Category Archives: Freedom of Speech

Many different rallies are planned to take place on Sunday in D.C.

John Henry, WUSA 11:50 PM. EDT June 23, 2017

Lincoln memorial in Washington DC. Credit: Thinkstock. (Photo: sborisov, Sergey Borisov)

WASHINGTON (WUSA9) - Rallies have become a common sight in DC this year, but this weekend might be a little unique.

A handful of groups plan to hold dueling rallies about political rhetoric and free speech.

The "Freedom of Speech Rally" will kick off at 12pm at the Lincoln Memorial. Colton Merwin, 19, of Baltimore organized the event as an outlet for conservatives to discuss political ideas, topics regarding free speech and immigration.

That event will have multiple speakers including Alt-Right figurehead Richard Spencer. His appearance has sparked controversy, but Merwin defended the rally's decision to have him speak.

"To support free speech, you have to support all aspects of the conservative right and libertarian right as well," he said.

DC United Against Hate will hold another rally to directly oppose the Freedom of Speech Rally at the Lincoln Memorial. It is scheduled to start at 11am. Organizers plan to bring attention to the multiple acts of racist behavior that have popped up around the DMV. Reverend Graylan Hagler, of Plymouth Congregational United Church of Christ, told WUSA9 that hate speech is something that cannot be tolerated.

"Given the history we have in the United States of America, disparaging speech leads to violence," he said.

At 12pm, another rally will kick off outside the White House. The event is called the " Rally Against Political Violence" at the White House.

Political operative Roger Stone and former Virginia gubernatorial candidate Corey Stewart are scheduled to speak. According to the rally's Facebook page, the rally will condemn violence such as the shooting of Louisiana Rep. Steve Scalise.

Finally, also at noon, protesters will gather at the DC Police headquarters to oppose the right-wing agenda and police brutality. The rally has been nicknamed the "Really Really Free Speech Rally".

DC Police told WUSA9 it will monitor that protest just as it would any other protest. Park Police released the following statement regarding the other rallies.

"The United States Park Police maintains a robust patrol presence. We consistently analyze information to detect and deter threats to public safety. In order to protect the integrity of our operations, we are unable to discuss the logistics of our security footprint. The USPP makes no distinction regarding a groups message or political standpoint. Our intent is to protect our treasured icons and the people people who visit them."

2017 WUSA-TV

The rest is here:
Several free speech rallies planned for DC this Sunday | WUSA9.com - W*USA 9

By Haley Samsel | 18 hours ago | Updated 10 hours ago

Interim Vice President of Campus Life Fanta Aw testifies in front of a Senate Judiciary Committee as a part of the "Free Speech 101: The Assault on the First Amendment on College Campuses hearing Tuesday.

At a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing Tuesday, Interim Vice President of Campus Life Fanta Aw recounted instances of controversial speech at AU and told committee members that free speech comes with responsibility and accountability.

The hearing, titled "Free Speech 101: The Assault on the First Amendment on College Campuses," centered around two key questions: Do universities have the right to block speakers from appearing on their campuses? If so, why and under which circumstances?

Freedom of expression is integral to the mission of higher education, Aw said during her testimony. However, protecting it has become increasingly challenging in light of our national climate, changing attitudes of younger Americans about the First Amendment, and ever more diverse populations on our campuses bringing diverse perspectives and expectations into constant tension.

The hearing also featured a law professor from the UCLA School of Law, the president of the Southern Poverty Law Center and two students who have wrestled with college administrators over free speech on campus, among others. Aw was the sole woman on the panel.

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), the committee chairman who called the hearing, said he was concerned that free speech was being suppressed on college campuses.

College students vote. Not only academia, but our democracy depends on the ability to try to advocate to inform or to change minds, Grassley said during the hearing. When universities suppress speech, they not only damage freedom today, they establish and push norms harmful to democracy going forward.

Though she agreed with some of Grassleys points, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), the ranking member on the committee, said the senators should focus on finding methodologies to help universities handle violent incidents surrounding free speech rather than condemning administrators or their tactics.

I do believe that the university has a right to protect its students from demonstrations once they become acts of violence, Feinstein said. I hope today that there will be some discussion of when does speech become violent, and what do you do to stop that violence?

Aw mentioned several incidents in which the free speech debate touched AUs campus, ranging from Milo Yiannopouloss public appearance in April 2016 to the anti-LGBT protest led by Westboro Baptist Church members in November.

But the core of Aws testimony hinged on the May 1 hate crime that targeted black women and the members of Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority, Incorporated. She said that AU draws the line when expression has the potential to incite violence and/or is a direct threat to members of our community.

With the increasing frequency of such episodes, the ability of students to learn and thrive has been severely limited, Aw told the committee. When students fear for their safety, this affects their ability to study and participate fully in the life of the University.

Prior to Aws testimony, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) accused university administrators of becoming complicit in functioning essentially as speech police.

Far too many colleges and universities quietly roll over and say, Okay, [there is a] threat of violence, we will effectively reward the violent criminals and muzzle the First Amendment, Cruz said, referring to college administrators controversial decisions to cancel speaker events.

Aw said AU administrators must balance their obligations to support freedom of speech with their responsibilities to investigate crimes that are motivated by bias. She cited University policies to protect freedom of expression as well as recent changes to the student conduct code that take bias-related motivations into account when determining sanctions for student violations.

In short, maintaining a commitment to our values and balance among them is complicated, and requires robust policies, as well as constant education and training, Aw said.

Following the hearing, Aw said administrators must engage with their full constituencies, including students and faculty, when considering free speech issues. She wants conversations about freedom of expression to take into account the complexities of actually working with students, she said.

We need to figure out what can be some incentives for students to be able to not only learn, Aw told USA TODAY College, but to really appreciate the full breadth of what this [free speech] could afford them, both in terms of their education and in terms of their growth as citizens.

hsamsel@theeagleonline.com

See original here:
Fanta Aw testifies at Senate hearing on campus free speech - The Eagle

Tim 'Baked Alaska' Gionet posted a meme aimed at the 'alt light' rally.

Although the alt-right presents itself as a new kind of white male nationalism rewired for the 21st century, it is proving in practice to have many of the same qualities as its old 20th-century forebears: Riddled with infighting and internecine quarrels, the product of a movement whose sociopathic agenda attracts similar personalities, ego-driven and contentious.

The infighting, which first erupted last week between far-right Oath Keepers and whitenationalist alt-righters, deepened this week when two factions outright white nationalists and committed racists on one hand, and alt-righters (dismissed as the "alt-light") who disavow them and their politics while embracing the movement agenda squared off on social media over a series of free speech events aimed at provoking left-wing counter-protests and, potentially violence.

The result is that there will be two competing free speech events this Sunday in Washington, D.C.;one a Rally Against Political Violence hosted by alt-right provocateur Jack Posobiec, planned for noon at the White House; the other a Freedom of Speech Rally hosted by Colton Merwin at the Lincoln Memorial, and featuring such whitenationalist figures as Richard Spencer, Nathan Damigo of Identity Evropa, far-right neo-Pagan Augustus Invictus, blogger Jason Kessler, and social-media celebrity Tim Baked Alaska Gionet.

The White House rally will feature alt-right figures such as Laura Loomer (who recently made headlines by taking the stage during a performance of Julius Caesar in New York City), Kekistan fan Cassandra Fairbanks, and Kyle Prescott of the alt-right fight club Proud Boys. It apparently was organized by alt-right figure Mike Cernovich and Posobiec in response to the roster of speakers invited to the Lincoln Memorial rally; speakers such as Loomer (whose background included a stint as a writer for hate-group leader Pamela Gellers Islamophobia operation) had originally been scheduled to speak there but then canceled.

Organizers explained the rally is intended to condemn political violence such as the attack on Steve Scalise and US Congress recently, as well as depictions of gruesome displays of brutality against sitting US national leaders. All sides must join together to condemn violence and the violent rhetoric that inspires it!

The Lincoln Memorial rally organizers expressed their regrets: I'm sure some of you have already heard by now, but several speakers have dropped out due to the confirmation of Richard Spencer as a speaker. Now, not only is this horribly hypocritical, but is also bordering on an Antifa principle. By not sharing the platform with someone you disagree with you are therefore not supporting their right to speak.

I don't know Spencer, I have been famously ambivalent toward the man, but I am looking forward to meeting with him and to defending his right to say whatever the hell he's going to say on Sunday, chimed in Augustus Invictus. That is where I stand.

The two sides began sniping at each other on social media. All of you guys pulling out of the Freedom of Speech Rally are cucks, posted a critic on the Facebook page of the Political Violence rally. It's flat out hypocritical to be speaking at a Freedom of Speech rally only to pull out of the event because someone you disagree with is speaking. That makes you a hypocrite with no balls and no conviction. Grow a pair.

On Twitter, Spencer labeled Posobiec a cuck, and taunted him: Oooosh... Jack Posobiec is a great war hero. No one can criticize him. He dismissed the rally as the "Alt Light," and called them "a collection of liars ... perverts ... and Zionist fanatics."He also made fun of them for changing the focus of their rally: Apparently, these dorks blushed at the idea of calling their little meet-up a free speech rally. He added: The Tea Party, at least at its inception, was an authentic expression of American nationalism. These people total zeros.

Jason Kessler posted a video demonstrating that Posobiec had plagiarized his work while he was employed at the Canadian alt-right website The Rebel; in response, Posobiec blocked him. Posobiec also apparently blocked Baked Alaska for criticizing one of his media stunts.

Baked Alaska also got into a Twitter war with Loomer after he posted a meme with her face Photoshopped into a gas chamber, outside which stood Donald Trump in a Nazi uniform, ready to pull the switch: Et tu, brute? it read.

Loomer responded in shock: Wow. I'm calling on @bakedalaska to fully condemn anti-Semitism after posting this pic of me inside a gas chamber.

He laughed at her: It's a fucking meme. You're an SJW [Social Justice Warrior] now and it's hilarious.

The poster for Kessler's Aug. 12 event.

A similar feud threatened to break out over another free speech event, this one an Aug. 12 Unite The Right rally in Charlottesville, Va., organized by Kessler as part of his ongoing protest against the threatened removal of a Confederate monument to Gen. Robert E. Lee.

The lineup for that event includes Spencer, Augustus Invictus, white nationalist Matthew Heimbach, and League of the South president Michael Hill.

Infighting is part of every movement - but it doesn't have to be, posted Augustus Invictus on his Facebook page, along with a poster for the event.

A white nationalist commented: Very happy to see that Based Stickman, the anti-white civic nationalist cuck and shameless mountebank, has apparently been removed from the line-up. Good. He would've been fundamentally at odds with the other speakers.

Responded Kessler: He's planning to be here in a non-speaking role to back-up our attendees in the event of Antifa violence. For that, he is a friend to the event and to the First Amendment rights of our speakers.

In the meantime, another would-be participant posted: "Will the Oath Cucks be there?"

It might be time to stock up on the popcorn.

See original here:
Competing Alt-Right 'Free Speech' Rallies Reveal Infighting Over White Nationalism - Southern Poverty Law Center

Connecticut is taken with an authoritarian mood. The Constitution StateI deferentially refer to it as The Eminent Domainis in the beginning stages of passing hate crime legislation that lords the authority of correct thinking cognoscenti over the states subjects. Or, using the linguistic benignity of legislators, organizations committed to decreasing hate crimes and improving diversity awareness.

The blue blood branch of the northeast states aims to institute aHate Crimes Advisory Council committed to decreasing hate crimes and improving diversity awareness by coordinat[ing] programs to increase community awareness and reporting of crimes motivated by bigotry or bias.

Delegation is a funny thing. Before you know it, quasi-governmental councils and independent agents transform to monsters. Theres the special prosecutor who bites the hand that feeds, the government agents accountable to no one who shut down the simple toymaker, and Claire Guadiani, the Christina-Kirscher-esque supervillain of Kelo v. New Londonall of them and their commissions and councils simply contemporary star chambers run by power-graspers.

All you need to know about the direction Hate Crime Councils will take is in the history of similar bias patrols, informer networks, and homogeneous political climates structured throughout America. More specifically, we can look to the universities. Thats where diversity councils draft their first-round picks.

At Suffolk University, micro-aggression training was mandated after a sociology professor questioned a young Latina womans use of the word hence. (Cry out a hysteria hosanna for hence!)

If tenured professors at universities arent shielded from the petty rebukes of infant tyrants, what makes you think that lone, powerless adults facing the full power of the state will?

Maybe youre shopping for a subtler orthodoxy. In that case, I offer to you Old Dominion University, which has instituted a Safe Space Committee, reserving housing specifically for students who are of a progressive/multi-sexual orientation. Irish Republicans Need Not Apply. But its not discrimination. Its inclusiveness.

Go look at any of FIREs cases and see whether you like the result of universal progressive hegemony. FIRE, that laudable center of First Amendment fervor, has ventured into film in its efforts to expose higher educations collective farcical take on free speech, helping to produce the tragicomic documentary Can We Take a Joke? But if I were to chronicle Connecticuts high-handed hijinks on celluloid, Id call it The Day the Government Finally Told You to Shut Up (coming soon to a Theatre of the Absurd, check local listings for movie times).

But what about hate speech?! Ah, that old chestnut.

One of the tricks progressives use to define hate speech upmeaning they use hyperbolic language to describe what would otherwise be recognized as impolitic gaffing or uncouth mannersis by referring to hate incidents. Hate crimes are actionsbomb threats aimed at synagogues, epithet-layered graffitiwhile hate incidents involve sending messages that are objectionable but protected by the First Amendment.

There are many problems with the proposed Connecticut legislation, not least that its unclear whether simply saying stupid Jew or black sonofabitchor whatever elsewould render those utterances criminal in character. (This, of course, would ruin my annual Nubians v. Jewbians Passover Seder in New Haven.) The statute appears to cover hate incidents, too.

Remember, though, the truism that objectionable free speech is really the only kind that needs First Amendment protection. If youre a man (or a woman, or whatever) of the left, consider what one of your luminous lords, Noam Chomsky, said about free speech in Manufacturing Consent: Goebbelswas in favor of freedom of speech for views he liked. So wasStalin. If youre in favor of freedom of speech, that means youre in favor of freedom of speech precisely for views you despise.

Normally when I find myself agreeing with Noam Chomsky, I do a thousand jumping jacks, take a freezing cold shower, and then ask a friend to hit me in the face with a pan. (A jarring physical reset helps clear the brain.) And yet, still, Im in agreement with Brother Noam of the Hater of All-Americana Congregation.

Theres a big problem even with using the hate crime classification. Like every other issue in life, I use South Park to determine my views on hate crimes: Mayor, it is time to stop splitting people into groups. All hate crimes do is support the idea that blacks are different from whites, that homosexuals need to be treated differently from non-homos, that we arent the same. Thats Stan Marsh wisdom, people. Its problematic to continually bisect grievance-mongers into tinier sub-classified groups. This taxonomy of minorities can continue ad infinitumblack Jews, lesbian Mongols, trans-Latinas, inuit-differently-abled-trans-species-race-non-conforming-dolphinistasuntil the only basis for claiming equal or fair treatment is the newness of the classification and the historical oppression experienced by the identities that make up the fresh grievance category. The logical result is that only the inuit-differently-abled-trans-species-race-non-conforming-dolphinista can have a claim to being discriminated against, resulting in a Rule of Law that is inherently discriminatory. There are certain people who have an algorithmic type of thinking when it comes to politics and ideologytheyre ideologically possessed, as Dr. Jordan Peterson puts it.

Most people will look at a situation and decide how to handle it based on the facts in front of them. The ideologically possessed, however, subconsciously know how theyll respond to any scenario long before it occurs. They may, for instance, favor discrimination so long as it comports with their algorithmic worldview. The ideologically possessed are those who make up the whole of diversity committees, inclusion programs, and so on. Its from those groups that the Hate Crimes Council will recruit. The result will be the arm of the state twisting careless speakers into compliance. Or as Nat Hentoff put it: Free speech for mebut not for thee.

See the original post here:
The Tyranny Of A Tiny State: Connecticut Against Free Speech - The Daily Caller

The Supreme Court Rejection of a Law could help Washington Redskins. Buzz60

The Slants, an Asian-American dance rock band, challenged the denial of its federal trademark registration.(Photo: The Slants)

WASHINGTON The Supreme Court ruled Monday that even trademarks considered to be derogatory deserve First Amendment protection.

The decision was a victory for an Asian-American dance rock band dubbedThe Slants and, in all likelihood, for the Washington Redskins, whose trademarks were cancelled in 2014 following complaints from Native Americans.

While defending the First Amendment's freedom of speech protection, the justices did not remove all discretion from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. But they raised the bar for trademark denials so that names deemed to be offensive can survive.

"It offends a bedrock First Amendment principle: Speech may not be banned on the ground that it expresses ideas that offend," Justice Samuel Alito wrote for a unanimous court. He rejected the government's argument that protected trademarks become a form of government, rather than private, speech.

"If the federal registration of a trademark makes the mark government speech, the federal government is babbling prodigiously and incoherently," Alito said. "Itis saying many unseemly things. It is expressing contradictory views.It is unashamedly endorsing a vast array of commercial products and services. And it is providing Delphic advice to the consuming public."

Read more:

Supreme Court to rule on how election districts are drawn

Supreme Court bails out Bush officials over 9/11 detentions

Supreme Court says sex offenders can access social media

The nation's capital has been captivated for years with the battle over the Redskins' name, but the high court had left the football team's case pending at a federal appeals court in order to hear the challenge brought by band leader Simon Tam and his Portland, Oregon-based foursome.

In a statement following the ruling, Tam said it vindicated First Amendment rights for "all Americans who are fighting against paternal government policies that ultimately lead to viewpoint discrimination."

In an interview with USA TODAY in January, Tam, 36, said freedom of expression is particularly needed "with those you disagree with the most." He added:"Satire, humor, wit and irony those are the things that will truly neuter malice."

The Supreme Court's ruling on trademarks could end a long battle over the name of the Washington Redskins.(Photo: Nick Wass, AP)

Lisa Blatt, the lawyer representing Washington's football team, said the decisionresolves the Redskins long-standing dispute with the government."

"The Supreme Court vindicated the teams position that the First Amendment blocks the government from denying or canceling a trademark registration based on the governments opinion, Blatt said.

The Slants went to court after being denied trademark registration for a name they chose as an act of "reappropriation" adopting a term used by others to disparage Asian Americans and wearing it as a badge of pride.

After losing in a lower court, the band won at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the FederalCircuit, which ruled 9-3 last year that "the First Amendment protects even hurtful speech." The Obama administration then appealed to the Supreme Court.

During oral argument in January, several justices said provocative names are chosen by individuals and organizations to express their views or as advertising. Denying trademark registration, they said, was a form of viewpoint discrimination.

But some justices also wondered whether the government should retain wiggle room, particularly since even without being registered, groups such as The Slants can advertise and sign contracts.

The Supreme Court has upheld negative speech in recent years, even when it involved distasteful protests at military funerals or disgusting "animal crush" videos.But last year, it allowed Texas to ban specialty license plates featuring theConfederate flag because it was considered a form of government speech.

The Slants won support during their court fight from both liberal and conservative groups, ranging from the American Civil Liberties Union to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

Read or Share this story: https://usat.ly/2sHnrEb

See the rest here:
Supreme Court upholds offensive trademarks as form of free speech - USA TODAY

Theres been asurge in recent months of violence andthreats on university campuses from left-wing activistswhointend to silence opposing viewpoints.

It happened when conservative commentator Ann Coulter was scheduled to speak at the University of Californiaat Berkeley. Activiststhreatened violence and school officials closed down the scheduled event.

So on Tuesday, the Senate Judiciary Committee, chaired by Sen. Charles E. Grassley, R-Iowa, held a hearing to take testimony about how school officialscan protect freedom of speech as well as their students.

The committee took comments from Richard Cohen of the Southern Poverty Law Center.

Thats thegroup cited by Floyd Corkins as his source of informationwhen he attempted to commit mass murder at the evangelicalFamily Research Council office in Washington, D.C.

Get the Whistleblower Magazines revelations about SPLC in its The Hate Racket issue, which shows how the group fools government into equating Christians and conservatives with Klansmen and Nazis and rakes in millions in the process.

Its also the group that was liked on social media by James Hodgkinson, the man who tried to kill Republican members of Congress last week at a baseball practice.

Hodgkinson was merely swimming in the pond created by the SPLC and other groups like it, said Lt. Gen. William Boykin, FRCs executive vice president.

Boykinwrote a letter to the committee on the occasion of the SPLC testimony, warning members of the groups true agenda.

I have provided this background information in order to disabuse the committee of any notion it may have that the SPLC cares about the preservation of free speech rights on college campuses for those with whom they disagree on key issues, he explained.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

The hearing, titled Free Speech 101: The Assault on the First Amendment on College Campuses, took testimony from students, college officials and others.

It is extremely ironic that one of your witnesses is actually an enemy of free speech, wrote Boykin. I write here of Richard Cohen of the Southern Poverty Law Center.

The retired officertold senators SPLC has refined a method of defaming its political opponents that is extremely effective when combined with the massive war chest it can rely upon an amount that totals over $319 million as of late 2016.

He said the organization targets victims with hate and extremist labels.

The SPLC bullies and dehumanizes many ordinary Americans by calling them names and portraying them grotesquely in terrible photographs and sketches, he wrote.

The group does not want open debate,said Boykin.

One of the targets of SPLCs hate label in 2016 was then-presidential candidate Dr. Ben Carson.

Boykin pointed out that in2007, SPLCs Mark Potok gave an address in which he made this observation about SPLCs modus operandi: Sometimes the press will describe us as monitoring hate crimes and so on . I want to say plainly that our aim in life is to destroy these groups, to completely destroy them.

Boykinsaid SPLC has no interest in an exchange of ideas, even with peaceful, mainstream groups like Alliance Defending Freedom, the Center for Family and Human Rights (C-FAM), the Family Research Council (FRC), and the Pacific Justice Institute whose views may differ greatly from theirs.

He cited the Corkins case that linked SPLC to domestic terror.

Corkins came to the FRC building with the intention of using a semi-automatic pistol to kill everyone there and then place Chick-fil-A sandwiches by 15 of those bodies. In a chilling interrogation video released by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and played in court, Corkins said he picked his targets by relying on the SPLC websites Hate Map.

Boykin said it was not surprising then that Hodgkinson had liked SPLC on Facebook.

Boykin chargedthe depth to which the SPLC will sink knows almost no bottom, citing an SPLC attack on human rights activist Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who opposes a darker, violent side of Islam.

Ali suffered female genital mutilation as a child and wrote about it in her book Infidel.

SPLCs characterization was that she says she sufferedFGM.

Boykin said: It is mind-boggling that a progressive organization like the SPLC would cast doubt on her claims in a personal matter like this.

In his comments, Cohen claimed presidential politics and growing white nationalist activity are making campuses increasingly polarized.

WND reportedHodgkinson, who was killed by police when he shot at members of Congress, apparently was a fan of SPLC.

Hodgkinson also liked many anti-Republican, far-left Facebook pages, including Dump Trump, Liar, Liar, Republican campaign on fire, Republicans ARE the problem, Berniecrats United to Resist Trump and Fire the Republican Government.

Overtly anti-Republican groups were not the only things he liked on Facebook. His liked TV shows favored by the left-wing such as Last Week Tonight with John Oliver on HBO, The Rachel Maddow Show on MSNBC and The Daily Show with Trevor Noah on Comedy Central.

Get the Whistleblower Magazines revelations about the SPLC, in its March 2015 edition of The Hate Racket, the complete story of how one group fools government into equating Christians and conservatives with Klansmen and Nazis and rakes in millions doing it.

The legal team at Liberty Counsel, criticizing SPLC for falsely and recklessly labeling Christian ministries as hate groups,' noted SPLC is responsible for the first conviction of a man who intended to commit mass murder targeted against a policy organization in Washington, D.C.

On August 15, 2012, Floyd Corkins went to the Family Research Council with a gun and a bag filled with ammunition and Chick-fil-A sandwiches. His stated purpose was to kill as many employees of the Family Research Council as possible and then to smear Chick-fil-A sandwiches in their faces (because the founder of the food chain said he believed in marriage as a man and a woman). Fortunately, Mr. Corkins was stopped by the security guard, who was shot in the process. Corkins is now serving time in prison. Mr. Corkins admitted to the court that he learned of the Family Research Council by reading the SPLCs hate map.

WND reported a video showed Corkins entering the FRC offices and confronting Leo Johnson.

Corkins later was sentenced to prison for domestic terrorism. It was during an interview with FBI officers that Corkins named SPLC as his source of information.

Central to the case, according to the governments document, was that Corkins had identified the FRC as an anti-gay organization on the Southern Poverty Law Center website.

FRC officials repeatedly have explained that they adhere to a biblical perspective on homosexuality but are not anti-gay.

SPLC also exhibited behavior so egregious that it was reprimanded by the far-left administration of Barack Obama.

Judicial Watch, citing a letter to Michael M. Hethmon, senior counsel for the Immigration Reform Law Institute, and others, said the DOJ reprimand came in 2016 but was kept quiet at the agencys request.

[It] involves the SPLCs atrocious behavior during immigration court proceedings. Two groups that oppose illegal immigration, the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) and the Immigration Reform Law Institute (IRLI), were the target of personal, baseless and below-the-belt attacks from SPLC attorneys during official immigration court proceedings. The SPLC filed a motion attacking and defaming the two respected nonprofits by describing them as white supremacist, eugenicist, anti-Semitic, and anti-Catholic. In its reprimand the DOJ says it is troubled by the conduct of SPLC lawyer Christopher Strawn and that his conduct overstepped the bounds of zealous advocacy and was unprofessional. Furthermore, SPLC made uncivil comments that disparaged FAIR and its staff, the rebuke states, adding that the language constitutes frivolous behavior and doesnt aid in the administration of justice, Judicial Watch explained.

The Obama administration kept the reprimand confidential and asked FAIR and IRLI to keep it under wraps. In the meantime, SPLC continues to publicly trash the groups and escalate attacks against them by putting them on the official hate list. The executive director and general counsel of IRLI, Dale Wilcox, says his nonprofit and FAIR will keep fighting for immigration policies that put America first. The SPLCs latest tactic in its never-ending witch-hunt and the federal governments resulting reprimand should send the following message to the mainstream media, Wilcox said: Stop using the SPLC as a legitimate hate-watch source in your news coverage. That a cabal of biased list-keepers can play such an important role in distorting the immigration debate in this country is testament to the utter failure of much of the mainstream media which frequently publishes their inflammatory commentary and refuses to question their baseless methods or financial motivations,' Judicial Watch said.

The letter explained the DOJ stopped short of formal disciplinary proceeding[s], instead opting for the rebuke in the letter.

We take this opportunity to remind the attorney practitioners involved in this misconduct that practitioners before EOIR should be striving to be civil and professional in their interactions with each other, the public, the board and immigration courts. Attorneys owe a duty of professionalism to their clients, opposing parties and their counsel, the courts, and the public as a whole.

To really understand the war zone America is becoming, read the June issue of WNDs acclaimed monthly Whistleblower magazine, RAGE AND VIOLENCE: Why the Left has gone insane in the Age of Trump.

Here is the original post:
Left-wing smear group scorched as 'enemy of free speech' - WND.com

As a July 11 trial start date gets closer, the stakes in a legal battle over a proposed Lynyrd Skynyrd biopic are headed toward double trouble and the heart of American democracy, the films producer said today.

This law suit proves that Freedom of Speech in the United States of America is officially under attack by an increasingly litigious culture that breeds utter contempt for art and that should indeed worry everyone attempting to make a living in the entertainment industry today, Cleopatra Films boss Brian Perera said Tuesday of the court clash over Street Survivors: The True Story of theLynyrd SkynyrdPlane Crash.

With a flurry of filings being made public in the past few days after District Court Judge Robert Sweet tossed an attempt by remaining members of the iconic Southern rock band and the estates of Ronnie Van Zant and others for a preliminary injunction, Perera and Cleopatra want to put the suit in the spotlight before the two-day trial starts next month.

Filed on May 5 by Ronnie Van Zant Inc, Gary Rossington, Johnny Van Zant, the representatives of the Allen Collins Trust and the estate of Steven Gaines, the complaint essentially argues that Cleopatra and ex-Skynyrd drummer and crash survivor Artimus Pyle cannot make Street Survivors because it violates a 1988 consent order over use of the bands name and the tragic plane crash of October 20, 1977.

Cleopatras response has been to claim that Pyle, who is a signatory to the consent order, is no longer directly involved with the writing of the Jared Cohn helmed project. The division of Cleopatra Records that distributed A Street Cat Named Bob this year also says Pyles story and the story of the crash has been well known for years, the movie wont have any Skynyrd music in it and the consent order doesnt actually affect them.

Plaintiffs bring only a single claim against Cleopatra: they allege that the film violates a settlement agreement in a 1988 civil action to which Cleopatra was not a Party, noted Cleopatra attorney Evan Mandel in a May 11 opposition to the preliminary injunction (read it here). The settlement agreement was memorialized in a Consent Decree, the NYC based Mandel Bhandari LLP lawyer adds. Plaintiffs sole claim is as meritless as its request for a preliminary injunction.

Deadline first reported exclusivelyon casting for the film back in April, just a few weeks before shooting on the $1.3 million0budgeted Street Survivors was set to start.

Pauline McTernan and Richard Haddad of NYCs Otterboug P.C. and Sandor Frankel of Frankel & Adams represent the plaintiffs.

Continued here:
Lynyrd Skynyrd Biopic Producer Slams Band Suit As Attacking Freedom Of Speech - Deadline

Thomas Gallatin Jun. 20, 2017

The Supreme Court ruled in an unanimous 8-0 decision Monday to strike down the Patent and Trademark Offices denial of trademark for an offensive band name. The case in question was brought by the Asian-American band The Slants, who had been denied a trademark on the basis that their name was deemed disparaging and offensive. The government argued that trademarks did not fall under First Amendment protections of free speech because they werent private speech in fact, that a trademark is government sanctioned speech. Therefore, the government argued, when the government reviews trademark applications it is free to deny granting them based on what it deems offensive or disparaging.

Thankfully, the Supreme Court correctly saw the governments contorted rationale for what it was a justification to deny freedom of speech. Justice Samuel Alito stated, We have said time and again that the public expression of ideas may not be prohibited merely because the ideas are themselves offensive to some of their hearers. He continued, We now hold that this provision violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. It offends a bedrock First Amendment principle: Speech may not be banned on the ground that it expresses ideas that offend.

Not only is the Supreme Courts ruling good news for The Slants, but it holds positive implications for the National Football Leagues Washington Redskins. In 2014, the Patent and Trademark Office canceled the trademark on the teams name because it deemed Redskins to be disparaging to Native Americans. Lost on the social justice warrior yahoos is that no one names their team something they find disparaging. The Redskins appeal is currently stuck in the Fourth Circuit Court, but this ruling should inform the lower courts decision.

Americans should rejoice over the fact that freedom of speech has been protected from those who would seek to prevent it, no matter how noble their cause may have been. And this should be a reminder that there will always be those who will seek through the power of government to silence the speech of those with whom they find offense or disagreement.

Link:
SCOTUS Rules in Favor of Free Speech - Patriot Post

The president of the White House Correspondents' Association (WHCA), Jeff Mason, accepted the award during DW's Global Media Forum in Bonn on Monday evening on behalf of the journalists who are reporting on the front lines of US President Donald Trump's administration.

Mason, who has been president of the WHCA since July 2016, said he was "humbled" by the prize, adding that his organization "would have never sought or expected" to receive the Freedom of Speech Award.

"If receiving it helps shed light on the importance of press freedom around the world, if Deutsche Welle's choice highlights the fact that even in strong, established democracies reporters rights must be fought for... then it is in that spirit that I humbly and gratefully accept this award," Mason said during the award ceremony.

He admitted that since Trump's election in November last year, the challenges facing WHCA reporters "increased dramatically." Trump has repeatedly railed the press as being "fake news" and even labeled the media as "the enemy of the American people."

DW Director General Peter Limbourg said the award is meant to be a "sign of solidarity and encouragement for those colleagues who have the exciting task of reporting about the US president and his policies."

'Stand together, never give up'

The president of the German Press Association, Gregor Mayntz, expressed surprise while delivering his laudation during the awards ceremony.

"There are some important people in the world who should be ashamed that the WHCA has deserved this award," Mayntz added.

Monika Grtters (center right), Gregor Mayntz (far right) and DW's Peter Limbourg praised the work done by WHCA reporters and president Jeff Mason (center left)

He praised his US-American colleagues for their professionalism, transparency and commitment to fact checking. "Stand together, never give up, as the challenges to democracy and freedom of speech are not limited to one country," Mayntz urged.

Monika Grtters, the German government Commissioner for Culture and Media, said during a speech that democracies can only defend against "authoritarian and totalitarian attacks" when freedom of speech is functioning.

She noted that countries who limit the freedom of the press by arresting journalists and critical voices, "they are sounding the death knell for democracy."

"Only diversity of opinion and perspective helps to legitimize the truth," Grtters said.

DW began the Freedom of Speech Award two years ago to honor initiatives or individuals who stand out in their fight to promote freedom of expression and human rights.

Last year, the prize was awarded to Sedat Ergin, then editor-in-chief of the Turkish daily Hurriyet newspaper, which is one of the few papers in Turkey that is critical of the government. Jailed Saudi blogger Raif Badawi received the award in 2015.

'If you lose democracy, you lose the free press'

Concerns over the state of freedom of the press and freedom of speech permeated panel discussions on the first day of the Global Media Forum - which runs from Monday through Wednesday in Bonn. Many moderators and panelists noted that they are working in "troubled times."

In a panel entitled "Satire as a weapon," satirists and artists from Africa and Latin America spoke about the restrictions and backlash they face for their work, both from those in power and the general public.

Samm Farai Monro, a satirist with Magamba TV in Zimbabwe, noted: "We've got freedom of expressing, but you don't have freedom after expression."

zgr Mumcu, a Turkish lawyer and journalist with the Cumhuriyet, noted during a panel on press freedom in Turkey, that the country doesn't just have a problem with fake news, it has a "fake democracy problem" as well.

"If you're losing democracy, you lose the free press," he added.

Despite the challenges facing journalists and others who work in the media worldwide, WHCA President Mason said young journalists shouldn't shy away.

"It couldn't be a better time to be a journalist and it couldn't be a more important time," he said.

Go here to see the original:
Reporters in Trump White House scoop DW Freedom of Speech Award - Deutsche Welle

One of the battle lines in Americas culture wars runs straight through the First Amendment.

Cultural conservatives seem to think liberals dont really believe in free speech because we are all too willing to silence what we see as hate speech and what conservatives seem to see as expressions of their core values banning Muslims, closing the southern border to Hispanics, preventing the LGBTQ community from gaining their rights, defending police violence against black people, etc.

While conservatives such as Milo Yiannapolis, a British agitator who got banned from Twitter for his racist tweets, have felt the sword of the censor fall upon them, so has liberal comedian Kathy Griffin, who lost her job as CNN New Years Eve co-host for displaying a picture of Donald Trumps severed head. Trump makes people on both sides crazy.

If you thought things were tense between right and left, conservative and progressive before, Trumps ascension has made things much worse, emboldening bigots and incensing liberals. Comedian Bill Maher, champion of all things politically incorrect, caused a recent controversy when Sen. Ben Sasse jokingly invited him to come to Nebraska to work in the fields.

Work in the fields? Maher replied. Senator, Im a house (N-word).

Maher apologized for using the N-word and invited a pair of prominent African-Americans rapper/actor Ice Cube and Georgetown University sociologist Michael Eric Dyson on his show to gently flog him for his verbal sin.

For the record, Yiannopolis, Griffin and Maher were all way out of line.

The volatility of the free speech issue is greatest on college campuses, not only because academia is seen as inherently liberal, but also because colleges and universities are laboratories that test social norms and advance culture. Sometimes they get it right and sometimes not.

Harvard University was in the news this month because it rescinded the acceptances of 10 students who posted offensive memes on a Class of 2021 Facebook chat site called Harvard memes for horny bourgeois teens. Being horny and bougie were the least of these teens troubles; they got kicked out of Harvard before they even got there for being just plain stupid.

Why would any intelligent, college-bound student post things that make fun of the Holocaust, sexual assault and the deaths of children? Insensitivity? Shock value? Peer pressure? Who cares? Harvard could fill every class with valedictorians with 800 SAT scores, so it doesnt need to coddle creeps who think its cool to be crass. Harvard got it right.

Out at Evergreen State College in Olympia, Washington, that redoubt of hippie academics and anarchists turned itself inside out over one professors objection to the colleges Day of Absence, an annual exercise in racial awareness inspired by Douglas Turner Wards play of the same name, in which all the people of color disappear from a small Southern town.

In the past, the Day of Absence had been a voluntary affair where students of color met off-campus to discuss issues of race. This year, the college asked white students to leave campus for a day because students of color felt unwelcome in the wake of the 2016 election.

There is a huge difference between a group or coalition deciding to voluntarily absent themselves from a shared space in order to highlight their vital and under-appreciated roles, wrote Bret Weinstein, a professor of evolutionary biology who describes himself as deeply progressive, and a group or coalition encouraging another group to go away.

In response, 65 Evergreen State faculty and 34 staff members signed a solidarity statement, not in support of Weinstein, but calling on him to be punished because he endangered faculty, staff, and students, making them targets of white supremacist backlash by promulgating misinformation in public emails, on national television, in news outlets, and on social media.

It did not help Weinsteins deeply progressive cause that he wrote a guest editorial in the conservative Wall Street Journal and appeared on Fox News with conservative commentator Tucker Carlson. A group of 50 students confronted Weinstein and shouted him down as a racist because he objected to the authoritarian way college President George Bridges had re-ordered a Day of Absence.

Evergreen State got it wrong. Professor Mike Paros, the one Evergreen State faculty member who stood up for Weinstein, got it right.

When one is confronted with truths that contradict closely held beliefs, wrote Paros to his colleagues, the mind begins to make outlandish rationalizations. The faculty email response will someday be used in psychology textbooks as a case study in group thinking.

The First Amendment only prohibits the government from infringing on your free speech. It does not not prevent your employers, your opponents or even your colleagues from doing so.

Freelance journalist Edgar Allen Beem lives in Brunswick. The Universal Notebook is his personal, weekly look at the world around him.

Read the original:
The Universal Notebook: Freedom of speech is just an expression - The Forecaster