Daily Archives: February 9, 2017

Finian Cunningham (born 1963) has written extensively on international affairs, with articles published in several languages. Originally from Belfast, Ireland, he is a Masters graduate in Agricultural Chemistry and worked as a scientific editor for the Royal Society of Chemistry, Cambridge, England, before pursuing a career in newspaper journalism. For over 20 years he worked as an editor and writer in major news media organizations, including The Mirror, Irish Times and Independent. Now a freelance journalist based in East Africa, his columns appear on RT, Sputnik, Strategic Culture Foundation and Press TV.

Over the past week hallowed Western institutions of free speech have become sites of struggle for this basic democratic right. Is it a sign of creeping intolerance or systemic insecurity?

Britains House of Commons Speaker John Bercow sparkedcontroversy this week when he declared that US President Donald Trump would not be invited to address elected MPs and members of the House of Lords at Westminster Hall during a state visit later this year. Bercow said his decision was based on the presidents alleged obnoxious views of racism and sexism.

The move has caused uproar with many lawmakers saying that the proposed ban discredits the British Parliament supposedly the mother of all parliaments. British Prime Minister Theresa May is also annoyed that boycotting Trump could jeopardize her efforts to burnish the special relationship between the US and Britain, which she assiduously tried to renew last month as the first foreign leader to be received in the new White House.

Last week, another hallowed Western institution for free speech came under an embarrassing spotlight when rioting students at University of California Berkeley forced a Trump acolyte to abandon a planned speech. Milo Yiannopoulos, the editor of the alt-right publication Breitbart, which is a big supporter of Trump, had to be escorted off campus by police amid students denouncing him as fascist scum.

The irony was not lost on many observers, including the LA Times, who noted that UC Berkeley was the modern home of the free speech movement which sprang up in the 1960s against the Vietnam War and for civil liberties among minorities. Now the same bastion of free speech is running people off for expressing views considered objectionable by some.

Still another quirk in recent days was the US Senates banning of Senator Elizabeth Warren from addressing Congress. The Democrat Senator was due to recite from a 30-year-old letter written by Coretta Scott King, the widow of Martin Luther King Jr, in opposition to Trumps nominee as Attorney General Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions. The letter, which accused Sessions of racist practices while serving as Alabama governor in the past, was deemed to violate Senate rules against impugning other members of the chamber.

Going back to the British parliament case, it does seem an extraordinary transgression of the right to free speech, as well as diplomatic etiquette. One may not like Trumps brand of nationalistic politics nor his selective immigration controls on certain Arab countries allegedly for national security reasons. But it seems an over-the-top reaction to turn around and declare him persona non grata in the British parliament.

It also smacks of double standards. As parliamentary critics point out, the Speaker previously welcomed the Emir of Kuwait and Chinese President Xi Jinping to Westminster, both of whom are accused by British rights groups of overseeing grave violations in their respective countries. Whatever the merit of those accusations, it seems contradictory for the British parliament to object to Trump speaking.

Former US President Barack Obama was afforded the right to address the House of Commons. Even though his military forces were at the same time bombing seven countries and he was personally responsible for summary killing of foreign nationals with drone assassinations. There were no qualms among British parliamentarians to Obama speaking.

Read more

Nevertheless, despite ones own personal biases, it is arguable that freedom of speech is a fundamental right supposedly cherished in Western democracies that must be protected for all dissenting views.

International defense lawyer Christopher Black told this author that there is a danger of cherry-picking this fundamental right. And in doing so, it could open up a Pandoras Box of blanket censorship, leading potentially to despotism.

He said: Leftists might want to shut down all speech they deem as fascist. But the problem is that if that can be justified then the political rightwing can respond by justifying shutting down the left. Look what the blacklist did in the US during the 1950s Communist-hunting McCarthyite era.

The lawyer added: I think free speech should be respected no matter what the opinions expressed are excepting those that are libelous and slander, that is, speech designed to injure someones reputation. The best way to deal with arguments we do not like or agree with is to make better counter-arguments and point out why they are wrong.

That seems an apt point regarding the controversy at UC Berkeley. The anarchist groups who claimed victory in preventing the Breitbart editor from speaking in the name of fighting fascism only ended up scoring an own goal by elevating the magazine and its reactionary political views to a global profile. Yiannopoulos, the speaker in question, seems more like a stand-up comedian with obnoxious, facetious views rather than the reincarnation of the Third Reichs fascist orator Josef Goebbels. Besides, Yiannopoulos was invited to speak by a Republican party student group within the university. People who dont like his cringeworthy views were not forced to attend.

A further repercussion is that President Trump threatened to cut off federal funding to the whole university over the debacle due to its apparent intolerance to free speech.

The Breitbart editor appears to be a walking contradiction openly gay, but ostensibly denouncing gay rights, and relishing sexual relations with black men, while at the same time espousing white nationalist views. Like his self-declared daddy Donald Trump, and many of Trumps White House team, the articulated views are riddled with anomalies and errors. The discourse is more comedic than threatening.

Surely it is much better to let such people have their say up to the point beyond which it becomes physically injurious. And thereby let them spin their way into oblivion with quackery. Prohibition is not only a breach of rights, it is also counterproductive as it leads to destructive spirals, as witnessed in many other areas of culture.

The election of Donald Trump in the US and the rise of populist politics elsewhere is perhaps best understood as a breakdown in the status quo. That breakdown is long overdue as political systems have become ossified, elitist and unrepresentative of democratic rights. Excessive political correctness and identity politics are part of this oppressive order upheld by the elites.

The recent rush to close off free speech is more a sign of uncertainty in societies amid political turmoil. The uncertainty is evident on both the traditional right and left of the political spectrum. However, it seems more indicative of insecurity as opposed to any objective social movement toward intolerance.

Now, more than ever, is the time to keep public debate open, not shut it down due to some narcissistic sense of being offended. Where views are obnoxious or wrongheaded, they should be challenged and thwarted through intelligent argument.

There are valid discussions to be had about equality, secularism, immigration, national and economic rights, globalization, war and peace, and many more issues.

Discussion and dialogue are the best way to evolve public understanding, nationally and internationally.

If we begin practicing communication apartheid, then the outcome is what we are seeing underway among certain Western states declaring Russian media as somehow illegitimate. Closing down communications is often the first act of conflict.

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.

The rest is here:
Shut it! West's free speech challenges are sign of systemic insecurity - RT

Editor,

A Lobo reader quoted a professor, "We need to use standards of universality and logic, otherwise, freedom of speech masks reality."

I disagree! Free speech is reality. Everyone has the right to express opinions without interference or censorship. To seek, receive, impart information and ideas through any media they choose. With that being said, freedom of speech is not without its limitations. With this freedom comes consequences which relate to: libel, slander, obscenity, sedition, incitement etc.

Attacking someone or destroying property because of what someone said, is not free speech, that's vandalism and battery. I'm a vet, regardless of what someone says, I fought for the right of all Americans to speak freely. We the people have a responsibility to the one speaking, listen and agree/disagree or dont listen.

Deciding to alter or replace a persons words is censorship. Censorship isnt reality, it couldnt be further from reality. We learn so much about a personthrough their use of words. Silencing any person because we dont agree with their words is a step towards censoring other freedoms.

The best censorship that we as humans possess is our conscience. Its not perfect, but thats what makes us human, thats what makes this country so great! So choose your words wisely, because when that bell is rung the responsibility will rest clearly on your shoulders, you can't take it back.

John Travis Daily Lobo reader

Read more from the original source:
Letter: Free speech is reality | The Daily Lobo - UNM Daily Lobo

Tom Lowery Entrepreneur, author, financial controller, corporate training specialist This post is hosted on the Huffington Post's Contributor platform. Contributors control their own work and post freely to our site. If you need to flag this entry as abusive, send us an email.

To be ignorant of ones ignorance is the malady of the ignorant.

Amos Bronson Alcott

The populist viewpoint, that we can say whatever we want to, appears to reign supremely on the topic of Freedom of Speech (and Freedom of Expression). A well-considered perspective about it, one that questions itself constantly, is rarely the case.

And yet, the Western mentalityand those who claim to have Enlightenment values of evidentiary thinking, rationality, objectivity, and independent thoughtconsistently displays an astounding lack of sophistication and depth when it comes to understanding the world and how it really works, as opposed to how they assume it works, or even how they might like it to work.

Many hold the view that we live in a society that protects all forms of speech. Thats a pretense upon which no facts are in evidence. Perhaps if we compare our Western societies with those of many in the East, it might appear to be so. But that position rests on very soft ground.

Theres nothing "free" about free speech. The very nature of speech is that it carries a price-tagprivilege.

In truth, freedom of speech is a sometime thing. When we do enjoy freedom of speech we do so while exercising our privilegesnot rights. Otherwise, why would our Founding Fathers have gone to such great lengths to enshrine those very privileges within our Constitution?

In his well conceived article for The Federalist Blog, Original MeaningFreedom of Speech and of the Press, P.A. Madison expounded on many factual assessments, including these two:

A blanket acceptance that everyone has the right to freedom of speech, regardless of how hateful, is insulting to anyone who has thought long and hard about all sides of the concept. Do we really have the right (i.e. privilege) to be racists and bigots and to insult and to cause harm with impunity? Or is there a price to pay when we overstep those rights (i.e. privileges)? The latter is more often true than not.

The problem with a lack of critical thought versus blas acceptance is that its enshrined in a dishonest claim: we in West stand for a universal "right" to offend and freedom of expression. Do we really?

Anyone who is considering the concepts of FOS/FOE might like to set aside their unfettered positions and reflect more carefully before digging their feet too firmly into their own soft ground.

In todays world, we do not accept racist depictions of American Indians or Blacks or Hispanics, negative stereotypes of gays or anti-Semitic cartoons. Our Western society has shifted greatly when it comes to drawing a line between hate speech and acceptable speech. In fact, for hundreds of years in the West, speaking out against things like religion or politics was also unacceptable, and could land you in what the English refer to as Queer Street. Thats hardly the makings of free and unfettered speechis it?

The topic of FOS/FOE, became a hot button one around the time of the Charlie Hebdo shooting (prompted by Islamic cartoons). Some argued that we should ban these kinds of cartoons because they cause upset and insult to others. The French people rose up in unison about their rights to FOS/FOE.

Despite the fact that the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen (adopted during the French Revolution in 1789) set forth freedom of speech as an inalienable right, Article 11 goes on to say that:

This clearly suggests a fine line when it comes to FOS. But as with our Founding Fathers, many of us dislike bans of any kind. We dont trust the state when it comes to censorship, largely because of how the state often protects the freedom of the privileged and suppresses the freedom of the disenfranchised. A glance at our current POTUS and the Betsy DeVos debacle are fine examples.

A friend of mine suggested that Article 11 in Frances Declaration put those rights back into the hands of the legislature. But this very legislative process allows for the privilege of FOS/FOE. To put it crassly, the chicken is the legislationthe egg is the privilege. And the chickenat least in this casecame first.

Rather than debate to ban or not to ban, perhaps a better idea would be to consider why we have allowed ourselves the luxury to develop our Western culture in such a way that the feelings of othersin the case of Hebdo, Muslims, and, despite questionable Prop 8 activities, Mormonsare not as legitimate and can be discarded.

At the time of the Hebdo business, I too was inclined to think Hebdo was merely exercising its Freedom of Expression. I was never bothered by any of their depictions over the years, why should anyone else be? Ive since had reason to regret my own shallow assumptions.

Had I paused to consider Hebdo from a perspective other than my own, I might have realized Hebdo had a responsibility along with their privileges. In exercising their own benefits, did they in fact reinforce Islamophobia? Other writers said as much at the time. Where my ears closed? Or was I ignoring the obvious because I wasnt personally involved in that particular issue?

We obviously have no issues when it comes to protecting some groups from potentially racist-based attacks. Yet others are cannon fodder for our privileges to FOS/FOE. Thats a helluva lot of hypocrisy.

We here in the West have double standards when it comes to FOS/FOEbe they standards of the far right or the far left. The same is true when it comes to immigrants, citizenship and many other interrelated issues.

Until our so-called Western values relating to FOS/FOE become well-balanced between our own privileges and the privileges of others, I personally cannot bang on about mine when it comes to speaking my mind (something I do freely).

Its time to stop the bullshit and open up a sensible dialogue, free from populist beliefs and comfort zones. How can we do that? Here are a few suggestions:

When weve begun to question more about our so-called superior Western values and systems, perhaps the signs carried by the left and the right while marching and demonstrating might have a more constructive and instructive appeal.

Who knows? People might even begin to think twice about their reactive comments onlineeven me.

See original here:
Freedom of SpeechLet's Stop The BS - Huffington Post

The First Amendment is under attack. And the charge is being led by the Republicans imbecilic illegitimate President. Republican-controlled state legislatures are following his lead to shut down free speech.

A free press is constitutionally protected. It doesnt exist to please the President, especially one who thinks they should supplant the truth with every lie he utters.

But its clear that Trump detests protesters, as do his followers. Conservatives believe every idea they have should be embraced by everyone as the greatest ever. When they see people reject and revolt over those ideas, instead of seeking compromise they seek retaliation.

As for the election, they say move on. Did they move on after Obama took office in 2009? No, they formed a Tea Party and held huge rallies holding the most vile and racist signs youll ever see. It was clear race was their prime motivator. They shouted down congressional representatives at town halls that summer, all while armed to the teeth. But to them free speech in a one-way street.

An Indiana Republican state senator has introduced a bill letting police use any means necessary to get rid of protesters.

In North Dakota, where the Standing Rock Sioux protesters have been brutalized by police, a Republican state representatives bill would allow motorists to run over and kill protesters.

These are just a few examples. Freedom of speech and expression are usually the primary targets of a fascist regime. Some newspapers even join in, apparently ignorant of the fact their very existence is totally beholden to the First Amendment.

Protests are being planned against the Diamond Pipeline. Oil-soaked Republicans in OKC are eager to show their fealty and put profits over people. The courts will probably allow Diamond to seize peoples property.

Sounds like a good reason to protest.

LARRY PARSONS

Warner

Read more from the original source:
THE PEOPLE SPEAK: Freedom of speech is under attack - Muskogee Daily Phoenix

Last fall, the Democrats were upset that Donald Trump was not going to accept the outcome of the November election.

Guess what? They lost and now they are not accepting the fact that President Trump won. I thought everyone knew that the Electoral College elected the new president!

Many members of the U.S. House of Representatives, (all progressive Democrats) chose not to attend the celebration of the swearing in of our new president. That afternoon, the election of our 45th president was celebrated by a riot in our nations capital, which included the burning of vehicles and destroying public and private property. Many Democrats supported the protesters, saying they were exercising their rights of freedom of speech and assembly. I was not aware that riots, setting fires and destroying private and public property were parts of the First Amendment of the Constitution. I wonder why many of the protesters were wearing masks if they were proud of their behavior?

How about the riot in Oakland, Calif.? The protesters were protesting a conservative speaker appearing on a college campus. It would appear that freedom of speech and assembly only applies if you are a progressive Democrat! Once again, protesters, using their constitutional right of free speech and assembly, wear masks, riot, set fires to and destroy public and private property, all in the name of democracy.

In the elections of 2008 and 2012, I did not vote for Barack Obama, but I accepted him as our president. I vented my peaceful opposition to him by voting in all future elections and supporting those candidates with views and values similar to mine.

Read the rest here:
Democrats should honor all types of freedom of speech - Bowling Green Daily News