…that encourage further violence.

The SPLC labeled my organization [Kristen Waggoner’s Alliance Defending Freedoma hate group in 2016, around the time we asked the Supreme Court to hear our case on behalf of Colorado cake artist Jack Phillips and his Masterpiece Cakeshop. These designations encourage violence: My car window was shot out shortly after I argued Masterpiece Cakeshop before the justices, and we see a spike in death threats whenever we receive fresh mention in the media.
The threats reached a fever pitch after Kirk’s assassination…. On Tuesday, we deliver oral arguments in Chiles v Salazar.… For the first time in our history, there won’t be an accompanying rally outside the court. Security professionals warned us that the threats of violence at an outdoor event were too great.

It’s a grave mistake to not hold the rally because of these threats and the overt murderous actions of others on the Left. Surrendering to threats of violence and actual violence only encourages more violence, not just threats of it, by those of the Left who are bent on destroying—physically, if possible—those of whom they disapprove.

Better to meet the threats head on, have the conspirators, attempted murderers, and the few who succeed tried, convicted, and jailed or executed as the case may be in the first instance. That would mitigate greatly, if not obviate the second and subsequent instances. That’s the only way to obviate the second and subsequent instances.

This is a better answer:

But we won’t be cowed. When our cases in defense of women’s sports are argued at the Supreme Court in January, we expect to be back with the biggest rally yet—this time with the security apparatus needed to defend our speakers.

Hopefully the DC police will be up to the task and—finally—allowed to do their job and arrest the violence inflictors, followed by—hopefully—a vigorous prosecution and conviction, concluded by—hopefully—serious jail sentences.

The Wall Street Journal‘s editors waxed opinionated on the matter of government efforts at stifling free speech, centering their wax-on piece on Sundar Pichai’s letter (formally written by an Alphabet lawyer) excusing (the editors generously called it a mea not-so-maxima culpa) Alphabet’s Google’s (read: Pichai’s) mistaken role in censoring Conservative podcasts—purging them from YouTube—during the Wuhan Virus (my term; the editors continue to euphemize with “Covid-19”) situation. The editors also nattered on about the hypocrisy of the Left’s getting on the Trump administration over the Kimmel business compared with the Left’s downplaying of the Biden administration’s role in that Alphabet (et al.) censorship.

What interests me about this editorial, though, is this bit from the penultimate paragraph:

Progressives intimidated companies into believing that if they failed to toe the line on certain issues, enforcement could follow.

This is those companies’ managers—including Mark Zuckerberg, of Meta, whom the editors also cited—conscious choice to be “intimidated.” I’ve written elsewhere in this blog about the flaccid-kneed nature of senior managers, at the pinnacle of their professions, who allow themselves to be so easily managed by others. Men and women of good character would have refused to kowtow and challenged in court any enforcement that might have followed, and won easily (if initially expensively, but long-term much more cheaply) on free speech grounds.

And the editors’ close:

Alphabet’s letter to Judiciary is notable for its commitment that the company “has not and will not empower fact checkers to take action on or label content across the Company’s services.” That’s good to hear, but Google would have done better if its accounting had come before the electoral winds shifted. The company’s letter is an admirable statement of principles. Let’s hope it sticks.

This is a sham shift, not at all a statement of principles. This is merely a political CYA claim, done at the convenience of political winds. There’s no reason to believe it will stick. Pichai already has amply demonstrated the strength of his character, and tomorrow may bring an administration of a different feather.