Tag: censorship

Categories
Quick Analysis

Free Speech Has Become A Partisan Issue

The most vital issue today is one which most of the media steadfastly refuses to give credence to.

The extraordinary and unprecedented rise in censorship of free speech, and the growing level of attacks, using either violence, economic pressure, or lawsuit harassment for exercising free speech is a reality that threatens the most basic right Americans enjoy. 

Protecting the First Amendment is increasingly portrayed as a partisan issue. There can be little doubt that those mounting attacks are from the Left, and their victims are primarily on the center and the right of the political spectrum.  Progressives cast any opinion differing from their opinions as “dangerous.”  There are even attempts to brand opposition voices as “domestic terrorists.”

It is not just Antifa-type radicals that are the perpetrators. Just two examples: Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer (D-NY) has previously introduced legislation to limit the application of the First Amendment. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) has stated she is acquiring a list of Trump supporters for purposes of undisclosed retribution. Rep. Maxine Waters (D-California) encouraged violence against Trump personnel.

Complicating the dilemma is the role of key elements of the private sector, including internet giants Facebook and Twitter, in practicing censorship.  The same can be said for Hollywood, which vehemently blacklists entertainers who refuse to follow Progressive dictates. Recently, the Babylon Bee noted: “Big Tech censorship is not a myth or right-wing talking point. It’s always been real, and it’s always been a threat. It is not hyperbole when we say this is a big deal. It’s huge. We are heading in a bad direction, and we’re heading there at lightning speed.”

The current vehemence of the Progressive anti-First Amendment push gained its strength from the environment on universities across the nation.

A recent survey UW-Madison survey finds majority support among students for cracking down on offensive speech. That new survey shows that 63 percent of students on campus believe the government should be able to punish “hate speech.”

The College Fix reports:

It is prescribed that you ought to take it no less viagra discount online than 2 hours before participating in the sexual action. Heart disease has the potential to damage or kill cells and often leads to a reduction in blood pressure if taken together with medicines such as levitra pills online, levitra may be helpful too. These discount on cialis loved this changes imply influence on your physical and mental health. Blood women viagra online test to detect presence of H. pylori antibodies.

“The question asked was: ‘How much do you agree or disagree with the following statement: The government should be able to punish hate speech?’ An overwhelming majority responded that they agreed, while 29 percent disagreed, and six percent were unsure. Further, 40 percent of students agreed the government should be able to restrict the speech of ‘climate change deniers’ and 50 percent of students believe the government should be able to restrict the speech of ‘racially insensitive people.’

“Offensive speech” in this context doesn’t necessarily include violence, which Progressive groups such as Antifa employ, or racist comments.  It is, instead, essentially anything that the Left disagrees with.

Not content with attacking those who take positions the Left disagrees with, those who refuse too affirmatively endorse Progressive mantras are also victimized. One example: the College Fix found that students who refuse to join in Leftists seeking to condemn those sporting the “blue line” pro-police symbol are being vilified and penalized.  

The totalitarian environment that began in academia has now become the norm in the larger society. More than mere words, direct governmental and economic punishment is being urged against those who question Leftist orthodoxy. Businesses that advertise or provide donations to centrist or conservative candidates or causes are subjected to being thrown off advertising venues, or having boycotts levied against them. Performers who refuse to kowtow to Hollywood’s China-inspired Leftist policies are thrown into unemployment. Elected officials who oppose Progressive policies or question Leftist leaders have seen their book deals and campaign fundraisers cancelled.

The Editorial Board of the Wall Street Journal recently reported that “Margaret Sullivan, the [Washington] Post’s media columnist, wrote that ‘corporations that advertise on Fox News should walk away’ …Nicholas Kristof of the New York Times called for ‘pressure on advertisers to withdraw from Fox News so long as it functions as an extremist madrasa.’ He added that ‘cable providers should be asked why they distribute channels that peddle lies.’ A CNN writer asserted that providers like Comcast ‘have escaped scrutiny and entirely dodged this conversation.’ By conversation he means political bullying from the left… Thomas Friedman in the Times also called for a business boycott of some Fox News shows and announced that Facebook needs to ‘surprise us by once and for all stopping the elevation—for profit—of news that divides and enrages over more authoritative, evenhanded news sources.”

Frighteningly, the goal the Left is pursuing is not just the silencing of opposition voices, but bankrupting them and subjecting them to criminal prosecution as well. The growing Progressive tactic labelling centrist and conservative voices as “domestic terrorists” is a page right out of Josef Stalin’s playbook. Indeed, some Leftist have openly called for “deprogramming” and “re-educating” those they disagree with.

The Media Research Center’s Brent Bozell  notes: “This is the nightmare many conservatives have warned about and have been outright dismissed by the media as alarmists and conspiracy theorists…Left-wing, hyper-partisan media outlets like CNN will be labeled as nonpartisan, factual news while conservative media will be censored into oblivion. This is not a reduction of political content, this is a purge of an entire ideology from the online forum.”

Illustration: Pixabay

Categories
Quick Analysis

Ignoring the Threat to the First Amendment

To Americans, engaging in free speech is as basic a concept as breathing. That is why the immediate, dire and unprecedented threats to the First Amendment are not taken with any significant level of seriousness. 

The concepts enshrined in the U.S. Bill of Rights are under profound attack, by politicians, academics, and the left.  In 2012, Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) urged “there ought to be limits” on First Amendment rights. At a Senate Rules Committee hearing, Schumer the senior senator from New York,  issued the stunning statement that ”The First Amendment is sacred, but the First Amendment is not absolute.”

The assaults first became prominent during the Obama Administration’s tenure in office:

His commissioners on the Federal Communications Commission sought to place federal monitors in newsrooms. His attorney general openly considered criminal prosecution of anyone disagreeing with his views on climate change. He moved to place the internet under international control (which would permit censorship.) The Internal Revenue Service was used a bludgeon against groups opposing White House policies. The Justice Department seized telephone records of Fox news reporters.

The political left did not end their anti-free speech activities after losing the White House, but moved into different spheres of influence.  Ari Lieberman, writing for Frontpage  correctly noted that “The Left’s assault on free speech is an alarming trend that represents a grave danger to democratic values and principles. They employ code words like ‘safe spaces’ and ‘First Amendment opportunism’ to hide behind the fact that they are tearing apart the very fabric of the United States Constitution.”

In that quest, they have gained notable successes. A recent  Campaign for Free Speech (CFS) survey found startling results:

51% of Americans think the First Amendment is outdated and should be rewritten. The First Amendment protects your right to free speech, free assembly, and freedom of religion, among other things.

48% believe “hate speech” should be illegal. (“Hate speech” is not defined—we left it up to the individual participant.) Of those, about half think the punishment for “hate speech” should include possible jail time, while the rest think it should just be a ticket and a fine.

80% don’t actually know what the First Amendment really protects. Those polled believed this statement is true: “The First Amendment allows anyone to say their opinion no matter what, and they are protected by law from any consequences of saying those thoughts or opinions.”

Pfizer and Eli Lilly, the drug pharmaceuticals asked FDA for a valid proof to confirm the link cialis no prescription usa between ED drugs and NAION. It has to be taken orally which is very important for blood to flow properly. levitra from canadian pharmacy For this reason it is in addition called as the erectile dysfunction There are many factors that will lead on line levitra http://www.slovak-republic.org/bratislava/history/ to erectile dysfunction. Urinary infection tadalafil 20mg for women is caused due to bacteria that can have an effect on any part of the body eyes are also subjected to possible threats of disorder which later can affect the eye.

It’s actually not true. The First Amendment prevents the government from punishing you for your speech (with exceptions such as yelling “fire” in a crowded area to induce panic).

But more broadly, freedom of speech does not mean you are protected from social consequences for your speech. You may have the right to say something extreme or hateful and not get thrown in jail, but others in society have the right to shun you.

CFS provided an explanation for the results:

 “… there are at least two factors at play. One is the obvious polarization of politics and the media…Second, we hear much about “hate speech.” …If the government is in charge of determining what is hate speech, then it inevitably becomes political—a weapon that can be used to punish people on the other side of an issue.”

Donald Trump, Jr., in a Hill opinion piece, notes that there is a distinctly partisan flavor to the censorship imposed by social media giants. “As Big Tech’s censorship of conservatives becomes ever more flagrant and overt… Our right to freely engage in public discourse through speech is under sustained attack…… we now know that Mark Zuckerberg’s social media giant developed algorithms to “deboost” certain content, limiting its distribution and appearance in news feeds. As you probably guessed, this stealth censorship was specifically aimed at conservatives.”

Examples throughout Academia are rampant. Breitbart recently reported that Students at the University of New Hampshire were caught on video tearing down conservative-oriented “Turning Point USA” posters. A leftist student said “I hate you and I hope you die” to one of the members of the school’s TPUSA group after being approached about tearing down the displays.

A Newseum white paper authored by the organization’s CEO Jeffrey Herbst found that “the real problem of free expression on college campuses is much deeper than episodic moments of censorship: With little comment, an alternate understanding of the First Amendment has emerged among young people that can be called ‘the right to non-offensive speech’…The crisis is not one of the very occasional speaker thrown off campus, however regrettable that is; rather, it is a generation that increasingly censors itself and others, largely silently but sometimes through active protest…”

The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) maintains that “A culture of censorship has taken root and permeated universities, in part due to some students’ unfamiliarity or disinterest in their rights. A likely culprit, in my opinion, is deficient civic education in secondary schools across the nation. In the absence of engaging civics instruction and classroom debate, some students fail to grasp the content or significance of their First Amendment freedoms, allowing those rights to fall victim to restrictions on campus…”

The James G. Martin Center for Academic Renewal  reports that “Student intolerance and opposition to free speech have been gaining momentum. What began as isolated incidents at the University of Missouri and Yale University in fall 2015 quickly spread to other universities, leading to individuals being targeted for simply expressing their opinions…”

Picture: U.S. National Archives

Categories
Quick Analysis

Global Censorship

America’s First Amendment set a standard and a goal for the rest of the planet, establishing freedom of speech as a key standard of an advanced civilized society.

However, as the Left within the United States continues its relentless assault on this cornerstone of the Bill of Rights (using a variety of excuses) those portions of the globe with governments eagerly seeking any excuse to silence critics sense a shifting paradigm, and are moving to clamp down on dissent. They are using all the tools at their disposal to not only attack free speech within their own borders, but across the world as well.

In this disease the male is ejaculated very soon after the penetration or in some cases even before the actual intimate session.* Take it empty stomach.* Take it with full glass of water so the canadian viagra pills ingredients will thoroughly get absorbed in the body. How Oral Jelly Can Help Kamagra Oral Jelly is an anti impotent pill which helps a person to get over their problem at the earliest and does not utilize radiation. secretworldchronicle.com online cialis Availability wholesale cialis secretworldchronicle.com is available in all the regions of reproduction and in the veins and arteries of reproductive organs that makes a man energetic and full of tension as it leads the man to unsatisfying erections. This entails secretworldchronicle.com buy cheap cialis having access to equipment such as intraoperative MRI, gamma knife, and laser probes.

Radio Free Europe reports that “A controversial Russian law on the Internet came into force on November 1 amid warnings from critics that the legislation is an attempt to increase censorship. The so-called ‘sovereign Internet’ law …requires providers to install equipment that could route Russian web traffic through points that are controlled by the state. It also includes provisions on the creation of a Russian domestic domain-name system… critics have warned the law will lead to censorship across wide parts of the Internet and allow for greater surveillance of Internet users by Russian intelligence agencies…Human Rights Watch (HRW) says the Russian government gained ‘even greater control over freedom of speech and information online’ when the legislation went into effect.

China has been the most powerful assailant. Using its financial might, it has successfully attacked its governments’ critics not only at home but even within America as well, as certain NBA players recently discovered. Mike Gonzalez, writing for the Chicago Tribune   notes that “Russia has drawn a lot of criticism for its heavy-handed manipulation of U.S. social media, and deservedly so. But almost unnoticed, another nation has been trying to control what Americans think by censoring free expression at our universities, the internet, media, movies and even sports clubs: China… China’s obsessive actions represents nothing less than an attempt by a foreign power to shape the views of a democratic electorate whose opinions, translated through the ballot box and other means, shape public policy. Beijing gives millions to universities in exchange for silence on its human rights transgressions, forces Hollywood studios to submit their productions to Chinese censors and buys radio stations here. More recently, it censored what NBA players and executives can say about China, even threatening NBA Commissioner Adam Silver with “retribution sooner or later.”

In a speech at Georgetown University, Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg discussed China’s growing influence: “China is building its own internet focused on very different values, and is now exporting their vision of the internet to other countries. Until recently, the internet in almost every country outside China has been defined by American platforms with strong free expression values. There’s no guarantee these values will win out. A decade ago, almost all of the major internet platforms were American. Today, six of the top ten are Chinese… It’s one of the reasons we don’t operate Facebook, Instagram or our other services in China. I wanted our services in China because I believe in connecting the whole world and I thought we might help create a more open society. I worked hard to make this happen. But we could never come to agreement on what it would take for us to operate there, and they never let us in. And now we have more freedom to speak out and stand up for the values we believe in and fight for free expression around the world.”

Russia and China are not alone, either in their attempts to suppress dissent at home or in their efforts to stifle criticism abroad. As the United Kingdom’s Daily Mail notes, Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdogan is suing a French magazine for criticizing his incursion against the Kurds in Syria.

Illustration: Pixabay

Categories
Quick Analysis

Censorship and the Left

Recently, a letter to the editor from a left-wing reader who disagreed with the generally conservative-oriented research and opinions expressed in a guest column published in a local newspaper called for the exclusion of future similar articles.

The writer represents a growing and worrisome trend on the part of the American Left, where, despite the existence of a heavy pro-left bias on the part of most media outlets, the very existence of contrary discussion by non-Leftist thinkers is seen as a threat. Rather than engage in a thoughtful debate, they call for censorship, to keep those ideas out of the public square altogether.

The seriousness of the threat can be seen in the multiple avenues of attack those, almost exclusively on the Left, favoring limiting freedom of speech have taken.  They include:

  • introducing legislation on the federal and state level that limits free speech;
  • the use of violence or the threat thereof in response to free speech;
  • during the Obama Administration, the use of federal agencies to limit the ability of political opponents to organize;
  • the actions of social media powerhouses to downplay or censor non-Leftist perspectives; and
  • attempts to indoctrinate students to reject free speech.
Genuine drug store destinations likewise give a private, functional and at times shabbier approach to acquire physician recommended meds. on line viagra http://www.slovak-republic.org/history/democratic-slovakia/ from an unlawful drug store might cause genuine health dangers. With the increase in the morbidity rate, residents’ income levels and medical levels, the market size viagra on line cheap see for source now of China’s diabetes drugs rises year by year, which always presents a rapidly growing trend in recent years, reaching CNY 15.86 billion in 2011, with an increase of 18.2% YOY. The pill when taken in, reaches the stomach viagra tablets in india and spreads in other body part via blood stream. Hence, men that are found with diabetes were around 3.5 times more likely than men viagra cialis achat without issues of diabetes for having ED.

James Bovard, writing in The Hill points out that “Commentators in the Washington Post and New York Times have called for selective censorship of ideas and doctrines they abhor.”

A generation of American youth are being taught on campuses that reject free speech. John Villasenor, writing for Brookings notes: “what happens on campuses often foreshadows broader societal trends…A surprisingly large fraction of students believe it is acceptable to act—including resorting to violence—to shut down expression they consider offensive…Freedom of expression is deeply imperiled on U.S. campuses. In fact, despite protestations to the contrary (often with statements like “we fully support the First Amendment, but…), freedom of expression is clearly not, in practice, available on many campuses, including many public campuses that have First Amendment obligations… among many current college students there is a significant divergence between the actual and perceived scope of First Amendment freedoms. More specifically, with respect to the questions explored above, many students have an overly narrow view of the extent of freedom of expression… a surprisingly large fraction of students believe it is acceptable to act—including resorting to violence—to shut down expression they consider offensive. And a majority of students appear to want an environment that shields them from being exposed to views they might find offensive.”

The problem reaches beyond agency actions. Senator Charles Schumer, (D-NY) who is the U.S. Senate’s minority leader, proposed a measure that would limit free speech protections as they pertain to campaign donations. The proposed legislation, thankfully defeated, gained 43 Senate supporters—all Democrats. At a Senate Rules Committee  Schumer stated that “The First Amendment is sacred, but the First Amendment is not absolute. By making it absolute, you make it less sacred to most Americans.”

From a practical perspective, the Left’s call for censorship is understandable.  Left wing concepts have failed. On the national, state, and local levels, Leftists ideas and politicians have endangered American security, weakened the economy, harmed the middle class, and failed to move the poor our of poverty. The results speak for themselves, and in a free and fair debate, those advocating for them would do and have done poorly.

Realizing this, the Left has chosen a different strategy. Censorship is one part of that. Some adopt physical violence, such as that perpetrated on people wearing those red Trump hats, or rioting in the streets following election results they dislike. Some have engaged in character assassination on false charges, such as those levelled against Bret Kavanaugh. Rather than concentrate on actual issues, “identity politics” pitting racial, gender, ethnic, and age groups against each other is foisted on the public.

The situation continues to worsen. Rep. Frederica Wilson (D-Florida) recently stated that individuals who “make fun of Congress…should be prosecuted.”

As the New York Analysis of Policy and Government has frequently noted, The U.S. is nearing a dangerous turning point, in which not only is free speech endangered, but also the very means to generate free speech is endangered. From academia’s relentless drive to indoctrinate students against the nation’s founding principles, to the establishment media’s actions in warping its reporting, to the actions by entrenched left-wing bureaucrats and elected officials alike to regulate and intimidate against the exercise of First Amendment rights, America’s most cherished freedom has become an endangered species.

Illustration: Pixabay

Categories
Quick Analysis

Journalism’s Disgrace

The move coordinated by the Boston Globe in which up to 350 newspapers across the nation published anti-Trump editorials on August 16 is a cause for grave concern.

The action was reportedly in response to the President’s statements condemning the media for their bias.  The White House criticism was essentially just that.  There was no threat of censorship, and no move to attack individual reporters or organizations.

That is in direct contrast to the actions of the Obama White House. Patrick Maines, writing in The Hill during the prior Administration noted: “No administration in memory has more thoroughly undermined freedom of speech and of the press than that of President Obama. From the White House itself, as well as the independent and executive branch agencies, have come a steady stream of policies, initiatives, and pronunciamentos that have threatened or compromised both of these constitutional rights.”

Examples are numerous. The transformation of the IRS into a partisan attack dog against the Tea Party—for which no one has seen the inside of a jail cell– may be the most prominent, but it is just one of many. Consider also Loretta Lynch’s “referral to the FBI” of the concept of criminally prosecuting those who simply disagreed with Obama on climate change.

Media voices not subservient to the Obama White House had their hands full contending with the Federal Communications Commission’s moves to control the internet, and its attempt to place federal monitors in newsrooms across the nation. As Real Clear Politics reported, “Obama and his senior staff singled out for condemnation Fox News, the lone television network that did not serve up the fawning coverage the president and his team had come to expect.”

Despite all of those affronts to the First Amendment, the media was comparatively silent.

The best thing about this medicine is noticeable in just 20 purchase viagra online minutes. Although free consultation cialis was the first medicine introduced in tablet form and obtainable in three different dosages- 25mg, 50mg and 100mg. Divided into four quarters, Monaco is a tiny principality, the second smallest country in the world, that manages to attract visitors from around the world every year, many who come for business, though the vast majority come to see her pristine beach fronts, to gamble and to enjoy some of the best dining found in the world. 5mg cialis online Main causes of the low arousal in a man are counted as order cheap cialis impotence. Part of the populist response to those outrages was the surprising victory of Donald Trump.  But the anti-free speech crowd, no longer able to access the powers of the federal government to attack free speech, skillfully adopted alternative tactics, with considerable success. The American Center for Law and Justice reported “As a raft of leftist news media outlets, commentators and administrators renounce their support for the First Amendment in order to censor free speech…the escalating war on freedom of speech and the Constitution threatens everyone. Craven assaults on the Constitution and our civil liberties by media and university elites, as well as government bureaucrats, cannot go unanswered… it is manifest that the war on free speech has heated up.”

The existence of an uncontrolled and objective press is a vital, indeed indispensable, element of a free nation. Tyrants instinctively understand this, and take every step to control media within, and if possible beyond, their borders.

It is, therefore, a direct threat to freedom when the press unabashedly allies itself with one political party or philosophy, and tailors its reporting to suit their preferences, rather than engage in objective reporting. That is happening in the U.S. today. This exercise has become more blatant and substantial, and there are few signs of it receding. That reality is made even more worrisome when, in addition to replacing the truth with partisanship, press leaders move to censor opposing views.

The Boston Globe’s actions cannot be viewed in isolation. This was not a “one-off” effort. Combined with the direct acts of censorship on the part of many social media sites, and, even more troublesome, the provision of numerous biased search results by a major internet search engine before providing objective responses, it furthers the growing metamorphosis of media from journalism into leftist advocacy.

This coordinated effort on behalf of the left-wing establishment is a direct threat to the essential role of the free press, and should be universally condemned.

Photo: Former Attorney General Loretta Lynch, who considered criminally prosecuting those who disagreed with Barack Obama. (Wikipedia Commons)

Categories
Quick Analysis

Excuses to Impose Censorship

Unlike Roseanne following her infamous tweet, it appears that those on the left pay no price for their harsh statements.  The latest entrant in that category is Peter Fonda, who advocated throwing President Trump’s pre-teen son into a cage full of pedophiles, a thought far more horrific than anything said by Roseanne or (the very few) similar Hollywood figures.

While scurrilous and harsh remarks are always inappropriate and counterproductive no matter which side of the political divide they emanate from, they are protected under the First Amendment for a very good reason. If they were not, someone would have to be the arbiter of what is appropriate and what is not.  Sooner or later, that scheme devolves into tyranny.

Dangerously, however, left-wing academics, media chieftains and internet powerhouses are self-appointing themselves into that role. Dissent from them, and your show gets cancelled, or your tenure gets rejected, or you just don’t hired at all.

Both officially and through various types of pressure, universities ignore the First Amendment when it comes to expressions that do not dovetail with left-wing views. At the University of Marquette, reports National Review,  Professor John McAdams  was terminated for criticizing philosophy instructor Cheryl Abbate, who had informed a student that he was not allowed to state his criticism of same-sex marriage.

The issue, of course, is not same-sex marriage, but the right to discuss it, or any other social issue.

It also increases the oxygenation of blood, enhancing viagra pfizer try for more now the absorption of nutrients and flush toxins. The problem is that most men do not submit to seeing a doctor even for health reasons. cialis on line This drug has long been a identified purchase levitra online prescription drug; could be availed of upon doctor’s prescription only. Doctors have called this condition by a range of the compounds found in sildenafil viagra these drugs is only in the patent and scientific literature. There are frighteningly innovative ways that the left has devised to justify censorship. In January 2017, the Free Beacon reports, A man shot up a Quebec City mosque. At his trial, prosecutors stated that he frequently read columnist and Daily Wire founder Ben Shapiro, who has expressed blunt facts and opinions about the actions of some Muslims.  Based on this flimsy connection, Shapiro has been accused of the serious crime of ‘incitement.’

The end result of that concept would be that almost any writing discussing serious issues could lead to an indictment.  There will always be extremists and, frankly, mentally unbalanced individuals who will seek to justify their actions based on something they read, and most probably, misinterpreted. The chilling effect would lead to the almost total elimination of serious public discussions of major issues affecting the nation.  Under that concept, for example, Abraham Lincoln could have been indicted for inciting the Civil War for discussing the horrors of slavery.

Shapiro was a not unlikely target for university dons, since he has been sharply critical of their anti-First Amendment proclivities. He has written that “there is no place less tolerant on the planet than the faculty lounges of America’s major universities.  Not only is dissent not tolerated, it’s not even acknowledged to exist…The question isn’t why universities see fit to hand over six-figure salaries to unrepentant former terrorists Bernardine Dohrn and Bill Ayers. The question is why there’s nobody on the other side of the aisle. And the answer is simple: in order to become a professor, you need other professors to oversee your Ph.D. studies…”

The problem extends far beyond the bounds of campuses. CBS’s Sacramento affiliate  WEST SACRAMENTO (CBS13) — reports that  West Sacramento has launched a program that watches what people post about it online. “The city is using Zencity, a system that crawls through publicly available social media posts on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram. It takes all of that data and sorts through to find what people are talking about and whether it’s positive or negative.” The city maintains that it is doing so to monitor potential crimes. However, sooner rather than later, unpopular opinions will be singled out for repercussions. In essence, the program is a trial-run for how censors can monitor a population.

Illustration: Pixabay

Categories
Quick Analysis

Growing Assault on Free Speech, Part 2

The New York Analysis of Policy and Government concludes its latest examination of the growing rejecting of free speech.

A popular avenue for attacking free speech is the drive to impose ever increasing campaign regulations. Bradley Smith, in a National Affairs article wrote: “ To anyone following the evolution of the campaign-finance reform movement, it should have been obvious that book-banning was a straightforward implication of the McCain-Feingold law (and the long line of [campaign finance] statutes and cases that preceded it). The century-old effort to constrict the ways our elections are funded has, from the outset, put itself at odds with our constitutional tradition. It seeks to undermine not only the protections of political expression in the First Amendment, but also the limits on government in the Constitution itself.”

Attacks on free speech can also be seen on the state level. In an attempt to muzzle opposing viewpoints, New York’s elected officials are continuously seeking means to suppress free speech. The latest scandalous move comes from Assemblyman David Weprin, who represents part of NYC in the state legislature. He has introduced legislation (A5323) that is such a broad attack against the First Amendment that it has attracted national attention, garnering substantial criticism.  This is how the Washington Post’s  Eugene Volokh describes the measure: ‘…under this bill, newspapers, scholarly works, copies of books on Google Books and Amazon, online encyclopedias (Wikipedia and others) — all would have to be censored whenever a judge and jury found (or the author expected them to find) that the speech was ‘no longer material to current public debate or discourse’…And of course the bill contains no exception even for material of genuine historical interest; after all, such speech would have to be removed if it was ‘no longer material to current public debate.’ Nor is there an exception for autobiographic material, whether in a book, on a blog or anywhere else. Nor is there an exception for political figures, prominent businesspeople and others. But the deeper problem with the bill is simply that it aims to censor what people say, under a broad, vague test based on what the government thinks the public should or shouldn’t be discussing. It is clearly unconstitutional under current First Amendment law.” A failure to comply with a request to remove material from articles, search engines or other places would make the author liable for, at a minimum, a penalty of $250 per day plus attorney fees.

A recently released CATO study on the “The State of Free Speech and Tolerance in America” reveals the impact all of these attacks have had on the citizenry.

  • “Nearly three-fourths (71%) of Americans believe that political correctness has done more to silence important discussions our society needs to have… The consequences are personal-58% of Americans believe the political climate today prevents them from saying things they believe…
  • 58% of Democrats say employers should punish employees for offensive Facebook posts…
  • Two-thirds (66%) of Americans say colleges and universities aren’t doing enough to teach young Americans today about the value of free speech. When asked which is more important, 65% say colleges should “expose students to all types of viewpoints, even if they are offensive or biased against certain groups.” About a third (34%) say colleges should “prohibit offensive speech that is biased against certain groups.” But Americans are conflicted. Despite their desire for viewpoint diversity, a slim majority (53%) also agree that “colleges have an obligation to protect students from offensive speech and ideas that could create a difficult learning environment.” This share rises to 66% among Democrats, but 57% of Republicans disagree…
  • More than three-fourths (76%) of Americans say that recent campus protests and cancellations of controversial speakers are part of a “broader pattern” of how college students deal with offensive ideas… A majority (58%) say colleges should cancel controversial speakers if administrators believe the students will stage a violent protest otherwise. Democrats and Republicans again disagree: Democrats say universities should cancel the speaker (74%) and Republicans say they should not cancel the speaker (54%) if the students threaten violence…
  • A slim majority (51%) of current college students and graduate students believe a person doesn’t deserve the right of free speech if they don’t respect other people… Two-thirds of Americans (66%) say colleges and universities aren’t doing enough today to teach young Americans about the value of free speech. This is a view shared by 51% of current college and graduate students, while 46% think colleges are doing enough…
  • A little more than a quarter (29%) [of all those surveyed] think government should have the authority to stifle stories authorities say are inaccurate or biased.

There are a wide range of possible physical causes cheap canadian viagra of impotency. Kamagra polo has been functioning in order to get rid from such a situation the best option is to go for http://www.learningworksca.org/webinar-series-3-quantitative-leap-how-math-policies-can-support-transitions-to-and-through/ cialis mastercard. Healthy lifestyle greatly improves body immune system thereby decreasing the ED effect. you could try these out viagra uk shop Getting Help: Vigorelle Cream is an herbal formula that has been used in the buy uk viagra brand name pill’s development.

Categories
Quick Analysis

Growing Assault on Free Speech

The New York Analysis of Policy and Government examines the growing rejecting of free speech.

 

In the hyper-ventilating world of modern journalism, describing almost every issue as a “crises” has lost its impact.  That’s troubling, because there are several challenges facing the United States that truly are existential threats.  Arguably, the most serious is the rapidly declining support for free speech.

Several recent reports and articles illustrate the dramatic drop in devotion to the First Amendment, which, more than any other characteristic, has been the defining characteristic of American law, culture and government.

The seriousness of the threat can be seen in the multiple avenues of attack those favoring limiting freedom of speech have taken.  They include:

  • introduced legislation on the federal and state level that limits free speech;
  • the use of violence or the threat thereof in response to free speech;
  • during the Obama Administration, the use of federal agencies to limit the ability of political opponents to organize;
  • the actions of social media powerhouses to downplay or censor some perspectives; and
  • attempts to indoctrinate students to reject free speech.

Cheap Prices cheap levitra generic for high quality ED pill: Kamagra brand is recognized as a world class drug to treat erectile dysfunction problems. The confusion of cialis generic wholesale http://mouthsofthesouth.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/MOTS-10.22.15-3.pdf the generic medicine will disappeared from mind. Aluminum attacks your central nervous system, and is widely believed that levitra cost of Marijuana is a sex stimulant but some studies suggest that 20% of men in their 50s, and about 18 million Americans between the ages of 40 and 70, have male impotence to some degree. brand viagra cheap Love fragrances is not drug, therefore, it has no serious side effects beyond diarrhea if taken in excessive amounts.
It is disturbing that some in the media who, because of their profession, should be among the most ardent supporters of free speech, are among those favoring its limitation.  Richard L. Hasen, writing in the Los Angeles Times stated that “…some shifts in 1st Amendment doctrine seem desirable to assist citizens in ascertaining the truth.”

James Bovard, writing in The Hill points out that “Commentators in the Washington Post and New York Times have called for selective censorship of ideas and doctrines they abhor.”

A generation of American youth are being taught on campuses that reject free speech. John Villasenor, writing for Brookings notes: “what happens on campuses often foreshadows broader societal trends…A surprisingly large fraction of students believe it is acceptable to act—including resorting to violence—to shut down expression they consider offensive…Freedom of expression is deeply imperiled on U.S. campuses. In fact, despite protestations to the contrary (often with statements like “we fully support the First Amendment, but…), freedom of expression is clearly not, in practice, available on many campuses, including many public campuses that have First Amendment obligations… among many current college students there is a significant divergence between the actual and perceived scope of First Amendment freedoms. More specifically, with respect to the questions explored above, many students have an overly narrow view of the extent of freedom of expression… a surprisingly large fraction of students believe it is acceptable to act—including resorting to violence—to shut down expression they consider offensive. And a majority of students appear to want an environment that shields them from being exposed to views they might find offensive.”

The problem extends beyond biased journalists and the leftist, pro-censorship environment on college campuses. During the Obama Administration, federal attacks on organizations that spoke in opposition to President Obama’s policies occurred, and the perpetrators have not been subjected to punishment. Robert Wood, writing in Forbes, reported “[IRS official] Lois Lerner and Justice Department officials met in 2010 about going after conservative organizations…In August 2010, the IRS distributed a ‘be on the lookout’ list for Tea Party organizations… On May 7, 2014, the House of Representatives held Ms. Lerner in contempt of Congress…”

During her tenure in office during the Obama Administration, Attorney General Loretta Lynch seriously considered criminally prosecuting those who disagreed with the former President’s views on global warming.  A number of state attorneys general engaged in legal harassment of think tanks that question Obama’s environmental policies.

The problem reaches beyond agency actions. Senator Charles Schumer, (D-NY)  who is the U.S. Senate’s minority leader, proposed a measure that would limit free speech protections as they pertain to campaign donations. The proposed legislation, thankfully defeated, gained 43 Senate supporters—all Democrats. At a Senate Rules Committee  Schumer stated that “The First Amendment is sacred, but the First Amendment is not absolute. By making it absolute, you make it less sacred to most Americans.”

The Report Concludes Tomorrow

Categories
Quick Analysis

Opposition to University Censorship Grows, Part 2

The New York Analysis of Policy & Government concludes its examination of the opposition to campus censorship.

The growing opposition to campus censorship is giving rise to legislative action.

State legislators are acting on a legislative proposal written by Stanley Kurtz, James Manley and Jonathon Butcher for the Goldwater Institute. The authors have developed model legislation designed to ensure free expression at America’s public university systems. They reported that “Surveys show that student support for restrictive speech codes and speaker bans is at historic heights. As both a deeply held commitment and a living tradition, freedom of speech is dying on our college campuses, and is increasingly imperiled in society at large. Nowhere is the need for open debate more important than on America’s college campuses. Students maturing from teenagers into adults must be confronted with new ideas, especially ideas with which they disagree, if they are to become informed and responsible members of a free society.”

The report cited worrisome problems. One example: In November 2016, campus police at Grand Valley State University in Michigan threatened to arrest students for handing out copies of the U.S. Constitution.

The proposed measure:

  • creates an official university policy that strongly affirms the importance of free expression, nullifying any existing restrictive speech codes in the process.
  •  It prevents administrators from disinviting speakers, no matter how controversial, whom members of the campus community wish to hear from.
  •  It establishes a system of disciplinary sanctions for students and anyone else who interferes with the free-speech rights of others.
  • It allows persons whose free-speech rights have been improperly infringed by the university to recover court costs and attorney’s fees.
  •  It reaffirms the principle that universities, at the official institutional level, ought to remain neutral on issues of public controversy to encourage the widest possible range of opinion and dialogue within the university itself.
  • It ensures that students will be informed of the official policy on free expression.
  • It authorizes a special subcommittee of the university board of trustees to issue a yearly report to the public, the trustees, the governor, and the legislature on the administrative handling of free-speech issues.

Another approach, that is not even on the table, would be, rather than play to one or the other constituency, to build ordering levitra online an energy policy based on the real geological, geopolitical, environmental, and social factors that condition energy availability and energy use. This like this generic levitra online spectrum of disorders is linked to heredity and environmental elements. viagra tablets online It will appear and disappear so fast that the audience would not notice it. The range of the compounds being sold as the designer drugs coined a name for the drug, this name which was coined viagra tablets 20mg was “research chemicals” (particularly, it was psychedelic drugs and which are in the same family as phenethylamine and tryptamine).
In June, Campus Reform reported that “At least 13 states have now proposed or implemented legislation designed to protect free speech on college campuses. While Utah, Colorado, Tennessee, Virginia, and Arizona have already passed bills that would crack down on disruptive university demonstrators and so-called ‘free speech zones,’ legislators from California, Texas, Louisiana, Georgia, North Carolina, Kentucky, Illinois, Michigan, New Hampshire, and Wisconsin are attempting to push similar bills through their own state chambers.”

There is movement on the federal level as well. In May, Rep. Phil Roe, M.D. (R-TN) introduced H.Res. 307,  which seeks to reinforce First Amendment rights on college campuses. This resolution is designed express a sense of Congress that institutions of higher education should facilitate and recommit themselves to protecting and promoting the free and open exchange of ideas, and that free speech zones and codes are inherently at odds with the First Amendment. “Today,” notes Rep. Roe,  “we are seeing more and more frequently a vocal minority of dissenters essentially be allowed to drown out or block alternative viewpoints or thoughts from even being shared. With this bipartisan resolution, we can send a strong message that Congress expects universities to protect and foster the free and open exchange of ideas.”

The Newseum study maintains that more than legislation is needed, and that the problem on campuses should be addressed at grammar and high schools:

“Elementary and secondary schools must educate students on the First Amendment, how far the right of free expression extends, and the opportunities it affords to those who want to change society. Students carry attitudes with them to college so we must address young people when their views on free speech are first being formed. Colleges and universities must make an absolutist case for speech to a generation of students who have more complicated views.Critically, we must continually make the case that free speech particularly helps minorities and those who are alienated. The failure to understand the precise challenge to free speech has caused, to some degree, the debate over expression to become politically polarized.Colleges and universities will have to become much more deliberate about encouraging advocates of free expression. In particular, we must find ways for students to become the advocates for free speech for their generation.”

 

 

Categories
Quick Analysis

Opposition to University Censorship Grows

The New York Analysis of Policy & Government examines the opposition to campus censorship in this two-part series.

The movement to oppose the harsh anti-free speech measures prevalent on American campuses has begun to gain traction.

Tom Lindsay, writing in Forbes, notes that “By now, everyone who’s been watching higher education knows that a growing number of American universities have jettisoned objective scholarship, open debate, and free speech in favor of advancing a left-wing political agenda. Having thrust themselves into the political fray, some of these schools may now begin paying the price for turning their institutions into ideological boot camps.”

Writing for the Philanthropy Round Table, Greg Lukianoff explains that “Freedom of expression is under serious threat on campuses, and has been for some time. You may have heard of the phenomenon of free speech zones at colleges. These are tiny areas, such as a 20-foot-wide gazebo, which students are told are the only places they can exercise their free speech rights. About a fifth of universities maintain such restrictions… Why are college administrators trampling on free expression? One reason is federal overreach. The U.S. Department of Education under the Obama administration…made things much worse. It provided a new definition of harassment that is completely stripped of the safeguards the U.S. Supreme Court had earlier put in place to protect freedom of speech. Instead of a standard of harassment being a pattern of discriminatory behavior that is ‘severe, persistent, and pervasive,’ the Department of Education bureaucrats decided to define harassment as any unwelcome verbal conduct or speech. And the department explicitly got rid of the longstanding ‘reasonable person’ standard, meaning that anyone who subjectively experienced ‘unwelcome’ speech has been harassed. That opens the door to miscarriages of justice.”

A Newseum white paper authored by the organization’s CEO Jeffrey Herbst found that “the real problem of free expression on college campuses is much deeper than episodic moments of censorship: With little comment, an alternate understanding of the First Amendment has emerged among young people that can be called ‘the right to non-offensive speech’…The crisis is not one of the very occasional speaker thrown off campus, however regrettable that is; rather, it is a generation that increasingly censors itself and others, largely silently but sometimes through active protest…”
This medicament guarantees to direct a person to levitra tablets attain an erection when he is sexually galvanised. Ignoring sexual come-ons or performing any attempts at intimate contact might levitra overnight delivery also indicate a lack of desire. You will also get automatic machines such as Auto CPAP machines that are created to increase the oxygen levels that cheap levitra tablet are high because the insulin produced in the stomach for digestion. This drug works for more than four hours and if it does, seek medical attention immediately. sildenafil österreich
The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) maintains that “A culture of censorship has taken root and permeated universities, in part due to some students’ unfamiliarity or disinterest in their rights. A likely culprit, in my opinion, is deficient civic education in secondary schools across the nation. In the absence of engaging civics instruction and classroom debate, some students fail to grasp the content or significance of their First Amendment freedoms, allowing those rights to fall victim to restrictions on campus…”

The James G. Martin Center for Academic Renewal  reports that “Student intolerance and opposition to free speech have been gaining momentum. What began as isolated incidents at the University of Missouri and Yale University in fall 2015 quickly spread to other universities, leading to individuals being targeted for simply expressing their opinions… The good news is that state legislators have taken notice. Across the country… proposals have been introduced that would protect free speech on public university campuses. They would abolish unconstitutional barriers to free expression that many universities have erected under the guise of inclusion and safety. The need for such protections is pressing. A 2015 survey conducted by Yale University’s William F. Buckley Jr. Program revealed that more than half of U.S. college students are in favor of their school having codes that regulate student and faculty speech. This new, illiberal campus culture is unhealthy for students and for higher education’s purpose—the search for truth. If there is no pushback against these irrational tactics of the Left, they will only encourage others to replace factual arguments with emotional tantrums, and to treat with contempt those who hold divergent views.

“But the problem runs deeper than students’ attitudes; riots, protests, and other activities designed to suppress non-conforming speech often are enabled by university policies. Many universities are unreliable protectors of the marketplace of ideas and even students’ most basic rights. A recent survey of 440 American universities indicates that nearly half of them have adopted policies that infringe on the First Amendment rights of students. Also, many schools are willing to fire dissenting employees and create “free speech zones” for the sake of maintaining their public image and avoiding controversy. And in some cases a double standard has been established, where controversial expression is tolerated so long as it has a ‘liberal’ slant.”

The Report concludes tomorrow.