Tag Archives: free speech

Another Blow

Posted on by
Reply

…in the Progressives’ war on diversity, this one struck against the concept of free speech.

Brandeis University in Massachusetts announced Tuesday that it had withdrawn the planned awarding of an honorary degree to Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a staunch critic of Islam and its treatment of women….

Their “rationale?”

She is a compelling public figure and advocate for women’s rights, and we respect and appreciate her work to protect and defend the rights of women and girls throughout the world.  That said, we cannot overlook certain of her past statements that are inconsistent with Brandeis University’s core values.

Apparently those core values don’t include the sanctity, or a recognition of the necessity to a free society, of freedom to express an opinion different from that of an authority figure, nor do they seem to include a respect for diversity of opinion.

Ali’s offensive speech?

Once [Islam]’s defeated, it can mutate into something peaceful.  It’s very difficult to even talk about peace now.  They’re not interested in peace.  I think that we are at war with Islam.  And there’s no middle ground in wars.

Even truth is offensive at Brandeis, because, according to Joseph Lumbard, Chairman of Islamic and Middle Eastern Studies at Brandeis

This makes Muslim students feel very uneasy.  They feel unwelcome here.

Well.  There it is.  Discomfort is a crime at this place.  When it concerns the appropriate groups.

The Progressives’ War on Freedom and Diversity

Posted on by
1

The forced resignation of (ex-)Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich over a viewpoint he held of which Progressives disapproved—in the name of diversity of opinion, yet.

(Ex-)Harvard President Larry Summers, forced out because he disapproved of a rap album that was liked by Progressives, and because he suggested the under-representation of women in science and engineering might be due to differences in aptitude—Progressives insist that equality includes identical capacity.

Mark Steyn, National Review, and the Competitive Enterprise Institute sued for defamation by Michael Mann for ridiculing Mann’s hockey stick and for disparaging the anthropogenic “aspect” of Global Warming—Progressives consider this settled science so much they even tout the efficacy of lying in support of it.

The Gannet newspapers—in particular, the Lower Hudson Journal News—published a map of names and addresses of registered New York gun owners and tried to sue for more such data—knowing as they did so that they were identifying those honest Americans (Conservatives, though, so not so honest, after all, eh?) as targets.

The Los Angeles Times closing off and refusing to accept further commentary disputing anthropogenic global warning—see above.

Chik-fil-A threatened with boycott because its owners held a view of marriage that is disapproved by Progressives.

The IRS targeting and actively suppressing the free speech of organizations of which our Progressive government disapproves—and which now is finalizing a set of rules that would formalize the abuse.

Conservative women routinely smeared for not toeing the Progressive womanhood line—with one Progressive “commentator” insisting that Governor Sara Palin should be tied down and defecated into her mouth.  Progressive approval of this behavior is demonstrated by their silence on the despicable nature of this insistence.

Conservative blacks routinely smeared as Uncle Toms, or worse, for not toeing the Progressive Black-American line (and notice that—not “Progressive black line:” that hyphen matters to Progressives).

The steady drumbeat of slurs against Tea Partiers as racists, tea baggers, and so on—because they hold opinions of which Progressives disapprove.

The routine smearing of those with tales of damage, even ruination, due to Obamacare as liars, as tellers only of “horror stories, all of them untrue”—solely because Progressives find these truths uncomfortable.

Vice President Joe Biden openly agreeing with Congressman Mike Doyle (D, PA) as the latter called Republicans terrorists for disagreeing with Progressive views of the Federal debt ceiling.

The list goes on, without end.  It’s time we Conservatives—and Independents, and middle-of-the-roaders, and anyone else—with an opinion, or a fact, we wish to speak without murderous assault responded.  With facts and logic, because most Americans aren’t as droolingly imbecilic as Progressives make us out to be.

 

h/t Belmont Club

Free Speech

Posted on by
Reply

…especially, the aim of those clauses of the First Amendment, free political speech.  Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the Court, had this to say in striking down aggregate limits to political contributions:

There is no right more basic in our democracy than the right to participate in electing our political leaders. Citizens can exercise that right in a variety of ways: They can run for office themselves, vote, urge others to vote for a particular candidate, volunteer to work on a campaign, and contribute to a candidate’s campaign. This case is about the last of those options.

And

Money in politics may at times seem repugnant to some, but so too does much of what the First Amendment vigorously protects. If the First Amendment protects flag burning, funeral protests, and Nazi parades—despite the profound offense such spectacles cause—it surely protects political campaign speech despite popular opposition.

And [bold added, italics in the original]

The Government has a strong interest, no less critical to our democratic system, in combatting corruption and its appearance.  We have, however, held that this interest must be limited to a specific kind of corruption—quid pro quo corruption—in order to ensure that the Government’s efforts do not have the effect of restricting the First Amendment right of citizens to choose who shall govern them.  For the reasons set forth, we conclude that the aggregate limits on contributions do not further the only governmental interest this Court accepted as legitimate in Buckley.  They instead intrude without justification on a citizen’s ability to exercise “the most fundamental First Amendment activities.”

What he said.  The Supremes’ ruling can be seen here.

American Oligarchs

Posted on by
Reply

According to the Progressives in America:

  • the Koch brothers—billionaire oil men and entrepreneurs, who also support Conservative political causes

Those they’ve…missed:

  • George Soros—billionaire hedge-fund manager who supports Progressive political causes
  • Tom Steyer—multihundred millionaire (via capital markets) who supports anti-fossil fuel development
  • Al Gore—multihundred millionaire (via “green” energy firm investments) and supporter of al Jazeera
  • Elon Musk—multimillionaire (via “green” energy subsidies, electric-car tax credits, and solar-energy mandates) who supports more “green” freebies

Hmm….

 

h/t The Wall Street Journal

A Judge to be Impeached

Posted on by
Reply

US District Court Judge Jesse Furman said the censorship itself was protected free speech.

This is a man who has violated his oath of office and so is unfit to continue in office.

Baidu, the People’s Republic of China’s Google wannabe, has a free speech right, according to this “judge,” to block searches for things related to the PRC citizenry’s pro-democracy movement.  After all,

The First Amendment protects Baidu’s right to advocate for systems of government other than democracy (in China or elsewhere) just as surely as it protects plaintiffs’ rights to advocate for democracy.

Advocating for one’s own position by actively preventing those with differing opinions from speaking their differing opinions, or from seeking out differing opinions, is “free speech.”  Because suppressing the free speech of dissenters, suppressing dissenters’ access to others’ free speech, or to anything related to the subject(s) of their own interests, is just “editorial judgment.”  Because isolating dissenters each into a separate, individual island, and preventing contact with any other island is entirely legitimate free speech.

In fact, in dismissing a free speech suit against Baidu, this judge ruled in part

…to allow Plaintiffs’ suit to proceed, let alone to hold Baidu liable for its editorial judgments, would contravene the principle upon which “[o]ur political system and cultural life rest”: “that each person should decide for himself or herself the ideas and beliefs deserving of expression, consideration, and adherence.”

And therein lies a fatal contradiction of this judge’s pseudo-logic.  Each person cannot decide ideas and beliefs for himself if he’s actively denied access to those ideas and beliefs.  If each person is allowed only to decide from among a carefully limited set of ideas and beliefs which others permit him to view, he has no decision to make.

The failure of the judge’s logic goes further.  The only liability to which a publisher is subject in the editorial judgments it makes is from its decision to suppress speech, not its decision to present it.

And further, and far more fundamentally: each person’s right to decide for himself “the ideas and beliefs deserving of expression, consideration, and adherence” extends to presentation and consideration to him alone; it does not include any right to prevent presentation to or consideration by others.  Each person’s right to decide questions of adherence extends to himself alone; there is right to prevent such consideration by others.

What this judge appears to have (carefully?) ignored is that there is nothing at all in a right to free speech that requires any person to listen to another, nor is there any right to determine for another person what that person will be permitted to listen to.

Furman’s opinion can be read here.