bret went on Fox was that well over 1,000 viewers wrote to him. A couple of emails came from white nationalists, people perhaps similar to the New Jersey man who later phoned in a threat to the college, which shut the campus down for two days. Another email was a nasty piece of anti-Semitic hatred. But the overwhelming majority were supportive and eloquent. The writers were from across all known fault lines — socioeconomic class, race, national origin, location on the political spectrum. There were letters from First Nations people, high school students and university faculty, Evergreen students and alums, a man building a school in Uganda. And the thing that unites them is their call to stand strong. They say: Do not back down. And: At this moment, I am so glad to have respect for someone with whom I might politically disagree.
Doesn’t that sound like an antidote to the polarization that has gripped the body politic? An ability to reach out across prejudice and talk to people? To respect those with whom we do not share identical core beliefs?//
Showing posts with label Free Speech 2017. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Free Speech 2017. Show all posts
Thursday, February 08, 2018
Saturday, December 30, 2017
Billboards are not telephone calls.
Harassment by phone is direct, immediate and portends escalation; billboards, not so much.
However, California is prosecuting someone for posts on a Facebook page. The posts are anti-Islamic; the page is an Islamic page. The posts could be worse - I've seen worse directed at Catholics in my comments, at least.
Also, Facebook has a "block" function, which seems like a simple solution that doesn't involve the government picking and choosing what "annoying" comments get prosecuted.
Harassment by phone is direct, immediate and portends escalation; billboards, not so much.
However, California is prosecuting someone for posts on a Facebook page. The posts are anti-Islamic; the page is an Islamic page. The posts could be worse - I've seen worse directed at Catholics in my comments, at least.
Also, Facebook has a "block" function, which seems like a simple solution that doesn't involve the government picking and choosing what "annoying" comments get prosecuted.
Wednesday, October 04, 2017
Liberals in a Hurry.
Black Lives Matter is replaying the history of Marxism.
First, it is a useful outlier for the moderate leftists for whom there are no enemies to the left.
Next, the radical left has the moderate left executed as Menshevik traitors.
//The disruption was livestreamed on BLM at W&M's Facebook page. Students took to the stage just a few moments after Gastañaga began her remarks. At first, she attempted to spin the demonstration as a welcome example of the kind of thing she had come to campus to discuss, commenting "Good, I like this," as they lined up and raised their signs. "I'm going to talk to you about knowing your rights, and protests and demonstrations, which this illustrates very well. Then I'm going to respond to questions from the moderators, and then questions from the audience."
It was the last remark she was able to make before protesters drowned her out with cries of, "ACLU, you protect Hitler, too." They also chanted, "the oppressed are not impressed," "shame, shame, shame, shame," (an ode to the Faith Militant's treatment of Cersei Lannister in Game of Thrones, though why anyone would want to be associated with the religious fanatics in that particular conflict is beyond me), "blood on your hands," "the revolution will not uphold the Constitution," and, uh, "liberalism is white supremacy."
This went on for nearly 20 minutes. Eventually, according to the campus's Flat Hat News, one of the college's co-organizers of the event handed a microphone to the protest's leader, who delivered a prepared statement. The disruption was apparently payback for the ACLU's principled First Amendment defense of the Charlottesville alt-right's civil liberties.
Organizers then canceled the event; some members of the audience approached the podium in an attempt to speak with Gastañaga, but the protesters would not permit it. They surrounded Gastañaga, raised their voices even louder, and drove everybody else away.
The college released what can only be described as an incredibly tepid statement...//
Or as they said during the French Revolution, "to the guillotines."
Black Lives Matter is replaying the history of Marxism.
First, it is a useful outlier for the moderate leftists for whom there are no enemies to the left.
Next, the radical left has the moderate left executed as Menshevik traitors.
//The disruption was livestreamed on BLM at W&M's Facebook page. Students took to the stage just a few moments after Gastañaga began her remarks. At first, she attempted to spin the demonstration as a welcome example of the kind of thing she had come to campus to discuss, commenting "Good, I like this," as they lined up and raised their signs. "I'm going to talk to you about knowing your rights, and protests and demonstrations, which this illustrates very well. Then I'm going to respond to questions from the moderators, and then questions from the audience."
It was the last remark she was able to make before protesters drowned her out with cries of, "ACLU, you protect Hitler, too." They also chanted, "the oppressed are not impressed," "shame, shame, shame, shame," (an ode to the Faith Militant's treatment of Cersei Lannister in Game of Thrones, though why anyone would want to be associated with the religious fanatics in that particular conflict is beyond me), "blood on your hands," "the revolution will not uphold the Constitution," and, uh, "liberalism is white supremacy."
This went on for nearly 20 minutes. Eventually, according to the campus's Flat Hat News, one of the college's co-organizers of the event handed a microphone to the protest's leader, who delivered a prepared statement. The disruption was apparently payback for the ACLU's principled First Amendment defense of the Charlottesville alt-right's civil liberties.
Organizers then canceled the event; some members of the audience approached the podium in an attempt to speak with Gastañaga, but the protesters would not permit it. They surrounded Gastañaga, raised their voices even louder, and drove everybody else away.
The college released what can only be described as an incredibly tepid statement...//
Or as they said during the French Revolution, "to the guillotines."
Monday, September 11, 2017
The Democrats are working very hard to lose Catholic votes in the Rust Belt.
Catholic farmer posts explanation for his opposition to gay marriage and is banned by City of East Lansing from selling farm products at City's farmer's market.
There is an excellent Section 1983 case here.
Catholic farmer posts explanation for his opposition to gay marriage and is banned by City of East Lansing from selling farm products at City's farmer's market.
There is an excellent Section 1983 case here.
Wednesday, August 30, 2017
The best thing that could come out of The Great Moral Panic of 2017 would be laws that protect everyone's free speech rights.
Libertarian UCLA law prof Eugene Volokh discusses the termination of an insufferable Sociology professor who expressed joy in the Texas flooding disaster (because, you know, Texas voted for Trump.)
//I’ve talked before about “censorship envy,” one mechanism through which these sorts of speech restrictions can grow: “If my neighbor — and especially my political adversary — gets to ban speech he reviles,” the thinking goes, “why shouldn’t I get to do the same?”
If a university has a strong policy of protecting speech, including offensive speech, administrators can point to that policy as a means of resisting calls for firing a controversial faculty member, and they can appeal to people’s desire to see speakers on their own side protected, and use that desire to help protect speakers on all sides. But once the university starts firing some people for speech “that do[es] not reflect [the university’s] community views or values,” that makes it much harder to resist calls for more suppression. Indeed, at that point tolerating speech starts implicitly conveying the message that the speech does reflect the university’s community views or values — and to avoid that implication, the university would have to fire any speaker who offended some sufficiently influential constituency.
And what about students? If you know your professor was fired for his speech, how can you — someone of much lower status than even a visiting assistant professor — have any confidence that your controversial speech will be protected? Let’s say even that you want to speak sensibly and reasonably and think that your view isn’t nasty, ill-timed and largely unsubstantive the way that Storey’s was. Do you feel secure that the university will draw such a distinction? Or do you think that it will just give in to calls to discipline you or even expel you, the way it gave in to calls to fire Storey?
The slippery slope is a real phenomenon in a legal and political system in which so much is argued based on precedent, analogy and calls for equal treatment, including equal suppression. Is the desire to punish a jerk like Storey — emotionally understandable as the desire might be — really worth the damage that such firings can cause to free speech at American universities, including private ones?//
Libertarian UCLA law prof Eugene Volokh discusses the termination of an insufferable Sociology professor who expressed joy in the Texas flooding disaster (because, you know, Texas voted for Trump.)
//I’ve talked before about “censorship envy,” one mechanism through which these sorts of speech restrictions can grow: “If my neighbor — and especially my political adversary — gets to ban speech he reviles,” the thinking goes, “why shouldn’t I get to do the same?”
If a university has a strong policy of protecting speech, including offensive speech, administrators can point to that policy as a means of resisting calls for firing a controversial faculty member, and they can appeal to people’s desire to see speakers on their own side protected, and use that desire to help protect speakers on all sides. But once the university starts firing some people for speech “that do[es] not reflect [the university’s] community views or values,” that makes it much harder to resist calls for more suppression. Indeed, at that point tolerating speech starts implicitly conveying the message that the speech does reflect the university’s community views or values — and to avoid that implication, the university would have to fire any speaker who offended some sufficiently influential constituency.
And what about students? If you know your professor was fired for his speech, how can you — someone of much lower status than even a visiting assistant professor — have any confidence that your controversial speech will be protected? Let’s say even that you want to speak sensibly and reasonably and think that your view isn’t nasty, ill-timed and largely unsubstantive the way that Storey’s was. Do you feel secure that the university will draw such a distinction? Or do you think that it will just give in to calls to discipline you or even expel you, the way it gave in to calls to fire Storey?
The slippery slope is a real phenomenon in a legal and political system in which so much is argued based on precedent, analogy and calls for equal treatment, including equal suppression. Is the desire to punish a jerk like Storey — emotionally understandable as the desire might be — really worth the damage that such firings can cause to free speech at American universities, including private ones?//
Thursday, August 24, 2017
One of the values of free speech is that it lets you spot the idiots.
This guy should not be punished for his opinions, but you have to wonder about how he treats "white" or Republican students.
Perhaps there should be more diversity on college campuses and more free speech?
This guy should not be punished for his opinions, but you have to wonder about how he treats "white" or Republican students.
Perhaps there should be more diversity on college campuses and more free speech?
Tuesday, August 22, 2017
Washington Post endorses censorship.
When did the left stop believing in free speech?
Bizarre.
Here is another perspective on the essay, which is behind a paywall.
//Tuesday in the Washington Post, a curious thing happened; a contributing writer for the national newspaper actually argued against conservatives' right to the First Amendment, seemingly not understanding her own right to print that opinion is protected by that same amendment.
Professor Jennifer Delton’s arduous piece,“When Free Speech Becomes a Political Weapon,” in a nutshell, attacked the right, and “alt right,” for “using” free speech as a “weapon” to advance their unwelcome ideologies, which she says “subvert our democracy.”
In the ensuing jumbling argument she advances, she defines free speech as something it is not, and makes unsubstantiated claims that the right is trying to “undermine democracy” so their rights should no longer be protected.
Delton started off by fretting that universities are now in a bind, because the right has taken the concept of free speech hostage. She claimed the right has malicious intentions for hosting conservative speakers because they’re trying to “bait” liberal institutions by “weaponizing the concepts of free speech”:
Here’s the dilemma college presidents face in the fall: Either uphold free speech on campus and risk violent counterprotests, or ban conservative provocateurs and confirm the “freedom of speech” crisis on campuses. Either way their institution’s legitimacy is undermined. This impossible dilemma is no accident. It has been part of a strategy, deployed first by conservatives and perfected by the alt-right…..
The second thing we know about the alt-right is that its provocateurs seek to bait liberal institutions by weaponizing the concept of free speech, which is an issue that divides the liberal left. It is true that higher education has brought much of this on itself through the extreme policing of speech and tolerance of student protesters who shut down speakers with whom they disagree. But that doesn’t diminish the extent to which the alt-right and conservatives are using “free speech” to attack and destroy colleges and universities, which have long promoted different variations of the internationalist, secular, cosmopolitan, multicultural liberalism that marks the thinking of educated elites of both parties.
Delton then claimed that college presidents need to “figure out” whether the First Amendment protects “conservatives’ right” to free speech because it “creates political spectacle and instigates violence.” Sounds like Delton neededto read the First Amendment again because she clearly doesn’t understand it. The courts have shown a high standard of what speech they deem qualifies as “threatening violence” and simply voicing a different viewpoint from another person does not meet that standard by a long shot. On top of that, at the majority of these protests between the “alt right” and “alt left” it is the “alt left” who shows up in hoods, with weapons and the intention to commit violence. She makes a further mistake by conflating “conservatives” with the “alt right.”//
When did the left stop believing in free speech?
Bizarre.
Here is another perspective on the essay, which is behind a paywall.
//Tuesday in the Washington Post, a curious thing happened; a contributing writer for the national newspaper actually argued against conservatives' right to the First Amendment, seemingly not understanding her own right to print that opinion is protected by that same amendment.
Professor Jennifer Delton’s arduous piece,“When Free Speech Becomes a Political Weapon,” in a nutshell, attacked the right, and “alt right,” for “using” free speech as a “weapon” to advance their unwelcome ideologies, which she says “subvert our democracy.”
In the ensuing jumbling argument she advances, she defines free speech as something it is not, and makes unsubstantiated claims that the right is trying to “undermine democracy” so their rights should no longer be protected.
Delton started off by fretting that universities are now in a bind, because the right has taken the concept of free speech hostage. She claimed the right has malicious intentions for hosting conservative speakers because they’re trying to “bait” liberal institutions by “weaponizing the concepts of free speech”:
Here’s the dilemma college presidents face in the fall: Either uphold free speech on campus and risk violent counterprotests, or ban conservative provocateurs and confirm the “freedom of speech” crisis on campuses. Either way their institution’s legitimacy is undermined. This impossible dilemma is no accident. It has been part of a strategy, deployed first by conservatives and perfected by the alt-right…..
The second thing we know about the alt-right is that its provocateurs seek to bait liberal institutions by weaponizing the concept of free speech, which is an issue that divides the liberal left. It is true that higher education has brought much of this on itself through the extreme policing of speech and tolerance of student protesters who shut down speakers with whom they disagree. But that doesn’t diminish the extent to which the alt-right and conservatives are using “free speech” to attack and destroy colleges and universities, which have long promoted different variations of the internationalist, secular, cosmopolitan, multicultural liberalism that marks the thinking of educated elites of both parties.
Delton then claimed that college presidents need to “figure out” whether the First Amendment protects “conservatives’ right” to free speech because it “creates political spectacle and instigates violence.” Sounds like Delton neededto read the First Amendment again because she clearly doesn’t understand it. The courts have shown a high standard of what speech they deem qualifies as “threatening violence” and simply voicing a different viewpoint from another person does not meet that standard by a long shot. On top of that, at the majority of these protests between the “alt right” and “alt left” it is the “alt left” who shows up in hoods, with weapons and the intention to commit violence. She makes a further mistake by conflating “conservatives” with the “alt right.”//
Saturday, August 19, 2017
Leftist Criticism of ACLU
This leftist UCLA law student, writing in the New York Times, thinks that the ACLU should move beyond its "bright line" rule that protects free speech for everyone and into a position that protects free speech for the left.
Doesn't it occur to her that the government - from state houses to the White House - is controlled by Republicans and she is essentially advocating giving Republicans the power to define "hate speech."
Because when I look at the political world, the biggest source of hate I see is on the left, including people like her.
And I suspect most other Americans agree, particularly after the last year.
I oppose giving censorship power to Donald Trump for the same reason I oppose giving it to her, which is the same reason I oppose giving that power to any government on Earth.
This leftist UCLA law student, writing in the New York Times, thinks that the ACLU should move beyond its "bright line" rule that protects free speech for everyone and into a position that protects free speech for the left.
Doesn't it occur to her that the government - from state houses to the White House - is controlled by Republicans and she is essentially advocating giving Republicans the power to define "hate speech."
Because when I look at the political world, the biggest source of hate I see is on the left, including people like her.
And I suspect most other Americans agree, particularly after the last year.
I oppose giving censorship power to Donald Trump for the same reason I oppose giving it to her, which is the same reason I oppose giving that power to any government on Earth.
Wednesday, August 16, 2017
Thought experiment.
What would happen?
//Let’s play a game. Pretend that a conservative white student approached a liberal black student at an event and said “You’re not welcome here.” What do you think would happen?
We all know what would happen. Liberal students would lose their minds and the conservative student would probably be reprimanded and forced into a diversity program.
If you switch the ideology of the students however, it’s apparently acceptable. This actually happened to a conservative black student from Ithaca College.
Spencer Brown of the Young America’s Foundation reports:
EXCLUSIVE YAF VIDEO: Conservative Student Attacked For Wearing YAF Hat At Vigil For Charlottesville Victims
Caleb Slater, a conservative student and the president of the Ithaca College Republicans, recently attended YAF’s 39th Annual National Conservative Student Conference, where he received a baseball cap with the Young America’s Foundation logo and our slogan, “The Conservative Movement Starts Here,” printed on the back. Caleb chose to wear his YAF hat when he attended a vigil in Syracuse, New York, for the victims of last weekend’s violent clash in Charlottesville.
“I wore my Young America’s Foundation hat to the rally as a symbol of peace,” Caleb explained. “I wore the hat to show that conservatives condemn the actions of the alt-right just as much as anyone else in our culture.” It was this hat that earned Caleb the attention of antifa supporters at the same rally, and led to a violent attack caught on camera.
This incident highlights the true intolerance of the Left today: when a conservative goes out of their way to find common ground with their ideological rivals, leftists lash out merely due to a conservative logo and slogan on a ball cap.//
What would happen?
//Let’s play a game. Pretend that a conservative white student approached a liberal black student at an event and said “You’re not welcome here.” What do you think would happen?
We all know what would happen. Liberal students would lose their minds and the conservative student would probably be reprimanded and forced into a diversity program.
If you switch the ideology of the students however, it’s apparently acceptable. This actually happened to a conservative black student from Ithaca College.
Spencer Brown of the Young America’s Foundation reports:
EXCLUSIVE YAF VIDEO: Conservative Student Attacked For Wearing YAF Hat At Vigil For Charlottesville Victims
Caleb Slater, a conservative student and the president of the Ithaca College Republicans, recently attended YAF’s 39th Annual National Conservative Student Conference, where he received a baseball cap with the Young America’s Foundation logo and our slogan, “The Conservative Movement Starts Here,” printed on the back. Caleb chose to wear his YAF hat when he attended a vigil in Syracuse, New York, for the victims of last weekend’s violent clash in Charlottesville.
“I wore my Young America’s Foundation hat to the rally as a symbol of peace,” Caleb explained. “I wore the hat to show that conservatives condemn the actions of the alt-right just as much as anyone else in our culture.” It was this hat that earned Caleb the attention of antifa supporters at the same rally, and led to a violent attack caught on camera.
This incident highlights the true intolerance of the Left today: when a conservative goes out of their way to find common ground with their ideological rivals, leftists lash out merely due to a conservative logo and slogan on a ball cap.//
Tuesday, August 15, 2017
Why we need to protect the free speech rights of Nazis.
Because to the left who is in control of media, academia and government, everyone not coordinated to their goals is a Nazi, including centrist employees of Google.
These were the people who called Mitt Romney a Nazi, after all.
Because to the left who is in control of media, academia and government, everyone not coordinated to their goals is a Nazi, including centrist employees of Google.
These were the people who called Mitt Romney a Nazi, after all.
Free Speech in America.
If this had been a Communist rally and this guy had been fired, we would have heard about "blacklisting" and movies would have made him into a martyr and hero.
But Communists are just "liberals in a hurry" and Gulags and mass executions never stain their black-clad Antifa minions.
Since this guy is from California, I am sure that his employer is going to discover that Labor Code Section 1101 protects political activity and there is no "neo-nazi" exception, just as there is no "Communist" exception.
And I would take the case of either the Communist or the Nazi, although I probably would be far more comfortable with dealing with the Communist on a personal level and the Communist's case would be easier to sell to a jury.
We all have our prejudices and I can't disassociate anyone who would support racism with stupid, mouth-breathing low-life.
But principles are principles.
If this had been a Communist rally and this guy had been fired, we would have heard about "blacklisting" and movies would have made him into a martyr and hero.
But Communists are just "liberals in a hurry" and Gulags and mass executions never stain their black-clad Antifa minions.
Since this guy is from California, I am sure that his employer is going to discover that Labor Code Section 1101 protects political activity and there is no "neo-nazi" exception, just as there is no "Communist" exception.
And I would take the case of either the Communist or the Nazi, although I probably would be far more comfortable with dealing with the Communist on a personal level and the Communist's case would be easier to sell to a jury.
We all have our prejudices and I can't disassociate anyone who would support racism with stupid, mouth-breathing low-life.
But principles are principles.
Wednesday, August 09, 2017
Olson makes a good point.
Anti-discrimination laws incentivize content-based suppression of speech by employers.
If an employer is charged with discrimination and an employee has argued for immigration restriction on his personal Facebook site, that Facebook content is going to be used against the employer.
Anti-discrimination laws incentivize content-based suppression of speech by employers.
If an employer is charged with discrimination and an employee has argued for immigration restriction on his personal Facebook site, that Facebook content is going to be used against the employer.
Friday, July 21, 2017
Sweet Baby Dawks -
Super-leftist KPFA cancels Richard Dawkins speech in Berkeley because Dawkins said hateful things about Muslims.
//Richard Dawkins has a new collection of essays coming out next month in a book called Science in the Soul. Naturally, he’ll be visiting the U.S. on a book tour.
One of the stops was going to be in Berkeley, California on August 9. It was sponsored by KPFA, a progressive radio station in the area, in a city known for being the hotbed of liberal activism.
But that talk has now been canceled.
While that website doesn’t offer any reason for the cancellation, Jerry Coyne notes that people who had bought tickets received a more detailed email with this explanation:
We regret to inform you that KPFA has canceled our event with Richard Dawkins. We had booked this event based entirely on his excellent new book on science, when we didn’t know he had offended and hurt — in his tweets and other comments on Islam, so many people.
KPFA does not endorse hurtful speech. While KPFA emphatically supports serious free speech, we do not support abusive speech. We apologize for not having had broader knowledge of Dawkins views much earlier. We also apologize to all those inconvenienced by this cancellation. Your ticket purchases will automatically be refunded by Brown Paper Tickets.
The world’s most famous atheist criticized Islam and upset people… so he can’t give a talk about science? It’s a ridiculous reason that gets even more absurd when you consider the source.//
Newsflash! Dawkins says hateful things about Catholics, Evangelicals, the Pope, the Dalai Lama, etc., etc., but you don't see any of those getting super-leftists to cancel speeches. The only person Dawkins hasn't said hateful things about is his old teacher who molested him as a child.
So, leftist atheist canceled by leftist media in the interests of diversity.
This is pure insanity.
Super-leftist KPFA cancels Richard Dawkins speech in Berkeley because Dawkins said hateful things about Muslims.
//Richard Dawkins has a new collection of essays coming out next month in a book called Science in the Soul. Naturally, he’ll be visiting the U.S. on a book tour.
One of the stops was going to be in Berkeley, California on August 9. It was sponsored by KPFA, a progressive radio station in the area, in a city known for being the hotbed of liberal activism.
But that talk has now been canceled.
While that website doesn’t offer any reason for the cancellation, Jerry Coyne notes that people who had bought tickets received a more detailed email with this explanation:
We regret to inform you that KPFA has canceled our event with Richard Dawkins. We had booked this event based entirely on his excellent new book on science, when we didn’t know he had offended and hurt — in his tweets and other comments on Islam, so many people.
KPFA does not endorse hurtful speech. While KPFA emphatically supports serious free speech, we do not support abusive speech. We apologize for not having had broader knowledge of Dawkins views much earlier. We also apologize to all those inconvenienced by this cancellation. Your ticket purchases will automatically be refunded by Brown Paper Tickets.
The world’s most famous atheist criticized Islam and upset people… so he can’t give a talk about science? It’s a ridiculous reason that gets even more absurd when you consider the source.//
Newsflash! Dawkins says hateful things about Catholics, Evangelicals, the Pope, the Dalai Lama, etc., etc., but you don't see any of those getting super-leftists to cancel speeches. The only person Dawkins hasn't said hateful things about is his old teacher who molested him as a child.
So, leftist atheist canceled by leftist media in the interests of diversity.
This is pure insanity.
Free Speech in America in 2017.
UC Berkeley cancels another conservative speech.
//The University of California, Berkeley's decision to block another conservative lecture, this time featuring popular author Ben Shapiro, rightfully sparked a fresh round of disgust among free speech advocates on Wednesday.
The school is under heavy fire from conservatives for a series of First Amendment controversies that unfolded over the course of the last school year, even facing a lawsuit from Young America's Foundation and the Berkeley College Republicans over Ann Coulter's canceled lecture in April. Between the riots that blocked Milo Yiannopoulos from speaking and the university's decision to cancel Coulter's lecture, Berkeley has become a high-profile battleground of the contemporary campus speech movement.During a Senate hearing last month, Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, criticized the school in his remarks decrying the state of free speech in higher education. In response, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., ardently defended her state's flagship university.
"I know of no effort at Berkeley, at the University of California, to stifle student efforts to speech," she said at the time, continuing, "And if there is a specific effort, I would certainly appreciate it if people brought that to my attention."
Ben Shapiro is happy to help.
"If there is no effort to stifle free speech at Berkeley," Shapiro responded in an email to the Washington Examiner, "why has Berkeley failed to protect Milo Yiannopoulos' event, cancelled Ann Coulter's event, and now makes excuses about lack of availability for a speech already cleared by the College Republicans?"//
UC Berkeley cancels another conservative speech.
//The University of California, Berkeley's decision to block another conservative lecture, this time featuring popular author Ben Shapiro, rightfully sparked a fresh round of disgust among free speech advocates on Wednesday.
The school is under heavy fire from conservatives for a series of First Amendment controversies that unfolded over the course of the last school year, even facing a lawsuit from Young America's Foundation and the Berkeley College Republicans over Ann Coulter's canceled lecture in April. Between the riots that blocked Milo Yiannopoulos from speaking and the university's decision to cancel Coulter's lecture, Berkeley has become a high-profile battleground of the contemporary campus speech movement.During a Senate hearing last month, Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, criticized the school in his remarks decrying the state of free speech in higher education. In response, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., ardently defended her state's flagship university.
"I know of no effort at Berkeley, at the University of California, to stifle student efforts to speech," she said at the time, continuing, "And if there is a specific effort, I would certainly appreciate it if people brought that to my attention."
Ben Shapiro is happy to help.
"If there is no effort to stifle free speech at Berkeley," Shapiro responded in an email to the Washington Examiner, "why has Berkeley failed to protect Milo Yiannopoulos' event, cancelled Ann Coulter's event, and now makes excuses about lack of availability for a speech already cleared by the College Republicans?"//
Wednesday, July 19, 2017
You know that Free Speech has passed its "sell by" date for the Left when they haul out "Science."
NEW YORK TIMES MAKES "SCIENTIFIC CASE" FOR OUTLAWING FREE SPEECH
It seems that some things some people say makes people who disagree feel tense.
Therefore, outlaw "speechcrime."
NEW YORK TIMES MAKES "SCIENTIFIC CASE" FOR OUTLAWING FREE SPEECH
It seems that some things some people say makes people who disagree feel tense.
Therefore, outlaw "speechcrime."
Monday, July 03, 2017
Welcome to the club, professor.
Kind of the treatment the rest of us get on the internet when we talk to leftists.
//In response, he was branded a racist and an obstructionist. A faculty member who sat on the Equity Council explicitly called him a racist in two different faculty meetings. When Professor Weinstein asked for an opportunity to defend himself, he was told that a faculty meeting was not the appropriate venue for such a defense. When he asked what the appropriate venue was, he was told that no such venue existed because he was a racist. Neither the president nor the interim provost interceded to make it clear that leveling such charges against a fellow faculty member was unacceptable within the college community. When Professor Weinstein spoke privately with both of those administrators about these incidents, they both acknowledged the inappropriateness of the behavior but each said that it was the responsibility of the other to do something about it. Neither administrator took any public action in response.
But even that tells only part of the story. As mentioned above, the Equity Strategic Plan was built on a statistical foundation. When the validity of that foundation was called into question, including by a robust analysis by an Evergreen alum currently in graduate school, the same faculty member who publicly called Professor Weinstein a racist began attacking scientists generally claiming that their reliance on data was dismissive of the concerns of students. President Bridges, upon being presented with the alum’s statistical critique, promised a response but none has been forthcoming.
Despite all of this, Professor Weinstein continued to call for open discussion of the strategic plan with no response other than personal attacks on him being ratcheted up. It became clear why Professor Weinstein’s appeal for dialogue drew such enmity when the same faculty member who publicly called him a racist was reported to have said that the Equity Council didn’t want such discussion because the plan might not survive such scrutiny intact. A number of senior administrators voiced the same fear with one going so far as to say that expecting a public review of the plan after it had been approved by the Equity Council which had so many people of color on it was an example of white supremacy.//
Weinstein's error was in thinking that he was immune because of his progressive self-identification.
Kind of the treatment the rest of us get on the internet when we talk to leftists.
//In response, he was branded a racist and an obstructionist. A faculty member who sat on the Equity Council explicitly called him a racist in two different faculty meetings. When Professor Weinstein asked for an opportunity to defend himself, he was told that a faculty meeting was not the appropriate venue for such a defense. When he asked what the appropriate venue was, he was told that no such venue existed because he was a racist. Neither the president nor the interim provost interceded to make it clear that leveling such charges against a fellow faculty member was unacceptable within the college community. When Professor Weinstein spoke privately with both of those administrators about these incidents, they both acknowledged the inappropriateness of the behavior but each said that it was the responsibility of the other to do something about it. Neither administrator took any public action in response.
But even that tells only part of the story. As mentioned above, the Equity Strategic Plan was built on a statistical foundation. When the validity of that foundation was called into question, including by a robust analysis by an Evergreen alum currently in graduate school, the same faculty member who publicly called Professor Weinstein a racist began attacking scientists generally claiming that their reliance on data was dismissive of the concerns of students. President Bridges, upon being presented with the alum’s statistical critique, promised a response but none has been forthcoming.
Despite all of this, Professor Weinstein continued to call for open discussion of the strategic plan with no response other than personal attacks on him being ratcheted up. It became clear why Professor Weinstein’s appeal for dialogue drew such enmity when the same faculty member who publicly called him a racist was reported to have said that the Equity Council didn’t want such discussion because the plan might not survive such scrutiny intact. A number of senior administrators voiced the same fear with one going so far as to say that expecting a public review of the plan after it had been approved by the Equity Council which had so many people of color on it was an example of white supremacy.//
Weinstein's error was in thinking that he was immune because of his progressive self-identification.
When did "liberals" stop believing in Free Speech?
When I was in law school in the early 1980s, free speech was the constitutional value that trumped all others. The idea of limiting free speech so as to not print "How to build a nuclear bomb" was considered anathema. No one was concerned about offending people or making them feel unsafe by flag burning.
But there was a current that was sure that they knew where to draw a brand new line. One of my professors at UCLA wrote a book in the 1980s about how First Amendment protections should not be extended to Nazis.
Next thing we know is that suddenly we find that "your speech is harmful, but our speech is just lovely."
Tucker Carlson captures this prevailing wisdom in his interview with a college professor who seems like a caricature of her profession in being unwilling to actually say where she would draw the line, lest she appear too much like the fascist she is.
When I was in law school in the early 1980s, free speech was the constitutional value that trumped all others. The idea of limiting free speech so as to not print "How to build a nuclear bomb" was considered anathema. No one was concerned about offending people or making them feel unsafe by flag burning.
But there was a current that was sure that they knew where to draw a brand new line. One of my professors at UCLA wrote a book in the 1980s about how First Amendment protections should not be extended to Nazis.
Next thing we know is that suddenly we find that "your speech is harmful, but our speech is just lovely."
Tucker Carlson captures this prevailing wisdom in his interview with a college professor who seems like a caricature of her profession in being unwilling to actually say where she would draw the line, lest she appear too much like the fascist she is.
Thursday, June 08, 2017
There is a lot of this "I won't dignify the other side by debating them" stuff going on.
Richard Dawkins won't debate philosophers. Historians won't debate Holocaust-deniers. AGW proponents won't debate AGW Skeptics.
There are a lot of good reasons not to debate - cowardice, time pressure, other commitments, lack of experience, the other side are rude jerks - but the idea that associating with the other side to the extent of sharing a speaking platform - as occurred in this video - is absolutely counter to what a liberal society and commitment to the truth is all about.
Frankly, why would anyone who believes they are unassailably correct not want to use the opportunity for a teachable moment?
Richard Dawkins won't debate philosophers. Historians won't debate Holocaust-deniers. AGW proponents won't debate AGW Skeptics.
There are a lot of good reasons not to debate - cowardice, time pressure, other commitments, lack of experience, the other side are rude jerks - but the idea that associating with the other side to the extent of sharing a speaking platform - as occurred in this video - is absolutely counter to what a liberal society and commitment to the truth is all about.
Frankly, why would anyone who believes they are unassailably correct not want to use the opportunity for a teachable moment?
Friday, June 02, 2017
Could I have imagined when I graduated from college that this column would be published in a mainstream newspaper?
I graduated college in 1980.
The answer is, sort of, "yes." Leftists were suppressing free speech back then. They dominated college campuses and retaliated against people who spoke contrary to their views. They engaged in puerile protests.
I guess the thing that surprises me is that we have reached such a point of overload that the truth can no longer be suppressed.
//But the lie is obvious now, isn't it?
Because it is not conservatives who coerced today's young people or made them afraid of ideas that challenge them. Conservatives did not shame people into silence, or send thugs out on college campuses to beat down those who wanted to speak.
The left did all that.
It's there in front of you, the thuggish mobs of the left killing free speech at American universities. The thugs call themselves antifas, for anti-fascists.
They beat people up and break things and set fires and intimidate. These are not anti-fascists. These are fascists. This is what fascists do.//
I graduated college in 1980.
The answer is, sort of, "yes." Leftists were suppressing free speech back then. They dominated college campuses and retaliated against people who spoke contrary to their views. They engaged in puerile protests.
I guess the thing that surprises me is that we have reached such a point of overload that the truth can no longer be suppressed.
//But the lie is obvious now, isn't it?
Because it is not conservatives who coerced today's young people or made them afraid of ideas that challenge them. Conservatives did not shame people into silence, or send thugs out on college campuses to beat down those who wanted to speak.
The left did all that.
It's there in front of you, the thuggish mobs of the left killing free speech at American universities. The thugs call themselves antifas, for anti-fascists.
They beat people up and break things and set fires and intimidate. These are not anti-fascists. These are fascists. This is what fascists do.//
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
