Nearly athird (32%) of employed Americans say they personally are worried about missing out on career opportunities or losing their job if their political opinions became known. These results are particularly notable given that most personal campaign contributions to political candidates are public knowledge and can easily be found online.

And its not just one side of the political spectrum: 31% of liberals, 30% of moderates and 34% of conservatives are worried their political views could get them fired or harm their career trajectory. This suggests that its not necessarily just one particular set of views that has moved outside of acceptable public discourse. Instead these results are more consistent with a walking on eggshells thesis that people increasingly fear awide range of political views could offend others or could negatively impact themselves.

These concerns are also crosspartisan, although more Republicans are worried: 28% of Democrats, 31% of independents, and 38% of Republicans are worried about how their political opinions could impact their career trajectories.

Americans with diverse backgrounds share this concern that their employment could be adversely affected if their political views were discovered: 38% of Hispanic Americans, 22% of African Americans, 31% of White Americans, 35% of men, 27% of women, 36% of households earning less than $20,000 ayear, and 33% of households earning more than $100,000 ayear agree.

Some are more worried about losing their jobs or missing out on job opportunities because of political views. Those with the highest levels of education are most concerned. Almost half (44%) of Americans with postgraduate degrees say they are worried their careers could be harmed if others discovered their political opinions, compared to 34% of college graduates, 28% of those with some college experience, and 25% of high school graduates

View post:

Poll: 62% of Americans Say They Have Political Views They're Afraid to Share - Cato Institute

(Getty)

But there is no question that weve got some major issues, and free speech is so dependent these days on these big tech companies, so they have to be very careful that free speech is protected. And, of course, theres a pattern now that shows otherwise

On July 21st, Merion West editor Erich Prince was joined by Rep. Jody Hice, a Republican who represents Georgias 10th congressional district in the U.S. House of Representatives. (Rep. Hice has also joined Merion Westfor previous discussions in 2018 and 2019.) In this conversation, Mr. Prince and Rep. Hice discuss recent unrest in the country, including the Defund the Police movement, which has gained particular inroads recently in cities such as New York and Minneapolis. Rep. Hice then also weighs in on recent concerns about free speech, including allegations that various technology companies have an anti-conservative bias.

Good morning, Congressman. Nice to talk to you again and thanks so much for your time. I want to start off by quickly saying that I understand the President was in Atlanta last weekand that you had the chance to fly with him on Air Force One. How was that experience?

Great experienceits always wonderful to be with the president, but to be on Air Force One is just icing on the cake to be with him in that environmentjust an amazing experience all the way around.

I saw a video you posted on Twitter showing your constituents the conference room [on board], and you shared with them a message about getting involved in politics.

Yeah, you know we are a country of We the People; our voice matters. I feel like Im an example of that myself; [I] never dreamed Id be in a place like this. And I just want to encourage other people that their voices matter; their votes matter; and to step up to the plate in whatever capacity they can and to be involved. I thought the place, the conference room on Air Force One, was appropriate for getting that message out on.

Jumping ahead, I read your June op-ed in The Daily Caller End RacismNot the Police, as well as your recent letters co-signed with a few other colleagues to the mayors of New York, Los Angeles, and Minneapolis. Obviously, this anti-police moment is gaining a lot of traction. What do you think is the best way to turn the tide against this from your perspective?

I think, in fact, Americans in generalin every polltheyre opposed to defunding the police or eradicating police departments. People understand that its impossible to have law and order if you dont have law enforcement in the mix. And this attempt to remove all law enforcement in their capacity to maintain law and order is only going to create further chaos and more crime. And, of course, thats what were seeing in all of those three cities that you mentioned: Crime is up; violent crime is up. Its ludicrous to think that we can maintain a civil society without police departments and law enforcement.

And closer to home for youobviously, Atlantas not your districtbut that was an area that was hit pretty hard by things. And there were reports about morale suffering within law enforcement, such as reports of walkouts by police in Atlantas Zone 6 in particular.What are you hearing around the state of Georgiawhether in your district or around the statefrom law enforcement?

As you mention, Atlanta is not in my district, but I have spoken to many law enforcement individuals in the 10th district of Georgia, and its a difficult time. We are not seeing the same type of protests as have happened in Atlanta and some other major cities. What protests there have been in our district have been peaceful and that type of thing, but the overarching question that you bring up is: How is the Defund the Police movement impacting these various departments, sheriff departments, police departments?

And it is impacting them. They are having great difficulty in hiring people, even receiving applications from individuals who are interested in law enforcement. And thats been an area in the past that people have been proud to be in law enforcement, to be public servants in that capacity, but now its a different scenario. And even in rural parts of our nation, that is having an impact.

On the flip side, one does see some of this effort to show extra support for police. I saw a weekend or two ago in Queens [New York] that there was a very sizable pro-police march, so perhaps some of the people on the other side [of this debate] are also trying to make their voices heard.

Yes, and I think youre going to see more of that because, again, the vast majority of Americans understand that the vast majority of police officers are great people, and theyre public servants. Are there bad actors? Of course, there are, and those are the individuals we need to go after. Thats where the problems that exist need to be dealt with and eradicated. But to punish entire departments is doing nothing other than punishing entire communities and cities. Its just the wrong way to go about it, and I think the majority of Americans are keenly aware of that, and they will be supporting the police departments.

So, yesterday when I was getting together this interview discussion, I was planning to ask you about free speech in a number of places, and one of the places was big tech. Then I saw your letter that you tweeted this morning about free speech, Twitter, big tech, and potential censorship. I know the Tom Cotton Twitter controversy a couple of weeks ago received a lot of attention. So, in the aftermath of recent events and free speech being arguably very much in the crosshairs, what is your thinking about the path forward as far as big tech?

Actually, there is going to be a hearing in judiciary with the big four big tech companies next week, so we will have a better feel next week as to where this whole thing is going to go. But there is no question that weve got some major issues, and free speech is so dependent these days on these big tech companies, so they have to be very careful that free speech is protected. And, of course, theres a pattern now that shows otherwise, and we want to stop that before it becomes a serious infringement upon peoples right to speak.

And I know a lot of people were concerned in particular with this perception that Twitter was employing its new fact-check feature disproportionately against conservatives, for example.

Yes, theres multiple examples of that, and, of course, there have been hearings trying to deal with those issues in the past during which [these companies] have assured us that their algorithms do not show bias towards conservative groupsbut its not just about algorithms. Its about the individuals who are working there, meaning those employees who do, in fact, carry biases, and they are able to override the algorithms. So, its a little disingenuous for these companies to say that our algorithms do not show any bias because thats not the only problem thats involved in this. And I think that issue has now come to light, and now well have to approach it from not only the systems themselves but also the people who are working those systems.

Lastly, college campuses have been a major discussion point when it comes to free speech. What are you seeing in Georgia [on this front]? Are you thinking about if this becomes an issue at various Georgia universities how to ensure free speech is taken care of there?

Right now, the big issue is if were even going to have college campuses and people meeting on those campuses, obviously. But, in the past, there have definitely been some issues in Georgia and across the country. And we are going to continue to keep a close pulse on that everywhere in this country, including college campuses. They should be the place where people have the right to express their ideas in the public square without fear of intimidation, or harassment, or punishment.

Unfortunately, that has not always been the case on college campuses, and there have been multiple lawsuits, and most of those lawsuits come out favorably. And, yet, the problem continues, so we will continue fighting and keeping a pulse on it here from the federal level as best as we can. Many of us up here at least have that as a major, important issue, and we will continue protecting the free rights of these students.

I appreciate your time, Congressman. Always nice to touch basethank you.

Always nice to talk with you. Thank you, Erich.

Erich J. Prince is the editor at Merion West. Erichhas contributed to a variety of publications includingThe Philadelphia Inquirer,the Hartford Courant,The News & Observer, the Orlando Sentinel, andThe Hill. His opinion writing has been honored with two awards from the Columbia University School of Journalism. He studied political science at Yale, completing his thesis on the history of polarization in the United States Congress.

Read more here:

Interview: Rep. Jody Hice on Defund the Police and Big Tech Censorship - Merion West

50% of strong liberals support firing Trump donors, 36% of strong conservatives support firing Biden donors; 32% are worried about missing out on job opportunities because of their political opinions

A new Cato Institute/YouGov national survey of 2,000 Americans finds that 62%of Americans say the political climate these days prevents them from saying things they believe because others might find them offensive. This is up from 2017 when 58% agreed with this statement. Majoritiesof Democrats (52%), independents (59%) and Republicans (77%) all agree they have political opinions they are afraid to share.

Strong liberals stand out, however, as the only political group who feel they can express themselves:58%of staunch liberals feel they can say what they believe.

Centrist liberals feel differently, with52%who feel they have to selfcensor, as do 64% of moderates, and 77% of conservatives. This demonstrates that political expression is an issue that divides the Democratic coalition between centrist Democrats and their left flank.

Read the full survey report and results here.

Whats changed? In 2017 most centrist liberals felt confident (54%) they could express their views. However today, slightly less than half (48%) feel the same. The share who feel they cannot be open increased 7points from 45% in 2017 to 52% today. In fact, there have been shifts across the board, where more people among all political groups feel they are walking on eggshells.

Although strong liberals are the only group who feel they can say what they believe, the share who feel pressured to selfcensor rose 12 points from 30% in 2017 to 42% in 2020. The share of moderates who selfcensor increased 7points from 57% to 64%, and the share of conservatives rose 70% to 77%, also a7point increase. Strong conservatives are the only group with little change. They are about as likely now (77%) to say they hold back their views as in 2017 (76%).

Selfcensorship is widespread across demographic groups as well. Nearly twothirds of Latino Americans (65%) and White Americans (64%) and nearly half of African Americans (49%) have political views they are afraid to share. Majorities of men (65%) and women (59%), people with incomes over $100,000 (60%) and people with incomes less than $20,000 (58%), people under 35 (55%) and over 65 (66%), religious (71%) and nonreligious (56%) all agree that the political climate prevents them from expressing their true beliefs.

50% of Staunch Liberals Support the Firing of Trump Donors

Nearly athird (31%) of Americans say theyd support firing abusiness executive who personally donated to Donald Trumps reelection campaign for president. This share rises to 50% among strong liberals who support firing business executives who personally donate to Trump.

36% of Staunch Conservatives Support Firing Biden Donors

The survey finds that cancel culture goes both ways. Nearly aquarter (22%) of Americans support firing abusiness executive who personally donates to Democratic presidential candidate Joe Bidens campaign. This share rises to 36% among strong conservatives who support firing Biden donors. These results are particularly notable given that most personal campaign contributions to political candidates are public knowledge and can easily be found online.

32% Worry Their Political Views Could Harm Their Employment

Nearly athird (32%) of employed Americans say they are worried about missing out on career opportunities or losing their job if their political opinions became known. Americans across the political spectrum share these concerns: 31% of liberals, 30% of moderates, and 34% of conservatives are worried their political views could get them fired or harm their career trajectory. This suggests that its not necessarily just one particular set of views that has moved outside of acceptable public discourse. Instead these results are more consistent with a walking on eggshells thesis that people increasingly fear awide range of political views could offend others or negatively impact themselves.

These concerns cut across demographics and partisan lines: 28% of Democrats, 31% of independents, 38% of Republicans, 38% of Hispanic Americans, 22% of African Americans, 31% of White Americans, 35% of men, 27% of women, 36% of households earning less than $20,000 ayear, and 33% of households earning more than $100,000 ayear fear their political opinions could impact their career trajectories.

Read thefull survey report and results here.

The topline questionnaire, crosstabs, full methodology, and analysis of the survey findings can be found here.

Methodology:

The Cato Institute Summer 2020 National Survey was designed and conducted by the Cato Institute in collaboration with YouGov. YouGov collected responses online during July 16, 2020 from anational sample of 2,000 Americans 18years of age and older. Restrictions are put in place to ensure that only the people selected and contacted by YouGov are allowed to participate. The margin of error for the survey is +/- 2.36 percentage points at the 95% level of confidence.

See the original post here:

New Poll: 62% Say the Political Climate Prevents Them from Sharing Political Views - Cato Institute

Screen capture from a mobile phone in Hong Kong Friday, July 17, 2020, At first glance, this graphic design poster may look like it's made up of mere circles - however, from afar, viewers can make out the eight Chinese characters for "Liberate Hong Kong, Revolution of our times." A protester who held this poster at a protest on July 6 was detained briefly by police but was later released. (AP Photo/Vincent Yu)

HONG KONG (AP) - It was one of the first protests in Hong Kong after a feared national security law came into effect.

Among a dozen or so lunchtime demonstrators at a luxury mall in the Central business district, a man raised a poster that - when viewed from afar - read in Chinese, "Liberate Hong Kong, revolution of our times."

The government had just banned the slogan, saying it had separatist connotations and so ran afoul of the new security law's prohibition of secessionist acts.

Shortly after, riot police entered the mall, shooing away onlookers. They detained the man, telling him the slogan was banned. But when officers looked at the poster up close, no words could be made out. It merely had circular shapes against a contrasting background. They snapped a few photographs of the poster and let him go.

Since the imposition of the security law -- which bans secessionist, subversive and terrorist activities, as well as collusion with foreign forces, with penalties of up to life imprisonment -- anti-government protesters in Hong Kong, and those supporting the movement, have adapted their methods to try to make their voices heard without violating the legislation.

FILE - In this June 9, 2020, file photo, protesters show a banner "Librate Hong Kong, Revolution of out time" and gesture with five fingers, signifying the "Five demands - not one less" in a shopping mall during a protest in Hong Kong. The slogan had just been banned by the government under the new legislation, stating that it had separatist connotations. (AP Photo/Vincent Yu, File)

Before the law took effect June 30, protesters often held up colorful posters plastered with slogans that ranged from condemning the Chinese government to calling for Hong Kong's independence. Since then, they have become creative in obscuring their messages.

Many of the protesters at the luxury mall held up blank pieces of white paper to protest against China's "white terror" of political repression. Other posters are designed to circumvent bans on slogans. The government has not yet made clear if such forms of expression are illegal.

The law has had a chilling effect on "yellow shops" that support the protest movement. Many have removed protest artwork and sticky notes bearing words of encouragement from customers, out of fear that they could land them in trouble with the authorities.

A Hong Kong Cafe, known as a "yellow shop" because its owners expressed sympathy for protesters, has a wall decorated with blank post-it notes in Hong Kong Thursday, July 9, 2020. Stores that supported the protest movement by putting up protest artwork and sticky notes filled with words of encouragement from customers have since taken them down, out of fear that its contents could land them in trouble with the authorities. Instead, they have put up blank sticky notes as a way to show solidarity with the movement. (AP Photo/Vincent Yu)

Some shop owners, like Tan Wong, have instead put up blank sticky notes to show solidarity with the movement.

"We are doing this right now because (the shop) is private property. We are trying to tell Hong Kong people that this is the only thing that we 'yellow shops' can do," said Wong, who runs Kok Kok Chicken, a Korean fried chicken store.

"If we do not persist, we would no longer be able to deliver our message to others," he said.

Yu Yee Cafe, a Hong Kong-style diner that serves fast food, has covered its windows with blank sticky notes and even displays an origami figure of Winnie the Pooh, a playful taunt of Chinese President Xi Jinping. Chinese censors briefly banned social media searches for Winnie the Pooh in China after Xi's appearance was compared to the cartoon bear.

"I wonder if there's still rule of law if sticking a (blank) piece of paper on the wall is illegal," said Eddie Tsui, one of the diner's customers. "It's just using a different way to express our demands. If you don't allow us to protest that way, we'll find another way."

The use of blank paper or sticky notes to protest is a changing form of resistance, according to Ma Ngok, an associate professor of politics at the Chinese University of Hong Kong.

"They put up blank notes so that even if the government wants to prosecute them, there is nothing that can be used against them," he said.

A Hong Kong Cafe, known as a "yellow shop" because its owners expressed sympathy for protesters has windows decorated with blank post-it notes in Hong Kong Thursday, July 9, 2020. Stores that supported the protest movement by putting up protest artwork and sticky notes filled with words of encouragement from customers have since taken them down, out of fear that its contents could land them in trouble with the authorities. Instead, they have put up blank sticky notes as a way to show solidarity with the movement. (AP Photo/Vincent Yu)

Protesters in Hong Kong have also come up with alternative slogans to circumvent the ban on "Liberate Hong Kong, revolution of our times."

Some users quote the initials of the romanization of the eight Chinese characters in the banned slogan -- "GFHG, SDGM." Others have changed the words entirely to terms that sound similar but mean very different things. One alternative slogan now reads "Patronize Hong Kong, Times Square," a reference to a popular shopping mall in the city.

A popular protest anthem, "Glory to Hong Kong," has had some of its lyrics changed, with protesters replacing the words with numbers in Cantonese that sound approximately like the lyrics.

The circumventing of bans on slogans is reminiscent of how mainland Chinese internet users come up with creative ways and similar-sounding words to talk about sensitive issues without triggering censorship under the "Great Firewall of China," where censors delete posts containing sensitive terms and make such keywords unsearchable on online platforms.

"There is a long history of censorship where we know that people will find ways to circumvent the system, no matter how you regulate," said Fu King-wa, associate professor at the University of Hong Kong's journalism school.

"Sometimes, censorship can backfire, triggering more people to discuss an issue because they think that if it is censored, then it must be something important," he said.

___

Associated Press journalist Alice Fung contributed to this report.

Continue reading here:

The Daily Standard World News - The Daily Standard