Category Archives: Free Speech

Willamette Week

Portland International Airport is Now Requiring a "Free Speech ... Willamette Week Protesters marched into the airport, marched through baggage claim and had a sit-in outside the departures gate. Related: Demonstrators Throng Into Portland ... Oregon Local News - Port says future PDX protests require permit ...Portland Tribune Portland Airport Protests Lead To Free Speech Zone Being ... - PatchPatch.com PDX cracks down on roving protests; permits needed | OregonLive ...OregonLive.com kgw.com all 6 news articles »

See the rest here:
Portland International Airport is Now Requiring a "Free Speech ... - Willamette Week

Why are gender pronouns being forced into law?originally appeared on Quora - the place to gain and share knowledge, empowering people to learn from others and better understand the world.

Answer by Jae Alexis Lee, Trans Woman, Technology Enthusiast, Martial Arts Instructor, long time manager, on Quora:

Why are gender pronouns being forced into law?This is a distortion of reality that's popular in some social circles and it really, really bugs me. Let meexplain, we'll start with the basics: Harassment isn't okay. We good with that? I hope so because if not there's no hope for the rest of this conversation. Harassment isn't okay.

What constitutes harassment? Well, lots of things. Anyone who's ever been a manager for a sufficiently large corporation has probably sat through at least one mandatory training session about what the company considers harassment, what the law considers harassment, and what they're expected to do about it. We'll skip the minutia and leave it at high, high-level concepts for now: Harassment can include physical behavior (inappropriate touching, hitting, etc.), verbal behavior (teasing, lewd comments, etc.) and direct actions (work assignments, dismissals or threats of termination, etc.) Got it? 1,000 foot level.

Let's descend a bit to talk about verbal harassment. Some things would be considered harassment regardless of the gender, ethnicity, religion or orientation of the target. If I make a point of loudly addressing one of my staff as "Dumb F***" and pile onto that with abusive language every time I give them instructions both in private or publicly, that's not okay. (All right, I'm wandering into hostile work environment land a little bit, but hang with me, we're not going to get sucked into that level of minutia here.) If that member of my staff quits and files for unemployment, I promise you, I'm going to have a hard time explaining my behavior to a judge on that.

Some forms of verbal harassment are unique to traditionally oppressed groups. Racial slurs, sexist remarks, religious slurs. We've got a list of things that as an employer, it's not okay to call your employees. If those employees complain and we keep doing it anyway, that's explicitly not okay.

So, now we're looking at trans people, a historically oppressed minority that studies have demonstrated face significant rates of harassment and discrimination. Like many other groups, there are collections of slurs and methods of being verbally abusive that are specific to the group. In areas where we talk about gender identity being a protected class, using trans-specific verbally abusive language would be forbidden in the same contexts that using racial slurs would be prohibited or making lewd sexual comments would be forbidden.

Still with me? Good. When it comes to trans people, in addition to slurs like shemale and tranny, denying a trans person's identity can constitute harassment. Terms commonly used in the trans community are misgendering (referring to a person with incorrect pronouns, or other gendered parts of speech), and deadnaming (using a trans person's pre-transition name.) Same as using racial slurs or making lewd sexual comments, this kind of behavior can have significant negative impact to the person on the receiving end of it.

So, Jae, what you're telling me is that if I screw up and call a trans man 'she' it's the same thing as if I asked my receptionist to show me her tits?

I get this a lot. No, not that exact question, but the idea that people are afraid that screwing up will get them in legal trouble.

This isn't about verbal stumbles. In general, when we're talking about non-discrimination legislation that creates protection for gender identity what we're doing is placing behavior that is explicitly anti-trans on the same level as behavior that is specifically anti-any other protected class.

Verbal stumbles happen, we all know that. Show of hands from everyone who's never said she when they meant to say he? Who's never opened their mouth to mention a person by name only to have the wrong name come out? It happens, and in general, we make a quick comment/apology about it, and then we move on.

There's no reason to feel like a law that protects trans people would be different in application. In any legal case we're going to be looking at severity (saying 'show me your tits or you're fired' is on a different level than calling someone the 'company slut' where it can be overheard, both are bad, one is worse), there's going to be an examination of frequency, of intent, and of circumstances.

When you dig into harassment in the workplace, you learn that there's a whole lot of gray. We can't write laws that spell out every word that can or can't be used, or every phrase or how often people can or can't say something. Instead, we have a framework of guidelines that the justice system can use to assess the situation.

So, I get that Jae, but... are you saying this is just for employers and employees?

No, not at all. Looking at from a corporate perspective is easy for me because I've been in management for so long, but it's also an approachable lens for a broad swath of people because most of us have had jobs at one point or another.

This sort of thing applies to a large number of relationships where there is an institutional power differential. It applies from employer to employee where we talk about things regarding hostile workplaces, harassment and a host of other employment related things. It also applies when we're talking about how law enforcement treats suspects. In investigations of bias and excessive force, the use of slurs on the part of the LEO can be employed as part of proving that an officer acted inappropriately due to bias. We look at this in relationships between teachers and students, especially in instances where there is a reason to suspect that grading which may be subjective has been unfair towards minority students, or that classroom environments were too hostile for students to be able to engage and learn. We talk about this in the contexts of landlords and tenants, business owners and clients and on and on and on.

Fundamentally, harassment and discrimination are issues we face in the modern world. We have laws to address these things because harassment and discrimination aren't okay. Legislation that adds gender identity to the list of protected classes aren't enforcing an Orwellian form of thought control on the population, but they recognize that trans people are frequently targeted for harassment and discrimination. Some laws make explicit note that misgendering and deadnaming are specific methods by which people harass and make transgender people feel unwelcome or unsafe.

But Jae, what about free speech?

You still have freedom of expression, as much as you ever did. It hasn't gone away. Want to call me a delusional dude on your blog? Go for it, knock yourself out. Want to demand you have the right to call Caitlyn Jenner Bruce? Be my guest. It isn't an issue until you do so in a way that is specifically harmful to another person. If you're my boss, and you call me 'he' or 'it' every time you talk about me at work, then you're going to get a complaint from me letting you know that I'm not okay with it. I'm going to copy HR on the complaint, and if it keeps happening then things escalate as appropriate for the situation (that may mean internal escalations to my boss's boss, that might entail talking to an employment attorney, again, situational.)

Speech has consequences, and in general, our rights stop when our method of exercising them hurts other people. You're welcome to say or think whatever you want, but in some situations, there are things you shouldn't say because of the harm it will cause and if you do cause damage with what you say then you may be held accountable for the harm you caused.

That's what this is about. Not about Orwellian thought police, not about an out of control radical left, but about recognizing that the trans population is a minority that faces significant harassment and discrimination. That harassment and discrimination aren't okay, and that deliberately misgendering or deadnaming a trans person may be a form of verbal abuse that would be actionable under appropriate laws regarding specific forms of verbal abuse.

Got it? Good, now go be nice to each other, class dismissed.

This question originally appeared on Quora - the place to gain and share knowledge, empowering people to learn from others and better understand the world. You can follow Quora on Twitter, Facebook, and Google+. More questions:

Excerpt from:
When Free Speech Turns Into Harassment, It Isn't Okay or Legal - Huffington Post

Free speech for all, not just some Washington Times While it is laughable to imagine Governor Moonbeam cutting state funds over the denial of free speech to anyone to the right of over-the-edge left, any other old-fashioned liberals out there ought to support the threat of the cutting of federal funds ...

Continued here:
Free speech for all, not just some - Washington Times

New York Times

A Free Speech Battle at the Birthplace of a Movement at Berkeley New York Times BERKELEY, Calif. Fires burned in the cradle of free speech. Furious at a lecture organized on campus, demonstrators wearing ninja-like outfits smashed windows, threw rocks at the police and stormed a building. The speech? The university called it off. The No Free Speech Movement at BerkeleyLos Angeles Times Free speech takes a hit in BerkeleySan Francisco Chronicle UC Berkeley riot tests free speech, incites funding threat from TrumpThe Mercury News The Seattle Times -Daily Caller -U.S. News & World Report -UC Berkeley all 845 news articles »

Follow this link:
A Free Speech Battle at the Birthplace of a Movement at Berkeley - New York Times

I support free speech but.. That is a worrying statement to hear from anyone that lives in a Liberal Western Democracy like Canadas.

I support free speech but. always means theres some kind of speech the person speaking, would like to see shut down.

And the problem with that is, where do you stop?

If you trust the current government to restrict speech you dont like, what about the next government led by that leader you hate or that party you cant stand.

Would you be comfortable handing over the ability to criminalize speech?

And yet, from people rioting to shut down civil discourse on campuses to calls for advertising bans and having the government police Twitter or Facebook for mean posts and fake news, this is a worrying time for free speech.

- Riots - Fake News - Twitter police - Ad bans - Political targeting

Watch as I go through each of the ways free speech is under attack in the current environment.

Doesnt it remind you all of 1984?

Freedom of speech, freedom of expression its all taken for granted but as we have seen in the past with issues like Section 13 of the Human Rights Act - the hurt feelings on the internet section, many people, including elected officials are more than happy to let freedom of speech be curtailed for the latest fashionable idea.

The answer however should always be no.

Originally posted here:
5 ways free speech is under attack - The Rebel

Glenn Harlan Reynolds Published 6:04 a.m. ET Feb. 6, 2017 | Updated 59 minutes ago

A University of California Berkeley spokesman says a small group turned protests violent, as Breitbart editor Milo Yiannopoulos came to speak. The spokesman added that it's not a proud day for the Berkeley campus. (Feb. 2) AP

Protesters at the University of California-Berkeley on Feb. 1, 2017.(Photo: Elijah Nouvelage, Getty Images)

They told me if Donald Trump were elected, voices of dissent would be shut down by fascist mobs.And they were right!

At the University of California, Berkeley campus, for example, gay conservative speaker Milo Yiannopoulos had to be evacuated, and his speech cancelled, because masked rioters beat people, smashed windows, and started fires.Protesters threw commercial fireworks at police.

According to CNN:The violent protesters tore down metal barriers, set fires near the campus bookstore and damaged the construction site of a new dorm. One woman wearing a red Trump hat was pepper sprayed in the face while being interviewed byCNN affiliate KGO. . . . As police dispersed the crowd from campus, a remaining group of protestersmoved into downtown Berkeley and smashed windows at several local banks.No arrests were made throughout the night.

According to CNN, the protests caused over $100,000 in damage.

Yiannopoulous wasnt the only victim of silencing efforts.At Marquette University, conservative speaker Ben Shapiro faced efforts by Marquette university employees to silence him.

The Young Americas Foundation obtained Facebook comments by Chrissy Nelson, a program assistant for Marquettes Center for Gender and Sexuality Studies, encouraging people at the behest of one of the directors of diversity to reserve all the seats for the hall and then not show up.The purpose of this was to take a seat away from someone who actually would go.

USA TODAY

Trump is playing with the press: Glenn Reynolds

USA TODAY

Trump loves making enemies and that's a problem: Column

So students who wanted to hear a speaker with alternative views would find themselves unable to get a seat, because a university employee had made fake reservations.All, apparently, in the name of diversity.

Likewise, when conservative Gavin MacInnes (a founder of Vice.com) appeared to speak at New York University, he was met by an angry mob that forced him to cut his talk short, while a woman who identified herself as an NYU professor urged police, whom she said were protecting the Nazis by keeping the crowd away from MacInnes and his entourage, to "kick their ass instead of protecting them.

This stuff all looks terrible so bad that Democrat operative Robert Reich was reduced to blaming outside agitators for the violence, a trope that, as law professor Ann Althouse noted, has unfortunate resonance with the Jim Crow era. And President Trump even tweeted that Berkeley should lose federal funding for its inability to ensure free speech rights for everyone on its campus.

Well, the rioters may or may not have been Berkeley students as Althouse notes, since they were wearing masks, theres really no way Reich could tell but I think its safe to say that the rioting happened because they thought they could get away with it. (And with no arrests, I guess they did.) Likewise, I think that the staffers at Marquette didnt entertain any thought that what they were doing might get them punished.(Nor, as far as I can tell, have they been).

Thats because there has evolved on our campuses a culture of impunity: Misbehavior on the part of lefty activists will get winked at, even as other groups (sports teams with sexist appearance rankings, say) get raked over the coals for minor misbehavior.This double standard is of a piece with many campusesopenly taking sides over the election, treating Trumps win like a terrorist attack, while investigating Trump supporters for racist allegations only to find no evidence that they had done anything except say Make America Great Again, as Babson College, a small school in Massachusetts, did.And as CNN's Marc Lamont Hill acknowledged, right-wing rioters are absent on college campuses.

USA TODAY

Sen. Barrasso: EPA needs Scott Pruitt

POLICING THE USA:Alook atrace, justice, media

Whether or not Berkeley loses its federal funding over the Milo riots (and it wont), I think its time for action to address this double standard.First, state and local law enforcement agencies need to target violent rioters who seek to silence speakers.It is a felony under federal civil rights law to conspire to deprive citizens of their constitutional rights, among which is free speech.In addition, many states have laws (generally called Klan laws) that punish people who engage in mob violence or intimidation while masked. These should be applied as well.

Second, perhaps its time to have a Title IX-style law banning discrimination according to political viewpoints on campus.Many states (including California) already have laws banning discrimination in hiring and firing based on political viewpoints.Perhaps we need a federal civil rights law providing that colleges that receive federal funds (which is pretty much all of them) can lose those funds if they discriminate against students because of their political views.

Some colleges may complain that this is federal interference in their internal affairs, but given the limited resistance theyve mounted to intrusive Title IX regulations, it will be hard to take such complaints seriously.Americas colleges and universities have a free speech problem. Its appropriate for the federal government to take action to protect the civil rights of those affected.

Glenn Harlan Reynolds, aUniversity of Tennesseelaw professor and the author ofThe New School: How the Information Age Will Save American Education from Itself, is a member of USA TODAY'sBoard of Contributors.

You can readdiverse opinions from ourBoard of Contributorsand other writers ontheOpinion front page,on Twitter@USATOpinionand in our dailyOpinion newsletter.To submit a letter, comment or column, check oursubmission guidelines.

Read or Share this story: http://usat.ly/2kExx5p

Read the original here:
Conspiring to stifle free speech is a crime: Glenn Reynolds - USA TODAY

Besides the Why-Cant-We-All-Just-Get-Along cry going up the poop, Wednesday it again went up in flames.

Recap: Right-winger Milo Yiannopoulos. Greek-born Brit. Breitbart News editor. Gay. Bounced off Twitter for his supervillain anti-political correctness.

His last weeks invite by Republican students at U of California, Berkeley, resulted in police, protests, violence, demonstrations, pepper spray, flames, arrests, objects thrown, bodies in lockdown. Security blocked some, faculty blocked others.

Some authors pulled their submissions when Simon & Schuster bought his book outline for $250,000.

E pluribus unum. One-for-all-all-for-one. Land of the Free speech, Home of the Driven.

New news: His book title is Dangerous. Theres a co-writer. Pushing this dialogue himself, he personally made the rounds of publishers. As we speak its being minutely examined by lawyers. No photographs.

Inching through wall-to-wall editors, the size of its first printing is not yet decided, although Simon & Schuster is known for publishing political works. The copy price? Around $25.

Called racist, acknowledged provocateur, controversial, its all his ideas. He writes of his sexuality, free speech, why campuses cant have dialogue with those who dont agree, and why full-on war could be coming to a head. He asks why those who disagree get trashed inside Starbucks. He asks why people lack a right to their own opinion.

Oddly, Threshold, an S&S subprint, published a campaign-time book about Donald Trump. And Hillary is now grinding out a volume of personal essays. Pubdate, this fall. Publisher? Simon & Schuster.

Glenn Close, who lives the high life in Sunset Boulevard, gets a high-life opening Thursday. Black tie ... Neil Diamonds 50th anny tour starts April 7. He once razzberryd playing NY. Over it now, hell do the Garden on June 15 and 17 ... Armand Assante getting a ready? Hoboken International Film Festival award. Hoboken, an international Film Festival? Must be Newark means crossing the border ... Conan plays the Apollo in November. Another Festival. Comedy Festival.

J.K. Simmons, Oscar winner for Damien Chazelles Whiplash, hired for his musical La La Land while still filming Whiplash ... Foodies: Grocery man Stew Leonard and WNBC vegetable man Produce Pete sharing Beach Cafe fries Rich Russians shop Cartiers small neighborhood branches, not its iconic main store. They do not want to be seen or photographed there. Ask not what you can do for your country nor how I know this. I know it.

Broadway Records (two Grammy noms this year) releasing newcomer Tyces Hero. Songs by Jim Steinman, who wrote Meat Loafs 1977 album Bat Out of Hell, which sold 43 million albums The Founder, about salesman Kroc making burger joint McDonalds into a mega moneymaker, is confounding Hollywood kvetchers: Michael Keatons terrific. Story terrific. Why no nomination?

The Emotionary is Penguins new Eden Sher/Julia Wertz nonexisting words for existing feelings. Like: To predict a worst outcome mix catastrophe and extrapolate for castrapolate. Happiness and apprehensive begets happrihensive. And pretending to get something finally after someones repeated it nine times? Feignderstand. Its a fun read.

Handsome starting-out lawyer on the dating scene: One chick said: Opposites make good marriages. So I want a guy with money.'

Only in New York, kids, only in New York.

See the original post:
The war on free speech is alive and well - Page Six

84 LumberDid you see the Super Bowl ad about Mexican avocados? The Coke commercial? Budweiser's mini-bio of its immigrant founder? Was corporate America trolling Donald Trump with ads that celebrated free trade, diversity, and immigration? Or were they just selling products to people perhaps more sensitive to gleaning political messages than they have been before? Do you want the government to decide that?

Breitbart commenters, among other Trump loyalists, have been concerned about political ads at the Super Bowl since last week, when the Budweiser ad hit the news cycle. Fox initially rejected one ad from a lumber company that featured a long journey to a border wall, and a big beautiful door, although the beginning of the ad, from Lumber 84, did airthe whole thing was put online. Nevertheless, there was no paucity of ads from which viewers gleaned political messages. And that's a good thingdespite the heated rhetoric against Citizens United and corporate speech rights during the 2016 election, the Super Bowl ads and the discussions they're inevitably launching are an illustration of why protecting free speech rights from government regulation is important, even for corporations. Free expression is a crucial component of a free society and a healthy democracy, and sustains a marketplace of ideas. The notion that government interference can have anything but a deleterious effect is ridiculousit shouldn't have to take a character like Trump to head the government for people to realize that; there have been enough examples of what supposedly well-intended regulations have done.

Tonight's ads reflected the American populationcompanies, unlike governments, have to offer people something they want or they won't get their money, so they are far better at delivering to and so reflecting the many moods of the American people. The inevitable complaints, even the boycotts, are part of that too, and it's all part of a process of self-regulating speech, where ideas, ideally, rise and fall on their merits, where individuals get to argue about the meaning of things instead of having government decide. Only through open discussions, unfettered by the coercions of a government inevitably interested in protecting itself and its narrow interests, can better ideas develop and thrive.

Both Trump and his 2016 opponent, Hillary Clinton, who courageously stood up against Citizens United, which ruled in favor of free speech that was critical of her, have abysmal records on free speech. But perhaps 2017 will make more free speech fans out of people sometimes too quick to take their leaders' words on it.

See the original post here:
Super Bowl Ads Illustrate Importance of Free Speech Rights for All, Even Corporations - Reason (blog)

I wrote last week about the importance of the model bill drafted by the Goldwater Institute the Campus Free Speech Act. In my latest Forbes article, I elaborate on the problem and why state legislators must take action.

Free speech is far too important to leave to the campus crowd of administrators, faculty, and zealous students who are little inclined to stand up for free speech. Mostly, anti-speech views rule that is to say, speech is tolerated only if it aligns perfectly with progressive ideology. Since campus officials have shown that they cannot be entrusted with the crucial task of justifying and defending free speech, its time for state lawmakers to step in. Sure, the academic elite will howl that such legislation interferes in their domain, but public colleges and universities are not theirs to run.

Let us hope that legislators who want to restore the First Amendment and its values on our campuses introduce the model bill in each state. It certainly wont pass everywhere, but the debate will be enlightening.

Continue reading here:
The Campus Free Speech Act Is Desperately Needed - National Review

EDITORS NOTE: The following is Jonah Goldbergs weekly newsletter, the G-File. Subscribe here to get the G-File delivered to your inbox on Fridays.

Dear Reader (especially any in Australia. Just FYI some of us still think you guys are great),

Longtime readers of this newsletter might think about taking a speed-reading course. But thats not important right now.

Some longtime readers and a few quicker ones might recall that one of my favorite episodes of Parks and Recreation involved a cult that worshipped an alien-beast-god known as Zorp the Surveyor, a reptilian Cthulhu rip-off. The harmless-seeming cultists, who look like the grandparents at an Osmond-family reunion, occasionally gather in a local park to greet the fiery destruction that Zorp has been prophesied to deliver. Anyway, the details, much like the House Progressive Caucus these days, really arent very important. The relevant bit is that when the Zorp-worshippers first formed and briefly took over the town they decided to call themselves The Reasonabilists. They figured no one would want to seem unreasonable by criticizing them.

(I know, I know: I should find another way of illustrating this point, but Rich Lowry has cut my budget for pop-culture references. Im just lucky I dont have to get everything at the Pop Culture Dollar Store remainder bin. Then itd be Lucy, you have some splaining to do! and Matlock! references every day. Though, I should say as an aside, you can find some great stuff in there. Like that Johnny Quest episode with Norways Greatest Acrobatic Dwarf!)

Anyway, where was I? Oh right: the Reasonabilists. I bring them up because I have been in a twitchy, quick-tempered, fugue state of dyspepsia and crankery for the last couple days (Days? The Couch) about the riot at Berkeley.

I dont mean the violence or the fact that this couldnt have gone better for Milo, a click-baiting huckster and alt-right apologist. I dont even mean the fact that the authorities only arrested one person. Though that does vex me considerably. If you think free speech is assault but assault is free speech, youre a moron of world-historical proportions. And if you think rioting is some charming rite of passage, you deserve to have your campus destroyed.

Anyway, what really gets my goat are coyotes. Which is why I have to keep buying new goats.

But what really ticks me off isnt the rioting and violence. Well, I mean yeah, of course that stuff pisses me off. But were used to that sort of asininity from the Jacobin hordes. What has my left eyelid involuntarily flicking and my tongue clicking like psychopath when the thorazine wears off are the constant references to the irony of these riots at the birthplace of the free-speech movement. I cant watch the news with glassware in my hand for fear of reflexively crushing it.

I hate to give any credence to this triggering nonsense, but every time I hear it, it sets me off like Im Ron Burgundy and Veronica Corningstone has just said my hair looks stupid.

Even on Fox News people say it, and Im all like Fffft! Thiffft! [twitch] Wha-what...did you say?

Do you want to know where the birthplace of the free-speech movement was? Well nobody knows for sure, but I have some guesses. It might have been ancient Athens. Or it might have been Jerusalem or Bethlehem. Or maybe it was London where, in 1689, the English Bill of Rights established a constitutional right to free speech for Parliament. Or maybe it was Philadelphia in 1776 or 1789.

I can make arguments for all of these places as birthplaces for the free-speech movement. You know where I cant make that argument? Mother-[expletive deleted]ing Berkeley in 1964.

Oh sure, if you want to say that the Free Speech Movement was launched there, thats fine in the same way its fine to say Reasonableness started in 1970s Pawnee, Ind. But the Free Speech Movement only had slightly more to do with free speech than Zorp-worship has to do with reasonableness.

Im not going to wade deep into the weeds on all this, but if you want to you can read, say, Nathan Glazers 1965 Commentary essay What Happened at Berkeley.

Those of us who watched the Free Speech Movement (FSM) daily set up its loud-speakers on the steps of the administration building to denounce the president, the chancellor, the newspapers, the Regents, the faculty, and the structure and organization of society in general and universities in particular, could only admire the public-relations skill exhibited in the choice of a name for the student movement, Glazer wrote.

The students at Berkeley already had the right to free speech. As Glazer noted, left-wing groups regularly brought in Communists and other controversial speakers to campus. In fact, when bringing in Communists no longer seemed rebellious or controversial enough, left-wing groups brought in the West Coast leader of the Nazi party. The left-wing scamps even dressed up like Nazis and handed out fliers for the meeting at all the entrances to campus.

Sort of like what Bill Clinton always says about blind hookers, you just have to hand it to them; those 1960s lefties were a tougher crop than the playschool communards of todays campuses.

Anyway, the students had free-speech rights. What they werent allowed to do was organize and raise money for off-campus political activity on campus. Anyone who works for a 501(c) organization or knows anything about the rules regulating politicians, charities, foundations, etc. can grasp the distinction. And if youre freaking out about Trumps promise to destroy the prohibition of churches being involved in political activity, you might get it, too.

What initially set off the protests was the administrations decision to enforce the rule at a park on the edge of the campus, where hippies and political activists hung out, I imagine, in thick clouds of pot smoke and righteous indignation.

Anyway, you can say it was a bad policy, but the issue from the outset was never really about free speech. It was initially about the use of campus resources and, very quickly, the will-to-power of a bunch of radicals who thought that any restraints on their political agenda were inherently illegitimate. It was also a classically romantic revolt against the system. Mario Savio, the huckster-philosopher at the forefront of the FSM famously proclaimed:

Theres a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious makes you so sick at heart that you cant take part....And youve got to indicate to the people who run it, to the people who own it that unless youre free, the machine will be prevented from working at all.

Romanticism, Baudelaire explained, is precisely situated neither in choice of subject nor exact truth, but in the way of feeling.

Feelings are what drove the Free Speech Movement. The FSMers felt that their feelings mattered more than anyone elses facts. They felt that any restrictions or rules that hindered their desire to express their feelings were unfair. It was the dawn of a romantic revolt in the academy where debate was dethroned and the tantrum put on an altar. It soon spread to other campuses, like Cornell where the administration literally caved to gun-wielding goons because they were too afraid to champion their own principles in the face of authentic feelings.

The easily triggered idiot-babies of todays campus Left who squeal, I dont want to debate. I want to talk about my pain or who insist that offensive speech is no different from a punch in the face are the direct descendants of the Free Speech Movement because it was Berkeley where the Feelings Supremacy Movement began and where it is clearly thriving today.

Vengeance Is Mine Sayeth the Democrats?

Anyway, enough with all that. I have a lot more to say about romanticism and whatnot, but well save that for the book.

On a different note, I was listening to MSNBCs Morning Joe on my drive back from the NPR studios when I heard Eugene Robinson say something interesting Wait, wow, that might be the squishiest sentence Ive ever written. I feel like I may have just invited a right-wing intervention.

Lowry: Jonah, this is a safe space. Its just that were worried about you.

Williamson: Screw that noise. Snap out of it Goldberg!

Anyway, Robinson was talking about how the Democrats have to fight the Gorsuch nomination hammer-and-tongs even though they know that theyll lose. He writes in his column today:

Senate Democrats should use any and all means, including the filibuster, to block confirmation of President Trumps Supreme Court nominee. They will almost surely fail. But sometimes you have to lose a battle to win a war.

This is purely about politics. Republicans hold the presidency, majorities in the House and Senate, 33 governorships and control of the legislatures in 32 states. If the Democratic Party is going to become relevant again outside of its coastal redoubts, it has to start winning some elections and turning the other cheek on this court fight is not the way to begin.

Now, as a matter of political analysis, I think this is defensible. Im not sure its right. But thats beside the point. What I think is funny is that Robinson and the whole Morning Joe crowd is arguing for futile, partisan rage and obstruction as a necessary good. Its funny because for the last eight years Robinson and liberals like him have been complaining about the GOPs alleged obstructionism for obstructionisms sake almost as if it was unpatriotic. My fear is that stasis has become a structural feature of our politics. Nothing lasts forever, but this depressing state of affairs could be with us for quite a while and could get worse, Robinson wrote in 2013. That same year he celebrated Harry Reids decision to invoke the nuclear option.

Way to nuke em, Harry.

It was time actually, long past time for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to invoke the nuclear option and ask his colleagues to change the Senates rules. This isnt about partisan politics. Its about making what has been called the worlds greatest deliberative body function the way the Framers of the Constitution intended.

Recently, it has barely functioned, as Republicans abused the old rules to prevent the chamber from performing its enumerated duties. There was a time when the minority party in the Senate would have been embarrassed to use such tactics in pursuit of ends that are purely political, but we seem to live in an era without shame.

The key sentence there is: This isnt about partisan politics. Of course it was, and of course it is now. Robinsons a nice guy, but he has an annoying history of concern trolling in which he pretends that he really wants whats best for the GOP, which surprise almost invariably involves bending to the Democratic agenda.

I really cant blame the Left for being a little unhinged right now. They thought History was on their side. Theyre terrified of Trump. Theyre in the minority. Blah blah blah. I get it.

But for eight years, a lot of liberals behaved a lot like the Reasonablists, claiming they were objectively concerned with gridlock and GOP obstruction not on partisan grounds but on some high-minded principle. They even claimed their agenda wasnt ideological, just pragmatic and data-driven. Suddenly, when confronted with a president with whom they profoundly disagree, theyre advocating almost the identical approach to the one they condemned as irrational and dangerous: Obstruct! Resist! Remember, they not only condemned Republicans for this approach, but insisted it was racist. I particularly like this passage from Robinsons column:

Trumps pick, Judge Neil Gorsuch, has the rsum required of a Supreme Court justice. But so did Judge Merrick Garland, President Barack Obamas last nominee, to whom Senate Republicans would not even extend the courtesy of a hearing, let alone a vote....That, too, was purely about politics.

Im not counseling eye-for-an-eye revenge. Im advising Democrats to consider what course of action is most likely to improve their chances of making gains in 2018, at both the state and national levels.

I have no doubt that theres some fine, nuanced distinction to be made between counseling eye-for-an-eye revenge and counseling that Democrats simply pander to the demands of base voters who hunger for eye-for-an-eye politics. I can even imagine that an electron microscope could find the very fine line between nakedly arguing that Democrats must pursue the futile politics of obstructionism and gridlock while condemning Republicans for doing the same thing.

But it gets worse than that. The Tea Parties, liberals slanderously insisted, were not only racist but dangerous and fascistic. Now, the same liberals desperately want their own tea party? Um okay, good luck squaring that circle. But while the Tea Parties talked about the Constitution and picked up the trash after their own rallies, the embryonic left-wing Tea Party movement cavalierly uses violence and violent rhetoric. It even talks about military coups and fantasizes about blowing up the White House.

By all means, opinion journalists such as Eugene Robinson are allowed to be partisans. But it would be nice if more of them admitted that is what they are.

Various & Sundry

Canine Update: Not too much to report. The Dingo continues to be exceptionally difficult these days. Shes been a lot like Steve McQueen in The Great Escape, though the analogy kind of falls apart when you consider that our house really isnt like a Nazi POW camp and Steve McQueen wanted to do more than just lie down on the grass outside the camp and wait for distaff dogs, rambunctious rabbits, savory squirrels, or fascinating foxes to go by.

We wouldnt care much if she could be a good girl. We used to let the late, great Cosmo the Wonderdog sleep unsupervised on the landing outside our front door for hours on end. He liked to survey all that went by and occasionally saunter down to the street to demand affection from a human or to see the papers of a passing dog (this is a euphemism for butt-sniffing, of course). But Cosmo was one of the greatest and most responsible dogs that ever lived. The Dingo cant be trusted not to get in fights, dig up lawns, or kill various critters. Shes not hostile to humans at all (though, for some reason, she does think little girls are fascinating and likes to get in her puppy-play stance and bark at them Frolic with me!) but she just cant be trusted to be left unsupervised.

As for Pippa, she still only has two basic modes: ball-chasing fanatic and comatose pile of boneless spaniel. If any Hollywood producers need a spaniel that can seem dead on camera, Pippa might be your girl. Wait for her to fall asleep and you can carry her around like a furry Ziploc bag full of Jell-O.

Feline Query: So, the Fair Jessica and my daughter just got back from the vet with my wifes cat and the good cat. Apparently, the good cat, Gracie, is too fat. On the one hand, this kind of bothers me. Gracie can leap straight up to a counter that is three or four times her body length away. If I could, from a standing start, jump up to a first- or second-floor window, you wouldnt be all like, Man, you need to get in shape. On the other hand, theres no denying that Gracetofur (as we call her) is looking increasingly Rubenesque. Does anyone have any guidance for a good way to help a cat lose a few pounds? Specifically, in a two-cat household?

Heres some of the stuff I did this week:

Is Trump taking the Bannon way?

My thoughts on Neil Gorsuch.

My thoughts on Neil Gorsuchs nomination fight.

My Groundhog Day essay, now twelve years old.

My Groundhog Day essay, now twelve years old.

My Groundhog Day essay, now twelve years old.

I went on Fox News to tell UC-Berkeley that it should be ashamed of itself.

I went on NPR to talk about the torrent of leaks coming from the Trump White House.

Oh and since Im self-promoting, heres a flattering write-up of my speech down in Florida this week. (Note: the part about me being hot was not an aesthetic judgment but a polite way of saying that I was sweating like Bill Clinton in a confessional.)

And, since Im recycling old pieces. I had a very cool compliment this week. Several people at my cigar shop told me that the reason they go there is because of this piece I wrote several years ago. I dont know why they waited so long to tell me. But Im glad they did.

And now, the weird stuff.

Debbys Friday links

How do bees survive the winter?

The woman who walked from New York to Alaska

How hard is asteroid mining?

Corgi models propeller hat

Dogs prefer reggae, soft rock

The secret history of the first cat in space

Why didnt the thief-catching net catch on?

Tech-savvy writer scams a tech-support scammer

John Hurt: An (incomplete) retrospective

Words in other languages with no single English equivalent

The nuclear bunkers designed for luxury living

Nature is scary: Lion edition

Puppy reunited with long-lost toy

Why frogs tongues are so sticky

Feral bunnies are taking over Las Vegas

Nations bacon reserve hits 50-year low

Why children ask why?

Every day in Groundhog Day

How hard is it to fake insanity?

Maybe the ghosts haunting these abandoned psychiatric hospitals can help you

Link:
The 'Reasonabilists' of Berkeley - National Review