Category Archives: Freedom of Speech

The U.K. hearing of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assanges U.S. extradition on the week of February 24, 2020, presented a test of Western liberal democracy. The indictment of Assange under the Espionage Act for publishing classified documents which exposed U.S. war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan is recognized by free speech groups as an unprecedented attack on the First Amendment.

With the governments criminalization of journalism, we are seeing a deepening crisis of legitimacy that had begun to unravel a decade ago. Bitcoin emerged during the 2008 financial meltdown as a response to bank bailouts and a cycle of austerity. Over its 10 years of existence, the technology has steadily maintained its fundamentals of censorship resistance and permissionless usage. Now, more than ever, Bitcoin shows these defining features as its value proposition.

As the government becomes more authoritarian, those who speak truth to power are being punished more harshly. Bitcoin as a technology of dissent provides alternative forms of resistance that are much more peaceful and joyous. It offers an avenue for people around the world to express their opposition against their government without directly confronting with power; instead it is simply creating a new world that makes the old system obsolete.

The invention of Bitcoin didnt happen overnight. It was built on cumulative efforts of the past. The development of this technology of dissent can be traced back in the history of peoples liberation from the arbitrary power of the king and despotic government. In the United States, after the victory of the Revolutionary War, the Founding Fathers rejected the rule of British monarchy. In the Declaration of Independence, the premise was given for unalienable rights of Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness, expressed in the words of Thomas Jefferson that is to be applied equally to all people.

In establishing the U.S. constitutional republic, these premises remained no more than ideals and they were constantly threatened. The original Constitution ratified in 1787 lacked the guarantee to secure individual liberties that inherently belong to all people.

The proponents of the Bill of Rights demanded a safeguard against the government. They articulated the protection of essential parts of unalienable rights in the First Amendment to the Constitution as a freedom of expression; freedom of speech, religion, assembly, and the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Erosion of civil rights took place through a loophole in the security within the Constitution. While a wall of separation between church and state is placed in the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, separation of money and state was not. Under the First Amendment, individuals right to create, choose their own money and transact freely was not recognized as a part of freedom of expression that needs to be protected.

The central control over money production faced a major security breach. Attorney Ellen Brown explains how most people think money is issued by fiat, declared to be legal tender by the government, but the creation of money has been taken over by private corporations like the Federal Reserve.

Privatized national and corporate currencies, created out of thin air around the world, came to function as a medium of control, allowing big business to create market monopolies. This began to debase the intrinsic value of the natural rights of a person evidenced in the nations founding document. By transforming those inalienable rights into a permissioned form of legal rights that can be infringed upon by the government, corporations and private banks began to steal individual liberties. Freedom of expression became further stifled through economic censorship and financial blockage enacted by payment processing companies like Visa and MasterCard.

As the states assault on civil liberty has increased, rebellion came from the internet. On February 8, 1996, when Congress enacted the Telecommunications Reform Act that enabled media consolidation and monopoly of flow of information, John Perry Barlow, internet pioneer, wrote a Declaration of Independence of Cyberspace. Addressing it to governments of the Industrial World, he called for a creation of a world where anyone, anywhere may express his or her beliefs, no matter how singular, without fear of being coerced into silence or conformity.

Those who revolted against the arbitrary power of the national government became dissidents in the new frontier of cyberspace. They found each other and formed an association that came to be known as cypherpunks: loosely tied online activists who advocate social change by the use of strong cryptography.

Tim May, one of the influential cypherpunks and the author of The Crypto Anarchist Manifesto recognized money as speech. At the Computer Freedom and Privacy Conference in 1997, he described how Digital Cash = Speech. He then noted how untraceable digital cash is indistinguishable from speech and explained how any laws intended to control it will almost certainly impinge on speech in general. Cypherpunks began envisioning a stateless digital form of money that is uncensorable and their collaborative pursuit created a movement for a new Enlightenment.

Philosophers in the Enlightenment era advocated for conceptions of democratic rights based on natural law. In his seminal work The Spirit of Laws published in 1748, Montesquieu wrote,

Laws in their broadest sense, are the necessary relations which are derived from the nature of things: Once free from the yoke of religion, we should still be subject to the rule of Justice Law, like mathematics has its objective structure, which no arbitrary whim can alter, before there were any enacted laws, just relations were possible.

Cypherpunks understood that while alienable rights that are bestowed by law can be taken away by legislation, inalienable rights are not to be created but can be discoverable by reason. Thus, laws that secure inalienable rights cannot be created by man but can be found in nature.

Like Enlightenment thinkers who tried to explain the laws of society and human nature through scientific methods, the anonymous creator of Bitcoin instigated a scientific process of discovering a way to restore money in its original form as an enshrinement of an unalienable right.

Bitcoin is free software that gives the user full control of the program. Anyone can observe, share knowledge and contribute to the development of protocol through participating in reviewing, testing and experimentation.

Here, principles of nature that were discovered were applied to create a decentralized digital currency and a market that is free from the control of the government. They included breakthroughs in computer science that led to the invention of a consensus algorithm, the laws of thermodynamics (study of science concerning heat, temperature and their relation to energy), and three natural laws of economics (self interest, competition, and supply and demand) that were identified by Adam Smith, a father of modern economics.

In Bitcoin, based on the principle of game theory to create fairness, miners engage in a broadcast math competition. Aligning self-interests of all in a network, with a careful balance of risk and rewards, rules are enforced without applying any external pressure. Bitcoin regulates itself through the spontaneous force of nature, flourishing healthy price discovery and competition in the best interest of everyone.

As the British court wrapped up its fake judicial process in the deliberation of the U.S. extradition request for the persecuted and tortured journalist, Julian Assange, Western democracy shows its final decline. This irreparable system continues to suck people into an electoral arena trying to keep them under its control. While many engage in protest or petitioning, busying themselves with cheering on their favorite candidates in political contests, Bitcoin provides a formidable tool for dissent, allowing people to simply opt out altogether from this corrupted system.

The bureaucratic system of the modern nation-state, administered by central banks, magistrates, presidents and prime ministers, has alienated us from the harmonious state of the world we belong to, depriving us of our innate rights and liberties. Now, imagination from computer science inspires us to rediscover intrinsic value within ourselves the wisdom of nature that governs our behavior and our rights to express ourselves freely and create our own life.

We, Bitcoiners, are all dissidents in the Old World of trusted third parties. We defy the rules of empire states in order to trust our ability to become our own authority. Laws of nature that are higher than man-made laws, being enforced by mathematics, have begun to reorganize a society. The frictionless flow of bitcoin allows us to diverge from the mainstream of national currency that keeps us in a debt spiral; it allows us to transcend borders and bypass checkpoints. Voluntary association formed through this free speech money is creating a new economy, fueling innovations and opportunities for jobs.

Every 10 minutes, the heart of Bitcoin beats, setting computers around the world in motion. From developers to miners and users running full nodes that relay and validate transactions, together, all engage in computing as an act of civil disobedience, keeping the network decentralized. As we collectively dissent, the wealth of the network rises, securing equality and liberty as unalienable universal rights for all people.

This is an op ed contribution by Nozomi Hayase. Views expressed are her own and do not necessarily reflect those of Bitcoin Magazine or BTC Inc.

View original post here:
Bitcoin Is the Technology of Dissent That Secures Individual Liberties - Bitcoin Magazine

To the Editor:

Im going to assume that the writer of the first letter against Ted Nugent appearing here in The Villages, is from a Democrat. Thats fine an certainly within his/her rights. But theres a more serious issue here that sadly has been in evidence for some time now. Im referring to Freedom of Speech. Our very 1st Amendment!The left in general has changed the meaning of 1A. Their interpretation is that free speech is free and desirable if and only if it agrees with their views! We see this over and over again whether it applies to a conservative speaker at a university forum or a journalist being severely beaten by members of ANTIFA. As I said, the writer had a perfect right to voice his opinion on Ted Nugent. More importantly he can show his opposition by not attending whatever venue Nugent is appearing at. Thats the beauty of our Bill of Rights. Its important to remember that ones freedoms extend only up to the point where they interfere with anothers freedoms.

Gary MoscowitzVillage of LaBelle North

Here is the original post:
Opposition to Ted Nugent - Villages-News

NASHVILLE, TN On the last Friday of February, the Resolutions Committee of the National Association of Religious Broadcasters (NRB) published six significant resolutions in conjunction with its annual convention in Nashville.The sixth and final resolution applies to the preservation of certain inalienable rights recognized by the United States Declaration of Independence and our Constitution.The Resolution Urging the Supreme Court to Uphold Religious Liberty as a Primary and not Secondary Right was drafted in response to the case of Obergefell v. Hodges in which the SCOTUS ruled in favor of the legality of same-sex marriages. That decision, carried by a vote of 5-4, requires that states must license same-sex marriages and recognize such licenses issued by other states.

The Supreme Court Ruling

The Family Research Council rightly concluded that the court had no jurisdiction that would permit it to take on the role of a social policymaker. Rather than ruling on a constitution issue, the court became an arbiter of flawed human reasoning.

Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in his dissenting opinion that:

With each decision that is unabashedly based not on law, but on the reasoned judgment of a bare majority of this Court we move one step closer to being reminded of our impotence.

Justice Clarence Thomas also dissented, saying,

The [courts] decision (has) potentially ruinous consequences for religious liberty.

Samuel Alito struck a similar chord warning that:

Those who cling to old beliefs will be able to whisper their thoughts in the recesses of their homes, but if they repeat those views in public, they will risk being labeled as bigots and treated as such by governments, employers, and schools.

The NRB Resolution

Recognizing the onset of potentially ruinous consequences foreseen by Justice Thomas, the NRB resolution noted, in part, that:

Lawsuits are arising across the nation where state or local laws that provide protection for sexual orientation and gender identity are colliding with the Free Exercise of Religion and Free Speech rights of Christian ministries, and Christian business people who find that aspects of such laws are a substantial burden on their rights of conscience and freedom of religion as well as freedom of speech.

Therefore, the NRB urged the United States Supreme Court to:

Resolve this tension that exists between recently created laws intended to protect the categories of sexual orientation and gender identity on the one hand and the historic and fundamental rights of free exercise of religions and freedom of speech on the other hand, by determining that religious freedom and freedom of speech are primary and not subservient liberties, and in the event of a conflict between those laws and such fundamental rights, that religious liberty and freedom of speech must prevail.

Being a Christian and being an American are two distinctly different things. To live in America as a Christian is a blessing which, if not fully recognized, could have a tranquilizing effect on us such that we lose it by taking it for granted.

Justice Alito summed it up when he said, upon rendering his dissent,

Most Americans understandably will cheer or lament todays decision because of their views on the issue of same-sex marriage. But all Americans, whatever their thinking on that issue, should worry about what the [court] majoritys claim of power portends.

Thank you to the board of the NRB for standing up to be heard on behalf of the faithful Christ-followers in America.

To read more news on Religious Liberty on Missions Box, go here.

Go here to see the original:
NRB Resolves that Religious Liberty & Freedom of Speech Must Prevail - MissionsBox

The line between freedom of speech and the freedom to incite violence is one of the hardest distinctions to put into practice. Toby Young, however, who has recently created the Free Speech Union, may have a better idea than most.

Two years ago, when Theresa May was still the prime minister of the United Kingdom, the Conservative Party appointed Toby Young as a member of the Board of the Office for Students. Despite it being an unpaid position, Young quickly accepted it, and yet within a few days, he had not only lost that job but four others.

Young suffered from the sordid affliction of conservatism, and because of this, his qualifications were overlooked. Almost as soon as he was appointed, legions of offence archaeologists began to excavate through decades of articlesinevitably digging up artifacts that would soon cost him his livelihood.

They dug up some stuff, took it out of context, and portrayed me as a bigot, said Young. It was trial by social media: guilty until proven innocent and, by the way, youre not going to have a chance to defend yourself. I ended up not only having to step down from the regulator, but also from four other positions, including my day job running an education charity. It was brutalI lost two stone.

By appointing Youngwho perhaps was even an overqualified candidatethe British Conservative Party had committed the unpardonable sin. They had appointed someone with the exact virtues needed for the position: industry knowledge, a public profile, and, most importantly, outspoken and lucid principles. And yet, it was precisely these qualities that led to Youngs downfall.

Within hours, the platoons of the progressives had trudged through decades of articles and social media posts. At one point, all ten of the Spectators most viewed articles in their archive, which dates back to 1828, were authored by Young. As the editor of Spectator noted, Youngs army of detractors were hard at work.

Youngs ordeal is not as remote as it may seem. These tacticsowing in part to their efficacyhave begun to seep into democracy itself. Take, for instance, Justin Trudeaus tactics in the 2019 election, where the Liberal apparatus took the form of a constant barrage of oppo research deployed against Conservative candidates.

Mercifully enough for the Conservatives, the state-funded offence excavator, indulgent in its smugness, was retired after Justin Trudeaus penchant for blackface emerged. Nevertheless, within a few weeks, the Liberal Party had time to craft and exhibit the online transgressions of six separate opposition candidates.

All this has sent an unequivocal message to Conservatives: If you dare oppose the prevailing orthodoxy of the dayor in the case of those Conservative candidates, dare oppose Canadas natural governing partyyou will suffer first public humiliation and then unemployment.

Free speech has never been in more peril across the Anglosphere than at any time since the Second World War, said Young. Why? Because the regressive Left has launched a ferocious attack on free speech and the progressive Left doesnt have the intestinal fortitude to defend it.

As a result of this, Young has launched the first major revolt against those who no longer value free-speech or ideological diversity. With a group of internationally recognized academics, public intellectuals, and journalists, Young has created the Free Speech Union,aimed at defending those who have exercised their right to free speech. I want to stop the same thing happening to other people, which is why Ive set up the union, said Young.

The Free Speech Union is perhaps the only available means to defend yourself against the tactics of the far-left. If you are a member, the union will mobilize an army of supporters to defend you against outrage mobs. They will also launch counter-petitions, defend you in the media, and provide legal assistance whenever it is reasonably possible.

We will challenge outrage mobs in a variety of ways, said Young. If bullies come after one of our members on social media, well go after them. If the woke witch-finders start a petition demanding that one of our members is fired, well start a counter-petition. If one of our British-based members faces a disciplinary processor is firedwell give them access to legal advice and, if necessary, help them crowd-fund to pay their costs. The enemies of free speech hunt in packs; its defenders need to band together too.

Speaking to The Post Millennial, the prolific Canadian editor of Quillette Jonathan Kay commended the ambition of the union. I hope it works, he said. Kay, however, did express caution over the capability of the union: the problem is that if somebody really wants to cancel someone, the pressure points come from within their own professional milieus. The cancellers dont care if youre in some kind of free speech union. It would only work if thousands and thousands of people joined it.

The good news is that the Free Speech Union is well on its way to garnering this support. Speaking about the reception the Union has received, Young said that it has been very well received by conservatives and by some members of the progressive left.

One example of this is the Conservative leadership candidate Erin OToole, who told The Post Millennial that free speech is the foundation of a free and democratic society. Conservatives need to stand united against the threat posed by cancel culture. The left is trying to intimidate into silence conservativesand even those on the left who question the most extreme views. This is a real threat that we need to take seriously.

The Free Speech Union has suffered some criticism from the usual candidates. The regressive Left, for instance, have done their best to portray it as an organization thats been set up to protect male, pale and stale conservatives like me from the consequences of hate speech.

This attempted portrayal may be a difficult task for Youngs army of detractors. So far, the five-person Board of Directors includes a gay man and a woman of colour, making the Free Speech Union, as Young said, more diverse, in every sense, than the BBC.

Speaking on the necessity for free speech, Young paraphrased Ira Glasser, the former head of the ACLU: speech restrictions are like poison gas. They seem like a great weapon when youve got your target in sight. But then the wind shifts.

Combative metaphors aside, it would be more constructive for the regressive left to join the union, or at least not work against it. After all, Youngs detractors proclaim themselves to be liberals. Shouldnt they commit to a cause that defends the central tenet of liberalism: free speech? To silence any voice is to impoverish the world and our decision-making capacity. The free speech Young is trying to protect is our individual liberty: we negate it at our cost.

Read more:
The Guardian is not a fan of Toby Young or free speech - The Post Millennial

Feb. 11, the Wisconsin State Assembly approved a bill that protects free speech on all University of Wisconsin campuses. Under the bill, students who disrupt free speech on UW campuses twice will be suspended for a semester. If students disrupt a third time, they will be expelled.

The Assembly has attempted to pass similar bills in the past, but they have never made it through the Senate. The UW System Regents previously adopted a policy identical to the one passed in the Assembly.

Wisconsin Assembly Democrats have come out in opposition to the bill, stating that cementing this policy in state statute is redundant and unnecessary. They argue it shows a distrust for university administration, and its a possible danger to students who decide to use their constitutional right of protest.

Board of Regents protection of free speech actually does exact oppositeFree speech is a right promised to all Americans through the Constitution and is an integral part of democracy which Read

Republican Lawmakers released a memo addressing the necessity for this legislation.

Campuses across the country have erupted in protest, including violent riots, as the growing debate over who has the right to speak threatens our nations First Amendment, the memo said. Invited speakers have been taunted, harassed, and even assaulted, leading many universities to cancel events. This is true for campuses here in Wisconsin where several UW System institutions including UW-Madison, UW-Oshkosh, UW-Stout, and UW-Stevens Point have had free speech related issues.

Assembly Democrats might disagree with the legislation, but the fact that there has been a pattern of silencing conservative speakers on campuses cannot be disputed. The drafting of the first iteration of this bill was in response to conservative political commentator, Ben Shapiro, being shouted down by protesters while speaking at UW-Madison in the fall of 2016.

During Shapiros lecture, protesters sitting in the audience frequently interrupted Shapiros speech with shouting. Eventually, demonstrators joined together and walked down to the stage where Shapiro was lecturing, all while continuing to shout and prevent the conservative commentator from speaking. Despite efforts from Shapiro, the protesters refused to engage in a productive conversation to discuss their disagreements instead opting to continue with the disruption. For a crowd of over 500, with expected protests, the university only assigned three officers to police the event. Needless to say, they could not keep the crowd in control.

Unfortunately, this is not an uncommon experience for conservative speakers coming to college campuses around the country.

March 2017, conservative commentator Charles Murray was shouted down at Middlebury College. Protesters went as far as to jump on Murrays car while he was in it. A professor who endorsed his visit to the college was injured during the protest. She was put into a neck brace at a local hospital.

Point Counterpoint: Democrats should focus on their own problems instead of impeachment proceedingsAs we approach Nov. 3, 2020, Democrats are becoming increasingly obsessed with preventing President Trump from winning reelection. Instead of Read

April 2019, conservative commentator Michael Knowles was repeatedly shouted down during a lecture at the University of Missouri-Kansas City. Protesters stood up during the lecture, screaming profanities at Knowles. One protester ran at Knowles with a squirt gun and shot soap at him. The demonstrator was arrested.

November 2019, Presidential Medal of Freedom winner and acclaimed economist Arthur Laffer was shouted down at Binghamton University. The topic of the speech was free enterprise and limited government. Protestors stood on tables in the lecture hall and heckled Laffer.

When conservative students bring speakers on campus, who are they supposed to look to for protection? For many students, when they bring a speaker to campus, its the only conservative lecture they hear all year.

The Econ Journal Watch conducted a study of faculty voter registrations at 40 of the leading universities in the U.S. Their research showed out of 7,243 professors, only 314 were registered Republicans. This means that at 40 of the leading universities, Democrat professors outnumber Republican professors at a ratio of 12 to 1.

Point Counterpoint: Accountability vital when faced with lawlessnessI would like you to do us a favor. If you want to understand President Trumps corruption, this quote tells Read

Conservatives on college campuses arent under constant attack from their professors and their peers. But conservatives on college campuses sit in a sometimes-isolating minority. It can be beneficial for conservatives to continually be around people with differing views, as this affirms or challenges our own. But dont deny them and the speakers they bring on campus the right of free speech.

Some might say this bill doesnt protect freedom of speech, it infringes on the right of protest. But it doesnt infringe on the right to protest. No restriction in this bill prevents anyone from protesting any speaker. Everyone has a right to protest, but no one has a right to create disruption.

The criticism of this bill is understandable, but it does not outweigh the necessity for this bill to be cemented in state statute. Conservatives must look to policy to protect their first amendment rights, which are subject to assault when speakers come on campus.

Realistically, this bill will die on Tony Evers desk. When Evers was a regent, he was the only vote against the initial policy adoption. Before Evers vetoes this bill, he should at the very least engage in conversation with conservative groups on campus to create a deterrent against speakers being shouted down in the future.

Tripp Grebe ([emailprotected]) is a freshman studying political science.

See the original post:
No platforming nowhere near as productive as debate or conversation - The Badger Herald

Photo Credit: Flatiron Books

In 1988, The Satanic Verses, Salman Rushdies courageous book critical of the life of Islams prophet Mohammed, won both public acclaim and multiple literary awards in the United Kingdom, including the prestigious Whitebread Award for novel of the year. It was also a finalist for the Booker Prize, the UKs equivalent of Americas Pulitzer.

Irans Ayatollah Khomeini, however, had a far less enthusiastic response to The Satanic Verses than Britains literati. Rising in righteous outrage, he denounced the book in the most vitriolic of terms for blaspheming Mohammed and mocking the Islamic faith. One year later, the Ayatollah announced a fatwa calling for Rushdies death, which resulted in several failed assassination attempts on the author, who was first placed under police protection by the UK government, and later, went into hiding.

Their thirst for Rushdies blood thwarted by these measures, terrorists galvanized by Khomeinis stridency began to strike out at random individuals connected to Rushdie, eventually murdering the translator of his book, Hitoshi Igarashi. Those Americans who were riveted by Rushdies story and left reeling by the horrific events spawned by the publication of his book consoled themselves that both freedom of speech and freedom of the press were veritable hallmarks of our great nation, and that nothing remotely similar to the Rushdie specter could ever occur here.

In 2004, Theo Van Gogh, a Dutch filmmaker, who was collaborating on a film with anti-Islam activist Ayaan Hirsi Ali on the oppression of women in Muslim countries, was shot and stabbed on a street in Amsterdam while bicycling to work one morning. Rather than immediately flee the crime scene, Van Goghs attacker, Mohammed Bouyeri, took the time to leave a note containing death threats to Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Westerners in general and Jews in particular. The egregiousness of the act left the Dutch people in a state of panic and shock, dazed that their openness to Arab immigration had resulted in such a heinous crime.

Americans who were following these developments were stunned by this brazen attempt to suppress free speech in a Western country, but again looked at the efflorescence of the free press in their own land, concluding, in vast relief, that nothing similar to the Van Gogh episode could ever occur here. They blessed this great country for its immunity to tyranny, a country which zealously safeguarded basic principles of free speech and free press.

The rein of terror descending upon parts of Western Europe with ever-increasing regularity seemed unequivocally linked to the rise of Islamic fundamentalism. The January 2015 invasion of the offices of the French satirical weekly newspaper Charlie Hebdo, located in Paris, reinforced this rew reality . Armed with rifles and other weapons, gunmen from Al-Qaeda killed 12 people and injured 11 others, incensed that the paper had published cartoons mocking the prophet Mohammed (this was the same terroris group responsible for the siege of the Hypercacher kosher supermarket, where four Jews were cut down in cold blood). And once again, Americans were appalled by the changing landscape in Western Europe, where measures to protect the basic principles of freedom of speech now invoked fear and trembling.

As an established institution of our democratic values, freedom of the press has been a bulwark of the American Way. Truly only something of apocalyptic proportions could ever possibly shake its strong and hallowed foundations upon which our liberty stands. And thankfully, nothing close to the extent of what occurred in the UK and Holland has ever happened here. We Americans have reveled in our privileges of both freedom of speech and freedom of press. And may we always be blessed to sip from these nectars, which we generally take for granted. Until now.

If you work in or are connected to the publishing world, you probably have already heard of the uproar that has convulsed the industry in recent weeks. The scenario that has caused furor and tumult is exceedingly far removed from the ones I just described occurring in the UK and Holland. Thank G-d, there has been no violence of any kind, and no harm has befallen any individual connected to the narrative. In other countries, the current brouhaha would probably be viewed as nothing more than a minor hiccup. But here in the United States, where we so carefully safeguard our right to free speech, the imbroglio that everyone in publishing is talking about may very well end up being a bellwether and a legitimate cause for concern.

Two years ago, ten publishing houses participated in an intense bidding war for rights to a new book that had created tremendous buzz American Dirt by Jeanine Cummins, the excruciating story of the arduous journey of Mexican migrants to the American border, seeking asylum from uninhabitable countries that were either war-torn or under the control of violent drug cartels. This book (which I read in two days, it was so riveting) puts a human face on the nameless statistics which have deluged us ceaselessly and to which some of us may have already grown inured.

Ultimately, Flatiron Press won the bidding war, and the well-oiled marketing machine was set into motion. Oprah Winfrey, who has resurrected her Book Club on Apple TV returning to her immense power as a book influencer was an avid early reader of the book , and designated American Dirt as her book club choice for early 2020.

In anticipation of the extraordinary number of readers the company anticipated in the wake of Oprahs imprimatur, the first printing was 500,000, highly unusual in todays depressed book market. A 50-city book tour was arranged. Everyone was poised for a rollercoaster ride of epic poroportions. And then the PC police came out and shook the rafters, hijacking the books trajectory.

Everyone knows that the PC activists have taken control of our college campuses, for example, where Palestinians and Anti-Semites are regularly feted at events and deliver unimpeded lectures, in stark contrast to pro-Zionist and Jewish speakers, who are almost always given the boot, sometimes literally.

Today, people in leadership positions are careful to tiptoe around potential PC land mines, using genderless pronouns (he/she is now popularly referred to as they) and making sure to worship at the shrine of multiculturalism. But since author Jeanine Cummins is half-Latina herself, and American Dirt is a novel, not a work of non-fiction, no one assumed that the book would come under attack. But it did. In a serious way.

Almost as soon as the book debuted a few weeks ago, Latina authors began to crucify American Dirt in loud and strident numbers. Facilitated by social media, a shivaree of dissident and angry voices hurled their condemnations at Flatiron Press for printing the book, Oprah Winfrey for endorsing it, and Jeanine Cummins for writing it. This censure, however, barely resembled what we would call polite discourse. It was tinged by malevolence and threats; it was fueled by unshackled fury. It was intimidating and harrassing. The instigators of the offensive wanted nothing less than the books annihilation.

And why did this book inspire such unmitigated rage? Because nobody except for a Mexican migrant has the right to depict the Mexican migrants experience. Because someone who does not come from a marginalized group, should not be allowed to approriate their experience. Its our culture and it belongs to us exclusively.

Mind you, we are not talking about a book that attempted to depict the Mexican migrants experience under the guise of non-fiction reportage. American Dirt is a novel. Utilizing the genre of novel writing enables the writer to write freely from a place of untethered imagination and creativity, although in the particular case of American Dirt, Cummins did state publicly that she invested five years into researching her topic before she penned a single word. Naysayers, however, didnt care and burgeoned into a veritable lynch mob.

The PC police began to pressure Oprah to rescind her endorsement of the book, and zealots sent Flatiron Press and Cummins virtual death threats, forcing the publisher to cancel Cumminss extensive 50-city book tour (citing safety concerns) and dial back their marketing operations.

Unpacified, Latina writers demanded to know why real Latina writers had been overlooked by mainstream publishers all these years when this subject was their story to tell, and why Jeanine Cummins had merited such a huge advance $1 million. (The subject of money has come up several times in the litany of their complaints, leading some critics to wonder just what role outright jealousy played in this uproar.)

Meanwhile, Flatiron Press issued a formal apology to the Latina community for lacking sensitivity in its marketing and publicity campaigns (at a kick-off dinner, the floral centerpieces were enclosed by barbed-wire fence,which was indeed a little over-the-top, but hey that was the party planners faux pas, not Jeanines), stating that perhaps some mistakes had been made.

One of the accusations made by the movement to dethrone Jeanine Cummins is that American Dirt is condescending towards Mexicans and stereotypes them unfairly. As a former graduate student in literature and adjunct college lecturer in that same field, I have to say that personally I did not encounter any kind of prejudice or bias whatsoever in Cumminss depictions of her characters. In fact, I found her portraitures to be exquisitely sensitive, compassionate, endearing, and poignant, and the horror that these migrants experienced on their pilgrimage to freedom seared my soul. I believe Cummins has been unfairly crucified for a tour de force that transcended identity politics.

In its apologetics and marketing campaign dial-back, Flatiron Press may have conceivably set a dangerous new precedent. In waving the flag of semi-surrender to the PC activists, Flatiron may have inadvertently invited or encouraged future incursions that will ultimately challenge our much cherished principles of freedom of press. If these PC activists can effectively bully and tyrannize Flatiron, an eminent publisher, who and what subject is next?

Even if censorship is not goverment-sanctioned but fomented by the PC police instead, the outcome of an American publisher cowering is not a pretty sight. Are we now going to be led to believe that no one has a right to compose a work of art if the subject matter isnt within their specific domain? To what ridiculous proportions can this line of thinking lead us? Should John Steinbeck have been prohibited from writing about tenant farmers in The Grapes of Wrath because he wasnt one himself? Should Harper Lee have restrained herself from penning To Kill a Mockingbird because she was a white woman, not a black man? These, among hundreds like them, had powerful impacts upon their respective societies and were probably responsible for changes (albeit slow) that came in their wake.

That works of fiction (and non-fiction as well, really, but the fact that American Dirt is a novel makes the histrionics that much more ridiculous) should be written only by people drawn from the subjects identity group is downright bizarre, bordering on the Kafkaesque and attempts to pacify tyrannical elements is a mistake. Should this sensibility prevail and establish a toehold in American publishing, we will be opening up a nightmarish Pandoras box.

Because if the PC activists win this time, how far afield are they likely to go another time, once theyve tasted the exhilarating flavor of triumph in oppressing free press? Ostracizing a novel about the Mexican experience because it was not written by a Mexican author is step one. Once oppression of American publishers becomes a viable reality, what possible scenario is next? Could it be a novel that portrays Israeli settlers in a positive light and Palestinian terrorists in a negative one? Can you imagine the outpouring of righteous wrath from the vocal left (that has been so forcefully safeguarding the rights of the Palestinians to be portrayed fairly, but never, ever the Jews) that would follow?

Meanwhile, the world is watching to see if Oprah will break from the intense pressure to which she is still being subjected. Even thought she has always been considered to be the ultimate megaphone for multiculturalism, she loved the book when she read it, and saw no flaws in its rendering. But now, as she finds herself increasingly being placed on the defensive, she has already caved in a little, promising a deeper, more substantive discussion soon on who has the right tell what story.

But the literary human rights organization, PEN, has not allowed American values to be co-opted. In a powerful statement it issued recently it said: As defenders of freedom of expression, we categorically reject rigid rules about who has the right to tell which stories.

This is not a small story. It may very well be a defining one for the publishing industry, and a test case with great reverberations for the future.

Phineas T. Barnum, the 19th century showman and circus owner, once famously said: Theres no such thing as bad publicity. Despite the naysayers and the uproar surrounding the book, I am pleased to report that American Dirt has placed #1 on the New York Times bestseller two weeks in a row, and placed first on the Amazon charts as well. Maybe the American masses will join ranks, dig in, disregard the histrionics of the PC police, and uphold the twin pillars of democracy, which unlike Europe, has not been under siege until now. Now it has in a very different way, of course (thank G-d, no bloodshed, no incursions, no physical trauma). But oppression can assume many forms and shapes, and physical violence is only one of them.

Read more here:
When The PC Police Come For Our Books - The Jewish Press - JewishPress.com

In November 2015, just months after the U.S. Supreme Courts Obergefell decision legalized same-sex marriage nationwide, Mormons took a hard stand for traditional families. Barely more than four years later, the flagship university of the Latter-day Saints relaxed its honor code barring all homosexual conduct.

The change to the rules at Brigham Young University followed similar policy revisions in recent years by a number of prominent religious schools. Some Christian colleges and universities, however, are keeping their prohibition on same-sex conduct in place.

BYU said it updated its honor code to be in alignment with the doctrine and policies of the Mormon religion, which owns the university. Its doctrine on sexuality has undergone a series of shifts in the past five years. After Obergefell, Mormon officials branded individuals in same-sex unions, already considered a serious transgression, as apostates and barred their children from baptisma rite Mormons believe is necessary for eternal salvation.

At the time, LDS President Thomas Monson said a revelation he received from the mind of the lord motivated the doctrinal change. In 2019, under new President Russell M. Nelson, Mormons again amended their handbook, no longer characterizing same-sex couples as apostates. Officials also reinstated baptism for children of same-sex couples.

Previously, the BYU honor code did not outlaw same-sex attraction but did prohibit students from acting on it in any way, including all forms of physical intimacy that give expression to homosexual feelings. The changes deleted the section on homosexuality entirely.

We believe that removing the more prescriptive language from the honor code is helpful for our LGBTQ students, BYU media relations manager Tom Hollingshead said. He did not reply to a follow-up question asking how not confronting students who violate what Mormons consider one of [their] most important laws helps them.

Several evangelical Christian institutions have also sought a middle ground between Biblical doctrine and the demands of LGBTQ students. In 2018, Azusa Pacific University in Southern California eliminated a section from its student conduct policy that specifically banned on-campus homosexual relationships. One rationale: Removing the threat of punishment could free students to share their struggles and be open to discipleship, as the schools student handbook suggests.

In 2015, Baylor University in Waco, Texas, removed homosexual acts from its list of prohibited conduct while maintaining it endorsed the Southern Baptist Conventions affirmation of Biblical marriage. The moves did not satisfy the pro-gay website Campus Pride, which still placed Baylor and APU on its shame list.

By 2014, the year before Obergefell, Notre Dame University, Boston College, and Creighton University, as well as almost two dozen Jesuit colleges, had begun offering employee benefits to same-sex partners. The Catholic schools justified the move by saying they wanted to comply with civil laws. The move, especially its timing before the Obergefell ruling, disappointed many Catholics. Notre Dames Standards of Conduct policy for students still states the university embraces the Catholic Churchs teaching and forbids sexual unions not comprised of two persons in marriage. Campus Pride does not include Notre Dame, Boston College, or Creighton on its shame list.

The potential loss of federal money weighs into schools policy decisions. While President Donald Trump has taken steps to guard freedom of speech and religion on college campuses, past administrations in Washington used anti-discrimination laws to threaten to strip government funds and even tax-exempt status from institutions upholding Biblical definitions of sex and gender. Future administrations could do the same.

In spite of the shifting landscape, a number of evangelical schools are standing firm on expectations of Biblical conduct for their students. Geneva College, Houston Baptist University, and Biola University affirm marriage as only between one man and one woman and prohibit homosexual behavior on campus. Biola Vice President of Student Development Andre Stephens said its important to respect each others dignity as Gods image-bearers while continuing to remain faithful to our Biblical understanding of marriage and human sexuality.

See the original post here:
Following the crowd - Education - WORLD News Group

Throughout American history, peoples views on what should or should not count as protected speech under the First Amendment has waxed and waned along with cultural trends and changing political ideologies.

But rarely do we see the viewpoint on certain fundamental rights shift so dramatically.

Progressives used to champion the freedom of speech, even in cases at the U.S. Supreme Court. Now it is more likely to be conservatives defending the First Amendment while progressives push for government censorship and restrictions on speech they dont like.

How did we get here?

For the better part of the 20th century, progressives were some of the most vocal proponents for protecting peoples freedom of speech. In the early 1900s, labor organizers formed organizations like the ACLU and fought for the rights of workers to speak and assemble freely.

For example, in 1925 the ACLU defended the free speech rights of Benjamin Gitlow, a member of the Socialist Party of America, who was charged with criminal anarchy for distributing a document called the Left Wing Manifesto.

During the Vietnam War era, progressives supported individuals protesting the war. This included the case of Paul Robert Cohen, who was charged with disturbing the peace for wearing a jacket displaying F*** the Draft inside a public courthouse. It also includes the case of five students in Des Moines, Iowa, who decided to wear black armbands to school in protest of the war. Both cases led to Supreme Court decisions that increased speech protections for all Americans.

In the 70s and 80s, the ACLU even came to the defense of Americans charged with crimes like burning the American flag, which was alleged to be indecent speech, and defended the First Amendment rights of despicable groups like Neo-Nazis.

But in the past 20 years, there appears to have been a shift in the cultural dynamic.

Ironically, todays progressives are making many of the same arguments to restrict free speech that conservatives previously made when fighting against pornography and obscenity. Rather than upholding an individuals freedom to express himself or herself, progressives would rather restrict speech according to their own ideological or cultural preferences.

Louis Michael Seidman, a constitutional law professor at Georgetown, has even argued that free speech is not a progressive ideal, and that there are substantive differences between conservative speech and liberal speech. Northeastern University psychologist Lisa Feldman Barrett argues that there are times when speech can be so offensive and upsetting that it is akin to using actual physical violence against someone.

Now, conservative student groups are filing lawsuits fighting enforcement of so-called speech codes and free-speech zones on many university campuses. Their supporters in the courts of law and public opinion are now more likely to be found on the political right than the political left.

This shift in the views of the right and left on free speech has been sharp and dramatic. We can only hope that todays free speech advocates can preserve the right of each of us to express ourselves against those who would choose government censorship.

When the Framers of the Bill of Rights decided to recognize freedom of speech in the First Amendment, they could not anticipate how American culture would develop over the next 200+ years.

But luckily for all Americans, they codified those rights in a written Constitution, which doesnt change based on cultural and political movements.

Photo credit

Photo credit

See the original post here:
How progressives and conservatives have changed the debate over freedom of speech - Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF)

February 25, 2020 (Turning Point Project) Fashions come and go, but sometimes they can stick around long enough to do considerable damage. Smoking was fashionable for a great many decades and was glamorized in films for more than half a century long after it was known to markedly increase the risk of lung cancer, heart disease, and other illnesses.

No one knows how long transgenderism will remain in fashion, but lets hope it wont be for long because, unlike smoking, it strikes at the very foundation of civilization. The two genders are not optional. They are indispensable for the generation of new life, and for providing the stable families which form the basis of society.

The transgender fads also strike hard at anothersine qua nonof civilization the acknowledgment of objective realities. The trans person is encouraged to ignore the facts of his or her biology, and to replace reality with illusion or, more properly, with delusion.

Transgender persons are encouraged to lie about their nature, and, to make matters worse, the rest of us are expected to collude in the lie. Of course, expected is not quite the right word. Increasingly, the lie is required, and punishments are meted out to those who wont go along with it. The transgender fantasy is so far removed from reality, that the brittle construct can only be kept intact by raw compulsion.

Islam is not a fad, its a 1400-year-old faith, Yet, in recent years it has become a fashionable faith. Celebrities convert to it. Academics defend it. Politicians praise it. And Catholic leaders declare their solidarity with it.

Meanwhile, in the fashion industry, designers in London, Paris, and New York compete with one another to produce upscale lines of hijabs and abayas. And last month, the Swedish edition ofEllemagazine, chose Imane Asry as the winner of its Look of the Year competition. Asry, a hijab-wearing social media influencer told Elle, This is an acknowledgement that its more than time that we begin to normalize the hijab in the fashion industry.

Few people, especially in the fashion industry, question whether it is a good idea to normalize the hijab and the abaya. For many, its simply the latest trend, and thats all they need to know. Yet, the hijab is best understood as a symbol of control rather than an emblem of freedom. The hijab is most prevalent in Muslim societies that practice fundamentalist forms of Islam, and regard women as little more than possessions. In some places such as Iran women who choose not to wear it end up in prison.

But just as its not fashionable to talk about the persecution of Christians in the Muslim world, its not fashionable to talk about the persecution of Muslim women who dont want to wear the hijab. Likewise, to get back to the subject of transgenderism, its not fashionable to talk about the suffering that teens and young adults go through as a result of adult encouragement to follow their illusions. The slaughter of Christians in the name of Islam, and the damage done to young bodies by dangerous cross-sex drugs and irreversible surgeries are things that are simply not talked about in polite society.

Although there are many obvious differences between the transgender movement and the religion of Islam, the attempt to sell both to the general public is essentially the same. Both are presented as misunderstood minorities who will bring diversity and enrichment to society if given half a chance. And in both cases the aggrieved parties are presented as victims of transphobia in the one instance and of Islamophobia in the other. By the same token, their critics are cast as hate-filled victimizers.

Trans activists and Muslim activists also present their causes as a matter of civil rights. But their demands actually bear little resemblance to the claims of traditional civil rights movements. When women marched for the right to vote, they were only asking for a right that men already possessed. But transgender persons and their advocates are asking for special rights which will only be available to a select few.

Moreover, these newly created rights would infringe on the rights of others. Giving a man who claims to be a woman the right to use the womens locker room, quite obviously takes away a womens right to privacy. And forcing a teacher to address a male student as Miss deprives him of his right to freedom of speech.

Likewise, Muslim activist groups are not asking for the same rights that are granted to other religions; rather they are claiming special privileges. As is now becoming clear, the fundamental right they claim is the right not to be criticized or offended. This right, of course, is an obvious infringement on the right to free speech. Yet, amazingly, the European Court of Human Rights ruled last year that harm to the religious feelings of Muslims took precedence over the right of an Austrian women, Elizabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, to voice criticism of Islam. The specific crime for which Sabaditsch-Wolff was found guilty was mentioning that Muhammad had married a six-year-old girl a fact that is well-attested in Islamic scripture. Nevertheless, it was a fact that Austrian Muslims did not want to hear least of all from the mouth of an infidel woman.

So, just as the transgender movement forces people to lie, it seems that non-Muslims will increasingly be required to collude in lies about Islam: that Muhammad was the perfect man and a model for all mankind, that Islam is a religion of peace, that terrorism has nothing to do with Islam, and so on.

In short, both Islam and transgenderism are essentially totalitarian movements that seek to control freedom of thought and expression. Unlike the campaign to glamorize smoking, the normalization of these rigid ideologies endangers not just the physical health of the individual, but also the moral and spiritual health of the whole society.

The wonder is that so many especially among the woke generation are working to normalize these destructive systems. But its less baffling when one considers the role of fashion in forming our views. Although the evidence strongly suggests that these ideologies ought not to be promoted, fashion, not evidence is usually the deciding factor. Fashion not only dictates what to wear, but what to think. Author Lillian Hellman famously said, I will not cut my conscience to fit this years fashions, but tailoring ones conscience is something that is done on a fairly regular basis in our politically correct society.

So, the normalization of dangerous trends continues. Unfortunately, modern technology now provides tools for speeding up the normalization process. InThe Madness of Crowds, Douglas Murray explains how hi tech can be used to manipulate minds and sell big lies in subtle ways. Moreover, as he points out, these powerful tools are concentrated in the hands of a small group of ideologically driven activists who are quite convinced that they know what is best for the rest of us:

The presumptions of Silicon Valley began to be imposed on the rest of the world online... on each of the hot button issues of the day it is not local custom or even the most fundamental values of existing societies that are being driven, but the specific view that exist in the most social-justice-obsessed square miles in the world.

As one small example of the imposition of woke presumptions, consider what happens when you google Jihad Watch on your laptop. The first thing that catches your attention is a large box on the top right which informs you that Jihad Watch is an anti-Muslim conspiracy blog run by Robert B. Spencer. Well, that sounds pretty bad. And if you like to think of yourself as a woke person, you certainly dont want to go chasing after conspiracy theories. In all likelihood you wont bother to visit the conspiracy blog, and will thus be deprived of a wealth of information about jihad activity as reported by Spencer from such conspiracy sites asReuters, The BBC,The Times of Israel,The New York Times, The Guardian, andThe Times of India. But never mind. Your well-tailored conscience will continue to be a good fit for the fashions of the day.

Multiply such algorithmic sleights of hand a thousand times, and youll better understand why the woke among us are completely asleep to the real sources of tyranny. Our woke society is sleepwalking its way to an Orwellian future.

This article originally appeared in the February 19, 2020 edition of Catholic World Report. It is published here with permission from the Turning Point Project.

Continue reading here:
What transgenderism and Islam have in common: Destroying free speech - Lifesite

The city of Aalst, Belgium has officially held its carnival since 1923. Parades of that sort actually go back to the Middle Ages. Aalst almost always makes the news for its 3-Day carnival taking place yearly at the end of February. The organizers repeatedly claim that the satirical tone of the carnival is to be remembered when one considers any of its floats. They claim to poke fun at people indiscriminately. Freedom of press and freedom of expression are at the core of the Aalst Carnival, and within reason, in a world where these two are quickly being squeezed out, if not disappearing altogether, this is a breath of fresh air that we must respect. Unless it is taken too far!

Going back to the French Revolution of 1789, theDeclaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizensaid in its article 11,The free communication of ideas and opinions is one of the most precious of the rights of man. Every citizen may, accordingly, speak, write, and print with freedom, but shall be responsible for such abuses of this freedom as shall be defined by law. Furthermore, theUniversal Declaration of Human Rightsadded in its article 19,Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.Important boundaries for all of mankind were put in place to protect our freedoms on just about every level. The laws are in place to protect us, but keep in mind, that even if something is not illegal, it does not mean it is appropriate. We should never allow ourselves to abuse the power of free speech, even in a satire!

Belgium also has some very specific boundaries regarding freedom of speech, like most countries in the West. Through an organization known asUNIA, Belgium monitors and defends people who have been victims of discrimination. They are very helpful in determining whenfreedom of speech crosses the lineand becomes racism and/or incitement.

The 2019 Aalst Carnival featured some giant orthodox Jews withgrotesque facial features, wearing pink outfits with oversized shtreimels (Jewish fur hats) with rats on their shoulders and money bursting out of their pockets. The depiction was so despicably antisemitic that even UNESCOnot Israels strongest supporter over the yearsdecided toremove the Aalst Carnival from its list of cultural heritage of Humanity.

The embarrassment created by the UNESCO removal in 2019 should have taught the organizers a lesson and should have given them a serious incentive to put an end to the antisemitic elements of the carnival. Instead, it appears that it emboldened them to go further. This would be outrage at any time of history, but in 2020, it is oil thrown onto the fire of global antisemitism. This will inevitably provide justification to those who want to kill Jews, as we are starting to witness that again.

The Aalst Jews of 2020 were again wearing oversized shtreimels, dressed in black this year, but the bottom half of their bodies were that of insects or vermin; ants to be exact.

A small replica of the Western Wall was also paraded with words complain ant (words that apparently look like the words Western Wall in Dutch.) Joining the crowds were dozens of people wearing caricatural orthodox Jewish garb and large fake crooked noses, not to mention the many flyers with stereotypical renditions of Jews with side curls, crooked noses and curly hair.

The 1940 Nazi propaganda filmThe Wandering Jewdepicted Jewish people as rats coming out of sewers to invade the world. Jews were compared to parasites and vermin. In other Nazi works, they were compared to insects like lice that must be exterminated. You know the rest of the story. Antisemites currently do not need any incentive to hate the Jews, so why go there?

Without the help of Aalst Carnival, global Jews are again at risk for their lives. Comparing them to insects or rats is giving antisemites justification for their actions, When the mayor of Aalst was asked, he responded that there was no antisemitism in his city. Seriously? Even Belgian Prime Minister Sophie Wilmes ONLY stated that the carnival was causing damage to our values and the reputation of our country. Unfortunately, words never condemn actions unless they are followed by consequences for those actions.

The Aalst Carnival MUST stop its antisemitism and all other kinds of xenophobic displays or it should not be allowed to continue. I dont care how funny people think it wasas all watchers were smiling or laughing as the floats passed by themit continues to fuel the unnecessary and irrational global tsunami of antisemitism that is now claiming Jewish lives again!

In 2013, they chose to wear Gestapo uniforms, walked around wearing cans labeled Zyklon B the poison that the Nazis used to kill Jews in gas chambers, and paraded a cattle car similar to those used to transport Jews during the Holocaust. At this rate, it wont be long before the floats look like crematoria or gas chambers!

Well, actually, it was only a day later that the city ofCampo de Criptana, Spain featured such a float in their parade. Nazi uniforms, train car and crematoria along with prisoners in striped outfits. Some said that the town is a friend of Israel. Maybe they are, but what a distasteful way to commemorate the Holocaust and remember the Jewish people!

Is it time for all the Jews of Belgium and Spain to make Aliyah to Israel?

Aaslt and Campo de Criptana, you would make Hitler very proud!

Olivier was born in Paris, France in 1959 to a Jewish family whose mother had escaped and survived the Holocaust. He has a background in Fine Arts and Graphic Design from Paris. Moved to the United States in 1985 after getting married. Olivier settled on the West coast with his wife where both of their children were born. He joined Chosen People Ministries in 1997 where he currently serves as the Northwest Regional Director as well as Vice-President of the "Berger d'Isral" association in France. Olivier is the author of two books on anti-Semitism available at http://www.newantisemitism.com.

More:
Hitler would be very proud of the Aalst Carnival in Belgium! - The Times of Israel