Category Archives: Freedom of Speech

Speech suppression is a habit that the Biden administration and its liberal supporters can't seem to break. Many staffers may have picked up the habit in their student years: Colleges and universities have been routinely censoring "politically incorrect" speech for the last 30 years. As Thomas Sowell noted, "There are no institutions in America where free speech is more severely restricted than in our politically correct colleges and universities, dominated by liberals."

Now, the Biden administration seems to be giving the colleges and universities some serious competition. Like many Democrats during the Trump presidency, they have come to see suppression of "fake news" as the ordinary course of business and indeed a prime responsibility of social media platforms.

For decades, print and broadcast media have been dominated by liberals, but Facebook, Google and Twitter have developed a stranglehold over the delivery of news which exceeds anything that the three major broadcast networks and a few national newspapers ever enjoyed. If they suppress a story or a line of argument, it largely disappears from public view. And to the extent that it lingers, it can be stigmatized by these multibillion-dollar companies as "misinformation" or "fake news."

Speech suppression was exactly what White House press secretary Jen Psaki had in mind last week when she called on Facebook to suppress 12 accounts that she said were spreading "misinformation" about COVID-19 vaccines. These accounts, she said July 15, were "producing 65% of vaccine misinformation on social media platforms."

"Facebook needs to move more quickly to remove harmful, violative posts. Posts that would be within their policy for removal often remain up for days, and that's too long. The information spreads too quickly."

And she wasn't aiming her demand at just Facebook. "You shouldn't be banned from one platform and not others," she added a day later.

Like most speech suppressors, Psaki protested her good intentions. As did her boss, President Joe Biden, who, when asked about Facebook on Friday, said simply, "They're killing people." The implication is that any advice contrary to the current recommendations of public health officials -- contrary to "the science" -- is bound to increase the death toll. This is more in line with Cardinal Bellarmine's view of science than Galileo's. As Galileo knew, science is not acceptance of holy writ but learning from observation and experiment. Today, in dealing with a novel and deadly virus, current science is a body of hypotheses only partly tested and subject to revision based on emerging evidence.

There's a long list of things once believed to be "misinformation" about COVID that are now widely accepted. One prime example: the possibility that the coronavirus was accidentally released from the Wuhan lab. For more than a year, this was widely treated as a wacky right-wing conspiracy theory. Facebook slapped "warnings" on it and boasted that it reduced readership -- i.e., suppressed speech.

Then, in May, former New York Times science writer Nicholas Wade, in an article that Facebook let slip through, argued a lab leak was likelier than animal-to-human transmission, and a group of 18 bioscientists called for a deeper investigation. The Biden administration, to its credit, soon reversed itself and opened its own investigation and, reportedly, multiple officials now believe the lab leak theory is likely correct. Some "misinformation!"

That example provides powerful support for Galileo's view that debate over scientific matters takes place best out in the open. But of course the urge to suppress speech is not limited to science. As conservative commentator Stephen L. Miller wrote, "Removing information on vaccines will translate right over to anything they think is misinformation on gun violence, or climate, or health care or what defines a man or woman. Which is why they are doing this."

It's easy to imagine this administration pressuring Facebook and other social media to suppress information on other issues. For example, as the New York Post's Michael Goodwin noted, his paper's negative stories about Hunter Biden's shady business dealings, which were largely blocked from public view in the weeks before the 2020 election.

Speech suppression is evidently habit-forming. Which is why a constitutional amendment was passed back in the 1790s guaranteeing "freedom of speech, and of the press." Or is that obsolete in these modern times?

2021, Creators

Originally posted here:
Speech suppression is habit-forming - Chicago Daily Herald

ANALYSIS/OPINION:

On Thursday of last week, White House press secretary Jen Psaki revealed that the Biden Administration is actively monitoring Facebook to flag problematic posts related to the coronavirus for censorship.

In terms of actions [] that we have taken or were working to take, I should say, from the federal government. Weve increased disinformation research and tracking within the Surgeon Generals Office. Were flagging problematic posts for Facebook that spread disinformation, said Ms. Psaki.

The following day, the press secretary elaborated on the White Houses position, saying that users who post misinformation should be banned on every social media platform. When asked by a reporter, President Biden even went as far as to accuse Facebook and other social media platforms of killing people.

This coordinated attempt by the White House to dictate and coerce private companies into what can and cannot be published on their platforms is a blatant violation of freedom of speech. No matter where one stands on the subject of COVID-19 vaccinations or the pandemic, this merging of government and corporate power is undemocratic.

What makes this even more insidious is that de-platforming individuals on social media have proven to be highly effective in halting the spread of ideas in the public sphere. In a research paper published by the International Centre for Counter-Terrorism - The Hague, J.M Berger found that all available data points toward the effectiveness of suspensions and suppression for limiting the recruitment and propaganda reach of violent extremist organizations like ISIS.

Similar effects can be observed when de-platforming is targeted against far-right groups. A study found that Reddits decision in 2015 to ban various hate groups led to less hate speech on the site. It was found that users who participated in the banned subreddits left the site, while those who remained dramatically reduced their hate speech usage.

Deplatforming is certainly an effective tool when it comes to countering terrorist and like-minded extremist groups online. But the fact that this tactic is being used against individuals and organizations that do not fit these categories is a terrifying abuse of power.

Such a tactic has proven to be just as effective in manipulating mainstream electoral campaigns. One of the most egregious examples of this was when Facebook and Twitter censored the New York Post over the papers exposs about Hunter Bidens emails and corruption. In other words, social media platforms baselessly characterized the Posts investigative journalism as misinformation and blocked it.

This type of censorship significantly affected the 2020 presidential election. A news report from the Media Research Center shows that 17 percent of Biden voters would not have voted for the Biden-Harris presidential ticket if they knew at least one of the eight news stories that were suppressed by big tech and mainstream media outlets.

The danger lies in the fact that Psaki has yet to explain what the White House identifies as misinformation regarding COVID-19 vaccinations. This is especially pertinent, considering how Mr. Biden and Ms. Harris have made repeated statements undermining vaccine confidence during the campaign. The fact is that neither the White House nor Facebook has shown any desire to protect freedom of speech as an inalienable right.

Free speech is not an absolute human right, said Helle Thorning Schmidt, member of Facebooks Oversight Board and former Prime Minister of Denmark, at a Politico Europe event. It has to be balanced with other human rights.

Throughout the world, authoritarian regimes have repeatedly restricted access to the internet to control their citizens lives. The most recent example is Cuba, where the government shutdown of the web has made it harder for Cubans to organize against communist rule. With social media effectively becoming the new public square, state-sanctioned de-platforming by the Biden Administration must be viewed as a dangerously effective means of government coercion.

Bradley Martin is the Executive Director for the Near East Center for Strategic Studies. Follow him on Facebook and Twitter @ByBradleyMartin

View original post here:
Social media censorship is a potent threat to freedom of speech - Washington Times

The ancient Romans had a symbol of power called a "fasces." It was a bundle of rods tied together with an axe facing outward. The modern definition of "fascism" is "a government system with strong centralized power, permitting no opposition or criticism" and a "fascist is a person who is dictatorial."

In a recent letter, a person used their free speech to write about 14 people who travelled to Washington on January 6 and implied that something should be done about them (freedom of travel). The Family Faith and Fun event attendees should not get a pass (freedom of association, freedom of religion). A man is criticized for circulating a petition and being elected to office (freedom of speech and freedom to vote for his opponent). A radio host is criticized (freedom to change the dial). A band that is playing a genre of music the person does not like should not get gigs at the county fair (right to work and freedom of speech and freedom to go to the animal barns or the carnival rides).

So, someone wants to place limits or "do something about" people and ideas they do not agree with. Our country is strongest when we listen to each other and work together and cooperate with each other. So, who is the "fascist" here? I spent a year in Vietnam and three years in the Air Force as a Race Relations Officer and have never been as disturbed as I was by that letter, yet I am glad to have spent the time in the service to allow the person to write it.

The World's Latest E-Edition

View our 7-23-21 E-edition right here!

The World's Latest E-Edition

Success! An email has been sent to with a link to confirm list signup.

Error! There was an error processing your request.

' + this.content + '

Read the original here:
Letter: Who is the fascist here? | Letters | theworldlink.com - Coos Bay World

What do Donald Trump winning the presidency in 2016, the Capitol Protests on January 6, and Joe Biden missing his July 4th Covid-19 vaccination target all have in common?

According to many of todays left-wing politicians and media pundits, Facebook, and social media in general, are partially to blame for all three. Google Democrats blame Facebook, and youll see what I mean.

On the other end of the spectrum, Republicans blame social media for censoring their ideas due to a perceived anti-conservative bias. Unfortunately, banning former President Trump from all social media didnt help alleviate those concerns.

Many Americans no doubt long for simpler days where people logged onto Facebook to find old friends and play FarmVille and Mafia Wars, but I digress.

Both left and right agree on one thing, however. Social media is a significant battleground in shaping Americas political landscape. Seventy-two percent of US citizens of voting age actively use some form of social media, while 69 percent of Americans in the same group use Facebook alone, according to data from Socialbakers. Overall, 82 percent of the population in the United States had a social networking profile, which translates into 223 million US social media users as of 2020.

There is no question that social media companies and their platforms wield incredible power and influence, especially in journalism and the media. Back at the beginning of the pandemic, The New York Post ran an op-ed suggesting that the coronavirus might have leaked from a lab. Facebook stepped in and claimed that this opinion was false information.

Over a year later, Facebook decided that the lab leak hypothesis isnt conspiratorial and will allow stories and opinions on that subject to be shared.

The New York Post also published a story about Hunter Bidens emails before the last election. In response, Twitter and Facebook both limited the storys reach and ultimately locked the NY Post Twitter account for about two weeks before reversing its decision. The New York Post is not some no-name conspiratorial blog. The paper was started in 1801 by Alexander Hamilton and has more than 2.2 million Twitter followers and more than 4.4 million Facebook followers.

Later in front of the Senate Judiciary Committees hearing regarding censorship and suppression on social media during the 2020 election, Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey admitted that the censoring of the Hunter Biden story was a mistake.

In both instances, social media companies took it upon themselves to be the arbiters of truth, and in both cases, their decisions proved to be wrong.

Social media is also incredibly effective in amplifying individual voices and helping to coordinate collective action. This is why totalitarian governments such as China severely restrict social media and the internet. Its also why Cuba completely shut off the internet in response to anti-government protests.

But that could never happen here in the United States, right?

Unfortunately, its not beyond the realm of possibility that an American tech company could consider censorship as a good business model, whether for profit or self-preservation. One prime example of this comes from Google and the development of their heavily censored Chinese search engine dubbed Project Dragonfly. After The Intercept broke the story, Google eventually canceled it due to extensive pressure from employees and even Congress.

There are calls for Big Tech and Big Government to work even more closely.

The NSA wants Big Tech to build back doors into the encryption technology used by various tech firms. Others are openly praising Chinas censorship of the internet, stating that the Wests model of free speech is obsolete compared to Chinas.

When governments and private businesses begin to act in concert and move in lockstep, we risk bringing George Orwells 1984 into reality. Theres a name for this, a term weve heard screamed from the rooftops throughout Donald Trumps tenure in politics.

Fascism.

But dont take my word for it, lets hear from Benito Mussolini himself, who stated the following in his Labour Charter of 1927:

The intervention of the state in economic production takes place only when private initiative is lacking or is insufficient or when political interests of the state are involved. Such intervention may assume the form of control, assistance, or direct management. (emphasis added.)

Many people in government today, on both sides of the political aisle, feel that the states political interests are most definitely at stake when talking about social media. President Trump recently sued Big Tech, claiming that his removal from social media platforms amounted to state action.

Meanwhile the White House made the startling admission that they are flagging problematic posts for Facebook that spread disinformationBiden claims Facebook is outright killing people,and have identified about 12 people that are producing 65% of anti-vaccine information

Let me reiterate that point. The government has identified 12 individuals who they deem problematic and have reported them to a private company for speech they have classified as misinformation.

This comes on the heels of Facebook testing new Anti-Extremism warning prompts, informing users that they may have been exposed to extremist content while also asking users if they are worried about a friend who may be becoming an extremist. Its not a coincidence that these pop-up warnings come after Bidens attorney general testified that White supremacists are the most serious domestic terror threat facing the United States.

Beyond that, the Biden Administration is considering partnering with private firms to monitor extremist chatter online. The definition of extremism, and who gets to define it, is a question that should concern everyone.

While private companies should be free to enforce their terms of service, it would appear that they are being coerced and pressured to bend to the governments will. There is still a wall, however fragile, between Big Tech and US Intelligence agencies. Free speech as we know it depends on that wall holding.

So what are some answers? First, let me identify what I do not see as solutions.

On the social media front, the answer to this problem should not come from government legislation or regulation but rather from creating both a free market and free speech environment that fosters competition and lowers barriers to entry; however, that wont be enough.

As individuals, we have to decouple ourselves from the centralized nature of social media and begin to move back to a decentralized model, similar to what the internet looked like at its inception.

The internet of the past was primarily individual websites, or blogs, unshackled from the constraints of social media. We are so used to logging into Facebook as a one-stop-shop for our content or searching for an app in Apple or Googles App stores that we forget we still have a web browser on our phone.

Companies like Substack are also popping up for independent writers and journalists to publish their content and get paid for it (outside of the censoring eye of social networks). And then, there are protocols like LBRY, a blockchain-based file-sharing and payment network that powers decentralized platforms, primarily social networks and video platforms. LBRYs creators also run Odysee, a video-sharing website that uses the network.

While the content on Odysee is moderated to remove videos that promote violence and terrorism, it is a model for what a decentralized internet could look like.

The First Amendment states that Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech. As we have learned, private companies are under no such obligation. However, they can (and should) play an essential role in creating a culture that reinvigorates the spirit behind the First Amendment.

James Madisons original First Amendment draft, which overall was much more descriptive than the one that ended up in the Bill of Rights, gives a little more insight into what he was thinking on this subject. It reads in part:

The people shall not be deprived or abridged of their right to speak, to write, or to publish their sentiments

Doesnt that sound like a modern-day Facebook post?

The digital newsfeed has replaced the public square, and Big Tech, whether they like it or not, has a responsibility to help to facilitate the free exchange of ideas.

Its also worth noting that in both the original and final versions of the First Amendment, theres no qualifier excluding misinformation. The founders understood that unpopular opinion and information was the most important kind of speech in need of protection. So much so that many wrote under pseudonyms for their safety.

The digital newsfeed has replaced the public square, and Big Tech, whether they like it or not, has a responsibility to help to facilitate the free exchange of ideas.

In the final analysis, American social media companies base their entire business model around monetizing individual self-expression. They can and should serve as champions of free speech, especially when confronted with government pressure.

Adam Johnston is a libertarian-conservative writer and contributor to freethepeople.org (@FreeThePeople)

Support journalism byclicking here to our gofundmeor sign up for ourfree newsletter by clicking here

Android Users,Click Here To Download The Free Press AppAnd Never Miss A Story. Its Free And Coming To Apple Users Soon.

Related

See the original post here:
Why The Threat To Free Speech Suddenly Looks Much Bigger - The Free Press

DJ VU. We appeared to have engaged in some time travel in the last week and returned to the eighties when high anxiety gripped the country over the wording or punctuation of some UN statement or resolution and we mobilised all our diplomatic weapons and our Soviet friends to prevent the Turkophile West, led by the perfidious Brits, from shafting us.

World affairs have changed since then but we returned to the UN for support, which experience has shown counts for nothing, after Turkeys man in the north Ersin Tatar announced the opening of 3.5 per cent of the fenced-off area of Varosha, in the presence of his lord and master Erdo, and invited Greek Cypriots to apply to return to their properties.

The Turk-loving Brits, being the UN penholder on Kyproulla, behaved as they did in the eighties and drafted the statement of UN Security Council presidency that expressed concern about the announcement on Varosha without mentioning Turkey or the Turkish Cypriots. We were stabbed in the back, once again, but some friendly countries Ireland, India and China helped us out.

They expressed objections to the first draft and the second draft, while the Yanks reportedly also wanted a stronger statement so Britain backed down and a third draft that condemns the announcement in Cyprus by Turkish and Turkish Cypriot leaders was finally approved.

It was another diplomatic triumph, which by condemning Turkey by name ensured nobody in the world would think it was Kazakhstan that was opening Varosha.

THE REACTION was also eighties style with the CyBC playing nothing else, which was a small mercy as it drastically downplayed its Covid fearmongering. Suddenly, the wording of a UN statement posed a greater threat to our society than the unvaccinated.

Phil relived the Brit-bashing days of the eighties, with the front-page banner headline British life-jacket for Turkey on Friday. On Saturday it reported that London proved, yet again, the bad demon of the Cyprus issue with the games the British played in the UN with the aim of Turkey and Tatar not being accused and for a text that was tailor-made to Turkeys agenda to be adopted.

Peculiarly, Mother Russia did not come to our rescue this time, like the Soviet Union used to do back in the good old days. Russia, according to reports from New York, expressed no objection to the Brits unacceptable first and second drafts. The CyBCs Trito presenter in conversation with the New York correspondent about this dismissed the lack of any objection from Russia because Russias principled stand is a given.

It gets worse. The Russian foreign ministry appeared to have taken a leaf out the book of our bad demon in its official announcement about Varosha, avoiding mentioning Turkey or the Turkish Cypriots by name and restricting itself to expressing serious concern about rather than condemning the unacceptable, possibly, unilateral actions.

The announcement fully satisfied our good demons local cheerleader-in-chief, former foreign minister Erato Kozakou Markoulli, who tweeted We thank Russia for unwavering support, deemed significant in view of British efforts to taint provisions of resolution.

TO SHOW the natives that it was pro-active and divert attention from another fine mess he and Prez Nik had landed us in our foreign minister called the ambassadors to brief them about the governments stance. First Nikos Christodoulides briefed the ambassadors of the five permanent members of the Security Council and then those of the EU countries.

Christodoulides, accompanied by an entourage of minions, adopted a sad and sombre look and told EU ambassadors, in a rather dramatic tone, that this was the worst day for Cyprus after the invasion. He said the government would ask for the calling of an extraordinary European Council to discuss the Varosha move and then asked that each member-state condemn Turkeys action separately rather than consider they were covered by the EU announcement.

He also warned that if we did not receive adequate EU support Kyproulla would not back any proposal for sanctions against third countries. Then he asked for questions, but there was silence, which had never happened before. No ambassador expressed support to the government either. Only the third in line of the French embassy (the ambassador had attended the meeting of the P5) got up to talk and give his governments support. We cant even blame the bad demon, who has departed the Union, for this lack of solidarity from our EU partners.

MEANWHILE our political leaders have embarked on a patriotic campaign to make any Famagustan contemplating applying to the immovable property commission feel guilt for betraying the national cause.

The national council scaled new heights of hypocrisy by saying the Varosha announcement dealt a big blow to the prospects of the resumption of the talks for securing a comprehensive settlement based on the resolutions of the UN, international law.. Prez Nik, Diko, Edek and Elam are suddenly crying because the talks for a settlement they do not want will not resume.

And while they respected the individual right to property and acknowledged nobody could prevent it being exercised a prospective application to the so-called commission carries serious risks in relation to Turkeys goals. Famagustans who applied, in short, would help Turkey realise its goals. Havent our politicians already done that?

THE TURKISH invitation was a trap, politicians have warned. But even if there was a 50 per cent probability that it was a trap, there was also a 50 per cent chance of returning to or being compensated for their properties, which is a much bigger probability than the zero per cent offered by Prez Nik and the rest of our politicians. It is not that much of a gamble.

Retired Famagusta judge Giorgos Arestis in an emotional outburst on Trito also took the trap line, telling his fellow townspeople that the Turks would not allow anyone to return but most probably offer compensation that was much lower than the value of the property they might offer 100 grand for a property worth one million he said.

It did not cross his mind that the property if a Famagustan avoids falling into the Turkish trap and dutifully waits for a settlement is worth nothing.

WE SAW the police state in action when it arrested epidemiologist Dr Elpidoforos Soteriades on Monday not because he had taken part in the appalling violence at the Dias groups palatial premises but for speaking at the Sunday demo outside the presidential palace and challenging the Covid truth-speak.

Soteriades, who has questioned Covid restrictions and the efficacy of vaccines, was released on Friday after being charged with illegal assembly, conspiracy to commit a misdemeanor and violating the quarantine law. Dissent is not permitted in a police state.

While a flood of statements were issued by parties and organisations to condemn the violence at the Dias offices as an attack on freedom of speech there was not a word of protest about a man being arrested for exercising his right to free speech. The only person to publicly protest against the arrest was the crackpot Bishop of Morphou whose support must have been an embarrassment to Dr Soteriades.

PREZ NIK was so moved by what had happened at Dias on Sunday he decided to pay a visit the next day to see the damage caused and underline his commitment to free speech. The state would not tolerate such actions and would not allow the media to be silenced, he trumpeted.

The highlight of the visit was the performance of the Dias supreme boss Zeus Hadjicostis, who menacingly waved his finger at Nik angrily telling him this is your last chance to prove you exist, presumably seeking action by the state.

Zeus was not wearing a face mask when he greeted the prez, who was. Have the police fined him or is Zeus exempt? If anything it should be a premium fine for putting the head of state, who is in the vulnerable category, at Covid risk.

MASTER of all forms of diplomacy and foreign minister Christodoulides appears to have added energy to his portfolio. On Friday he signed an MoU for cooperation in the oil and gas sector with Lebanons Defence Minister and Deputy Prime Minister Zeina Akar. Why hadnt our Minister of Energy, Commerce and Industry Natasa Pilidou, who, as her title clearly states, has the energy portfolio, signed the MoU? Has Christodoulides decided to anoint himself Minister of Everything that Generates Positive Personal Publicity?

WHENEVER presidential elections approach the name of lawyer Marios Eliades is heard as a potential candidate. Although it is always heard, he has never been a candidate. Speaking to a friend, recently, Eliades told him that he hoped to stand in 2023. When his friend told him that he would be too old by the then, the wrong side of 75, Eliades replied, dead seriously: I will be the Joe Biden of Cyprus.

ON TUESDAY morning, on the way to work I decided to stop at my local greengrocer to buy a bunch of glistrida (sorry but I do not know the English name) to cut into my packed lunch of koucha (broad beans). At the door a man asked to see my SafePass. I got out my phone on which I had a scan of my vaccine certificate, but before I could press anything it went dead because it needed charging.

I decided to go back home to get the actual certificate because having koucha with glistrida was worth the inconvenience. I returned with the card and was allowed in but the glistrida was all gone. The moral of this Patroclos fable is if you want to buy glistrida always keep your vaccination card on you.

See original here:
Tales from the Coffeeshop: Threat of UN words and free speech - Cyprus Mail

Proud Boys organizer Joseph Biggs charged in Capitol riots

A self-described leader of the Proud Boys was charged for his role in the Capitol riots; authorities said Joseph Biggs encouraged other extremists.

Staff Video, USA TODAY

About two dozen cars carrying a fraction of the hundreds who attended a controversial Fourth of Julyparade gathered Saturday to lead another procession through Creswell and down Oregon Avenue to pass by City Hall.

People gathered to demonstrate and protest the fines two organizers received for the parade July 4, which was held without a city permit.

The organizers of that parade were each given two citations a $50 fine for organizing and participating in the parade and a $2,500 fine for "soliciting or confederating to violate an ordinance."

Read more:

Proud Boys help lead unpermitted Fourth of July parade in Creswell, drawing hundreds

Creswell Fourth of July parade organizers fined, including one affiliated with Proud Boys

A flyer announcing the protest encouraged people to bring their flags, their vehicle and their "American spirit."

"If you have to ask permission, are you really free?" the flyer stated.

Attendees mingled on West Lane near the old Foster Farms plant for about an hourbefore about two dozen cars wove through a neighborhood and through town, driving slowly and honking their horns.

They flew American flags and flags supporting former President Donald Trump and police and held signs reading "A law repugnant to the Constitution is VOID" and "Mostly peaceful protest."

Writing on vehicle windows called the parade an exercise of free speech.

One woman used a megaphone during the parade to encourage people to read the Bill of Rights and protect freedom of speech.

A Lane County Sheriff's Office deputy talked briefly with attendees as they were staging for the parade and then left, but seemed to track the progress of the parade an hour later.

Sgt. Marvin Combs, the on-duty sergeant, told The Register-Guardpeople were making a lot of calls to dispatch about the parade. But as of 2 p.m., about two hours into the parade, he said he wasn't aware of anything that presented a criminal issue for law enforcement.

Contact city government watchdog Megan Banta at mbanta@registerguard.com. Follow her on Twitter @MeganBanta_1.

Original post:
Two dozen cars lead parade in Creswell to protest fines related to Fourth of July parade - The Register-Guard

Media top headlines July 22

In media news today, Politico and CNN writers criticize Nancy Pelosi's rejection of GOP picks for riot committee, a former Google consultant give his opinion on how to combat misinformation, and WaPo's Josh Rogin says 'Fauci was wrong' about denying NIH funded Wuhan 'gain of function' COVID-19 research

A group of conservative leaders declared President Joe Bidens administration is "ripping the U.S. Constitution to shreds" in a scathing open letter that demands the White House and federal government be fully transparent about all actions to restrict speech.

"Its assault on Americas freedom of speech is terrifying. It is the hallmark of dictatorships," the letter obtained by Fox News said.

The Biden administration said last week it was working with Facebook to flag what it considers misinformation related to coronavirus, raising significant free-speech concerns.

"We, the undersigned, demandBig Tech firms immediately and publicly announce that they will not comply with calls from the federal government to censor dissenting viewpoints. Not on COVID-19 and not on any other topic.Furthermorewe call on those companies to resist further demands for such outrageous censorship of dissenting voices," the letter said.

FORMER GOOGLE CONSULTANT: GOVERNMENT CAN HELP COMBAT MISINFORMATION, BUT NOT THE WAY BIDEN IS DOING IT

"The Biden administration is guilty of violating the mostbasic fundamentalprinciples of a free and open society. President Joe Biden shockingly claimed Facebook is killing people because it doesnt completely censor its site in ways the administration approves. Though he later backed off this claim a bit, multiple members of the administration are moving to quash free speech on social media following that autocratic rationale," the letter continued. "Those who comply and do not speak out are guilty of being complicit in a creepy and repugnant form of Orwellian thoughtcrime. We are fast approaching the nightmarish reality of 1984 or worse."

Indeed, Biden walked back his comment and declared it was a handful of Facebook users who are "killing people" by spreading misinformation.

The conservative leaders led by Media Research Center president Brent Bozell demanded "the White House, the federal government and private entities be fully transparent about all government actions to restrict speech," while adding its also the responsibility of Congress to limit the federal governments attempts to "bully or intimidate" private entities to control free speech.

"Our First Amendment was written to protect all speech, not just what the Biden administration deems safe and socially acceptable," the letter said.

TWITTER EXPLODES AFTER PSAKI URGES BIG TECH TO UNITE ON BANS FOR MISINFORMATION SPREADERS

The letter ends by declaring the group will "do everything legally in our power to resist that egregious overreach" if the federal government does not immediately cease and desist from its actions to coerce private companies to quash free speech in the United States.

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Young Americas Foundation president Gov. Scott Walker, Leadership Institute Morton Blackwell, Citizens United president David Bossie, AFAC director of government affairs Sandy Rios, Tradition, Family, Property, Inc. president Preston Noell III, presidential historian Craig Shirly, NSIC Institute founder Kevin D. Freeman, American Target Advertising president of corporate affairs Mark Fitzgibbons, Constitutional Congress, Inc. chairman J. Kenneth Blackwell, The Martin Organization founder Rod D. Martin and president Christina Murphy Lusk are among the conservative leaders to sign the letter.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Conservative leaders such as Heartland Institute vice president JimLakely, LifeNews editor Steven Ertelt, Western Journal founder Floyd Brown, American Experience president John Hinderaker, Raven Strategies president Christie-Lee McNally, Eagle Forum chairman Anne Schlafly Cori, American Principles Project director Jon Schweppe, American Principles Project president Terry Schilling, ConservativeHQ managing editor George K.RasleyJr., WND vice President David Kupelian, Rio Grande Foundation president Paul J. Gessing, Family Research Council president Tony Perkins, International Organization for the Family president Brian S. Brown and Human Events publisher Will Chamerlain also signed the letter, in addition to many more prominent figures.

Read more here:
Conservative leaders say Biden admin is ripping the U.S. Constitution to shreds in scathing open letter - Fox News

UNITED STATES

This annual publication, also known as the worst colleges for free speech in America list, is a must-have guide for every parent concerned that her or his childs conservative views may not be respected at a particular higher education institution.

Says Zimmerman about the survey results: At most colleges and universities, we pretend like that never happened. We need to get our own house in order, but we still have our heads in the sand. US colleges and universities better get their act together, or else.

The bte noire in his dire scenario is Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, who recently signed a bill that requires state colleges and universities to conduct an annual assessment of the intellectual freedom and viewpoint diversity which enables students who feel their freedom of speech has been violated to sue their institution.

What he failed to disclose to readers is that the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), which conducted the survey in cooperation with a fellow traveller organisation called RealClearEducation (RCE), is a proponent of the oxymoronic intellectual diversity movement whose goal is to dismantle the so-called liberal bias in US academia, according to Sourcewatch, a website of the Center for Media and Democracy (CMD).

FIREs mission is to defend and sustain the individual rights of students and faculty members at Americas colleges and universities, which is to say conservative students and faculty members.

A politically active non-profit is born

The impetus for FIREs founding in 1999 by Alan Charles Kors, the Henry Charles Lea Professor Emeritus of History at Penn, tells you all you need to know about this organisation.

Six years earlier, one of his advisees, a freshman by the name of Eden Jacobowitz, was angry because of a sorority event taking place near his dormitory. His response was to open the window and yell the following to a group of African American women below: "Shut up, you water buffalo! If you want to party, there's a zoo a mile from here." This nasty incident became a cause clbre, a rallying point for US conservatives, well-heeled and otherwise.

After Jacobowitz was charged with violating the campus speech code by using racist hate speech, both student and adviser claimed that water buffalo had no history as a racial epithet, an example of deflection and dissembling that would make any ends justify the means lawyer proud.

His lame excuse that he may have been thinking of the Hebrew word behemah, which means beast, in reference to people who dont know how to behave around others, beggars belief.

Using this twisted logic, why not use insults that are obvious references to different groups of the other but have no history as such? That way you can cloak yourself with a veneer of plausible deniability. The charges were subsequently dropped and Jacobowitz agreed to apologise for rudeness.

To punish someone like Jacobowitz for calling a group of Black female students water buffalo, whether or not it has no history as a racist term, is not political correctness; it is common decency in a civil academic community and society.

Freedom of speech does not give one licence to say anything to anyone at any time, including yelling Fire! in a theatre, Bomb! on a flight, Ive got a gun! while going through airport security or "Shut up, you water buffalo!" on a college campus.

The same logic also applies to hurling insults at people youre angry at and may even hate because of the colour of their skin or another distinguishing feature. Limits on absolute freedom of speech are in defence of fellow human beings who deserve freedom from verbal abuse and attacks related to their ethnicity, gender, race or sexual orientation who deserve to be treated with dignity and respect.

We are all accountable for what we say, write and do. As the last of the Buddhas Five Remembrances reminds us: "My actions are my only true belongings. I cannot escape the consequences of my actions. My actions are the ground on which I stand." People like Jacobowitz and the organisation that rose from the wreckage of his misdeed stand on shaky ground, at best.

The limits of labels

The US is a country in which duality reigns supreme. A black and white view of the world is deeply embedded in the thinking of most US Americans, including those with advanced degrees. Good versus evil, us versus them, conservatives versus liberals, Democrats versus Republicans. This view of the world is best expressed in the saying: There are two sides to every argument. In reality, of course, many arguments and issues have multiple sides. To view the world in such childlike terms is to grossly oversimplify a complex reality.

Labels invariably fail to do justice to the people being labelled. The definition is in the mind of the labeller. Lets define what these labels mean rather than assume that everyone knows. To call someone a conservative or a liberal says little about their world view and the values in which it is rooted and what makes for a just and humane society. Why not use words as precision tools rather than bandy about murky terms that sow confusion and misunderstanding?

A related cultural point is the US American notion that 1) everyone has a right to their opinion; and 2) all opinions are equal and therefore morally equivalent. The former is correct, the latter is not. This misconception evokes Daniel Patrick Moynihan's comment: "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts."

While people have the freedom to spout lies, they should be challenged at every turn with facts.

Finally, the US population, in a society already characterised by an especially virulent strain of anti-intellectualism, has been dumbed down to such an extent that its much easier to deceive and manipulate people.

According to a recent study, 54% of US adults between the ages of 16 and 74 are functionally illiterate, meaning they cannot use reading, writing and calculation skills for their own and their communitys development. Thats 130 million people, or nearly 40% of the population.

In a 2004 essay Intellectual Diversity: The Trojan horse of a dark design, Stanley Fish noted, in response to the question about who is winning the culture wars in academia, that if the palm is to be awarded to the party that persuaded the American public to adopt its characterisation of the academy, the right wins hands down, for it is now generally believed that our colleges and universities are hotbeds [what is a hotbed anyway?] of radicalism and pedagogical irresponsibility where dollars are wasted, nonsense is propagated, students are indoctrinated, religion is disrespected, and patriotism is scorned.

Whose bread I eat, his song I sing

As with most organisations, regardless of the flowery rhetoric on their website or the Orwellian code they use, all you have to do is follow the money to discover FIREs true agenda.

This non-profit is flush with the millions of dollars in donations it has received over the years from the Charles G Koch Foundation (US$3,427,561 from 2008-19), the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation: US$1,815,000 from 2000-19) and the Sarah Scaife Foundation (US$1,305,000 from 2012-18), among many others. FIRE and RCE are the loyal institutional soldiers in the ongoing US culture wars that were ignited long before the founding of the republic.

It's worth noting that Charles Koch, chairman of the board and CEO of Koch Industries, ranks 16th on Bloombergs list of US billionaires with a net worth of US$63.6 billion, as of 3 July 2021. Charles and the family of his late brother, David (1940-2019) each own 42% of the company.

Since FIRE is consuming enormous quantities of Koch, Bradley and Scaife bread in pursuit of its mission, I thought it would be instructive to briefly review exactly what their agenda is, of which the centrepiece is limited government, including examples of what it means to be conservative and libertarian.

In the world according to Koch, their beliefs are based on the amorphous concept of freedom, including freedom of the individual, free trade, freedom from high taxes and business regulations, etc, ad nauseam.

They believe in low personal and corporate taxes, skeletal social services for those in need, less industry oversight, especially environmental regulations, in order to maximise corporate profits, fossil fuel dependence, patriotism (read nationalism), tax cuts for the wealthy, defunding teachers unions and taxpayer vouchers for private and religious schools.

Specifically, conservatives are against climate crisis rules and regulations, consumer and animal welfare organisations, drug decriminalisation, gun control, increases in the minimum wage, labour unions, public transit, renewable energy, same-sex marriage, worker rights, etc.

The Koch brothers and others who support organisations like FIRE and RCE have used their 12-figure fortunes to promote this agenda on steroids.

The ideal society its adherents envision is a cruel, unjust and heartless one that is devoid of compassion, caring and solidarity, and favours the wealthy, the financially fittest, over everyone else.

As one commentator noted: In their view, every area of human life should be subjected to the destructive whims of predatory capitalism.

This belief system has worked exceedingly well for people like the Koch brothers: white, uber-rich and captains of industry.

Through their considerable influence funded by millions of dollars of inherited wealth, they have convinced other US Americans, primarily white males who dont benefit from their ideal world, at least economically, to internalise the same beliefs. Jonathan M Metzl documents this politics makes strange bedfellows phenomenon in Dying of Whiteness.

This story illustrates the fact that money buys influence. Utah State University has a Koch scholars programme, sponsored by Charles Koch. Fifteen business students are given a US$1,000 stipend and selected to participate in a reading group in which they are required to read one book per week.

One of the recipients, the son of Latino immigrants whose goal is to become a social worker, felt honoured at first but soon became convinced that the programme was promoting an ultra-conservative view. Required readings had titles such as Order Without Law and Anarchy Unbound. In other words, freedom is good, government is bad the heart of the libertarian message.

The truth will set you free

In a November 12 2020 op-ed piece for the Chicago Tribune, Zimmerman, beating the same old FIRE drum, wrote that he was saddened by the way his [Donald Trumps] sadistic and vindictive spirit has infused our entire culture, including our institutions of higher education. He says: "I grew up imagining the university as [a] place where you were free to pursue any line of argument as far as you could take it, so long as you could marshal evidence for it.

He neglected to add that people like the Koch brothers dont care about evidence. They care about creating a reality, Karl Rove-style, whose benefits disproportionately accrue to them. Those of us who know the score about politically motivated non-profits with an axe to grind, like FIRE and RCE, and know who the power behind the throne is, do not share Zimmermans unassailable belief in their credibility and legitimacy.

What Im afraid of is that 1) too many US higher education leaders, hands outstretched, are happily taking the Koch brothers' and similarly tainted money, thus allowing the latter to buy influence; and 2) others are not taking a bold stance against the intrusion and interference of people like the Koch brothers because theyre afraid, dont care or want their own piece of the pie. Now thats a problem worth speaking of.

The battle lines in the culture wars are clearly drawn. There is neither a middle ground nor the possibility of compromise. The first step in jamming their transmission and derailing their attempts to help shape the thinking of the next generation of political and business leaders is to know thine enemy.

Dr Mark A Ashwill is managing director and co-founder of Capstone Vietnam, a full-service educational consulting company with offices in Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh City that works exclusively with regionally accredited colleges and universities in the United States and officially accredited institutions in other countries. Ashwill blogs at An International Educator in Viet Nam. A list of selected English and Vietnamese language essays can be accessed from his blog.

See the original post here:
Freedom of speech according to the gospel of Koch - University World News

A sixth form student looks at his A-Level results at The Crossley Heath Grammar School in Halifax, England, August 13, 2020. (Molly Darlington/Reuters)

A U.K. proposal known as the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill has attracted controversy and criticism from the Left lately. Some question whether legislation is the appropriate answer to growing threats against free speech, while others remain unconvinced that there is a necessity for government action at all.

The bill, if passed, would allow the Office for Students (OfS), which is an independent regulatory body of British higher education, to monitor and enforce freedom of speech measures at higher education institutions, introduce a complaints system and redress for breaches of free speech duties through the introduction of a statutory tort, extend duties on free speech to students unions and create a role of Director of Freedom of Speech and Academic Freedom at the OfS.

Given the well-documented threats to free speech on U.K. college campuses, the bill appears to be a reasonable solution to the growing presence of censorship, voluntary or involuntary, on U.K. campuses. And its perfectly plausible that legislation is the correct route to take.

A report published by ADF International reveals that almost 40% of students admit fears that expressing their views on campus could adversely affect their future career opportunities. Journalist Jenni Murrays speaking engagement at Oxford University was canceled after a comment she made in a newspaper article that was deemed transphobic came to light; and a lecturer at the University of Central Lancashire, on the other hand, was dismissed for asserting that faith is not something to be admired.

Critics of the speech bill claim it is simply not necessary. The spokeswoman for Universities UK contends it would only [duplicate] existing legislation and [create] unnecessary bureaucracy without providing any protection to speech beyond the current legal framework. The general secretary of the University and College Union asserts that it relies on an [incredible] over-exaggeration of issues.

Lets look at the legal tradition of free speech in the U.K. The basis of this right is established through the common law and the European Convention, which was incorporated into U.K. domestic law by the legislature through the Human Rights Act.

Of course, the American Constitutions guarantee of free speech is more robust than that used in the European Convention, whose protection of freedom of expression is subjected to an array of exceptions. While the First Amendment states categorically that Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, the European Convention cautiously states that freedom of expression may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law for various reasons including the protection of health or morals. The common law, meanwhile, is constantly evolving in accordance with contemporary jurisprudence.

In the U.S., the First Amendment offers ample legal grounds for citizens to challenge laws restricting speech on the basis of constitutionality alone.Butaccording to a policy paper issued by the U.K. government, there is no clear means of enforcing compliance with the duties to protect freedom of speech under the current legal framework. The U.K. does not currently have tort laws that apply specifically to free speech, and common-law jurisprudence has been reluctant to find violations of free speech on the part of colleges. The Higher Education Bill aims to fill in the gaps andallow individuals to file legal claims against educational institutions accused of free-speech violations.

A true defender of free speech would proclaim that the answer to wrong speech is invariably more speech. It is evident that self-censorship of students and the removal of speakers and educators whose opinions may offend all lead to a common result which is narrowing the scope of information available to students.

Visit link:
U.K. Free-Speech Bill a Sound Solution to Censorship - National Review

Andrea Dick is a die-hard supporter of former President Donald J. Trump and thinks the election was stolen from him, although that claim has been thoroughly discredited. She does not like President Biden, and that is putting it mildly.

Her opinions are clear in the blunt slogans blaring from the banners outside her New Jersey home: Dont Blame Me/I Voted for Trump and several others that attack Mr. Biden in crude terms. Several feature a word that some people find particularly objectionable but whose use the Supreme Court long ago ruled could not be restricted simply to protect those it offends.

When local officials asked her to take down several of the banners that they said violated an anti-obscenity ordinance, she refused. Now, she is resisting a judges order that she do so and pledging to fight it in court on free speech grounds.

Its my First Amendment right, she said in an interview on Monday, and Im going to stick with that.

In a country where the political fault lines are increasingly jagged and deep, Ms. Dicks case is the latest of several such disputes to highlight the delicate balance local officials must sometimes strike between defending free speech and responding to concerns about language that some residents find offensive.

Ms. Dick, 54, said she acquired the banners which are available from Amazon and other retailers earlier this year, but did not hang them on the home in Roselle Park where she lives with her mother, or on the fence outside, until Memorial Day.

Something must have gotten me worked up, she said.

Shortly after the holiday weekend, she said, she became aware that some Roselle Park residents, noting that her home was near a school, were upset about the language on the banners and about the potential for passing children to see it.

Ms. Dick, whose mother, Patricia Dilascio, owns the house, said that no children lived on the block and that no children routinely walk by on their way to the school.

But the towns mayor, Joseph Signorello III, said he had received several complaints about the banners, which he passed on to the boroughs code enforcement officer. Residents of Roselle Park, a town of 14,000 people about a 40-minute drive from Times Square, voted overwhelmingly for Mr. Biden in November.

This is not about politics in any way, said Mr. Signorello, a Democrat. He added that officials would have taken the same steps if the signs expressed opposition to Mr. Trump using similar language. Its about decency.

After visiting the home, the code enforcement officer, Judy Mack, cited Ms. Dilascio for violating a Roselle Park ordinance that prohibits the display or exhibition of obscene material within the borough.

Ms. Mack said that in more than 12 years as a code enforcement officer in Roselle Park, she had never invoked the ordinance before. She also said that while Mr. Signorello had passed on the residents complaints, he had not directed her to take any specific action.

Im only doing my job, Ms. Mack said.

Ms. Dick was given a few days to remove the banners, Ms. Mack said. When she did not, she was given a summons to appear in court.

At that appearance, last Thursday, Judge Gary A. Bundy of Roselle Park Municipal Court gave Ms. Dilascio, as the property owner, a week to remove three of the 10 signs displayed on the property the ones including the offending word or face fines of $250 a day.

There are alternative methods for the defendant to express her pleasure or displeasure with certain political figures in the United States, Judge Bundy said in his ruling, noting the proximity of Ms. Dicks home to a school.

The use of vulgarity, he continued, exposes elementary-age children to that word, every day, as they pass by the residence.

Freedom of speech is not simply an absolute right, he added, noting later that the case is not a case about politics. It is a case, pure and simple, about language. This ordinance does not restrict political speech. (Nj.com reported Judge Bundys ruling on Friday.)

Jarrid Kantor, Roselle Parks borough attorney, applauded the judges decision, saying that local officials had been careful not to make an issue out of the political nature of Ms. Dicks banners and had focused instead on the potential harm to children.

We think he got it just right, Mr. Kantor said.

But Thomas Healy, a law professor at Seton Hall University with expertise in constitutional issues, disagreed.

Citing a 1971 Supreme Court decision, Cohen v. California, that turned on the question of whether the same word at issue in Ms. Dicks case was obscene, Professor Healy said the word clearly did not qualify as obscene speech in the context of the political banners.

Its hard to imagine a simpler case from a constitutional standpoint, he said, adding that he would be stunned if Judge Bundys ruling were upheld.

Professor Healy said he also found it troubling that the enforcement action had come after the mayor relayed concerns about the banners to the code enforcement officer, even though both of them said that Mr. Signorello had not directed any specific action.

It doesnt look good, Professor Healy said.

Conflicts like the one involving Ms. Dick have flared up this year on Long Island; in Indiana, Tennessee and Connecticut; and about a half-hours drive south of Roselle Park, in Hazlet, N.J.

Hazlet officials received complaints like those in Roselle Park when a homeowner put up a similar anti-Biden banner there, Mayor Tara Clark said.

Citing an anti-nuisance ordinance, Ms. Clark said, officials approached the homeowner last month and asked that he remove the offending flag, but they did not take any steps to force him to do so.

We knew that there were residents who were upset, she said. but we also know that free speech is protected under the Constitution of the United States.

Though some people might have been unhappy that the banner could not be forced down, Ms. Clark said that she and her fellow Hazlet officials felt it was important to stand up for the First Amendment.

It ended there, she said. (The homeowner took the banner down last week, she said.)

As for Ms. Dick, she and her mother have about two weeks to appeal Judge Bundys ruling to New Jersey Superior Court. He said the daily fines would begin accruing on Thursday if the offending banners remained up, regardless of whether Ms. Dick and her mother chose to appeal. If they do appeal, he suggested they take the banners down pending the outcome.

On Monday, Ms. Dick did not sound like she planned to follow that advice. She said she was looking for a new lawyer and was committed to seeing the case through.

Im not backing down, she said.

See the original post here:
She Hates Biden. Some of Her Neighbors Hate the Way She Shows It. - The New York Times