Category Archives: Free Speech

Despite all the preening about "free speech" on the right, the truth is complaints about"cancel culture" havealways been code for "conservatives can say whatever terrible things they want, and liberals can shut up about it." Andwhile play-acting as the victims of censorship because liberals mock or criticize them, Republicans have been busy actually silencing free speech: from demanding that athletes be fired for kneeling during the national anthem to, memorably, Donald Trump ordering thetear-gassing of peaceful protesters in Lafayette Park. While conservatives whine about oppression because people call them "racist" on Twitter, they are actually using complaints about "wokeness" as an excuse for the literal government censorship of discourse that acknowledges the reality of racism, as Michelle Goldberg of the New York Times chronicled.

That's conservatism, of course: Always projecting their own sins onto their liberal opponents.

But the Republican enthusiasm for censorship has become even more pronouncedin the past few weeks, as they've escalated the purge of any party members who refuse to sign onto the Big Lie that Joe Biden "stole" the election and that the Capitol insurrection was no big deal.

On Monday, House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif. followingin the footsteps of that other, more infamous McCarthy escalated the blacklisting ofRep. Liz Cheney, R-Wyo., foradmitting that the insurrection was a real thing that really happened because Donald Trump was really trying to steal an election that Joe Biden really won. McCarthysent a letter to theRepublican caucus declaring his intention to lead the effort to remove Cheney from her leadership position for said thought crimes and included a real howler of a closing paragraph.

"We are a big tent party," McCarthy insisted, as they purge anyone who refuses to sign off the Big Lie."And unlike the left, we embrace free thought and debate."

Of course, not if you think thoughts about admitting realityor debate those who insist on fealty to a lie.

Want more Amanda Marcotte on politics? Subscribe to her newsletter Standing Room Only.

McCarthy got ripped on Twitter, as he rightly deserved.But really, his Orwellian use of "free thought" is just more of the same from Republicans, who have continually used claims of support for "free speech" and opposition to "cancel culture" as cover for their efforts to stifle speech, protest, and debate.

Witness, for instance, the right-wing freakout du jour, over a speech last week from Rep. Cori Bush, D-Mo., in which she used the term "birthing people."Bush's speech was about the lack of decent maternal care in the U.S., and drew on her own personal experiences of watching a son nearly die and almost losing another pregnancy because doctors didn't take her health concerns seriously. But conservatives decided to harp on her word choice, accusing Bush of trying to replace the term "mother" with "birthing people."

But Bush did no such thing, as anyone who actually listened to her speech heard.She said, "I sit before you today as a single mom, as a nurse, as an activist, and as a Congresswoman, and I am committed to doing the absolute most to protect Black mothers. To protect Black babies. To protect Black birthing people. And to save lives."

Emphasis mine, because Bush's critics clearly don't read so good. Or really, they do, but they are lying liars who are arguing in bad faith, pretending to be victims of "cancel culture" while actually launching a massive pressure campaign designed to stifle any discussion or acknowledgment of the fact that "mother" and "person who gave birth" are not neatly overlapping categories, due to practices like adoption or the existence of transidentities.

No doubt, "birthing persons" is a clunky phrase that is unlikely to take off in the common parlance. But the issue here isn't awkward phrasing, it's about the right trying to cancel thoughts or discussions that make them uncomfortable and doing so, in their Orwellian way, while pretending to actually be for "free speech."

Want more Amanda Marcotte on politics? Subscribe to her newsletter Standing Room Only.

But this is par for the course with right wing hysterics over "cancel culture."Scratch the surfaceand they are typically aimed not at expanding the discourse, but contracting itso that the only allowable ideas are those that fit comfortably into conservative orthodoxy.

The meltdown over the estate of Dr. Seuss delisting a few obscure titles for racist imagery? That's really more about conservatives being unwilling to deal honestly with the history of racism than it is about "free speech."The whining about Mr. Potato Head rebranding to a more gender-neutral Potato Head? That's mostly about conservatives wanting to crush any childish experimentation with gender presentation, which is more about silencing rather than empowering free expression.

Even some Republicans are starting to be a little uncomfortable with the contradictionbetween Republicanclaims of being for "free thought" and their actual behavior, which is about cracking down on anyone who disagrees or even just acknowledges inconvenient truths. Sen. Joni Ernst, R-Iowa, got angry over Cheney's defenestration and told reporters, "I feel it's okay to go ahead and express what you feel is right to express and, you know, cancel culture is cancel culture," and complained about "those that are trying to silence others in the party."

But this is nothing new, as demonstrated by the widespread support for Donald Trump and his lengthy efforts to stifle anti-racism protesters, whether they're playing professional sports or just trying to avoid tear gas canisters in front of the White House. Anger over "cancel culture" was never a robust defense of free speech. As with the Republican war on democracy itself, it's an assertion that the shrinking white conservative minority should have political and social hegemony, untouched by either progressive criticism or pushbackat the ballotbox.

The Cheney purge illustrates this reality perfectly.She's being blacklisted both for saying things that make Republicans uncomfortable and for asserting that the person who won the election should be president. Republicans were never for "free speech," and recent events just make that almost comically apparent.

Read the original here:
Canceling the anti-insurrectionists in the GOP proves Republicans never cared about "free speech" - Salon

A conversion therapy ban will soon be brought forward to parliament, it was confirmed in Tuesdays (11 May) Queens Speech.

During her speech at the State Opening of Parliament, Queen Elizabeth II promised: Measures will be brought forward to address racial and ethnic disparities and ban conversion therapy.

The Queen added that her government will strengthen and renew democracy and the constitution protect freedom of speech and restore the balance of power between the executive, legislature and the courts.

Following the Queens speech, Liz Truss, minister for women and equalities, confirmed in a statement that legislation would be brought forward following a public consultation.

She said: As a global leader on LGBT+ rights, this government has always been committed to stamping out the practice of conversion therapy.

We want to make sure that people in this country are protected, and these proposals mean nobody will be subjected to coercive and abhorrent conversion therapy.

Alongside this legislation, we will make new funding available to ensure that victims have better access to the support they need.

The Government Equalities Office said that the funding for victims would be in place by this summer, but again gave no timeline for legislation banning conversion therapy, insisting it would be introduced as soon as parliamentary time allows, and following a consultation.

The consultation is set to seek to opinions of the public and key stakeholder to ensure that the ban can address the practice while protecting the medical profession; defending freedom of speech; and upholding religious freedom.

It comes almost three years after the Conservative partys 2018 pledge to eradicate conversion therapy in the UK as part of their LGBT+ Action Plan.

The Queens speech gave no details as to when a ban would be brought forward or any information on what it would cover, and campaigners fear that exemptions for religious institutions and free speech protections could allow the practice to continue legally.

Story continues

Gay evangelical Christian Jayne Ozanne, director of the Ozanne Foundation, responded to the Queens speech: I am relieved to hear that measures will be brought forward to ban conversion therapy.

However, the government risks creating a highly dangerous loophole if it chooses to focus purely on coercive practices.

Most LGBT+ people in religious settings feel it is their duty to submit to those in authority and will therefore willingly follow their leaders advice, even if it causes them great harm.

The government needs to implement what the UN and senior religious leaders have called for a full ban on all conversion practices.

We do not need yet more delay, they have consulted long enough. We now need action before more lives are lost!

In March this year, Ozanne was one of three members of the governments own LGBT+ Advisory Panel quit their positions, accusing the Conservative party of creating a hostile environment for LGBT+ people.

See more here:
Government to ban conversion therapy after consultation on free speech and religious freedom - Yahoo Eurosport UK

As politics grows even more polarized and our political dialogue continues to weaken, opportunities for bipartisan cooperation have become few and far between. However, recent actions by the U.S. House of Representatives and the Supreme Court have presented an issue that cries out for bipartisan unitythe protection of free speech.

In March, the House passed H.R.1, a bill that, in part, regulates who can or cannot exercise their free speech rights leading up to an election. (In the Senate, this bill is known as S.1.) For instance, organizations participating in mundane issue-based advocacy could be subject to disclosure requirements if they even make a reference to a candidate or elected official in their advertisements.

The overly broad disclosure requirements contained in this bill would only serve to have a chilling effect on the ability of individuals and organizations to participate in the free exchange of ideas.

DAVID RYDEN: AMEND EQUALITY ACT BIDEN CAN PROTECT BOTH FAITH AND LGBTQ COMMUNITIES. HERE'S HOW

If you doubt this is the Democrats intended purpose, look no further than California, where they are also pursuing the disclosure of the names and addresses of individuals who donated to groups that engaged in issue advocacy. This practice has been subject to litigation and will be argued in front of the Supreme Court.

The ability for Americans to participate in democracy and maintain their privacy is a bedrock of the right to free speech. In fact, many groups across the ideological spectrum are speaking out against the government requiring public disclosure of donors to nonprofit groups.

As two senior legislative counsels for the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) wrote in The Washington Post, "We know from history that people engaged in politically charged issues become political targets and are often subject to threats of harassment or even violence."

The ACLU is hardly a right-wing group. Neither are the Council on American Islamic Relations, the NAACP, the Human Rights Campaign, PEN America, or the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, all of which have advocated for the Supreme Court to not allow the government, whether federal or state, to force the disclosure of individuals who donate to nonprofit charitable organizations.

S.1 would actively discourageAmericans from exercising their right to free speech on issues important to them.

Unfortunately, Democrats have focused on organizations they dont see eye to eye with politically to vilify political speech. The government, now controlled by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., is seeking to gain additional power to silence the views of those who challenge their policies and they are doing it under the guise of transparency.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE OPINION NEWSLETTER

The implications of this could not be more sinister, especially when considering the increasing trend of Big Tech becoming a tool for politicians to silence speech.People would certainly hesitate to donate money and engage in protected political speech in support of their views if the right to remain anonymous is taken away.

While S.1 is being pitched as a way to get more Americans involved in the political process, it would actively discourage those same Americans from exercising their right to free speech on issues important to them.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

As this debate moves over to the Senate, Congress will certainly address other aspects of S.1 related to voter participation. But free speech is far too important a principle in our country to be overlooked.

Democrats must stop turning the issue of political speech into a cynical game and respect the ideologically diverse chorus of voices begging them to realize what a bad idea this really is.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE BY SEN. JERRY MORAN

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE BY ADAM BRANDON

Adam Brandon is the president of FreedomWorks.

Go here to see the original:
Sen. Moran & Brandon: Dems' S1 election bill poses grave threat to free speech - Fox News

House File 744 outlines policy and training public higher education institutions must adopt regarding First Amendment rights.

The Iowa Senate passed an amended version of House File 744, known as the education free speech bill, in a unanimous vote on Wednesday.

The bill says that the state Board of Regents and directors of community colleges in Iowa must adopt a policy that includes specific statements regarding freedom of expression and the role of higher education in relation to free speech. The regents also must develop programs to inform people responsible for instruction and discipline about these policies. The bill says faculty members knowingly or intentionally in violation of the policy will face disciplinary measures.

HF 744 requires public higher education institutions to provide annual training on the First Amendment to faculty, staff, and students.

The bill was first introduced by the House Judiciary committee on March 4 and was amended and passed out of the House 97-1 on March 16. It was first passed out of the Senate 46-0 on April 6, and then the House adopted two amendments and passed a final version, 92-1, on April 27.

The most recent amendments from the House changed the language in the bill so student government organizations can be punished if they have been found to have intentionally violated First Amendment rights after exhausting only all administrative appeals, rather than both administrative and judicial appeals. It also struck the language that codifies the nonpartisan free speech Commission created at the Board of Regents, and adds the words knowingly and intentionally to describe the actions of a person who could have their license revoked for being in violation of sections of the bill.

The Senate again passed the amended bill unanimously, 48-0, on May 5, this time with no additional amendments. The bill will now head to Gov. Kim Reynolds desk for a signature.

Original post:
Education free speech bill passes Iowa Senate unanimously, heads to Gov. Kim Reynolds - UI The Daily Iowan

opinion

Soour state senator, Dale Zorn, feels it's necessary to write prospective legislation to address some voter concerns about voter fraud and election integrity. If such legislation is needed, allow me to contribute my ideas on the subject.

Mr. Zorn should remember and acknowledge that this high degree of mistrust ONLY exists on account of "The Big Lie." The accusations of voter fraud were unfounded.The Trump campaign lost 63 election lawsuits with nearly all of the cases being dismissed due to a lack of evidence. Still, Trump continued spreading his lies about voter fraud and irregularities.Trump knew his lies were exactly that:Lies! Therefore, let me list my ideas for some new laws to help ensure election integrity.

First off, Georgia made it illegal to bring food or water to voters waiting in line as they fear it may influence voting selections. I agree that it should be illegal, but not for the reasons Georgia Republicans give.Nobody should have to stand in line four to six hours to cast a vote. Any district that is so heavily populated must have sufficient polling locations to relieve the burden of fulfilling their democratic responsibility.

Secondly, free speech should not allow a candidate to repeatedly lie and misinform the general public to the point of insurrection. Fox News eagerly repeated the Trumpian lies. But since no self-respecting lawyer sought to be disbarred for bringing a meritless lawsuit into the courtroom, their story changed when they actually appeared in front of a judge. One judge repeatedly asked Rudy Giuliani if his lawsuit was about election fraud and he was forced to answer "no." So the practice of bringing multiple meritless lawsuits by a disgruntled candidate should be made illegal with severe consequences for the perpetrators of the frivolous lawsuits.

Lastly, elected legislators who cry election fraud but bring no proof of such actions, instead bring only incendiary partisan rhetoric, which stokes mistrust in our elections, should be censured by their peers or removed from office, stripped of retirement or job benefits and be prohibited from holding public office again.

The mistrust concerning this election only exists because of all of the Trump enablers, those legislators who repeated the lies of the ex-president because they lacked the personal courage to stand up for what is right. You have no right to restrict our voting privileges simply based upon the lies that you helped to tell!

Charles K. Cline

Monroe

Link:
Free speech shouldn't include lying to the public - Monroe Evening News

A new episode of Fox Nation's "No Interruption" offers an extended look into Tomi Lahren's appearance at TPUSAs "Back the Blue" event at Clemson University. "Back the Blue," Lahren provides a deep dive into the controversy surrounding the event, her full speech, as well as a Q and A session with Graham Allen and Brandon Turner.

As seen in the special, Lahren delivered a scathing rebuke to the "snowflakes" attempting to shut down the event, reaffirming that she would not be deterred from speaking at the South Carolina-based University.

"They condemned it and me. They tried to cancel it. When that didnt work they attempted to sabotage the event with fake ticket signups. When that didnt work they tried to run up the security cost," Lahren said. "Well guess what, snowflakes? I will be speaking at Clemson tonight come hell, high water or anti-free speech college liberals."

One female member of Turning Point attending the event praised Clemson for being steadfast in their staunch support of free speech while simultaneously attempting to remain "bipartisan" amidst the backlash.

TOMI LAHREN TO SPEAK AT CLEMSON DESPITE STUDENTS' ATTEMPTS TO 'SABOTAGE' EVENT: 'IT DIDN'T WORK, SNOWFLAKES'

"Its so rare that you find a college campus where the administration so boldly supports free speech, and that is what the administration has done through the whole thing," she said.

However, not everyone was as thrilled about the Universitys decisions.

Video from the event showed large groups of protesters, holding signs that read, "protect your students," "enough forgiveness and tolerance," and "blue lives murder."

At one point the protesters could be heard chanting, "get your knees off our necks."

One Black female protester told Fox Nation that she was "appalled" and "shocked" by the administrations decision to allow the event.

"Its an event that goes against the email sent by James Clements when he said that he supported our students of color, that he respected them, and that in no way shape or form would he allow racism here on campus," claimed another female protester.

She also said that the event itself was "racism," but asserted that the events message was the cause of their protest, not Lahren.

Two other Turning Point members at the event recalled an incident where protesters yelled at Black attendees, calling them "traitors."

"For a group of people that dont like generalizing other people, they do a whole lot of generalizing about us," one of the students said in rebuttal.

CLICK HERE TO GET FOX NATION

Despite the onslaught of backlash, the event did occur as Lahren promised.

Upon her entrance to the stage, Lahren thanked the audience, riffed on her disdain for socially distanced events, and addressed her critics:

"I know there were a lot of people that really, really did not want us here, so I appreciate you guys being hereeven the ones that hate me that are in the audience," Lahren said.

She added that perhaps some of her speech would resonate with her opposition, but quipped that she wouldn't be offended if it didnt.

"They tried to cancel this, and they tried to cancel me, and they tried to cancel you, and they dont like free speech," she continued.

Lahren went on to discuss how the U.S' youngest generation "asks for fewer rights," the rioting that occurred in the summer of 2020, and, of course, "backing the blue."

Join Fox Nation today to watch the full episode, as well as more episodes, of "No Interruption with Tomi Lahren."

Fox Nationprograms are viewable on-demand and from your mobile device app, but only for Fox Nation subscribers.Go to Fox Nationto start a free trial and watch the extensive library from your favorite Fox News personalities.

View post:
Tomi Lahren on the appearance that drew backlash, protests from 'anti-free speech liberals' in 'Back the Blue' - Fox News

David A. Love| Guest Columnist

The murder of George Floyd gave rise to the largest social justice movement in U.S. history, with 15 million to 26 million Americans participating in protests. It also produced a vicious Republican backlash against civil rights and civil liberties.

Mirroring voter suppression efforts throughout the country, GOP lawmakers in 34 states have introduced 81 bills to criminalize peaceful protest, and in some cases protect motorists who mow down demonstrators.

Ironically dubbed anti-riot laws, these bills are anti-protest, anti-free speech, anti-democratic and, unfortunately, very American.

GOP lawmakers today seem to be channeling their segregationist predecessors. Jim Crow politicians promulgated segregation laws that strictly limited the movement and freedom of Black people, and vagrancy and loitering laws that criminalized Black Americans for being outside and assembling in groups.

Movements create social change, and this new legislation is a direct response to the Black Lives Matter movement and the increased national calls to end police violence and systemic racism. While the Jan. 6 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol demonstrated the preeminent danger of white supremacist and right-wing domestic terror groups such as the Oath Keepers and the Proud Boys, Republicans view social justice a symbol of a changing, diverse and inclusive nation as a threat.

With 361 voter disenfranchisement bills in 47 states, gerrymandering and anti-protest measures, the GOP hopes to silence its multiracial political opposition in the way that Southern segregationists quelled Black power.

In Florida, Gov. Ron DeSantis signed into law what he called the strongest anti-looting, anti-rioting, pro-law-enforcement piece of legislation in the country. Signed during the trial of Derek Chauvin the former Minneapolis police officer convicted of killing George Floyd the law classifies a riot as a public gathering of three or more people, and denies bail for defendants accused of committing offenses during a protest until they have appeared in court.

The law also enhances penalties for damaging Confederate monuments and flags, and like similar legislation in Iowa and Oklahoma, protects drivers who hit or injure protesters.

These cruel and obscene laws would have protected James Alex Fields Jr., the neo-Nazi who was sent to prison for plowing his car into a crowd of counterprotesters at a Unite the Right rally in 2017, killing Heather Heyer.

Republican legislation proposed in Minnesota would prohibit people convicted of engaging in protest from working in government or receiving student loans, food stamps, housing assistance, unemployment and other government services and benefits.

Moreover, Arkansas, Montana, Kansas and Ohio have promoted increased criminal penalties for climate protesters who trespass on critical infrastructure including oil, gas, coal and plastics facilities.

The American Legislative Exchange Council, or ALEC, a conservative group representing lobbyists, lawmakers and corporations including the fossil fuel industry, has drafted the anti-pipeline protest bills for state legislatures. Like voter ID, "stand your ground" and other ALEC initiatives, this anti-protest legislation disproportionately targets communities of color.

State Republicans who cant stop screaming about cancel culture are doing everything in their power to cancel the First Amendment right to assemble, tweeted Robert Reich, the former Clinton administration secretary of labor who now teaches at the University of California, Berkeley.

With only 25% of people identifying as Republicans a dwindling base in a changing, multicultural America the GOP faces a choice. It can either listen to the Black Lives Matter protesters and adopt new policies to reflect a new reality, or seek to silence their voices.

The Republican Party is choosing the latter.

David A. Love is a writer, commentator and journalism and media studies professor based in Philadelphia. This column was produced for The Progressive magazine and distributed by Tribune News Service.

Go here to read the rest:
GOP seeks to shut down protests and cancel the right to assemble - Milford Daily News

I have heard from many of you locally, as well as from Canadians across the country, who are deeply concerned about the Liberal governments efforts to regulate freedom of speech online.

I am too.

As one of the founders of the International Grand Committee,a group of Parliamentarians from around the world who meet to discuss the issues surrounding the role social media platforms play in our democracies, I have always stressed the importance of ensuring that our fundamental right to freedom of speech is protected.

At a recent meeting of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, the Liberals shockingly voted to remove a section of one of their own Bills that protects individual users, and instead supported sweeping government powers to regulate Canadians on the internet, including their activity on apps and social media platforms like YouTube and Facebook.

This is an unprecedented attack on Canadians freedom of speech.

As Dr. Michael Geist, a law professor at the University of Ottawa and Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-commerce Law, explains: The government believes that it should regulate all user generated content, leaving it to the regulator to determine on what terms and conditions will be attached to the videos of millions of Canadians on sites like YouTube, Instagram, TikTok, and hundreds of other services.

Not long ago the Heritage Minister testified at committee that as a legislator, Im not particularly interested when my step-uncle posts pictures of his cats on YouTube or Facebook. This is why weve excluded user-generated content from the regulation.

If that were truly the case, then why have the Liberals now removed that exemption from Bill C-10?

Peter Menzies, a former commissioner for the CRTC, has called this move a full-blown assault on freedom of expression and the foundations of democracy.

Even before the changes were made at committee, experts were sounding the alarm about Bill C-10. This includes former CRTC commissioner Timothy Denton who wrote in March that the bill is clearly intended to allow speech control at the governments discretion.

As a staunch defender of freedom of speech in Canada, I am deeply troubled by the direction this government is taking when it comes to your right to free expression, especially given that the Heritage Minister has also signaled that the Liberals will be introducing further legislation to regulate online content.

Rest assured, Conservatives will strongly oppose C-10 at every stage of the legislative process, andI will continue to stand up for the freedoms of Canadians who post their content online.

As Dr. Geist wrote, by removing the user generated content exclusion, Bill C-10 represents an unconscionable attack on the free expression rights of Canadians. It must be defeated.

We agree.

BobZimmer isMember of Parliament for Prince George-Peace River-Northern Rockies.

More here:
Bob Zimmer: Liberals Bill C-10 is an unprecedented attack on free speech - Alaska Highway News

Whats going on in Austin?

What on earth is the matter with our legislators in Austin? They seem to be getting less rational every day. They supposedly stand for less government control in our lives and yet are constantly trying to inhibit womens health choices and now want to control what social studies teachers teach.

They dont want to recognize that good health practices and the availability of them keep all of us healthier. And now, they want anyone to be able to obtain a weapon of violence without bothering to learn how to use it, use it safely or register it with a license.

I used to count the Republicans as good people with just different points of view from me about ways to govern our society, but over the last few years, they just look like they are becoming uncaring, disrespectful people who are getting elected to seek revenge on voters or groups who dont agree with them. My boss used to have a sign on the wall in his office that read, No mans life, liberty or property are safe when the Legislature is in session. Amen.

Sammie Wester, Dallas

Sen. Ted Cruz announces he is done with woke corporations. He wont even take their money. The Texas Legislature wants woke discussions out of schools. U.S. Rep. Kevin McCarthy, R.-Calif., says woke has got to stop. School board races all over Dallas and Fort Worth decry wokeness.

What are all these people afraid of? What if we all got woke? What would we understand that threatens some people? Would we understand the dog whistles about immigration? Would we wonder why health care for everyone isnt on the front burner of public policy? Would we see how energy tycoons build on the cheap prices in deregulated markets and send the bill for faulty construction to the public? Would we see how crafty politicians trick us with race and hate? Might we come face to face with some uncomfortable truths? What might change?

We can know for sure that with Cruz, McCarthy and the Texas Legislature all up in arms, they are scared of something.

Scott Elphingstone, Dallas

Being woke seems to be the bugaboo du jour of the right, when it is indeed about the abhorrence of certain actions and the awareness of consequences. Many of us are woke, while others seem to be asleep at the wheel.

Kate French, Waxahachie

Re: Threats: crime or free speech? North Texan latest in court over posts encouraging violence against politicians, Monday news story.

Was it a crime or free speech when rap musicians produced songs celebrating the killing of cops? When U.S. Rep. Maxine Waters, D.-Calif., called for harassment of former President Donald Trumps Cabinet officials? When Senate leader Charles Schumer, D.-N.Y., threatened two Supreme Court justices? When comedian Kathy Griffin posed with a mock Trump decapitation?

It seems when Democrats threaten public officials it is free speech, but it is a crime for any ordinary citizen to threaten a Democrat.

Ken Ashby, Dallas

Re: Bill, Melinda Gates announce divorce Couples joint statement goes out to 57 million followers on Twitter, Tuesday Metro & Business story.

What sad news about the Gates marriage. They and their foundation have made such a monumental difference in the world saving lives and lifting people out of poverty.

As an advocate for ending global poverty, our local RESULTS group dissects their annual letter about the state of global health and gender equality issues. We always learn from it. The Dallas Morning News selection of Melinda Gates as the 2020 Texan of the Year was a well deserved recognition. Thank you!

The pandemic has set global health progress back decades. It has also made Americans realize the importance of investing, if not for moral reasons then for our national security. A pandemic knows no borders.

We can all ask Texas Sens. John Cornyn and Ted Cruz to sign letters of support for robust funding for global maternal and child health, nutrition and education currently circulating in the Senate. Be inspired by the work of Bill and Melinda and make your voice heard.

Margaret Smith, Dallas/Turtle Creek

Re: Texas is keeping secrets about the winter electricity meltdown, by Dave Lieber, April 30 Metro & Business column.

Lieber does it once again! Please, please, Dave, run for governor!

Go back and read this column. Other states were affected by our winter fiasco: Minnesota, Arkansas and Oklahoma, and also part of Mexico. Believe it or not, no one has called for a true investigation.

Until Liebers revelations, we didnt know who all was in the room when the decision was made to keep the cap on, which crashed the system. Still no one knows what really happened only that a huge cover-up took place. Gov. Greg Abbott, his energy adviser Ryland Ramos and PUC chairwoman DeAnn Walker must be held accountable for what happened. And guess whos going to pay for their greed? We, the taxpayers, with add-on fees. Sit back and watch.

Judy Webster, Plano

I am 66 years old and marched for equal rights for myself as a woman in 1982. I am floored that my gender as well as people of color still do not receive equal wages. Forty years have gone by while we are still treated as lesser. Enough! It is well past time, and the Paycheck Fairness Act must be passed now.

I am disgusted at how many Republicans voted against it in the House. Its beyond time for change and if the Republican Party is going to survive, it will have to come into the 21st century. Sens. John Cornyn and Ted Cruz need to vote to pass the Paycheck Fairness Act of 2021.

Patty Walnick, Far North Dallas

Click here to submit a letter to the editor. Be sure to include sources.

See the original post:
Letters to the Editor -Texas legislators, Sen. Ted Cruz, wokeness, free speech, Bill and Melinda Gates, - The Dallas Morning News

The case of Daniel Pollack-Pelzner, a noted Shakespearean scholar and, until recently, the Ronni Lacroute Chair in Shakespeare Studies at Linfield University, has quickly drawn attention to how a university administration and its Board of Trustees can feel entitled to bypass due process and substitute for it corporate protocols that even as such seem ethically problematic. Pollack-Pelzner, who has been a sharp critic of Linfields responses to sexual harassment and who has raised serious charges of anti-Semitism, has been fired for being insubordinate.

As reported in The Oregonian, Pollack-Pelzner is known as being a public advocate for students and faculty who had complained about alleged sexual abuse by board trustees. He has also publicly reported instances of anti-Semitic statements by Linfield president Miles Davis.

In an article about Pollack-Pelzners firing, Inside Higher Ed quotes from an email that Provost Susan Agre-Kippenhan sent to the campus community, explaining that Linfield had taken the extraordinary step of terminating the employment of a member of our faculty for serious breaches of the individuals duty to the institution. This raises the question not only of what Linfield believes an individuals duty to the institution might be but also what duty Linfield, as an institution, has to its faculty, staff and students. These questions cut to the heart of the educational mission.

In this case, the relationship between these obligations is entirely skewed. Linfield has denied Pollack-Pelzner a hearing, it has denied him due process and it has denied him the right to appeal. All on the basis of its own administrative judgment. This case has all the earmarks of a whistle-blower being silenced for being too insistent in their complaints. It is useful to note the American Civil Liberties Union statement on whistle-blowers:

The ACLU has long sought to defend the free speech and privacy rights of public employees. We represent National Security Agency surveillance whistleblower Edward Snowden. We strongly support the Free Flow of Information Act (a bill to protect confidential sources) and oppose proposals to limit media contact with elements of the intelligence community. We also work to protect private employees free speech rights, especially in the case of laws limiting labor organizing.

While the First Amendment applies only to state action, the values that animate our right to free speech and free association apply to all of us, regardless of where we work. The marketplace of ideas works only if we are all free to speak vigorously and without fear about the issues of the day. This often happens in the workplace, so employee speech and privacy must be protected.

The universitys charge that Pollack-Pelzner was insubordinate is particularly vague and unconvincing, and the fact that he has supposedly interfered with the universitys administration of its responsibilities is a blatant act of shooting the messenger. For the past two years, Linfield has received only bad press regarding its many poor decisions and its multiple failures to serve its community. These include decisions to fire dozens of faculty without following standard American Association of University Professors procedures, failure to adequately address issues of sexual harassment and edicts to shut down faculty Listservs.

The situation at Linfield became so egregious that earlier this month Linfield faculty voted 59 to 11 to pass a resolution of no confidence in President Davis and David Baca, the universitys board chair. The resolution states in part, The words and actions of President Miles Davis and Chair David Baca have created an intimidating and hostile work environment, harmed members of the Linfield community, and damaged Linfields reputation Attempts to work collaboratively, constructively, and proactively [with Davis and Baca] to address issues of concern have been met with censorship, punishment, secrecy and defamation.

It is clear that Pollack-Pelzners complaints are reacting to, rather that causing, deep and perennial troubles at Linfield. Instead of addressing its own defects and shortcomings, Linfield has terminated Pollack-Pelzner both as a punishment for his publicly holding the university responsible and as a warning to every other member of the faculty.

In its April 28 letter to Linfields president, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, or FIRE, asserts,

Linfields process-free termination of Pollack-Pelzner cannot be reconciled with the robust procedural protections it promises its faculty. It is also difficult to square Linfields actions with the universitys strong policies committing it to protect its faculty members freedom of expression, which shields Pollack-Pelzners speech unless it falls into one of the narrow exceptions to that rule. Linfields express refusal to turn over the matter to independent review by Linfield faculty heightens our concern that the university cannot demonstrate that Pollack-Pelzners comments are unprotected defamation.

FIRE underscores the lack of due process: Linfield has not substantiated any of [its] assertions before a hearing committee.

The case is of special and significant import. If Linfield is able to fire faculty with impunity, it will set a precedent that will eviscerate the foundational principles of both free speech and of faculty governance on college and university campuses.

Im circulating this information in an open letter to collect signatures from all faculty members interested in defending Daniel Pollack-Pelzner and holding Linfield University accountable for the damage it is inflicting to the very idea of faculty governance and due process. This has become an international issue: at the time of this writing, more than 1,600 faculty, of all ranks and from diverse institutions -- and from not only the United States but also Australia, France, Germany, Kuwait, Macao, the Netherlands, Norway, Switzerland and the United Kingdom -- have signed this letter of support. I urge you to sign it, too.

More here:
The termination of a scholar threatens free speech and faculty governance (opinion) - Inside Higher Ed