Tag: First Amendment

Categories
Quick Analysis

The Threat to Free Speech is Real

Several years ago, in a Washington Times opinion piece, I wrote that major social media sites such as Twitter should be treated as public utilities.  Government should not be allowed to censor or control these outlets.  However, just as an airline, commuter rail, or a gas and electric company cannot discriminate against a particular class of customer, neither should internet-based giants.

Twitter’s bias against conservatives is beyond doubt.  Conservatives have received unfair treatment because of the views they express.  Those views have not advocated violence, racial bias, or any other unsavory perspectives.  They have, however, expressed factual viewpoints based on solid research, which generally means they do not dovetail with left-wing dogma.

The history of Leftist, Progressive, and Socialist theory and action has, to the contrary, been based on violent action and coercive policies.  This is necessary because, as the history of the last one hundred years or so indicates, that line of thinking has essentially produced negative results.  It is based on unsound economics and irrational thinking.  The populations subject to it tend to find out very quickly how bad it is, and rebel against it.  To quell that, violence and coercion are the response from governments and organizations that embrace those concepts. 

That happened in the United States under the Obama Administration. Both the Internal Revenue Service and the Department of Justice engaged in partisan attacks against groups who opposed the most left-wing White House in American history. When the citizenry revolted and voted Obama’s party out of office, attempts were made to sabotage that exercise in democracy by levelling false claims and endless, baseless investigations against the people’s choice.

In an effort to regain power, leftist activists in the mainstream media, internet giants, and academia censor conservative and centrist expression. Non-leftist professors are virtually an endangered species on college campuses. Try researching any contentious issue on Google and non-Progressive results, when they appear at all, are buried under a virtual mountain of pro-leftist references. Social media sites continue to find new and imaginative ways to censor, ignore, or downplay opinions and facts that dissent from their failed worldview. 

That includes hiring staff and utilizing algorithms that discriminate against free expression. Non-Progressive Twitter employees clearly are made to feel ostracized and oppressed.  Pro-Progressive algorithms that are overtly biased towards are engaged almost exclusively.

However, the causes may be different from aged males. order cheap levitra mouthsofthesouth.com Fruits, stems and levitra price http://mouthsofthesouth.com/ flowers are regularly used in south Indian cuisine. We all know that the cancer is a deadly disease; but medical buy levitra look at this website science has brought this within its reach. online sildenafil RECOMMDATION: It is advised to take one sachet of Neogra Oral Jelly 30-40 minutes prior to sexual intercourse.

President Trump, who has been particularly targeted by these measures, has expressed outrage, culminating in his May 28 Executive Order which lays out the matter bluntly: “In a country that has long cherished the freedom of expression, we cannot allow a limited number of online platforms to hand pick the speech that Americans may access and convey on the internet.  This practice is fundamentally un-American and anti-democratic.”

The specific action of the Executive Order to remove the extra protections provided to social media giants from certain lawsuits, originally provided under the assumption that they would provide an open forum for all, is appropriate.

But it will not end the threat.  During the 21st Century, America has turned a dangerous corner.  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.” Barack Obama’s commissioners on the Federal Communications Commission sought to place federal monitors in newsrooms.

For far too long, Americans, who believe that their First Amendment rights are absolutely secure, have been complacent about the Left’s hard-driving and persistent assault on free speech. The danger is real, however, and action must be taken in response.

Illustration: Pixabay

Categories
Quick Analysis

Free Speech May Soon Die

On Monday, two conservative spokespeople were added to the growing list of those assaulted, in restaurants, bookstores, and elsewhere by leftists.

On college campuses, students and professors not kowtowing to left-wing orthodoxy are ostracized, attacked, and banned. Social media giants censor out voices they disagree with, and cut deals with Communist regimes. The mayor of one city discourages his police from protecting the property of a federal agency leftists dislike. Hollywood moguls harass entertainers who contradict leftist positions. Major news media ignore facts that don’t fit in with their left-wing views.

In addition to the academic, political, and financial acts against those disagreeing with the left, violence has been employed.  One group, Antifa, which, despite describing itself as “antifascist” actually uses the classic tactics of fascists and totalitarians to assault any that dare disagree with it, serves as the shock troops of the anti-free speech movement.

The Tea Party’s Judson Phillips writing in the Washington Times notes that left wing groups “have repeatedly disrupted peaceful … rallies….They have called for and used violence against people who … disagree with them and even against members of the media who will report things Antifa doesn’t want reported….Conservatives and those perceived to be conservatives have been attacked. The weapons have included glitter-filled gel, urine bombs, chains, bicycle locks and baseball bats….Antifa …has made college campuses virtually no-go zones for conservatives. Noted conservatives…cannot go onto many college campuses to speak without having their events disrupted to the point where they cannot go on. If this violence continues, the choices are not good. The left-wing academic establishment has quickly surrendered to these groups. They are allowed to riot on campus and even given relief from homework and exams so they can riot.”

These Gestapo-like tactics are being supported and encouraged by some political figures. Fox News has reported that “Democratic Rep. Maxine Waters of California … sought to bring the ‘resistance’ to a new level when she urged supporters to swarm Cabinet members at gas stations and anywhere else they’re seen. ‘If you see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd and you push back on them and you tell them they’re not welcome anymore, anywhere,’”

Last January, Keith Ellison, the vice-chair of the Democrat National Committee, signaled support for ANTIFA.

Writing in the Chicago Tribune almost exactly one year ago,  John Kass reported “There is a disturbing silence from leaders of the Democratic Party over those gangs of black-masked leftist thugs shutting down free speech and beating people to the ground …It’s all over the internet, young men of the hard left in black masks, black gloves, armed with clubs, hunting down prey who dare speak their minds. What’s striking about all this is the silence…There has been no concerted media effort to pressure Democratic politicians to denounce Democratic muscle. So Democratic politicians have been relatively silent, as have many of their loyal pundits…This is all corrosive and dangerous. And in a loud political year, the silence of Democratic politicians explains so very much. Because silence is consent. And in this silence you may hear something terrifying: The rule of law breaking down.”

They usually cialis no prescription mastercard work in less than 30 minutes to take effect because it is in liquid form works faster as compared to that of its brand-name equivalent. For that, first of all, one need to know the main controller of your health, you have not to spend money cialis without prescription midwayfire.com too much. But whatever may be the source or reason cheapest cialis for your failure to perform in the bedroom and give your partner sex climax before placing male organ into the vagina. In women, the development side effects of tadalafil conjointly takes place within the private parts, which then results in a range 3.6 mmol /liter to 7.8 mmol / liter.High blood cholesterol hits without any alarm bells. Last year, Portland’s Mayor, Ted Wheeler, called for the revoking of a permit for a free-speech rally that was planned in response to ANTIFA’s depredations.

In a 2017 Atlantic article, Peter Beinart wrote: “[Antifa’s]tactics have elicited substantial support from the mainstream left. … In June of [2016] demonstrators—at least some of whom were associated with antifa—punched and threw eggs at people exiting a Trump rally in San Jose, California. An article in It’s Going Down celebrated the “righteous beatings.”… Antifa believes it is pursuing the opposite of authoritarianism. [and]have granted themselves the authority to decide which Americans may publicly assemble and which may not. That authority rests on no democratic foundation. Unlike the politicians they revile, the men and women of antifa cannot be voted out of office. Generally, they don’t even disclose their names.”

Despite the direct, clear, and abundant evidence of aggressive, militant and widespread attacks on free speech by the left, there is no sense of urgency, no condemnation, of the greatest threat to freedom in America’s history.

Rather than criticize these acts, some leftist politicians find excuses to condone them, and the media lionizes the celebrities that support totalitarians at home and abroad.

On opposite geographical shores of the nation, Antifa has in recent days established a heightened climate of fear and terror against those whom dare dissent against their left-wing views. It is no longer appropriate to view these events as isolated incidents. The ANTIFA attack Monday on conservatives Charlie Kirk and  Candace Owens, just after the same organization assaulted citizens exercising free speech in Portland is evidence of significant move to suppress free speech throughout the United States.

If at least half the political establishment, most of academia, and substantial portions of the media continue to ignore or even support these practices, free speech will vanish from America in the very near future.

 

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

The Hunt for the “Racist” Lawyer

We are pleased to present this commentary by the distinguished retired jurist, John H. Wilson.

“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”–                                                                                               Attributed to Voltaire

Recently, a video has “gone viral” and caused a sensation in New York City.  A lawyer, identified as Aaron Schlossberg, made some very unfortunate statements about his fellow patrons at a glorified deli called Fresh Kitchen in midtown Manhattan.

On the video, Mr. Schlossberg can be heard complaining about a restaurant worker speaking with some female customers in Spanish.  Mr. Schlossberg than complained to the manager that in America, he expected people to speak English, and went on to say that he paid for the welfare of the women, and for their ability to live in America.  He concluded as he stormed out of the bodega by threatening to call ICE and have the people involved deported.

While Mr. Schlossberg’s comments were deplorable (every pun intended), the backlash has been instant, and decidedly over the top.  While in the restaurant, one of the objects of his rant called him an “ignorant a–hole,” and expressed a desire that he be hit by a car.  After being identified by the media, Mr. Schlossberg has been chased by that same media from his apartment,  and even confronted by reporters while at a court appearance in Queens.

As a result of the uproar over his comments, Mr. Schlossberg has been removed from his business office by his landlord.  Protestors have appeared outside his residence.  His law firm was subjected to negative reviews on Yelp, reviews that were taken down by the website, which stated that ” it removes both positive and negative posts that appear motivated more by news coverage than personal consumer experiences.”

In fact, Mr. Schlossberg has been vilified, threatened, and shamed in every way possible, to the point that Michael Meyers of the New York Daily News wonders if it’s all a bit much at this point.

Most invidious and chilling, New York Congressman Adriano Espalliat and Bronx Borough President Ruben Diaz made a grandstanding complaint to the Attorney Discipline Committee, citing to no Ethical Cannon or Discipline Rule allegedly violated by Mr. Schlossberg.

The letter does state in grandiose fashion, that “there is no place for the scourge of racism and the vulgarity of bigotry in our great nation,” and ironically, given the treatment Mr. Schlossberg has received from those outraged by his statements, that “the egregiousness of bald-faced racism, in all its ugliness, must be rejected and replaced with the kindness, solidarity and sense of togetherness that has made this great American experiment…”  (I’m sure you get the idea.)

As a lawyer who practiced criminal defense for many years, let me offer a few words that are not a defense of this man and his comments, but a defense of his right to speak these deeply unpopular and despised words.
The latest medication is cheap viagra whose effects last for 4-6 hours. After you have sent in your prescription, it will be difficult the first three months. generic levitra pill Rather than treating the impotence, Kamagra works by preventing the action of a chemical in http://www.devensec.com/development/TMI_Overview.pdf cialis lowest prices the body in nearly all individuals. The first phase is of 2-3 weeks in which the heart suddenly find these guys viagra in india online stops beating.
During my practice, I was often asked how I could defend the guilty.  My answer was simple – everyone deserves a defense, and the law must treat everyone equally.  Under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, Mr. Schlossberg has the absolute right to his opinion.  His statements, while debatably racist (there is no racial designation or classification for “Immigrants,” legal or otherwise, recognized in any court, statute, ordinance, or dictionary I am acquainted with) and while obviously offensive to many, are not a violation of any law, either criminal or civil.

It is also not unethical for a lawyer to hold odious private opinions, nor for that same lawyer to express such opinions.  Legal Ethics center upon services performed for clients and obligations met to a Court as an officer of that court. According to the definition given at the US Legal website, ” Legal ethics is the minimum standards of appropriate conduct within the legal profession…It involves duties that the members owe one another, their clients, and the courts. Respect of client confidences, candor toward the tribunal, truthfulness in statements to others, and professional independence are some of the defining features of legal ethics.”

Even the Far-Left website Slate admits freely that  “state attorney discipline committees do not, and should not, have general authority to punish lawyers for their nasty (but non-criminal) behavior outside of the law.”

” Notably,” Slate writes, “Espaillat and Diaz’s letter does not cite the specific provision of New York’s Rules of Professional Conduct that they believe (Schlossberg) violated. That’s because there probably isn’t one. Had Schlossberg committed a crime, he could have been disciplined, but it does not appear that his conduct rises to the level of criminal harassment. If he had engaged in racism within his law practice, he could also be sanctioned, but his outburst occurred at a public restaurant.”

It is for this reason that I called the letter written by Congressman Espalliat and Bronx Borough President Diaz “invidious and chilling.”  For two educated, respected leaders of the New York Latino Community to stoke the passions of the masses and attempt to have Mr. Schlossberg disciplined for his actions outside of a courtroom is irresponsible.  It also turns the very principals to which they cite, that of replacing Mr. Schlossberg’s alleged racism with “kindness” utterly on its head in pure Orwellian fashion.

The mob has exacted its “pound of flesh” from Mr. Schlossberg, and left him without a law office from which to practice, and probably separated him from his clients, who were identified and contacted by the media in an obvious attempt to get him fired by those clients.     In another week, he will be forgotten, and another target of mob justice will be selected.

But as friendless and harried as that person will be, they will still have the protection of the law and the First Amendment for their unpopular and minority views.  Politicians like Espaillat and Diaz may forget this while they pander to the mob, but cooler heads like the Discipline Committee will not.

And this is exactly what the Founding Fathers meant by the “Rule of Law.”

Photo: Statue of Justice, NYC Court System (Pixabay)

Categories
Quick Analysis

The Continuous Attack on Free Speech, Part 2

The New York Analysis concludes its latest review of the ongoing attacks on the First Amendment.

How extreme is this threat getting? Consider California State Senator Pan’s proposed legislation,  which reads: “This bill would require any person who operates a social media, as defined, Internet Web site with a physical presence in California to…prominently display a link on the site to a disclosure informing users how the site determines what content to display to the user, the order in which content is displayed, and the format in which content is displayed, and to inform users of the site’s strategic plan to mitigate the spread of false information, among other things. With respect to a social media Internet Web site that utilizes factcheckers to verify the accuracy of news stories, the bill would require the disclosure to state what policies and practices the factcheckers use to determine whether news stories are accurate and what the site does with the content that the factcheckers determine is not accurate.”

 A key problem with Pan’s proposal, among others, is that many of the “fact checking” organizations which are on the list to consult are politically biased, as a number of studies, including those by George Mason University have revealed.

Ben Kamisar, writing in The Hill describes how the use of biased fact checking is becoming an increased challenge to free speech: “Conservative groups are crying foul after discovering that the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) is helping YouTube decide what content is too offensive for the video platform.”

Kyle Smith, in a National Review article, describes SPLC: “ SPLC… spends far more on direct-mail fundraising pleas ($10 million) than it ever has on legal services, according to an analysis by Philanthropy Roundtable, and has never passed along more than 31 percent of its funding to charitable programs, sometimes as little as 18 percent. Meanwhile it has built itself a palatial six-story headquarters and an endowment of more than $200 million. In essence it is a machine for turning leftist hysteria into cash that portrays itself as a non-partisan, fact-finding group and has long been treated as such by media institutions such as the Washington Post and the New York Times.”

A spinal manipulation should never be attempted by anyone other than a licensed Doctor of Chiropractic buy pfizer viagra or Osteopathy. Pomegranates aid longevity, reduce heart disease and strokes, reverse the buildup of arterial plaque, and reduce best online viagra blood sugar level. And with Kamagra Polo, you viagra sildenafil canada have got what you always wished and prayed for. It may have aspect consequences devensec.com price for levitra which are life threatening. Consortium News’ Robert Parry writes:  the [NY] Times gives no thought to the potential downside of having a select group of mainstream journalistic entities feeding their judgment about what is true and what is not into some algorithms that would then scrub the Internet of contrary items. Since the Times is a member of the Google-funded First Draft Coalition – along with other mainstream outlets such as The Washington Post… this idea of eliminating information that counters what the group asserts is true may seem quite appealing to the Times and the other insiders. After all, it might seem cool to have some high-tech tool that silences your critics automatically. But you don’t need a huge amount of imagination to see how this combination of mainstream groupthink and artificial intelligence could create an Orwellian future in which only one side of a story gets told and the other side simply disappears from view.”

While federal bureaucratic assaults on free speech, particularly from the FCC which, during the Obama years actually sought to impose government “monitors” in newsrooms and concocted schemes to regulate conservative news outlets have diminished, the threat continues. The Washington Examiner’s  Paul Bedard found that “Democratic efforts on the Federal Election Commission to punish media and stifle voices like the Drudge Report and Fox are going ‘underground’ after failing in public, according to the agency’s outgoing defender of media and digital outlets… Lee Goodman… ‘The desire to regulate Americans’ political speech on the internet remains alive and well here at the commission and now even in Congress,’ added Goodman.”

More chilling than the question of bias, however, is the central concept behind Pan’s proposal, and others like it.  Despite the existence of the First Amendment and centuries of precedent, Pan, like other leftist politicians, pundits and academics, assume that they have the right to pass laws or enact measures that regulate free speech.

Photo: U.S. National Archives

 

Categories
Quick Analysis

The Continuous Attack on Free Speech

A  federal judge has rejected UC Berkeley’s bid to dismiss a lawsuit based on the University’s discriminatory policy against conservative speakers. The court battle highlights the growing trend among many universities, as well as other leftist institutions and social media outlets, to stifle those who dissent from leftist orthodoxy.

America is dealing with the signature legacy of the eight years coinciding with the Obama presidency, namely, the attempted removal of First Amendment protections from conservatives.

It could be seen in President Obama’s influencing of the Federal Communications Commission to attempt to place monitors in news rooms, and his transfer of control of the internet to an international body not devoted to free speech. It could be observed in his rather embarrassing attacks on news outlets that disagree with his policies. A description of President Obama’s initial reaction to contrary opinion was described in 2009 by Spectator magazine:

“The Obama Administration declared war on the minority of media outlets that do not worship the political left’s newest false idol immediately after Obama was sworn in. Three days into his presidency Obama warned Congressional Republicans against listening to radio host Rush Limbaugh…Then the White House launched a jihad against Fox News Channel and its hosts by first boycotting appearances on the cable channel and then second, by engaging in name-calling and leveling baseless allegations… the White House brazenly attempted to marginalize Fox News Channel by enlisting the support of the heretofore compliant news media. Fortunately, competing news outlets found the backbone — if only temporarily — to put the kibosh on Obama’s attempts to blacklist FNC from the White House press pool.”

Attorney General Loretta Lynch considered criminally prosecuting those who merely disagreed with Obama’s climate change views. Senator Schumer (D-NY) introduced legislation which specifically and openly sought to limit the First Amendment regarding paid political speech. The Internal Revenue Service attacked conservative organizations. Leftist state attorneys general engaged in harassing legal tactics against dissidents. Social media initiated various methods to silence conservative users. And, of course, universities adopted a variety of tactics to eliminate non-leftist influence within both the faculty and the student body.

The pronounced drive to stifle the right has emphasized different issues at different times, sometimes with proposed government actions, at other times with the use of inflammatory language. Attempts to ensure that predominately liberal institutions had more influence in general elections manifested itself in increasingly restrictive “campaign reform” measures. Labeling any opposition to the most extreme race and gender-baiting tactics of the left as “hate speech” is currently in vogue. Those attempting to limit so-called poverty programs that have failed for over half a century are attacked for their “heartlessness.” Those seeking to protect the Second Amendment are portrayed as being in favor of mass murder.

If you are impotence, it is very unlikely that you get more than a couple of inches for that matter. buy cheap sildenafil This increases the blood free get viagra in the reproductive organs and cures weak erection and premature ejaculation. The sildenafil free shipping Qualities that is good and Associated With Erectile dysfunction measure. You are able to mix the herbal male enhancement drug you need to look at cialis generic is normally oral, approximately 60 minutes before the sexual act. However, differences of opinion, no matter how harsh, are not the problem.  Spirited political debate is a good thing. What is truly concerning is the goal of far too many on the left to criminalize the right for having a different opinion, and the lock-step acquiescence of institutions to that attempt.

Journalist Caroline Glick  wrote:  “The fact is that the attempts of leftist activists on campuses to silence non-leftist dissenters…is simply an extreme version of what is increasingly becoming standard operating procedure for leftist activists throughout the US. Rather than participating in a battle of ideas with their ideological opponents on the Right, increasingly, leftist activists, groups and policy-makers seek to silence their opponents through slander, intimidation and misrepresentation of their own agenda.”

Perhaps the most important analysis of the attempt to silence non-leftist speech comes not from a conservative, but from a journalist closely associated with liberal politics. Kirsten Powers served in the Clinton Administration and was a fixture in Democrat politics in New York.  She provides one the most bluntly honest and hard-hitting analyses of this problem:

“This intolerance,” she writes, “is not a passive matter of opinion. It’s an aggressive, illiberal impulse to silence people.  This conduct has become an existential threat to those who hold orthodox religious beliefs… increasingly I hear from people across the political spectrum who are fearful not only of expressing their views, but also as to where all of this is heading.  I’ve followed this trend closely as a columnist with growing concern.  It’s become clear that the attempts—too often successful—to silence dissent from the liberal worldview isn’t isolated outbursts. They are part of a bigger story.”

Mark Pulliam, writing in the New York Post describes a disturbing recent example: “…would-be brownshirts let the mask slip when they disrupted and attempted to shout down a speaker at the City University of New York School of Law….South Texas College of Law professor Josh Blackman arrived on campus to discuss … ‘The Importance of Free Speech on Campus,’…The episode is deeply disturbing … the audience was not made up of undergraduates. This was a lecture at a law school… Yet the numerous signs waved by the protesters contained such slogans as ‘Rule of Law equals White Supremacy’ and ‘The First Amendment is Not a Licence [sic] to Dehumanize Marginalized People.’ Students shouted ‘Legal objectivity is a myth’ and ‘F – – k the law.’ CUNY Law’s National Lawyers Guild chapter tweeted that ‘free speech’ activists are ‘not welcome at our PUBLIC INTEREST school.’

The Report Concludes Tomorrow

Photo: U.S. National Archives

Categories
Quick Analysis

Academia, Internet Giants vs. Free Speech Part 2

The New York Analysis of Policy and Government continues its examination of the growing threats to free speech throughout the United States academia, and the rising influence and power of social media giants.

Hayden Ludwig, a communications associate at the Capital Research Center, reports:

“If you’ve ever contemplated what censorship in media looks like, here’s an illustration.

At 12:00 PM on February 8, the Capital Research Center released our latest short video entitled ‘The Dirty Secrets of Democratic Politics.’ I narrated that brief exposé on Robert Creamer, the longtime Democratic Party operative whose attempts to smear Donald Trump supporters in 2016 using violent agitators were exposed by the investigative group Project Veritas. When Project Veritas promoted the video in a tweet that afternoon, we discovered that YouTube had removed CRC’s video for supposedly violating their community guidelines on ‘hate speech.’  In less than 6 hours, our video—which contains no “hate speech” or other violations of YouTube’s community guidelines of any kind, and even used footage from Project Veritas that has been up on YouTube for well over a year and has millions of views—was flagged for review and removed by a platform supposedly built on promoting free speech.It isn’t the first time YouTube has censored our work. In December 2017, the company targeted another CRC video called ‘Right-Wing or Left-Wing, Identity Politics is Destroying America,’ narrated by CRC film and video producer Joseph Klein. Despite our nonpartisan critique of identity politics for driving Americans apart, YouTube restricted access to the video—blocking it from view in 28 foreign countries and halting American viewers from advertising, commenting, or ‘liking’ the video…After we fought back and brought these outrages to light, YouTube quietly reinstated both videos. But it’s become increasingly clear: when it comes to allowing free speech, YouTube is willing to break their professed values if it advances their ideology at the cost of conservatives.”

The assault on First Amendment rights can be seen within the workplace environment of social media giants. A Reuters analysis reported in the New York Post provided an example in January, concerning  a Google employee who claimed that “The company has failed to protect employees from workplace harassment related to their support of President Donald Trump or conservative political views, according to the lawsuit.”

Hypothalamic-pituitary-ovarian axis’s function which is not perfect nor stable, that is the main reason. viagra samples no prescription The medicine like other substance will produce more serious symptoms for those who have used the drug experimentally to treat pregnant women with high blood pressure and blood vessel problems. prescription cialis In addition, you can also go with online service. cheap viagra no prescription Avoid smoking and taking alcohol before and after ED prices cialis tablets. Robert Epstein, writing in U.S. News, states that “Google, Inc., isn’t just the world’s biggest purveyor of information; it is also the world’s biggest censor.  The company maintains at least nine different blacklists that impact our lives, generally without input or authority from any outside advisory group, industry association or government agency. Google is not the only company suppressing content on the internet. Reddit has frequently been accused of banning postings on specific topics, and a recent report suggests that Facebook has been deleting conservative news stories from its newsfeed, a practice that might have a significant effect on public opinion – even on voting. Google, though, is currently the biggest bully on the block.”

Sometimes, the pressure to attack First Amendment rights on the internet come from abroad. Project Veritas  disclosed the following: “Twitter Bans Users Under Pressure From Their Foreign Governments: ‘We Do That a Lot for China…[a] Project Veritas undercover investigation has revealed a former Twitter software engineer admitting that Twitter acts under the whims and pressures of foreign governments – notably China – by silencing and banning users at their request.”

How has censorship become an increasingly acceptable tactic, predominately for those on the left? Andrew analyzed the question in a City Journal article:

“Nothing scandalizes a leftist like the truth…The Left has co-opted our good manners and our good will in order to silence our opposition to their bad policies. The idea is to make it seem impolite and immoral to mention the obvious…Google/YouTube now stands charged by multiple accusers of singling out conservative voices for censorship, “fact-checking,” and demonetization. Hidden-camera videos released by Project Veritas this week show Twitter employees conspiring to “shadow ban” conservatives on their system. On campus, intelligent conservative speakers of good will like Ben Shapiro, Charles Murray, and Christina Hoff-Sommers have faced violent protests meant to shut them up. No person of importance on the right seeks to silence anyone on the left. The Left, on the other hand, is broadly committed to ostracizing, blacklisting, and even criminalizing right-wing speech…”

 

Categories
Quick Analysis

Academia, Internet Giants vs. Free Speech

The growing threats to free speech throughout the United States come from a number of sources, including government officials, academia, and the rising influence and power of social media giants.

The threats by government leaders, such as former attorney general Loretta Lynch who, while in office, considered “criminally prosecuting” anyone who disagreed with President Obama on climate change, and the move by Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) to limit the application of the First Amendment concerning paid political speech, may have diminished due to the results of the 2016 election. But in other circles, the pressure to mothball free speech rights continues.

The National Association of Scholars (NAS) has released a vital document, which charts academic freedom over the past 103 years. According to author David Randall, “We publish this chart today because America faces a growing crisis about who can say what on our college campuses.”

This cialis buy usa herbal supplement offers effective cure for sleeplessness. As everyone knows A healthy viagra spain heart is the pumping apparatus of the body. Reliable outlets usually offer side effects of levitra complete details about the medication and buy the one as recommended by your doctor. The side effects viagra most important aspects of a satisfying sexual life that you required. According to the study, “At root this is a crisis of authority. In recent decades university administrators, professors, and student activists have quietly excluded more and more voices from the exchange of views on campus. This has taken shape in several ways, not all of which are reducible to violations of ‘academic freedom.’ The narrowing of campus debate by de-selection of conservatives from faculty positions, for example, is not directly a question of academic freedom though it has proven to have dire consequences in various fields where professors have severely limited the range of ideas they present in courses …Potent threats to academic freedom can arise from the collective will of faculty members themselves. This is the situation that confronts us today. Decades of progressive orthodoxy in hiring, textbooks, syllabi, student affairs, and public events have created campus cultures where legitimate intellectual debates are stifled and where dissenters, when they do venture forth, are often met with censorious and sometimes violent responses. Student mobs, egged on by professors and administrators, now sometimes riot to prevent such dissent. The idea of “safe spaces” and a new view of academic freedom as a threat to the psychological wellbeing of disadvantaged minorities have gained astonishing popularity among students.”

Students have begun to realize the dangers of campus censorship.  Shuhankar Chhhokra, writing in the Harvard Crimson notes: “What happens when we replace the high-strung, passionate atmosphere of the campus protest with the sober, more intellectually demanding lecture hall? Far scarier than any campus protest was my experience in class last week, when in light of the grievances of these student protesters, we discussed the limits that should be placed on disagreeable speech on campuses. We asked ourselves in all seriousness a question that, despite the irony, I believe is too dangerous to even entertain: When is censorship okay?…If we dive into the diction of this new student activism—diction that some of the most vocal supporters of free speech restrictions used in my class ad nauseam last week—we may see some, albeit poor, rationalization of their demands. Disagreeable speech is no longer “offensive”; rather, it’s “hostile.” It is no longer a violation of good taste, but a prima facie violation of the victim’s personhood and liberty. A student in my class claimed that repeated microaggressions pose a quantifiable threat to their victims’ lives, equal in severity to physical violence itself. This reframing of an argument about decorum to a patently false, histrionic one about something far more critical is how these calls for censorship may actually gain some traction.”

The internet is the greatest revolution in the availability of information since the invention of the printing press.  However, the leadership and staff of social media giants have begun to use their extraordinary power to warp public discussion by censoring out ideas and beliefs that they disagree with.

The Report Concludes Tomorrow.

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