Category Archives: Free Speech

To the editor:

You might have missed the story about Jared Schmeck, the self-described patriot who ended his Christmas Eve conversation with President Biden by taunting, Lets Go Brandon.

This followed Mr. Bidens call to Jareds four children to discuss Santa Claus imminent arrival.

Classy guy that Jared. So arent the patriots who display F-Joe Biden flags on T-shirts, barns, overpasses and rooftops anywhere children can see.

They chant their slogan at ball games and NASCAR races. They float their boats in parades featuring Nativity scenes with signage telling President Biden just what he can do to himself. Patriotic hearts burst with pride at the show of Christian family values.

I suppose Lets Go Brandon is an improvement over the usual crass F-bomb fare of the base. Pity anyone whose name is Brandon.

Lets not talk politics. Lets talk old-fashioned decency. Decency is at the heart of the issue here. Let me refresh your memory. Decency: Marked by moral integrity. Conforming to standards of propriety.

Do decent people yell the F-word in unison in public with children in their midst? Do they wear shirts with the same message in public?

Moral integrity: Do decent people admire a man who has been proven over and over again to be an adulterer, a liar, a cheater and a white-collar thief? The nuns who schooled me would charitably describe him as low caliber.

Biden supporters didnt advertise their deeply felt loathing with irreverent public chants embedded with swears.

I dont recall seeing F-Trump banners anywhere or parades with flags insulting him on roads, rivers, highways. I dont recall Biden supporters sporting swear words on their bumper stickers while trying to run the former guys campaign buses off the road. Or obscenely berating his boorish antics where children could see or hear as they rode their bikes.

Im not a fan of everything President Biden does but I admire the man. I recognize he is a decent human being trying to move the country forward. Being decent should be a basic requirement for anyone serving in a public capacity and frankly, its a low bar for such an important position.

The former guy behaved as though the bar doesnt exist.

Barely a handful of Republicans have summoned the courage to stand up for decency.

They are summarily being run out of office by a seething base. Last year, local Republicans made excuses for hate speech in Salisbury by proclaiming the offender had First Amendment rights. They didnt chastise his indecency, they defended it! Why? Hes one of them and he votes.

Democracy doesnt thrive solely on political theory, protocols and beliefs. It relies on human decency and good character to be effective.

Sadly, Jared and other patriots demonstrate how weak the guardrails of democracy have become.

The former guy told thousands of Capitol insurrectionists who maimed and injured scores of police officers, We love you. Youre very special. Such a patriot! Such a decent man!

Its not entirely Jareds fault that hes a patriotic jerk.

MONIQUE GREILICH

Salisbury

We are making critical coverage of the coronavirus available for free. Please consider subscribing so we can continue to bring you the latest news and information on this developing story.

Continued here:
LETTER: A question of decency and free speech - The Daily News of Newburyport

The 2021 press freedom index released recently by Reporters Without Borders (RSF) makes for grim reading.

Sign up to our Opinion newsletter

Sign up to our Opinion newsletter

The report reveals that 488 journalists were detained in 2021 an increase of 20 per cent compared to the previous year while a total of 46 were killed and 65 held hostage.

Of those detained, 60 were women (33 per cent higher than 2020). As you might expect, it tends to be autocratic regimes with dismal records for freedom of speech and human rights which crop up once again as the worst offenders.

The latest report notes an upturn in repression against journalists in Belarus where opposition politicians and commentators have been targeted in the government crackdown since the August 2020 election as well in Myanmar, where the military coup of February has been followed by a crackdown on free expression.

In China, where the Communist party continues to tighten its grip, and Hong Kong, where the Beijing-backed regime is using the draconian national security law to punish dissidents, it gets ever more perilous to oppose the increasingly authoritarian regime of Xi Jinping.

These findings linking authoritarian governments to human rights abuses are not surprising given the tendency of such governments to use local and global crises such as Covid at present to clamp down on press freedom under the guise of national interest and security.

Bullying, hate speech and censorship

Journalists are facing increasing threats for doing their jobs whether that is physical intimidation, hate speech directed against them or online trolling. Some European countries have used the law to prevent the dissemination of information that political actors see as threatening their hold on power and legitimacy.

Weve seen that in Spain, for example, where parties on both sides of politics have gone out of their way to stigmatise the media and hamper the free flow of information, even banning some journalists from press conferences.

Such practices, which include interference in the daily work of media outlets, as well as implicit and explicit threats to journalists doing their job, are well documented in the 2021 report by the One Free Press Coalition which mapped such acts in a variety of European countries since 2014.

Elsewhere, including in Iran, Syria, Mexico, Sudan and Guatemala, intimidation is creating a climate of fear among media professionals. This prevents the free circulation of information, opinions and ideas. It also allows for the wider circulation of fake news and misinformation.

What is of concern is the risk that such acts of intimidation against journalists and the media can become normalised even in western democracies.

The designation is symbolic but a serious engagement with ending impunity for crimes against journalists can form the basis for a legal framework that can guarantee freedom of expression and access to information and ensure journalists carry out their jobs.

Profession under threat

Throughout history, people practising journalism have faced intimidation and attacks for a variety of reasons, whether it is governments worried about exposure or partisan and private interests worried about their profits.

But what the increasing number of attacks suggests is that journalism is becoming more and more a contested domain and space for struggle over information, ideology and politics.

These attacks violate human rights: both of journalists and the societies they serve which are being deprived of their right to information something that should be at the heart of all free public debate and the democratic process.

They underscore the need for adequate legal protection for journalists that goes beyond rights to communicate and free speech recognised in particularly in Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Article 19 recognises everyones right to freedom of opinion and expression and provides the basis for the function of journalism, conducted by individuals, to be protected independently of broader institutional press or media rights.

In international law, freedom to express opinions and ideas is considered essential at both an individual level, insofar as it contributes to the full development of a person, and also as a foundation stone of democratic society.

International human rights law requires states to respect and protect the lives of all within their jurisdiction from attacks and threats of attacks and to provide an effective remedy where this has not been the case.

But so far there is no international framework dedicated to the protection of journalists from physical attack or ending impunity for crimes against journalists. If journalists are deliberately targeted and threatened while those who attack them go unpunished, the media cannot be free and democracy will continue to be threatened.

A message from the Editor:

Thank you for reading this article. We're more reliant on your support than ever as the shift in consumer habits brought about by coronavirus impacts our advertisers.

See original here:
2021: a grim year for journalists and free speech in an increasingly turbulent and authoritarian world Professor Dina Matar - The Scotsman

2021 was a year of speech free speech, hate speech, funny speech and a year of silence. I grew up during Indias Mile sur mera tumhara era. My grandparents were all too familiar with the horrors of Partition and they often spoke of the riots that followed about neighbours who told on each other to rioters and about identifying family members in piles of bodies. They talked of divide and rule, an insidious British policy that was meant to keep us fighting among ourselves so that we would not pay attention to the poor state of affairs in which we were living. They recounted how years of poisoning the minds of people against each other had exploded as a bomb, the shrapnel of which flew around us for years and the wounds from which took decades to heal.

In the refugee colony of Mumbai where they ended up, they promised themselves they would never live in a world where we dehumanised one another. The British might have forsaken us, but we would not forsake each other, they insisted. They would never passively watch their country burn. Never again. In the India they chose to live in, we constantly flooded into every neighbourhood house with vessels full of food to celebrate festivals, offer condolences, and watch out for each other in need.

They were both generous in their laughter and I would wonder how they managed to smile, after all they had endured. My grandmother would ruffle my hair and say a laugh doesnt have a religion Adu, a laugh is the sign of your survival, a sign that no matter what, you are here. She was a staunch vegetarian, who was well known for whipping up excellent mutton at a moments notice. My grandfather was the man who always carried that extra hanky to wipe an errant nose, to lend someone to cover their head when they entered a gurdwara or to hold a heap of one-rupee coins to give away as Eidi. I think of them every time I turn on the news these days.

2021 ended in what is now being called the Haridwar hate assembly, a conference by Hindu extremists, that featured multiple calls to take up arms against Muslims. Just a week before that, churches were attacked and vandalised when Christmas was being celebrated. In the same week, Hindu groups shouted slogans to prevent Muslims from offering namaz in Gurgaon. Another, now viral, video shows Hindu children taking oaths to take up arms in the name of religion. And this was only in December 2021. All the rhetoric of India becoming a superpower and trillion-dollar economy has mutated into a vicious call for Hindu Rashtra. The bogeyman that is being fed to us now is that Hindu khatre mein hain (Hindus are in danger). A slow drip of poisonous lies about demographic change, historical lies spread through WhatsApp messages and dubious online pages, is being pumped into our veins.

This is the modern divide-and-rule, the distract-and-rule. So that while fuel prices and unemployment skyrocket, our borders are breached by China, and our international relations and rankings on multiple fronts take a hit, we are distracted by reporting our neighbours to the rioters. This time, we dont even have the British to pin the blame on.

Today, religious majoritarian aggression has become so commonplace that it all blends into one large mass of hate when you open your newspapers, put on your TVs, or look at your phone screens. I can afford to have my eyes glaze over: I am, after all, an upper-caste Hindu woman. I can luxuriate in shock and sentimentality, while Muslim and Christian boys and girls around me grow up far too quickly in a world actively hostile to them. I am privileged enough to not be directly affected.

It did not affect me directly when Munawar Farooqui, a stand-up comedian, spent a month in jail over completely unfounded charges, and had several of his shows cancelled after Hindu groups insisted that his jokes were offensive to them. I have seen Munawar backstage at comedy clubs. He has an unguarded smile, and a life that has seen the ups and downs of growing up a Muslim man in India today. He tells his story with a sparkle in his eyes, a cheeky grin and home-grown wisdom, to hoards of audience members of every religion that adore him. There is no violence there, no calls to jingoistic nationalism, no fear-mongering, just laughs, which have no religion and are the sign of our endurance.

But the thing about 2021 that has me terrified is not words, but the silence. The silence of our elected leaders who have not said one word to condemn the hate speech and the riots, the silent acquiescence of our police forces as they lathi-charge people who demand action against hate, instead of the ones who spread it. The rapidly spreading poison in our veins of hatred, suspicion and bigotry that makes no noise, but hardens our bodies into bombs that will explode one day, the shrapnel of which will fly in the air around us, and the wounds of which will take decades to heal.

Our silence and privileges will not protect us. Shrapnel does not ask your religion before it pierces you. They say that we turn into our parents, but I fear that our generation will have no choice but to live the lives of our grandparents. We cannot forsake each other. My wish for 2022, ironically, is more speech speeches that bring us together instead of ripping us apart, words of love, words of justice, words of peace and, perhaps most importantly, words of laughter and endurance.

This column first appeared in the print edition on January 1, 2022 under the title The year of noise, speech and silence. Mittal is a stand-up comedian, actor and writer

Read more:
Deafening silence in a year of hate speech - The Indian Express

College administrators are now acknowledging they have created environments on their campuses that diminish free expression and choke intellectual liveliness. For years, the game plan was to simply disavow the stifling of free expression on college campuses, while at the same time imposing speech codes, running ideological orientation programs, and hiring faculty and student affairs staffers who all think alike. That denial strategy, however, has become unworkable as alums, prospective students and the public at large signal that the game is up.

Acknowledgement that some colleges lack true commitment to free expression, backhanded as it was, came in a report released late in the fall semester by the Academic Leaders Task Force on Campus Free Expression, an initiative of the Bipartisan Policy Center. The report was entitled, Campus Free Expression: A New Roadmap. That such a report had to be generated is an admission that free expression principles had drifted away at many colleges and universities. There would be no need for a new roadmap if college leaders knew their current location and found it suitable.

The report is a good faith effort, on one level, to address a difficult topic. It acknowledges the importance of free expression in higher education and notes the need for viewpoint diversity on campus. Clearly, a good deal of discussion and deliberation went into the report.

The report, however, is long on bureaucratese and short on specific fixes.

It doesnt address how college administrations allowed free expression principles to dissipate over the last 30 years. It fails to identify the campus influences that led the descent of colleges into ideological gulags that lack viewpoint diversity and where certain voices are often stifled.

A key shortcoming is the reports interest in balancing campus free expression with ongoing initiatives for diversity, equity and inclusion. A university cant claim allegiance to free expression and then say but The report cautiously treads onto the minefield of DEI: There are no simple answers or strategies addressing the perceived tension that pits academic freedom and freedom of expression against diversity, equity, and inclusion.

There should be no tension between a free expression commitment and diversity measures. Noted free expression philosopher, Frederick Schauer wrote that free expression is a fundamental principle of human dignity. It doesnt need to be hedged against other priorities. Schauer notes that free expression actually promotes inclusion by empowering the widest range of voices. Further, Schauer pointed out that the harms of suppressing free speech outweigh the occasional adverse effects of open discussion. But robust campus debate wont happen in an environment where students and faculty are constantly worried about violating a speech code.

The alarm about campus free speech deterioration has been sounded over the years by organizations such as the American Council of Trustees and Alumni (ACTA), as well as the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE). FIREs President, Greg Lukianoff, explained the state of affairs in a recent essay, pointing out the number of colleges that impose restrictive speech codes and the alarming increase of colleges punishing professors for engaging in constitutionally protected speech. He writes, American higher education has become too expensive, too illiberal and too conformist. A report by FIRE last fall indicated that over 80 percent of college students nationwide say they self-censor on their own campuses.

Conformity is bound to happen in environments where everybody is expected to think alike and where those who dont are chilled from speaking. This is dangerous and antithetical to everything colleges once stood for. As the noted sociopolitical observer Walter Lippmann wrote a century ago, Where all think alike, no one thinks very much. It appears that thinking alike is not only the effect of a stifled culture, it is the intent.

ACTAs President Michael Poliakoff wrote in an email to membership that there is an alumni revolution brewing nationally of alums who expect their alma maters to protect free expression. He encouraged alums to mobilize for change at their colleges and to make gifts contingent on these changes.

Reestablishing an environment for intellectual liveliness and free expression in higher education will be difficult and, at times, painful. It will take more than reports and policy tweaks, as Princeton Professor of Politics Keith Whittington wrote in the Fordham Law Review, Ultimately, realizing free speech principles on college campuses is a matter of culture as much as it is a matter of policy.

Changing culture takes time, but time is now of the essence.

Nearly a generation of college students has graduated into the world not understanding how free expression empowers them and the society at large. A polarized nation reflects that lack of understanding.

Jeffrey McCall is a media critic and professor of communication at DePauw University. He has worked as a radio news director, a newspaper reporter and as a political media consultant. Follow him on Twitter@Prof_McCall.

Here is the original post:
Admitting it the first step? College administrators acknowledge free expression deficiency | TheHill - The Hill

So-called independent Maine Sen. Angus Kings announcement that he intends to vote with radical Democrats to break the Senate filibuster is consistent with his prior effort to shred the Constitution.

In 2014, under the tutelage of his mentor, then-Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, King joined 52 other Democrats attempting to enact into law Senate Joint Resolution 19, which would have gutted our First Amendment right to free speech by prohibiting or restricting the amount of money a candidate for office could raise or spend for election. Under this amendment billionaires, unions and the corporate media would retain their full speech rights, but you would lose yours.

Fortunately, this amendment was doomed to failure because it could not muster the required two-thirds majority to pass. Even the ACLU opposed it.

Ye shall know them by their fruits.

Walter J. EnoScarborough

Invalid username/password.

Please check your email to confirm and complete your registration.

Use the form below to reset your password. When you've submitted your account email, we will send an email with a reset code.

Previous

Read more:
Letter to the editor: Sen. King consistently works to undercut Constitution - pressherald.com

Fight disinformation. Get a daily recap of the facts that matter. Sign up for the free Mother Jones newsletter.

Marjorie Taylor Greene,the first-term member of Congress from Georgia, styles herself as a warrior for free speech. In recent years, she has issued hate-filled tweets, encouraged violence on social media,and promoted QAnon conspiracies. In response, lawmakers quickly stripped Greene of her House committee assignments, and Twitter temporarily suspended her account several times.

But on Sunday, Twitter finally suspended her personal account, @mtgreenee, for good,following what the company said were repeated violations of our COVID-19 misinformation policy. In a statement to the New York Times, Twitter added: Weve been clear that, per our strike system for this policy, we will permanently suspend accounts for repeated violations.

Twitters action came after Greene published a 19-tweet thread on New Years day lamenting the status of unvaccinated people as a subclass and falsely claiming that extremely high numbers of COVID vaccine deaths are being ignored. She concluded the since-deleted thread with a call to arms: Before Covid, We were free. After Covid, We are no longer free. The question is will the people break free from covid psychosis before its too late.

Earlier this year, Greene claimed on Twitter that her Crossfit exercise routine would protect her from Covid. She also argued that schools and businesses should not shut down to prevent Covid spread, since cancer kills a comparable number of people. (This is a logically flawed argument for a host of reasons, not the least of which being that unlike Covid, cancer isnot spread through human contact.)

Twitters decision does not extend to Greenes congressional Twitter account, @RepMTG, which is still active.

Greene responded to Twitters suspension on GETTR, a conservative social media platform run by a former adviser to Donald Trumps presidential campaigns.

Twitter is an enemy to America and cant handle the truth, she wrote. Thats fine, Ill show America we dont need them and its time to defeat our enemies.

More here:
Farewell to Marjorie Taylor Greene's toxic Twitter feed full of Covid lies - Mother Jones

Op-Ed Commentary by Chris Devonshire-Ellis December 20th, 2021

Amongst all the China and Asia noise that can be found online, it has become apparent from our own research that much is either repetitive or just plain wrong. Conducting an internal study of the 2,000 plus international media articles we covered in 2021 through our weekly Chinas Belt And Road & Beyond update, we found that of those written by Western journalists, 87% were negative, and of them, 78% were factually incorrect. That is an astonishing inditement of contemporary journalism. Far gone, it seems are the days when I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend your right to say it was the creed that balanced reporting adhered to. Today, much of the media is made up of total bias, to an extent that it can be hard to sort out the wheat from the chaff or distinguish the truth from blatant lies. In my opinion, this is extremely dangerous. I believe we have already seen the effects of this resulting in mass deaths the sheer nonsense that has been given credibility and airtime concerning Covid across all sections of media and not just the social part has directly resulted in the loss of millions of people. The impressionable and nave have at times been deliberately targeted with distorted views and this has led to their deaths. Society, and media at large has not done enough to protect those more easily lead astray in our society.

The right to defend free speech has given rise to allow anything in the media to be acceptable. Yet this has gone too far it has become a platform to allow the dishonest a platform, and the wickedly manipulative a veneer of credibility. There has been talk of dismantling Facebook in response to this, but the breakup of just one company will not result in the sudden change of society. That can only be achieved through pressures placed on mankind by the honest, the compassionate and the straight, all the while being aware that there are two sides to every coin. It is a far from easy job to balance this. However, Governments do try, although they are often castigated for it. Chinas recent laws concerning sedition and the jailing of prominent Hong Kong media figures has caused outrage in the West, seeing this as an erosion of civil liberties and free speech. Yet free speech can be dangerous when it calls for the overthrow of a Government, as China knows well to its cost. Estimates run to 20 million deaths during Chinas revolution, and about 8 million during Russias.

I first landed in Hong Kong well over 30 years ago, never did I expect to experience tear gas on the streets of Kowloon and riots at its Universities. What is China supposed to do? With a country with a population of some 1.4 billion, the notion of civil rights in China is understandably a little different and needs to be from that in the West. The answer lies not in analyzing Chinas laws on sedition, the answer lies in what motives individuals have in promoting revolution, chaos, and disorder. What purpose does it serve? And if a revolution succeeded, what then?

The media always appear to concentrate on the differences between East and West and seek to exploit them as irreconcilable and politically incompatible, even to the extent of suggesting a fight between good versus evil. International media has become politicized to the extent that impartiality is drowned out in all the noise. Yet what I and we at Asia Briefing have found is that it is the similarities between people that are the most striking, more interesting, and more likely to create human bonds, understandings, and comraderies. Yet today, this element of basic human nature is being eroded, and in some cases, despised.

At Asia Briefing we feel we have a responsibility to present a balanced view. Naturally, that is based on what we know, and as most of that is law and tax based, its relatively straightforward to present this in a way in which we can explain the consequences of new regulations to our readers. It can become a little trickier when we deal with geopolitical issues, which we tend to discuss more in our coverage of Chinas Belt and Road Initiative, however a difference here is that our opinion-based pieces in covering this are based on both statistical research and through our having first-hand experience on the region concerned. Asia Briefing content is drawn from internal editorial and research personnel, based throughout Asia. Staff are in situ in China, Hong Kong, India, Singapore, Vietnam, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Indonesia, the Philippines, and Russia. In non-Asian countries, we have staff in the UK, United States, Germany, and France. Sometimes we also bring in expertise to assist we will be looking for editorial assistance in Africa and Latin America during 2022 to better understand how these regions are interacting with Asia. Then of course we have numerous Dezan Shira & Associates legal and tax professionals to help clarify laws and their implications. It means we have a balance of both systematically researched regulatory work, combined with what hopefully amount to nuggets of occasional wisdom from our own experiences that we can pass on.

What we cannot tolerate is excessive opinionated or dishonest pieces, and when appropriate we will sometimes make comment against them, especially if we judge them to be harmful or disingenuous. We are here to provide a service one that is underwritten by Dezan Shira & Associates to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars every year and has been since 1999. It is important for us to maintain that credibility and our commitment to producing the facts, backed up by research, hard data, and experience. It is something we will continue to produce and provide during 2022. We will not be asking for money to do so in dubious ways. We see reporting as an honest service, not as an investment to make money for pandering to political views.

The early indications for the year as concerns global health are starting to show signs of optimism. Viral pandemics weaken over time and the Omicron variant, although more easily transmissible, does appear to be less effective in provoking serious illness than previous strains, and especially among the global population who have developed Covid antibodies. While much needs to be done in the poorer countries in terms of vaccination coverage, it does appear that things may ease up a little in 2022 with a brighter dawn approaching in 2023. I understand that China, for example, is considering travel relaxations in Autumn this year. Lets hope this comes to pass. In the meantime, stay safe, secure, and tolerant during the new year and look for where the truth, rather than overwhelming political noise can be found.

A complimentary subscription to Asia Briefing 2022 can be obtained here.

Best wishes

Disclaimer

Any views or opinions represented in this blog are personal commentary, belong solely to the contributor and do not necessarily represent the views of Asia Briefing Limited or Dezan Shira & Associates.

Back to News

Originally posted here:
Asia Briefing's Factually Based 2022 Reporting - With Some Opinions - Asia Business News - Asia Briefing

Oakland News Now

video made by the YouTube channel with the logo in the videos upper left hand corner. OaklandNewsNow.com is the original blog post for this type of video-blog content.

Download the GB News App to watch live wherever you are, catch up with all our shows and get the latest news from the GBN

via IFTTT

Note from Zennie62Media and OaklandNewsNow.com : this video-blog post demonstrates the full and live operation of the latest updated version of an experimental Zennie62Media , Inc. mobile media video-blogging system network that was launched June 2018. This is a major part of Zennie62Media , Inc.s new and innovative approach to the production of news media. What we call The Third Wave of Media. The uploaded video is from a YouTube channel. When the YouTube video channel for GBNews News Opinion Debate uploads a video it is automatically uploaded to and formatted automatically at the Oakland News Now site and Zennie62-created and owned social media pages. The overall objective here, on top of our is smartphone-enabled, real-time, on the scene reporting of news, interviews, observations, and happenings anywhere in the World and within seconds and not hours is the use of the existing YouTube social graph on any subject in the World. Now, news is reported with a smartphone and also by promoting current content on YouTube: no heavy and expensive cameras or even a laptop are necessary, or having a camera crew to shoot what is already on YouTube. The secondary objective is faster, and very inexpensive media content news production and distribution. We have found there is a disconnect between post length and time to product and revenue generated. With this, the problem is far less, though by no means solved. Zennie62Media is constantly working to improve the system network coding and seeks interested content and media technology partners.

Oakland News Online Links From Oakland's Only News Aggregator Blog

Oakland News Now Archives Oakland News Now Archives Select Month December 2021 (37227) November 2021 (32789) October 2021 (8926) September 2021 (1111) August 2021 (843) July 2021 (725) June 2021 (431) May 2021 (393) April 2021 (463) March 2021 (320) February 2021 (315) January 2021 (356) December 2020 (319) November 2020 (349) October 2020 (444) September 2020 (445) August 2020 (496) July 2020 (462) June 2020 (391) May 2020 (301) April 2020 (289) March 2020 (239) February 2020 (221) January 2020 (262) December 2019 (161) November 2019 (183) October 2019 (226) September 2019 (173) August 2019 (231) July 2019 (239) June 2019 (194) May 2019 (137) April 2019 (224) March 2019 (164) February 2019 (142) January 2019 (181) December 2018 (147) November 2018 (168) October 2018 (173) September 2018 (192) August 2018 (183) July 2018 (176) June 2018 (125) May 2018 (28) April 2018 (18)

See the rest here:
Free Speech Nation: Battle of Ideas | Wednesday 29th December - Oakland News Now

Ive taken a guilty pleasure recently in watching the faux intellectuals on MSNBC and CNN pass judgment on not just Donald Trump, but also on everyone who shares his disdain for authoritarian pronouncements on COVID-19, election integrity, climate change and a host of other issues.

From what I can tell after studying Rachel Maddow, Joy Reid, Jake Tapper and the late, lamented Chris Cuomo, liberalism today is characterized by a low regard for the intelligence of average Americans and a very high regard for the elastic nature of language.

Essentially, words are expected to mean whatever Democrats and their media enablers want them to mean. This has been most evident in the war against Donald Trump since the 2020 election, but it was certainly in play earlier. For example, saying that Donald Trump is a racist meant he supports border security. Saying Donald Trump is a Russian colluder meant that Hillary Clinton had paid a British spy to manufacture a phony dossier implicating Trump.

But the campaign to destroy Trump really lifted into the stratosphere after the Nov. 3 election. When they called his claim that the election was stolen the Big Lie, what they meant was they dont agree with him. When they said he made his claims without evidence, they meant without evidence that they agree with or that they would even look at.

Then after the Jan. 6 House select committee voted to hold Mark Meadows in contempt of Congress they pivoted and announced that the Big Lie was now the Big Coup. Meadows was chief of staff to President Trump, and since Trump clearly believed the election was stolen, it should be no surprise that Meadows was in constant communication with members of Congress and others who were working to prove that fraud had taken place. But in the Orwellian world of Democrats, trying to prove that fraud was committed by someone else means you are yourself guilty of fraud. Believing the election was stolen means that you yourself tried to steal the election. And worst of all, asking people to march peacefully and patriotically to the Capitol means that you were instructing them to riot and overthrow the government.

As we approach the anniversary of the Jan. 6 insurrection, the unspoken truth is that Donald Trump had nothing to gain and everything to lose by the violent assault on the Capitol that day. The only chance of keeping Trump in the White House was not by invading the Capitol, but by keeping it secure while our representatives debated the validity of the election using the entirely constitutional process taking place inside the halls of Congress.

The electoral votes of at least five states were being challenged not in a coup, but in a lawful manner also used by Democrats in earlier elections, following the procedures mandated by the Electoral Count Act of 1887. Republican senators and House members had lined up to make the case to the public and their fellow constitutional officers that something was rotten in the states of Arizona, Georgia, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan, and that the election was therefore tainted. But the violence outside resulted in a sharply truncated debate inside that was virtually ignored, if not outright mocked or shamed, by the mainstream media. The riot instantly doomed any chance Trump had of prevailing in his argument that the election was stolen.

So ask yourself who benefited from the supposed coup at the Capitol. Not Trump. Not the Republicans who had put themselves on the line to support him with evidence of voting irregularities in several states. Cui bono? Who benefits? None other than the very Democrats who for the last year have worked tirelessly to discredit Trump and to find some way to disqualify him from being elected president again in 2024.

The latest claim is that Trump had criminally obstructed an official proceeding of Congress by encouraging his supporters to Stop the Steal. This is an absurd claim on several fronts.

First of all, Trumps belief that the election was stolen is protected by his First Amendment right of free speech. So is his right to use the courts and Congress to seek redress of his grievances. There is no evidence he had advance knowledge of the riot or planned it in any way. As noted, the particular proceeding of Congress in question was the only hope Trump had of remaining in office beyond Jan. 20, 2021.

Moreover, the argument that Trump allowed the riot to take place because he did not send National Guard troops to intervene is wrong on both the facts and the logic of the case. As I showed in my last column, Trump did in fact request 10,000 National Guard troops to be deployed, but his request was ignored by the Pentagon, the speaker of the House, the Capitol Police and the mayor of Washington, D.C. Even more importantly, if Trump had used the power of the presidency to order a military presence at the Capitol, then the Democrats would have gotten exactly what they wanted the appearance of a coup ordered by a reckless, out-of-control authoritarian who was trying to bend Congress to his will. In other words, Trump could not win that day no matter what he did. The violence made victory impossible.

But to argue, as Liz Cheney and Nancy Pelosi do, that Trump didnt have a right to contest the election is to replace the rule of law with the rule of intimidation. The Democrats and their partners in the media have used all their assembled might to coerce Trump and his allies into silence. His only crime is that he wont shut up about the election being stolen. Nor for that matter is he the only one who thinks that the election was fraudulent. Millions of us independently reached the same conclusion. If any of those supporters had turned to violence at the Capitol, they should be appropriately tried, convicted and punished for their misdeeds, but thats not on Trump any more than it is on the rest of us who encouraged our fellow citizens to work to prevent the installation of Joe Biden as president as long as doubts persisted about his legitimacy.

But the Jan. 6 committee and its supporters dont care about logic or facts. They trotted out text messages from Trump supporters condemning the violence and said that meant Trump himself must have supported the violence. They showed messages that indicated Trump had a strategy to try to prove to Congress and then to the Supreme Court that his rights had been violated, and they said that proved the Big Coup.

Goodness, they really didnt need to wait this long if thats all it takes to prove a coup! They could have just read Trumps speech from the morning of Jan. 6. He never hid the fact that he thought he had been cheated out of victory, nor did he ever pretend he would go gentle into that good night the way Democrats hoped he would. But they already knew all that. In fact, they impeached him over the same speech and failed to convict him. If they tried to convict him on the same charges again, under any guise, they would have violated the intent of the Constitutions protection against double jeopardy. Not that they care.

One last point: In general, the liberal elites appear to be incapable of recognizing that every argument has two sides. They honestly believe that whatever the Democratic leadership says is true, and whatever Donald Trump or his supporters say is false. Although this condition existed prior to the 2020 election, it was exaggerated afterwards to the point where we no longer have the expectation of honest debate. And that, contrary to the claims of politicians like Adam Schiff and Liz Cheney, is the real danger to democracy.

When half the people are considered by the other half to be malignant, prevaricating miscreants, there is no hope for true democracy rule by the people. The best you can expect is demi-democracy, rule of the people by half of the people. That may be the hope of the liberals, but they should be careful what they wish for. Despite their frantic attacks on the Deplorables, it is not yet certain who will prevail in the war they have unleashed. Not a war of weapons, but a war of words and a war of ideas.

On the Democrat side, there are threats and intimidation, warning American citizens not to step out of line. Wear your mask. Get your shot. Turn in your gun. Do what we tell you, and keep your head down. Youll be fine if you obey.

On the other side, there is a rising chorus of voices, moms and dads, black and white, free-thinkers all, who ask for the right to raise their children as they see fit, insist on medical autonomy, expect elections to be fair, and dont bow before authority unless it is legitimately wielded.

The choice of two diametrically opposed futures has not been so clear since the Civil War, and Democrats just as they did in that great conflict seem intent once again on proving the truth of Lincolns dictum that A house divided against itself cannot stand.

Go here to see the original:
The Big Lie and the Elastic Truth: How to Invent a Coup - RealClearPolitics

Maybe it was because Id just picked up Kim from Union Station in Kansas City, and had time to ponder the grim symbolism of a genuine World War II-era German freight car temporarily installed outside. The car is part of the touring exhibit, Auschwitz. Not Long Ago. Not Far Away.

Perhaps it was the current political climate, where white nationalism has become part of the American conversation. Or it might have been the approaching anniversary of the Jan. 6 insurrection, in which neo-fascist Proud Boys from Kansas, including William Chrestman, have been charged with breaching the Capitol.

But it was likely all of the above that contributed to my outrage when, on the ride back on Interstate 35, Kim, my wife, read me the story on her iPhone that somebody had spray-painted swastikas on the back door of a drive-in restaurant in our hometown of Emporia, but that it wasnt being treated as a hate crime.

The swastikas were sprayed in white paint on the back door and elsewhere at the Sonic drive-in on West Sixth in Emporia. The incident seemed like random criminal damage to property, according to a police captain quoted in the Emporia Gazette. The restaurant owners didnt know of a reason why the drive-in would be targeted, and police said the vandalism did not appear to be motivated by hate or bias. Also, it was noted, there is no law against hate crimes in Kansas.

I was outraged by the act itself and dismayed by the casual manner in which the authorities in my hometown seemed to be treating it. Theres nobody on the face of the earth who can wield a spray can who doesnt know what the swastika means. Its a symbol of hate, bigotry, intolerance, mass slaughter.

Some years ago, the city of Emporia was so worked up over gang graffiti that letters were sent to property owners warning it was their responsibility to clean the stuff up. I know, I received one of the letters. I spent a couple of hours painting over the alley side of my shed, which had been tagged with symbols I had to use a reference sheet to interpret. They hadnt been there more than a week or so, and I would have eventually painted over them anyway.

Dont swastikas on a local business merit some level of concern? Had our tolerance for hate so thickened that, as a community, as a state, as a country, we are no longer capable of recognizing the danger posed by public displays of bigotry? The police, of course, were in a tough spot, faced with what appeared a single act of petty vandalism. Sure, I got it. Maybe it was just some kid who sprayed the swastikas at the Sonic to provoke a reaction. Perhaps there was no real threat. After all, it wasnt like the swastikas were painted on a school or a synagogue. But any swastika anywhere is an affront to the community, particularly because Emporia promotes itself as the founding city of Veterans Day. John Cooper, the soldier whose death inspired his stepfather to lobby to make Armistice Day a holiday for all veterans, had been killed in Belgium, fighting the Nazis.

I would have liked to have seen some acknowledgment from the mayor or the chief of police that, no matter what the motivation for the vandalism, swastikas are a symbol of hate and would not be tolerated.

Once back in Emporia, before even going home Wednesday afternoon, we drove around the Sonic to see if anything remained of the vandalism. The ghost of one swastika remained, after obvious attempts to remove it, on the bricks near the back door. It made me sad, because the drive-in seemed the unlikeliest of targets. It is a pleasant place, especially in summer, for a cold treat.

But later that afternoon came the news that Sonic was just one of the places smeared by hate. Similar graffiti, including swastikas, had also been left at Emporia High School, Emporia State University (where I teach), another restaurant and a convenience store. Police said they had arrested a 19-year-old Emporia man, Isaac Lawrence, and charged him in municipal court with criminal vandalism. The case was later referred to the county attorney for consideration of felony vandalism charges because the damage exceeded $1,000. Meanwhile, Lawrence, a 2020 graduate of the high school, was held in the Lyon County Jail.

At Emporia State, swastikas and other graffiti were left on the east face of Visser Hall, which houses the National Teachers Hall of Fame. On Thursday afternoon, Mani Rico, a worker for a local restoration company, told me it had it had taken half a day for him and a crew member to scrub and power-wash the symbols from the brickwork. In addition to the swastikas, Rico said, there was a message. He did not remember what the message was, he said, but I suspect he was understandably reluctant to repeat it.

Watching as the crew finished up, I could taste the detergent they were using on my tongue. I could also still taste my outrage. I burned at the thought that anyone would deface a building that is dedicated to helping produce our states elementary and secondary school teachers. Seeking to make sense of things, I reached out to Rabbi Sam Stern, who came from San Antonio in June to lead Temple Beth Shalom in Topeka. There are no synagogues in Emporia.

A swastika is obviously and always an expression of hate, Stern told me. The Jewish community is concerned any time we see swastikas in public places because it was not only a symbol used by the Nazis during World War II, but is also used by neo-Nazis and white supremacist groups today.

Antisemitic hate is at its highest level in decades, Stern said.

In 2020, the largest single category of hate crimes reported to federal authorities involving religion targeted Jewish people, according to the Department of Justice. In 2014, a gunman killed three people at the at the Jewish Community Center of Greater Kansas City, in Overland Park. The shooter, avowed racist Frazier Glenn Miller Jr. of Missouri, died in prison.

While not passing judgment on whether Lawrence was responsible for the graffiti or not, or what the motive may have been, Stern said he was happy to help provide education to whoever is responsible. I asked Stern what he would say to whoever left the graffiti, if he had to make just one point. He knew immediately.

Id borrow the phrasing of the Auschwitz exhibit in Kansas City, Stern said. These events werent long ago and not that far away.

I had not told him of seeing the Nazi-era railway car at Union Station, where I picked up Kim from her trip to St. Louis on Amtrak.

Kansas is one of the few states without a hate crime law. While there are statutes which provide for stiffer sentences for existing crimes, attempts to pass a comprehensive hate crime bill have been defeated in the Legislature. One of the most recent attempts, in 2017, sponsored by Sen. David Haley, a Kansas City Democrat, died in committee. It was introduced the same year an Indian man was killed in an Olathe bar by Adam Purinton, who shouted get out of my country before opening fire.

Both Miller and Purinton were convicted using the federal hate crime law, which is typical in murder cases where there is an obvious bias. But the vast majority of hate crimes reported in the country are smaller, community affairs. Nearly 75% of such crimes reported against property are vandalism, according to the FBIs most recent report.

Tag a fence or a business or a public building with a symbol of hate and you might be dealing with more than just a vandalism charge. It might make your average, garden-variety community racist think twice.

Some Kansas prosecutors may be reluctant to endorse a hate crime law, because it may be more practical to seek a conviction for an established crime and then seek additional penalties as appropriate. Hate crime prosecutions depend so heavily on proving the motivation and mindset of the perpetrator that otherwise sound cases might collapse when faced with the additional standard to prove bias against a race, a religion or a sexual identity.

But a Kansas hate crime law would not be for prosecutors.

It would be to send a message.

Tag a fence or a business or a public building with a symbol of hate and you might be dealing with more than just a vandalism charge. It might make your average, garden-variety community racist think twice. Swastikas make many people feel legitimate fear, and that fear extends beyond our Jewish neighbors. Black people, leftist thinkers, those of Roma ancestry and the LGBTQ community have been targets for jack-booted thugs.

All of these groups were hated and killed by the Nazis.

The First Amendment rightly protects speech that most of us would find offensive. Its the price of living in a free society. But the swastika and the noose can be used as tools of intimidation, to inspire fear in others, to make them afraid for their lives. Swastikas should not be outlawed, not in history texts, not in private homes, not in popular culture. Indiana Jones is defined, in large part, by his archenemy. When the symbol is used to inspire genuine fear? Thats where free speech protection ends, when a swastika is the equivalent of fighting words.

A Kansas hate crime law would send the message to vulnerable groups that hate and intimidation will not be tolerated here. Not on our fences, not on our buildings and not in our hearts.

Well, well have to work on that last part.

See the article here:
My Kansas hometown was tagged with swastikas. We shouldn't tolerate even casual displays of hate. - Kansas Reflector