Tag: free speech

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

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

Weaning America off the First Amendment

There is a common purpose in what at first appears to be unrelated moves to limit free speech.

Initially, there isn’t an evident connection between the attempts to take down old holiday songs (“Baby, it’s Cold Outside;”) the scolding of law enforcement officials who describe terrorists as being Islamists; the instructing of college students that they can’t say anything that could “offend” anybody on campus; or any of the other myriad objections levied by progressive censors.

John Podhoretz, writing in the New York Post, notes that  “ America is going insane with finger-wagging, tut-tutting, outrage-ready …. censoriousness… progressive bullies [are] intent on shutting everyone the hell up lest anyone fail to conform to their narrow sense of what is and is not acceptable. The humorless scolds have decided they are in charge, and for complicated reasons the rest of the culture is going along.”

Over the past decade, progressive politicians had been at the forefront of the move to limit free speech. Senator Schumer (D-NY) actually introduced legislation to limit the First Amendment’s application to some political speech. (The measure was, fortunately, defeated.) Numerous campaign regulations limit the ability of the citizenry to openly support candidates without first jumping through bureaucratic hoops.

Some elected officials are not shy about their goals. Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.) boldly announced that he would “love to be able to regulate the content of speech” He particularly spoke about restricting Fox News. Newly elected Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortex (D-NY) threatened Donald Trump Jr. with a subpoena merely for questioning her economic views.

On a governmental level, the trend reached a high point during the Obama Administration, when some dissenting reporters were harassed and their personal records were obtained by the federal government. In addition, the Internal Revenue Service was employed to suppress the Tea Party.  The former President’s Attorney General Loretta Lynch even considered “criminally prosecuting” those that merely disagreed with Obama’s climate change views.

Writing during the time when Obama was in the White House, reporter and author Kimberley Strassel described the frightening move towards punishing free speech that was launched by the Obama Administration: “Americans are…being targeted on the basis of their political views; they…risk losing their jobs and reputations for speaking out; they…face economic and community reprisal…”

Despite the arrogance of progressive politicians such as Obama, Schumer and Lieu, the most immediate current threat comes not from Washington but from nongovernmental sources.
VigRx Plus is a sexual enhancement pill that enhances the frequency and intensity of ejaculation. order discount viagra Anyway, if you took more tablets than recommended by the doctor, the partner needs to support the generic levitra from canada decision than discourage the man. * For any treatment to work, a certain amount of time is consumed. Some prescriptions that cost greater than buy cialis pharmacy a hundred years. The prescription viagra without purpose behind confusion can be a few.
Shireen Qudosi, writing in the Clarion Project  reports that “Sweeping censorship across social media and subscriber-content sites has pushed conservatives out of these sites and sent them searching for more tolerant digital platforms. The latest story in the news points to increased bans and discrimination against conservative views on Twitter.”

While it has become evident that some internet search engines and social media sites have discriminated against anyone rejecting left-wing orthodoxy, it is less clear what the uniting thread is in the consistent moves to oversee just about everything said (or sung) in public.

A change this dramatic in the national culture cannot occur quickly.  Free speech is ingrained in the DNA of the nation. Attempts by elected officials, such as occurred during the Obama Administration, are too obvious.  Those pushing the watering down of the First Amendment recognize this, and so resort to more subtle means. Gradually, they are acclimating Americans to the acceptance, on college campuses and in popular culture, to acquiesce to speech limitations.

Americans who have been (at least until Academia drummed it out of their curriculum) brought up in the belief that the First Amendment was a sacred, unassailable right are being re-trained to accept that free speech is now subject to severe limits. Lacking the ability to persuade the public to abandon this key provision of the Bill of Rights, circuitous means are being employed to wean the citizenry from their devotion to it.

The obvious question is why this is being done, and why the left is so enthusiastic about it.   The fact is, progressive policies are generally not successful in resolving issues, but very successful in establishing a culture in which elites run roughshod over individual rights.  From foreign policy to economics, America’s left has failed to produce salutary results. Exposing that reality, questioning the failed basic premises guiding progressives, is dangerous to the left.  But if the conversation can be controlled, if individuals can be restricted, under various excuses, from questioning the left’s logic, then, despite failure, those elites can remain in power.  That is why socialist governments consistently need to become more authoritarian, as can be seen in Venezuela and numerous other examples.

Accepting the excuses of the would-be censors would lead to disaster.  Americans should tolerate no limits to their First Amendment rights.

Illustration: Pixabay

Categories
Quick Analysis

Campaign Regulation Debate Renewed

After over a year of investigation that was initiated by charges of Russian collusion based on partisan Democrat research (brought before a judge, who was not informed of the partisan nature of the evidence by a federal law enforcement agency that has now been shown to have highly partisan personnel in key positions) it seems that the only truly legal charges concern what some in the Mueller camp believe to be a potential violation of a campaign finance law. Most campaign finance violations result in only a civil fine.

According to one theory, any funds paid to guarantee silence about Donald Trump’s pre-presidential affairs with two females constituted a campaign expenditure that should have been reported. However, even if true, it is highly debatable whether this would have constituted a violation of campaign finance laws, since funds that come from the candidate himself are not subject to the same restrictions as those donated.

Attorney and radio host Mark Levine, speaking on Fox News’ Hannity program and quoted in realclearpolitics reasons that President Trump’s use of former attorney Michael Cohen as a go-between to pay women hush money is not a campaign contribution and there is no campaign law violation. Levin explained that “a candidate who spends money on an event that occurred not as a result of the campaign is not a campaign expenditure.”

The issue has brought the contentious issue of campaign finance regulation back to the public’s attention. There have been extensive analyses that indicate that campaign finance restrictions violate First Amendment rights.

Over two decades ago, testifying on behalf of the CATO Institute, Bradley Smith, addressing a Congressional Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on the Constitution, noted: “we should scrap most all of the present system of campaign finance regulation, remembering the admonition of the First Amendment to the Constitution, that Congress shall make no law abridging the rights of free speech…I think it is important to briefly remind ourselves that, for most of this country’s history, the funding of political campaigns has been totally or largely unregulated. During our nation’s first century, the era which produced as presidents Abraham Lincoln, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Grover Cleveland, James Knox Polk, and Andrew Jackson, and which saw giants such as Daniel Webster, Henry Clay, John Quincy Adams, and John C. Calhoun serve in Congress, there were literally no laws regulating campaign finance. And today, we often look back on that century as a golden age of politics — one in which memorable debates over such monumental issues as slavery and western expansion were discussed in serious campaigns, one in which people talked and debated these issues, one in which politics was marked by mass rallies and torchlight parades, and one in which voter turnout was considerably higher than it is today… Deregulation of campaign finance, not added regulation, is the proper course of action.”
If you exceed the age limit of 55, then cialis rx you will have to talk to the physician consultation to ensure the safety of all other body parameters. Almost 35 % of boys purchase cheap levitra born with testicles situated inside their abdomen, this usually alight into the scrotum during the first 4 months of life. If you buy cheap, cheap generic cialis , it will not give that good effect as is preserved in the pill. There are plenty of natural alternatives for his various discount viagra online problems.
Research indicates that campaign regulation efforts have not achieved the goal of reducing the influence of money in politics.

A study by the CATO institute found that “…there is no serious evidence that campaign finance regulation has achieved or will achieve its goals of reducing the influence of money, opening up the political system, and lowering the cost of campaigns.  Indeed, since the 1974 amendments to the Federal Election Campaign Act, spending has risen sharply, the number of political action committees and the amount of PAC spending are up, and incumbents have increased both their election rate and the rate at which they outspend their challengers.” 

Campaign regulation, particularly in the distribution of public funds to aid campaigns, has been abused in a number of ways. In some localities, New York City being a significant example, local Campaign Finance Boards have used their authority to heavily and unlawfully influence the outcome of elections and enhance the power of political bosses.  In one extraordinary example, a candidate for New York City Council was a former State Assemblyman who had challenged the powerful Assembly Speaker, Sheldon Silver, frequently criticized for his iron rule and conflict of interest activities. Silver was eventually convicted and sentenced to prison, The candidate was clearly not a favorite of the city’s political establishment. A highly irregular application of an ex post facto regulation was devised to deprive the candidate of funds, and to extract a penalty as well.

The Report Concludes Tomorrow.

Photo: 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