Category Archives: Free Speech

The Des Moines Registers editorial board says that the ban on politically active churches should remain in place.

It should surprise me that a NEWSPAPER would oppose free speech, but this is The Des Moines Register we are talking about. They have already attacked a parents right to educate their children at home without government interference. They have attacked the right to religious conscience for Christian-owned businesses. So why not go for the hat trick and go after free speech as it concerns churches and pastors.

Apparently (political) free speech is good for me, but not for thee is their mindset.

Lets take apart this tripe starting with the headline.

1. There is no ban on politically active churches.

There is no ban on politically active churches. None. Churches have always been free to address political issues with moral implications. What the Johnson Amendment does is say that organizations cant endorse or lobby and maintain their 501(c)3 status that allows people to deduct donations made to that organization on their taxes.

Some churches advocate not even organizing as a charitable non-profit, but most do. The rub is that some believe that if you take this deduction away it will severely impact the level of donations. It may or may not, it would probably depend on the church and what they teach about giving. Frankly if your donations are motivated by a tax deduction rather than it being a sacrificial act of worship then you have a heart problem.

This leads me to my next point.

2. Tax-deductions members receive and churches being tax-exempt are not a taxpayer-provided subsidy.

The editorial board writes, tax deductions and exemptions are, in effect, a form of taxpayer-provided subsidies and no one wants to see taxpayer subsidies used to support political candidates, regardless of party.

Whose money are we talking about? Its not the governments. These are not grants or tax credits we are talking about. This is simply people being able to keep more of their money. That isnt a subsidy because it was never their money to begin with it was always the individual donors.

Regarding tax exemptions, government doesnt send money to churches. Our national since its founding has not taxed churches and there is a good reason for this which Ill touch on a little later.

3. The Johnson Amendment is simply unconstitutional.

The editorial board notes that pastors addressing political issues is commonplace. There are already churches that have challenged the IRS to enforce it. The IRS doesnt and why? Because they know they would lose in court.

Then U.S. Senator Lyndon Johnson (D-TX) added the amendment simply for the purpose of shutting up a non-profit organization in his state that was being a pain in his caboose. The whole purpose of the amendment was to silence a critic and here The Des Moines Register defends this.

Not only does the Constitution guarantee our constitutional right to free speech in the First Amendment, but it also says Congress cant prohibit the free exercise of religion. The left loves to talk about the separation of church and state, but when it comes to this issue they dont consider the implications.

In 1804 when then President Thomas Jefferson responding to the Danbury Baptist Association in Connecticut, after they requested he intervene as they opposed Connecticuts established religion, wrote:

The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.

This wall exists to affirm natural rights which includes those of religious faith and worship. The walls intent is not to hold captive a church or pastors free exercise of faith. The state should never be allowed to tax the church period. In the same way we dont have a theocracy and our laws are not subject for approval by a religious ecclesiastical body. The two institutions, both established by God, are to be independent of one another and each have their own role. Our founders understood this. This wall, however, is not meant to prevent the Church from addressing issues with candidates or policies, but it does prevent the government from using coercive power against the Church and outside of military or police force you dont get much more coercive than taxation.

4. Churches are, by nature, charitable organizations.

Im not exactly sure where this idea that churches unencumbered by the Johnson amendment will all revert to being political organizations, they wont. Tax exemptions for churches and tax deduction for donors are given because churches are non-profits. They do not tax. They are not for profit. They depend on the generosity of their members.

Churches serve, what that service looks like is different for each church, but churches give back to the communities in which they are located and this is something that newspapers and media like The Des Moines Register never report on.

Churches wont become a pass through organization for political funding simply because their pastors can speak freely from the pulpit. If the editorial board really thinks that is the case they havent attended a church budget meeting.

5. Even with this restriction lifted most churches probably still wont endorse or lobby.

Most churches that I have attended have not really been politically active. They have been a faithful gospel witness to the community. They are gospel-centered. Their focus is on making disciples, and anything that would be seen as a hindrance to that would be avoided. The only thing they really want coming from the pulpit is the exposition and proclamation of Gods word. Most pastors I know DO NOT WANT to make endorsements from the pulpit because they dont want politics to be a stumbling block to sharing the Gospel. I know many who do not even make personal endorsements even though under the Johnson Amendment that is acceptable.

They want the ability to speak biblically on issues of the the day, but that doesnt require a political endorsement. They want to continue to be faithful, gospel witnesses serving their communities without government interference.

Conclusion:

The government should never dictate the speech that comes from the pulpit. If that isnt a gross violation of the free exercise clause I dont know what is. Not only is The Des Moines Registereditorial boards opinion misguided, but it is hypocritical since they tout free speech for themselves. While we disagree I dont see anyone from the Church calling for their voice to be silenced.

Shane Vander Hart is the founder and editor-in-chief of Caffeinated Thoughts. He is also the President of 4:15 Communications, LLC, a social media & communications consulting/management firm. Prior to this Shane spent 20 years in youth ministry serving in church, parachurch, and school settings. He has also served as an interim pastor and is a sought after speaker and pulpit fill-in. Shane has been married to his wife Cheryl since 1993 and they have three kids. Shane and his family reside near Des Moines, IA.

Read the original:
The Des Moines Register Wants to Muzzle Free Speech in Churches - Caffeinated Thoughts

February 13 2017, 12:01am,The Times

Matt Ridley

In Britain and the US, its time for a rebellion against the snowflake generation and its censoring of campus debate

In a free state, tongues too should be free, wrote Erasmus 501 years ago. In truth, although Britain was often more tolerant than many countries, people have never been entirely free to speak their minds here. Blasphemy and sedition got you into trouble for centuries. There was uproar when Ken Clarke invited Oswald Mosley to address the Cambridge Union in 1961. The law has always rightly forbidden incitement to violence.

But the Speaker John Bercows call to no platform President Trump was not based on any claim that he might incite violence, and nor are many of the bans on controversial speakers that are routine at universities today. They are about the giving and taking of offence. Julie Bindel, a radical feminist, was banned from

See more here:
Students can't be allowed to curb free speech - The Times (subscription)

Hey, I was thinking about having a free speech rally with a few of my buddies from Dargan. Are you interested in joining us? About 75 individuals have already signed up.

What are we protesting? All those years that people considered Dargan a second-class community and looked at us funny when we said, Hello, Im from Dargan.

Seriously, we are still a little upset. Its the beginning of a movement.

A respected Dargan gentleman is bringing some hooch (aka moonshine).

All members of the group will be wearing dark hoodies and masks to blend into the night, so you wont be able to identify us on TV.

Were bringing some ax handles and picks to break out a few windows. And a few matches to light some trash cans on fire.

A little entertainment always goes nicely with a free speech demonstration.

You know how this works, right? Once we break a few windows and start some small fires, everyone will want to know why we are protesting. The cameras will be there long before the police.

I will then come from the back of the pack to give my speech. Youll know its me because Ill be the one with the bullhorn. (Dont give away our little secret.)

The ACLU will represent me, should I be arrested and go to jail. Its what the ACLU does.

Its really no big deal going to jail anyway, for exercising your right of free speech. They usually turn you loose with no fine or penalty.

Im thinking well have a few of our Dargan ladies lock arms and block a major highway to create some additional havoc and prevent some folks from going to work or to the hospital.

We will try our best not to hurt anyone, just as long as I can deliver my speech to all of you anti-Dargan folks. If you get upset with the broken windows and the burnt trash cans, and a little lateness getting to work, or to the hospital if youre sick, I extend my apologies. But I really dont care very much about those things because, on this night, Im a protestor expressing my rights to free speech.

Its also really important to me that the world knows how upset we are in Dargan.

Now, I know some of the boys will want to put some of that hooch in a bottle and burn up a few police cars along the way, but Ive already told them thats taking free speech a little too far. And, besides, thats a poor waste of some good hooch. They all agreed. Dargan protesters are really quite professional and peaceful.

No police cars will be burned. We support the local police although, in Dargan, we dont have any.

We were planning to return a second night to protest the election of Donald Trump as president, but most of the boys didnt vote in the first place, so we didnt feel right doing that.

After I give my speech to explain why we are protesting, I will tell you the difference between free speech and anarchy (a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority). Or maybe Ill let you find out that difference for yourself.

If our first protest goes pretty well, Ill be soliciting some additional support from Sandy Hook, Bedington and a few other small towns. So we might close a few airports, the Mall of America and some railroads in Brunswick to get our cause some nationwide coverage.

If you want to save yourself a little trouble and avoid the broken glass, fires and destruction, just send me your apology and tell me in a three-page, handwritten letter Why I Love Dargan, and no more free speech demonstrations will occur in your community.

If we dont hear from you, well be getting some more hooch and schedule another protest in your neighborhood real soon.

Dont get so excited, OK? Im only kidding. Dargan loves you.

Lloyd Pete Waters is a Sharpsburg resident who writes for The Herald-Mail.

View post:
Lloyd Waters: Free speech or anarchy? A dilemma - Herald-Mail Media

University administrations are becoming increasingly censorious, with nearly a quarter of them having actively censored speech and expression in 2017, according to online magazine Spiked.

The Free Speech University Rankings (FSUR), issued by Spiked, claimed that there are now more students unions that do not censor speech in any way than university administrations a reversal of the findings in the previous two yearsof the survey.

The survey assessed 115 institutions. Using a traffic light system, FSUR gave a red assessment to 23.5 per cent of university administrations up from 15 per cent in 2016. According to the survey, these universities are hostile to free speech and free expression, mandating explicit restrictions on speech, including, but not limited to, bans on specific ideologies, political affiliations, beliefs, books, speakers or words.

Although 64 per cent of students unions were red, 16 were given green ratings meaning they have not restricted or regulated speech and expression compared with 12 university administrations.

The FSUR found 73 institutions taking administration and students unions as a whole were red. With 35 given an amber assessment, it means that 94 per cent of universities censor or chill free speech to some degree, according to Spiked. There were only three institutions in the UK with no instances of supposed censorship in 2017: the University of Wales Trinity Saint David, the University of Buckingham and the University of the West of Scotland.

In his introduction to the ranking, Tom Slater, FSUR coordinator and deputy editor of Spiked, wrote that the publication had always argued that campus censorship was about more than the so-called snowflake generation throwing its weight around.

Commenting on the results, Mr Slater said that universities are systematically stifling free speech on campus, while students unions take all the flak.

Students unions have been pilloried for censoring transphobic speech and enforcing transgender pronouns. But our research shows the vast majority of policies in this area stem from universities themselves, he said. While students unions are significantly more censorious and deserve all the criticism they get universities often share and affirm their illiberal, patronising outlook.

The most restrictive included four Russell Group universities with Swansea University joining the University of Oxford, the University of Edinburgh, Newcastle University and Cardiff University.

Among institutions actions considered restrictive by the rankings, there were 129 bans. Of these, 21 institutions banned speakers, 20 banned newspapers, and nine have banned offensive fancy dress, according to Spiked. And 44 per cent of institutions had no platform policies banning fascist, racist and Islamist groups, 43 per cent had censorious religion and belief policies, and 34 per cent had similarly restrictive transgender policies, the magazine said.

The Spiked report said that there was a ban on dressing up as Caitlyn Jenner at Newcastle University, a restriction on blasphemy at London South Bank University, and a policy at the University of Surrey insisting that its mascot, Steve the Stag, isnt depicted by students drinking, smoking or involved in lewd acts.

john.elmes@tesglobal.com

Visit link:
Spiked: nine out of 10 UK universities 'restrict free speech' - Times Higher Education (THE)

Though recent events such as the riot outside Milo's Berkeley talk, Ezra's fire alarm pull, and me getting pepper sprayed at NYU might lead you to think we are reaching an anti-free speech zenith, but all this is nothing new.

Back in the 1990s, it was the Right who was censoring people and they were just as strict. Name any creative media and you had lunatics trying to shut it down. Even comic books were under siege.

This week we talk to cartoonist Mike Diana. He is the first artist to be criminally convicted of artistic obscenity in America.

His punishment included not even being allowed to draw (privately, alone, with no intention of showing it to anybody) in his own home.

We also speak to cartoonist Peter Kuper,who testified at Mike's trial.

There is a documentary coming out about all this shortly. Even if you see comics as totally esoteric, you should check it out.

The enemies of freedom keep moving the goal posts and changing sides, but they are ubiquitous and they've always been around.

Here is the original post:
Free speech on trial: Persecuted cartoonist Mike Diana - The Rebel

Forty years ago, four Brits in a band called the Sex Pistols outraged and angered the British political establishment. Now in 2017 another Brit has done the same thing to the U.S. establishment.

1977 was the year that punk exploded onto the cultural landscape and shook up the status quo of hippy music biz complacency and smug liberal assumptions. Were not into music, were into chaos, sneered the Sex Pistols as they shocked and awed the British public and challenged the old order.

The Pistols, The Clash, The Ramones and all those three-chord wonders with ripped jeans and spiked hair galvanized a generation. Not only rebelling against the stadium rock perpetuated by the likes of Fleetwood Mac, the Eagles and Pink Floyd, but also by criticizing their self-satisfied, Lear Jet lifestyles and their conventional viewpoints.

Led by their manager Malcolm McLaren, the Pistols used outrage and a Situationist agenda to confront the establishment, attack sacred idols and provoke all the right people. As McLaren once said, If it doesnt threaten the status quo, its not worth doing. The punk class of 77 angrily sang about the stupefying dullness of life in mid-70s Britain, the absurdity of pop stars and the conceits of the eras prevailing culture.

For many kids who felt disconnected from the mainstream, punk was a welcome reaction against the post-hippie and cultural malaise that had seeped into all aspects of 1970s society. But the punks also faced a backlash that was both widespread and violent, consisting of demonization from the media, gigs canceled or banned, assaults on punks by reactionary Teddy Boys, and low-key police harassment.

As a former punk myself, I remember being yelled at, spat on and punched in the face just for wearing a Sex Pistols God Save the Queen T-shirt.

Now, nearly four decades later, another establishment is being shaken up, but this time around its the cultural gatekeepers of liberal America who are finding their cosmopolitan we-know-best pieties challenged.

Another crucial difference from 77, of course, is that todays rebellion is more an overtly political one than a musical revolution. But the anti-authoritarian instincts of the original punks also fuels this current generation of free-thinkers.

Somewhat lazily dubbed by critics and some friends alike as the alt-right, this broad movement against liberal orthodoxy has as its unlikely figureheadthe flamboyant British export Milo Yiannopoulos, a controversial punk provocateur par excellence.

Yiannopoulos, with his calculated outrageousness and refusal to back down, seems well aware of the similarities between todays culture wars and the spirit of 77. During the 2016 presidential election he proclaimed, to cheers from his supporters, that we should vote for Donald Trump because he was the new punk.

In hindsight, it looks like he was right. After all, in a mainstream media world where it was assumed that no right-thinking person in America could ever vote for Trump, the actions of Yiannopoulos and his growing band of followers in backing such a controversial Republican candidate could only be seen as a Sid Vicious-style F**k You to political correctness and the established order.

Using social media instead of three-minute songs, Yiannopoulos has revolutionized the fight against political orthodoxy by using the same shock tactics that the punks used to take on the entertainment industry.

It should be noted that the American genesis of this new breed of conservative provocateurs that Milo seems to have galvanized actually has its roots in the South Park Conservatives generation, which moved from left to right after 9/11 as the left became increasingly politically correct and authoritarian.

Like the punks of 77, Milo and his merry band are also demonized by the media and also face assault from reactionary elementsas the recent riot that led to a cancelation of a Yiannopoulos event at the University of California-Berkeley goes to show.

In much the same way as the punk-bashing British Teddy Boys of 40years ago sided with the status quo, so the antifa have allied themselves with the American status quo against the new rebels on the block.

In fact, by being on the same side of the anti-Milo debate as the establishment liberal bastions of the New York Times, California hi-tech billionairesand pampered Hollywood one percenters, the antifa have only confirmed Yiannopoulos and the new anti-authoritarians as underdogs and the real inheritors of the rebellious punk mantle.

And just as the British media lambasted Johnny Rotten for his supposed attacks against the Queen and all common decency, so the American media has run endless critical stories on how Milo is slaughtering the sacred cows of open borders, feminism and the Black Lives Matter movement.

What happens next is anybodys guess. Will Milo and this new movement implode as the Sex Pistols did? Will the opposition to them prove too strong to overcome? Will they be absorbed into a new political mainstream?

Anything is possible but right now, just as in the halcyon days of punk, and whether one agrees with him or not, theres no denying that Milo, like the Sex Pistols before him, is riding the wave of the new zeitgeist.

God Save the Queen!

See the original post:
How Milo and the Free Speech Libertarian Movement Resemble the Sex Pistols - Heat Street

One of the reasons that Mary Katharine Ham and I wroteEnd of Discussion in 2015was our rising concern that Americans -- younger ones in particular -- are gradually adopting an increasingly hostile posture toward free speech and the open debate. One of the Left's most cynical ploys in stifling political discussions is to brand ideas they oppose as hateful and offensive, and therefore morally unworthy of further consideration. They seek to "win" debates, we wrote, by short-circuiting the process and preventing those debates from happening in the first place. Ours is largely a cultural critique, leaving detailedconstitutional analyses andjournalistic exposes of bureaucratic abuses to others. But citizens' views of what the constitution does, or should, protect can be heavily influenced by cultural pressures, which is why some key bits of thissurvey of American high school students conducted by the Knight Foundation are ratheralarming:

Yikes. Some of these results are open to interpretation becausethe question doesn't really drill down too far. If kids think that "bullying" is synonymous with "specific threats of physical violence," they'd be right that free speech protections wouldn't apply. But if they think that "you're fugly" tauntsor "gay people are degeneratesinners" assertionsrise to the level of speech that can be banned orcriminalized, we're in more serious trouble. One of the positive data points in this poll is that 91 percent majority atop the bar graph. Allahpundit notes that the percentage of students who believe that unpopular speech is aprotected right(to reiterate, so much of this comes back to the degree of under-exploredoverlap between "unpopular" and "offensive" or "bullying") has risen by eight points since this survey's 2004 installment. That's real, hearteningprogress, as is theslow but steady incline in the blue line onthis chart:

Students are less disposed than ever to believe that the First Amendment's safeguards of fundamental rights are too excessive. That's reassuring, but only to a point. AP mines another nuggetfrom the results: "Worse yet, when the Knight Foundation asked students whether free speech is more important than protecting someone from being offended, just 64 percent said yes a majority, sure, but not even a two-thirds majority." That top line result is dragged down by smaller majorities of high schoolers of color (Asians, Hispanics and especially blacks) who believe that the value of upholdingfree speech trumps the value of insulating somebody from taking offense. One of the more insidious tactics of the anti-discussion mob has been to conflate offensive speech with physical violence, rooted in a capacious definition of what constitutes "safety." To the extent that this trick successfully and lastingly manipulatesyounger generations may determine whether free speech and expression remains a core American value. Remember, it's unpopular/offensive/bullying speech that tests the principle. It's relativelyeasy to protect anodyne, civilly-expressed speech; it's the nasty stuff that is much harder, and thereforeespecially vital, to shield from the bipartisanauthoritarian impulse to ban and silence. All said,findings of this survey are enough of a mixed bag as to nurture some cautious optimism and stave off outright despair, but there are some red flags flying, too. Via the inimitableIowaHawk,I'll leave you with this simple but incisive insight that ought to giveanyone inclined toward the"let's ban offensive or bullying speech" position serious pause:

This point cuts both ways. Do conservatives want these terms and standards set by hysterical triggered snowflakes who value "protection" from ideas over free speech? And do liberals want those definitions determined and enforced by, say, a thin-skinned populist/conservative president with little tolerance for criticism of any sort? The uniting solution is to link arms andkeep free speech as free as possible -- and the (needed and appropriate) exceptions to that rule (excluding hate speech)as narrow as possible because the principle,and everyone's right to open expression,is potentiallyat stake. Politics are cyclical. Ideological pendulums swing. Values must endure. Can we count on our high school teachers to convey this truth and pass along this American torch to the next generation? I'd like to hope so, but again...yikes.

Read more here:
Poll of High Schoolers: No, Free Speech Shouldn't Protect 'Offensive ... - Townhall

Forbes

Alphabet's Project Shield And Eliminating DDOS Attacks On Free Speech Forbes Most of the world's Internet-connected netizens know of Google through its wildly popular consumer-facing products like its search engine and YouTube video hosting platform. Yet, Google's parent company Alphabet also operates a fascinating think/do ...

Read more here:
Alphabet's Project Shield And Eliminating DDOS Attacks On Free Speech - Forbes

Mary Mazzios documentary I Am Jane Doe is a whirlwind primer on the case of Backpage, a classified ads website with a serious problem: the exploitation and trafficking of minors conducted in the escorting and adult section of the site.

Backpage is now the center of a legal drama that has proceeded all the way to the Senate floor, and I Am Jane Doe attempts to elucidate the dizzying legal proceedings alongside the stories of trafficking victims, including two known as M.A. and J.S., who ultimately sued Backpage for culpability in their trafficking.

Their stories are horrifying and sad, and offer a glimpse into the stark reality of online child sex trafficking, a context that becomes obfuscated in the courtroom. The Communications Decency Act and the First Amendment are repeatedly cited by lawyers for Backpage, asserting that the freedom of the Internet should be preservedand that websites are not liable for the ads posted by third parties.

Its a conundrum wherein the inherently evil act of child exploitation and abuse becomes entangled in issues of free speech and net neutrality.

Mazzio intersperses the personal stories with the techno-legal thriller that races along a timeline up to January of 2017and narration from producer Jessica Chastain. Each moment is resonant, but the intimate reflections halt the momentum, and the legal dramas interfere with the emotional impact.

Its an overwhelming, and sometimes disorganized firehose of information. Mazzio doesnt includeany advocates for Internet freedom, which feels like a missed opportunity to fully illustrate the tensions and reasons why the court cases have stalled. Ultimately, however, I Am Jane Doe is a powerful call to action to protect children over profit.

-------------

I Am Jane Doe

Not rated

Running time: 1 hour, 39 minutes

Playing AMC Universal CityWalk

See the most-read stories in Entertainment this hour

calendar@latimes.com

Read the original post:
Child exploitation, free speech and net neutrality tangle in fervent documentary 'I Am Jane Doe' - Los Angeles Times

Steve Bannon, former head of Breitbart News and senior counsel to President TrumpEvan Vucci AP

In recent days, Silicon Valley executives have been among the most vocal opponents of Trump administration policies, including its travel ban. At the same time, stores including Neiman Marcus and Nordstrom have backed away from selling Ivanka Trump merchandise, despite presidential protest .

But ecommerce company Shopify is heading in the opposite direction. Company co-founder Tobias Lutke is offering support to far-right website Breitbart News, and says it will continue to sell the sites political merchandise on its platform as a matter of free speech. Breitbarts merchandise includes politically themed t-shirts, mugs and doormats that support Trumps proposal for a border wall, and the Second Amendment right to own guns, among other things.

Steve Bannon, a senior counselor to President Trump, co-founded Breitbart in 2007. The site is known for its inflammatory views on women, racial and sexual minorities, immigrants, and Muslims.

In a blog post from Wednesday, Lutke said that despite more than 10,000 emails, tweets and messages urging him to terminate the relationship, Shopify's stance is about protecting free speech.

Related: How These 3 Bills Could Make It Much Harder to Hire Foreign Workers

We dont like Breitbart, but products are speech and we are pro free speech, Lutke writes. This means protecting the right of organizations to use our platform even if they are unpopular or if we disagree with their premise, as long as they are within the law. That being said, if Breitbart calls us tomorrow and tells us that they are going to switch to another platform, we would be delighted.

Reached by email, a Shopify representative referred Fortune to Lutkes blog post and a corporate statement , which says the company is politically neutral.

Lutke, himself an immigrant, moved to Canada from Germany in 2002, and launched Shopify in 2006 with business partner Daniel Weinand. The platform hosts 325,000 merchants, and has sales volume of $24 billion.

Shopifys decision runs counter to the activity of groups that want to use commerce for political leverage. In recent months, protest group Grab Your Wallet has urged a boycott of companies either owned by the Trumps, that carry Trump-branded clothing and accessories, or that have offered financial support to President Trumps political campaign. In addition to Neiman Marcus and Nordstrom, Grab Your Wallet has urged Amazon and Zappos to stop selling Trump family products.

Social media campaign Sleeping Giants has similarly targeted hundreds of companies, attempting to get them to stop advertising on Breitbart and fake news sites. We are trying to stop racist websites by stopping their ad dollars, the campaigns Twitter account says. In recent months, Sleeping Giants has gotten AT&T , Kellogg , BMW and Visa to remove ads from Breitbart.

Shopify went public in 2015, raising $131 million. Its stock was up 2.4% in early morning trading to $54.66.

View original post here:
Shopify Won't Remove Breitbart's Online Shop, Claiming Free ... - Fortune