Category Archives: Freedom of Speech

Lets not mince words. Once again, the courts have rescued the people of Florida from the extremism of their own Legislature.

Attorney General Pam Bondi and Gov. Rick Scott let the deadline pass to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court the decision striking down the gag order on doctors in the infamous Docs v. Glocks case.

Whether this was an intentional decision to throw in the towel on this dangerous and unconstitutional restriction on freedom of speech or simply neglect, we dont know. But any threat to strip a doctor of his or her license for talking to patients about the safe storage of guns in the home has been removed.

The American Civil Liberties Union, aided by an exceptionally skilled legal team, worked for six years on behalf of more than a half-dozen medical, pediatric and childrens rights organizations in support of the doctors who courageously challenged the states effort to gag their discussions with patients about gun safety and especially keeping guns out of the reach of children.

Yes, there is a constitutional right to own a gun. We all get that. But our legislature was conned into swallowing the fiction that talking about guns and gun safety somehow threatened this constitutional right.

What is important now is that every doctor in Florida knows that the First Amendment right guaranteeing freedom of speech once again provides protection for the medical community to honor its mission to protect the health and lives of patients. And this includes counseling patients who own guns to ensure that they are safely stored to prevent suicides and out of the reach of children to prevent tragic accidental shootings.

And this includes counseling patients who own guns to ensure that they are safely stored to prevent suicides and out of the reach of children to prevent tragic accidental shootings.

One of the many reasons that this case was so important is that Florida became a test case. If the courts didnt stand up for the free speech of doctors, you could be sure that the National Rifle Association would have had this dangerous law introduced in every state. But the strong affirmation of free speech by the federal appeals court hopefully ends this deadly threat here.

This victory for the freedom of speech for doctors and the medical community had to overcome the collective opposition of very powerful forces, including the NRA, which sponsored this dangerously mistaken policy, the Legislature that adopted it, the governor who signed it, and the attorney general who defended it in the courts.

But after six years, that is now thankfully behind us.

Editors note: Howard Simon is executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida.

Our Legislature was conned into swallowing the fiction that talking about guns and gun safety somehow threatened the constitutional right to bear arms.

See the original post:
POINT OF VIEW In 'Docs v. Glocks', a win for free speech, public health - Palm Beach Post

Chalk it up to a lesson in free speech: Kutztown University has changed its policy on sidewalk chalk messages after an antiabortion group protested what it called censorship by scrub brush.

The episode began in March when a chapter of Students for Life of America used colored chalk to write antiabortion messages on sidewalks at the rural Berks County university, which is part of the Pennsylvania state system of higher education.

After university employees washed away the messages on two consecutive days, the student group turned to a conservative nonprofit legal organization, Alliance Defending Freedom. It sent a letter to the university president, accusing the school of unconstitutional censorship and demanding a revised chalking policy.

In a statement issued Monday, the university said the March incident was simply a misunderstanding as the messages were erased during campus cleaning.

A student group chalked antiabortion messages on Kutztown University sidewalks

When the university administration became aware of the situation, the group was immediately informed that it had every right to chalk its messages on our campus, the statement said.

The chalking guidelines were revised in April to better reflect our support of free speech, the statement added. The revision scrapped a section on message content that required messages to be educational or informative in nature, and prohibited messages deemed to have a clear and present potential hazard of interfering with the process of the university.

In a statement Monday, Alliance Defending Freedom lawyer Travis Barham said: No public university can silence student speech simply because officials dont like what the students are saying. We commend Kutztown University officials for revising their policy to respect freedom of speech for all students.

Around the country, chalking has long been a cheap, easy way for students to advertise campus events. But in recent years, a number of schools have had flaps over politically charged messages. Last year at Emory University outside Atlanta, for example, chalk declarations supporting then-presidential candidate Donald Trump prompted a protest demonstration; the university president issued a bulletin affirming the value of vigorous debate, speech, and protest as well as civility and inclusion.

Last month in California, Alliance Defending Freedom and Students for Life decried the erasure of antiabortion chalk texts at Fresno State University. But in that case, a professor and his students scuffed out messages for which the university had given permission, according to alliance lawyers.

Published: June 13, 2017 2:06 PM EDT

We recently asked you to support our journalism. The response, in a word, is heartening. You have encouraged us in our mission to provide quality news and watchdog journalism. Some of you have even followed through with subscriptions, which is especially gratifying. Our role as an independent, fact-based news organization has never been clearer. And our promise to you is that we will always strive to provide indispensable journalism to our community. Subscriptions are available for home delivery of the print edition and for a digital replica viewable on your mobile device or computer. Subscriptions start as low as 25 per day. We're thankful for your support in every way.

Read the original:
In flap over free speech, Kutztown University loosens sidewalk ... - Philly.com

Counterdemonstrating against the alt-right in Portland (Leighta Lehto)

"FREE SPEECH or die, Portland. You got no safe space. This is America. Get out if you don't like free speech."

Those were the chilling words of anti-Muslim terrorist Jeremy Christian at his arraignment for stabbing three people who tried to stand up to his harassment of two women of color, one of them wearing a hijab, on a light rail train in Portland, Oregon.

Christian was responding to the far right's current cynical campaign in defense of what it calls "free speech"--which to the bigots means the freedom to harass, intimidate and assault oppressed people with no opposition.

In a Facebook event in support of Christian that was quickly deleted, white nationalists claimed that in killing two people and seriously injuring a third, Christian was defending his right to free speech from the men who tried to stop him from verbally assaulting two high school girls with his bigoted rant.

In a less overt call to violently protect hate speech at the alt-right's June 4 "Trump Free Speech" rally, Kyle Chapman--also known as "Based Stickman"--encouraged members of the crowd to "protect people with conservative ideology from being systematically oppressed."

And, of course, these right-wingers also unapologetically support the many First Amendment violations committed by police. There were a multitude of "Blue Lives Matter" flags at the right's June 4 rally--and the right-wingers cheered when police used excessive force to shut down the Antifa counterprotest. When the rights of 300 counterprotesters were violated by police who kettled them on a city block and took pictures of their IDs, these so-called champions of "freedom" had nothing to say.

But attempts by newly forming fascist organizations to warp the concept of freedom of speech shouldn't lead our side to abandon this important principle, which is vital to building a strong movement that can take on the racist right.

Calls from politicians to put limitations on speech, like the attempt made by Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler to get the federal government to revoke the alt-right's permit for the June 4 rally, only serve to further embolden the right and plant the seeds for future crackdowns on the left.

Fortunately, a much more effective response to the right took place when more than 2,000 Portlanders attended various counterprotests, the largest one being the Portland Stands United Against Hate rally.

The counterprotesters refused to be intimidated and used their free speech to show the far right that the vast majority of Portland won't allow hate to go unchallenged. Mobilizations like this are the only effective option for confronting the emboldened right and their efforts to recruit larger numbers.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

WHEELER'S REQUEST may have struck many progressives as a logical response, particularly after the experience of a previous right-wing rally that Christian showed up to with a baseball bat a few weeks before his double homicide that traumatized the city.

In reality, however, the mayor's action played into the hands of the far right, which is actively recruiting by positioning itself as defenders of free speech.

The federal government declined to revoke the permit, but the right was still able to use Wheeler's request to its advantage. Portland organizers of a June 10 anti-Muslim rally announced that they would move their efforts out of Portland to Seattle "due to Mayor Wheeler's inflammatory comments and what we feel is an incitement of violence, he has shamefully endangered every scheduled participant."

The decision to not have another hate rally in Portland might, in reality, have been a response to the quick organization of a second Portland Stands United Against Hate event and the large numbers of people who promised to attend another counterprotest. But the bigots will use any opportunity to portray themselves as victims of perceived oppression to win new supporters.

The left should also be clear that we don't want our blatantly undemocratic government--which gave Donald Trump the presidency despite his losing the popular vote--to have the power to dictate the terms of free speech.

Restrictions on speech have historically been used to suppress oppressed minorities, workers and the left. This is clearly the intention of the new president, who during his campaign lamented over the "good old days" when protesters were treated "very, very rough. And when they protested once, you know, they would not do it again so easily."

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

HIGH-PROFILE incidents of right-wing violence and intimidation are undoubtedly on the rise, from the Portland murders to the killing of Black army veteran Richard Collins III at the University of Maryland, to the death threats against Princeton professor Keeanga-Yamahtta Taylor. The right claims to be the protectors of freedom, yet they are terrorizing people who want to use those freedoms in their lives.

But we have to be clear that the government blocking right-wing rallies won't stop the right's hateful message from taking root--not as long as the underlying conditions fueling hatred and bigotry goes unaddressed.

Since the economic crisis of 2007-08, a political polarization has taken place in the U.S., pushing people to the left and to the right at the same time. The right's answer to the crisis has been to step up scapegoating, while Donald Trump escalates the war on workers and the oppressed. The far right and Republicans are drawing closer together, as each looks to take advantage of the other's successes to recruit.

Government crackdowns on free speech and small bands of left-wing street fighters won't stop the right--on the contrary, they might, in fact, help the right to recruit.

Instead, we need large numbers to confront the right, expose their fraudulent claims to be an oppressed "silent majority," and demoralize potential new supporters.

We must also focus on organizing our side to pose an alternative to the right's scapegoating and hate as polarization continues to deepen. We're going to need to use our right to free speech to expose the hypocrisy of the bigots--and argue for a radical alternative to the dehumanizing conditions of capitalism that created the conditions for the right to grow.

Christopher Zimmerly-Beck contributed to this article.

Go here to read the rest:
We need free speech to fight the right - Socialist Worker Online

Its decision time at the Supreme Court, as the justices prepare to hand down the final rulings of their current term by the end of this month. They are due to rule in 21 cases, including disputes over religion, free speech and immigration that could have broad significance.

This years term has been quieter than normal. It began in the fall when eight justices were waiting for the presidential election to decide who would fill the seat left vacant by the death of Antonin Scalia. New Justice Neil M. Gorsuch arrived in mid-April in time to hear about a dozen cases.

Most of this years docket was taken up with cases that asked the justices to clarify the law, not settle a highly contentious issue.

Before their summer recess, the justices are also expected to act on several pending appeals.

Lawyers for President Trump want the court to issue an order putting into effect his scaled-down foreign travel ban and then to grant review in the fall of the appeals court ruling that declared it unconstitutional.

The justices have also spent weeks considering appeals in three cases that could lead to major rulings if they are granted review for the fall. One involves a Colorado baker who turned away a gay couples request for a wedding cake. At issue is a clash between religious rights and a states anti-discrimination law. The other two cases test the reach of the 2nd Amendment and the right to bear arms.

The court is also expected to take up a major case on partisan gerrymandering from Wisconsin which could yield early next year an important ruling on political power.

Here are notable cases due to be decided this month:

Must a state offer equal funds to church schools if other private groups may qualify? A seemingly small dispute over the playground at a Lutheran day center in Missouri could trigger a major shift in church-state law. Most states constitutions forbid sending tax money to a church. Religious rights advocates sued when Missouri refused to pay for rubberizing a church schools playground, and they argue the court should strike down the limits on state funds going to churches as discriminatory and abridging the 1st Amendments protection for the free exercise of religion. The court heard the case in April, a few days after Gorsuch arrived. (Trinity Lutheran vs. Comer)

Does the federal trademark law violate the freedom of speech because it forbids names and phrases that may disparage people or groups? Washington, D.C.s pro football team, the Redskins, are in danger of losing their trademark because of this provision. The justices heard the case of an Asian American band that calls itself the Slants and seemed divided over whether this was a racial slight or humor. (Lee vs. Tam)

May U.S. authorities arrest and jail for as long as needed immigrants who face deportation, or does the Constitutions guarantee of due process of law accord them a bond hearing within six months and possible release if they pose no danger or flight risk? A class-action lawsuit in Los Angeles challenged the long-term detention of these immigrants, many of whom typically go on to win their cases and are eventually set free. It led to a ruling from the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals putting limits on the jailing of immigrants. The case was heard in November shortly after President Trump was elected. (Jennings vs. Rodriguez)

Can a U.S. border patrol agent be sued for fatally shooting a Mexican teenager who was standing on the other side of the border? Video of the officer killing the 15-year-old boy provoked outrage along the border, but U.S. officials refused to prosecute the agent, and federal judges threw out a lawsuit filed by the boys parents on the grounds that the Constitution did not protect the Mexican boy on Mexican soil. In cases about the U.S. detention center in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, however, the court has said the Constitutions protection did extend to territory beyond the border that was under the control of U.S. authorities. (Hernandez vs. Mesa)

Is breaking into a garage or empty home a crime of violence that requires the deportation of a longtime legal immigrant? The law says noncitizens who are guilty of an aggravated felony, including a crime of violence, must be deported. But it is not clear what crimes qualify. A Filipino native who has lived in Northern California since 1992 faces deportation for a 10-year-old burglary conviction involving break-ins of a garage and a house. But the 9th Circuit Court said the law itself was unconstitutionally vague because it did not define a crime of violence. (Sessions vs. Dimaya)

david.savage@latimes.com

On Twitter: DavidGSavage

ALSO

Sessions to answer questions in public about Russia dealings

Attorneys general of Maryland and D.C. plan 'major lawsuit' against Trump

Trump attorney signals a firm stance in dealing with special prosecutor

Follow this link:
Decision time at the Supreme Court: Rulings expected soon on ... - Los Angeles Times

The June 4 commentary by Edward J. Cleary on protection of free speech over righteous censorship (Tending the flame of freedom ) was outstanding. It presented multiple strong arguments why we must be tolerant of and open to listening to the words of others, even if those words significantly differ from our own beliefs. The commentary was replete with good advice, too many points to adequately re-articulate here. One important focus was on speech code, the protection some seek/demand from thoughts and ideas adverse to their own. Sustaining such a closed environment reinforces a narrow-minded and self-centered populace.

Consider three recent news trends:students turning their backs on or walking out on commencement speakers, constituents shouting at public representatives at open public meetings, and anything to do with President Donald Trump. In each situation, individuals demand the right to voice or act out their opinion, but deny their opponents their equal right to express their own opinion. It is no wonder that our elected representatives are so ineffective. They are simply reflecting the narrow-mindedness of their constituents. Maintenance of free speech, no matter whether one agrees or disagrees, is the basis of democracy. When one denies free speech to others, or refuses to listen, that represents the beginning of the demise of democracy. Democracy provides each of us the right to our own opinions, but it does not provide the right to suppress the opinions of others.

Thomas P. Moyer, Golden Valley

See more here:
Readers Write: Freedom of speech, personal spending priorities, the Comey testimony - Minneapolis Star Tribune

Subscribe today for full access on your desktop, tablet, and mobile device.

Let friends in your social network know what you are reading about

Kathy Griffin backlash isn't censorship.

Try Another

Audio CAPTCHA

Image CAPTCHA

Help

CancelSend

A link has been sent to your friend's email address.

A link has been posted to your Facebook feed.

Daniel Finney, Springfield 7:16 p.m. CT June 10, 2017

Last week I was watching Kathy Griffin BOO-HOOing that the Trump family was trying to ruin her career. Someone in her "group" even said it's censorship. Seriously?

Just a few short years agoa rodeo clown, here in Missouri, wore a Halloween mask (that you could buy in a store) of President Obama as part of his routine in the rodeo. His career as a rodeo clown was ruined. He was labeled a racist and was called who knows what, received death threats, etc.

It's weird to me how a liberal mind can rationalize that wearing a Halloween mask is racist, but holding up the likeness of a sitting President's bloody severed head is freedom of speech!

Read or Share this story: http://sgfnow.co/2s9MSOx

0:55

Read the rest here:
Don't be selective with freedom of speech - Springfield News-Leader

In the past few years it has become a growing trend for individuals who feel the need to adamantly defend their constitutional right to free speech to usually be vehemently racist or otherwise problematic white people.

Whether it is Kim Davis, the county clerk who infamously defied the ruling of U.S. Supreme Court and refused to grant same-sex couples in Kentucky their marriage licenses, or Richard Spencer, a bold-faced white supremacist who advocates for peaceful ethnic cleansing, the first amendment has become a key rallying point for a growing conservative movement against a culture of Political correctness.

This particular view in a battle of principles is usually attributed to an honest and holistic respect for the American constitution as it is written. However, if this is the case, why do we rarely see these proud defendants of free speech when it comes to the frequent silencing of activists and people of color who choose to stand their ground?

A video from Texas State went viral this past semester after a student flew into a fit of rage toward a religious group that had fabricated images to persuade people to be pro-life concerning abortions. In the video, the student sets aside a balloon and bouquet of flowers to proceed through an audibly emotional tirade, kicking and punching various signs displaying graphic abortion imagery as an older gentleman attempts to calm him down.

Even many who supported his stance against anti-abortion rhetoric were eager to point out how his actions were ignorant, immature and a general disgrace to Texas States falsely proclaimed Free Speech Zone. Texas State is a public university and there is no specifically designated free speech zone, but the point to which students are willing to defend fabricated information that is obscene, hateful and potentially damaging to the mental health of many of their peers indicates a larger issue that perhaps is not tied to the sanctity of an organizations right to display poster boards.

Considering all of these are factors thatshouldfall under thelimits to free speechas defined by the Supreme Court casesGertz v. Robert Welch Inc.andMiller v. California, it becomes clear that students objections to this display of political rage are less rooted in concern for the preservation of constitutional rights, but rather fit a familiar rhetoric that desperately wishes only for peaceful, unobtrusive protests that allow the normalization of violent systems of oppression.

Whether you agree with this students actions or not, it is a silly notion to insist that he instead try talking to the organizers of the anti-choice display as if they themselves travel from university to university with the intention of having meaningful discourse and understanding. They purposefully produce hateful imagery and count on our loose understanding of constitutional free speech and need for normalcy as a buffer to spread their falsified information to vulnerable audiences. The more we find the courage to break out of these imagined rules on how to respectfully engage with perpetrators that are rarely held to the same standard respect, the more we can utilize the full range of options at hand when it comes to the dismantling of hateful institutions.

-Tafari Robertson is a public relations senior

View original post here:
Freedom of speech is for white people - Texas State University - The University Star

Salt Lake CityAt times, the workplace can feel like a battleground between free speech and preventing harassment or discrimination. Navigating the laws concerning both can be a tricky dance for employers and managers, but it can be done, said Ryan D. Nelson, president of the Utah Employment Association.

Just as you can express yourself, your employees can and will, inside and out of the workplace, and sometimes that cause conflict, he said.

Part of the conflict comes from the fundamental basis of expression in opinionbecause its an opinion, its holder cant be right or wrong, he said, and people express it usually with a certain expectation of being right. There are a number of laws, some of which supersede others, that have to be considered when balancing maintaining a safe workplace and allowing employees to have freedom of speech, he said.

The Constitutional First Amendment right to free speech is one such consideration, but so is the National Labor Relations Act, which protects free speech and political expressions as far as they touch on wages, hours or working conditions; Title VII, which applies to public and private employers with at least 15 employees and protects against harassment or discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex or national origin; and Utahs own free speech law, which protects persons speaking as citizens on a matter of public concern as long as it doesnt disrupt business.

Those laws can sometimes trump each other, and in some instances, speech can be protected under some but not others. Nelson pointed to an op-ed from earlier this year from then-Wasatch County Republican Party Vice Chair James Green, who argued that eliminating the wage gap between men and women would be harmful for businesses and threaten mens abilities to provide for their families. The opinion piece received explosive backlash, prompting Green to resign from his position days later.

From a legal standpoint, Nelson said, Greens op-ed was protected speech under Utah Codeit expressed his opinion as a private citizen about a matter of public concernbut was not protected under Title VII or the NLRA. If Green had been fired, rather than resigned, that action would have been appropriate under Title VII and the NLRA, but would have broken Utah law.

Likewise, if an employee wants to display a religious picture or symbol in their personal workspace, although that action is not specifically covered by NLRA or Utah law, Title VII permits itas long as non-religious personal items, including photos, are allowed in others private workspaces and the religious item is not offensive to any other protected groups.

The balance can also depend on whether a company is a public or private employer, said Nelson, and extends beyond words and actions. A 2016 case with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission centered on a Dont Tread on Me shirt worn by an employee that another employee, who was black, found offensive. The supervisor, familiar with the symbols history in the Revolutionary War, dismissed the black employees concerns that the symbol was racist. The EEOC found that while the supervisor was still within his rights to dismiss the concerns, he was negligent in researching the full history of the symbolin some areas, the familiar coiled snake is used by racist groups.

Nelson said the conflicting rules and analyses can make compliance difficult, but employers must exercise due diligence to not only be in compliance with the law but make sure their workplaces are conducive for employees. Employers might be tempted to either allow all forms of expression, or curtail personal expression altogether, but Nelson said there are problems with both of those approaches, as there is with a middle-of-the-road approach.

When youre doing this analysis running through the facts, you should have a very, very solid grasp on the facts, but also, with symbols, understand what they mean and what meaning they can have, he said. What we want to be aware of is where that line is drawn.

Nelson said employers should reiterate Equal Employment Opportunity policies and compliance, talk with managers to ensure they report issues, take inter-office employee relations into account, and be consistent with the policy across the board. By distilling a culture of co-existence, not just to managers but from bottom to top, employers can foster a welcoming workplace, he said.

Read the original:
Balance Between Free Speech, Respect in Workplace Tricky but Possible - Utah Business

YANGON, MYANMAR

More than 100 reporters in Myanmar are preparing to protest against laws seen as curbing free speech when two senior journalists go on trial on Thursday, after the military sued them for defamation over an article in a satirical journal.

The rare campaign, in which journalists will wear armbands reading "Freedom of the Press," underscores growing public unease at the laws, after the courts recently took up a raft of similar cases.

Despite pressure from human rights bodies and Western diplomats, the government of Aung San Suu Kyi has retained a broadly worded law that prohibits use of the telecom networks to "extort, threaten, obstruct, defame, disturb, inappropriately influence or intimidate."

The law was adopted by the semi-civilian administration of former generals led by former president Thein Sein which navigated Myanmar's opening to the outside world from 2011 to 2016.

Arrests of social media users whose posts are deemed distasteful have continued under the administration of Nobel Peace Prize winner Aung San Suu Kyi.

These include the case that sparked the protest, after the chief editor and a columnist of the Voice, one of Myanmar's largest dailies, were arrested for publishing its take on a film on the army's fight with ethnic rebels.

Myanmar journalists have urged authorities to release the reporters and have set up a Protection Committee for Myanmar Journalists.

"The 66 (d) law should be terminated, because the government and the military have used it to cause trouble for the media and the people," said Thar Lon Zaung Htet, a former editor of the domestic Irrawaddy journal who organized the meeting, referring to a controversial clause in the telecoms law.

He said the journalists would gather in front of the court and march to the Voice office wearing the armbands. The panel will also gather signatures for a petition to abolish the law, to be sent to Aung San Suu Kyi's office, the army chief and parliament.

Other recent cases include last weekend's arrest of a man publicly accusing an assistant of Yangon's chief minister, Phyo Min Thein, of corruption, and charges against several people over a student play critical of the military.

Phyo Min Thein's assistant has rejected the accusations in a subsequent media interview.

Besides repressive laws, journalists often face threats and intimidation in Myanmar. One recently received threats after speaking out against nationalist Buddhists. In December, a reporter covering illegal logging and crime in the rugged northwest was beaten to death.

"This law is totally against human rights," said Tun Tun Oo, a land rights activists who was charged for live-streaming the student play via his Facebook account. "The government should think about terminating it as it restores democracy and we will fight until the law is abolished.

See original here:
Myanmar Journalists Take Fight for Freedom of Speech to Court - Voice of America

Marcio Jose Sanchez/AP Images

Less than 48 hours after an egomaniacal, snooty, three-toed, sloth-looking wet diaper joked about being a house nigger on Fridays episode of Real Time With Bill Maher, white supremacists armed with bats, bricks and cans of Pepsi rioted in Portland, Ore., at what they deemed a free speech rally.

The day after the Portland Purge, city officials in Charlottesville, Va., announced that they had issued permits to two white supremacist organizations to hold rallies this summer. The hate group ACT for America has also teamed up with organizations around the country to sponsor an anti-Muslim March Against Sharia in 26 cities June 10.

Organizers announced Monday that the next stop on the much anticipated, sold-out White Supremacist

These incidents have all been explained as consequences of the constitutional protection of free speech. According to their organizers logic, being white in America affords them the ability to aggravate and incite people of color because, apparently, freedom of speech is a white privilege.

The term white privilege originated from a 1988 essay by Peggy McIntosh entitled, White Privilege and Male Privilege: A Personal Account of Coming to See Correspondences Through Work in Womens Studies. The work was later condensed into a shorter essay, White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack (pdf).

In her writing, McIntosh listed the ways in which she was afforded white privilege, including not being pulled over by police because of her race, the ability to shop without being harassed or suspected of shoplifting, and enjoying the ability to live in whatever neighborhood she could afford. While all of these things ring true, they underscore an often overlooked fact about the central theme of her thesis:

These arent privileges; they are rights.

According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the definition of privilege is:

A special right, advantage, or immunity granted or available only to a particular person or group.

education is a right, not a privilege

The reason white America gets to enjoy these rights is not that they receive a Get out of hate card at birth; it is that the Constitution of the United States guarantees these rights to every American citizen. Walking freely through a store or driving safely down the street isnt supposed to be an entitlement born out of an unseen advantage, like having rich parents or being part of royalty. A privilege is the opposite of a right. The only reason people of color dont get to experience these things is racism, not white privilege.

The protesters in Portland were marching in support of Jeremy Christian, who allegedly stabbed two people and injured another aboard a commuter train. As The Oregonian reports, Christians social media content is thick with references to white nationalist organizations, Nazi insignias and violent rhetoric. Isnt the following Facebook post the definition of a terrorist threat or incitement to gang violence?

Why is this important? Its important because if Christian were black and openly flaunting his allegiance to criminal organizations and speaking of committing illegal acts, he would likely have been flagged by the Portland Police Bureaus gang database. According to The Oregonian, how you conduct yourself, your appearance and who you associate with are all determining factors that can land you in the gang database. Christian has a criminal history, publicly supports white supremacy and looks exactly like what youd expect to see if you snatched the hood off of a Klansman. So why wasnt Christian listed?

Well, even though Portland is the whitest metropolis in America, with a black population of less than 3 percent, the PPBs gang database is 64 percent black and only 8 percent white. Christian had the freedom to assemble with whomever he wanted to because of the First Amendment. Christian was free to say whatever pleased his heart because it is his right. But the reason the government didnt monitor Christians hateful speech, associations and actions that eventually exploded into a double murder is that Christian is white.

White supremacist groups like the ones coming to Charlottesville can waltz into city halls and get permits for hate rallies because the First Amendment guarantees them the right to peacefully assembleregardless of their beliefs. Despite the fact that their rallies are almost never peaceful and they loudly proclaim their desire to wipe out immigrants, non-Christians and people of color, they are still afforded the blank check to come together in whiteness and rail against the mythical white genocide.

Richard Spencer, who was (and I mention this only because it is his claim to fame. Also, I absolutely love white-on-white violence) famously punched in the face on live TV, was recently allowed to speak at Auburn University under the cover of the First Amendment.

Richard Spencer, the self-proclaimed white nationalist and leader of the alt-right (a phrase he

Media reports often refer to white supremacist fight clubs like the Proud Boys (who go to protests to punch 95-pound women in the face) and the Fraternal Order of Alt Knights (FOAKboys) as a fraternity. Oath Keepers parade around with guns and openly promise to disobey the government with lethal force but are never called a gang.

Remember when Black Lives Matter protesters were thugs and going about it the wrong way? Remember when they rioted in Ferguson, Mo., and Baltimore? Remember how they were such a nuisance during the die-ins after Eric Garners death?

Now every weekend, there are white women in pink pussy hats or some other aggrieved group staging a march. But when the scientists, white women, teachers, health care advocates or one of the other members of the Caucasian contingent protest using the same tactics they vilified BLM for, they say they are resisting. The melee in Portland this weekend was called a skirmish, but headlines described a recent Las Vegas Black Lives Matter protest this way:

To be fair, violence did break outwhen a Donald Trump supporter wearing a Make America Great Again shirt grabbed a female protester by the throat and slammed her to the ground.

Similarly, the Capuchin-monkey-looking late-night host we call Bill Maherwho looks as if he belongs on the shoulder of an organ grindercan throw the n-word around all willy-nilly because he knows he has the First Amendment in his back pocket. After he was kicked off of ABC for arguing that the 9/11 hijackers were not cowardly, he made himself a martyr for free speech. He backed up the white mans claim to free speech by bringing on Milo Yiannopoulos on his HBO show this season, painting the racist hero of the white supremacist movement as a victim of political incorrectness.

Remember the black people whose free speech Maher defended? Remember when he publicly advocated for Isaiah Washingtons free speech when he was kicked off Greys Anatomy? Did you see the episodes when he had Jeremiah Wright and Louis Farrakhan on Real Time to discuss political correct ... ? Oh, waitMaher didnt do any of that.

When you hear white supremacist asswipes like Richard Spencer, the Ku Klux Klan and Bill Maher conjure white tears when their freedom of speech has been infringed upon, remember that they dont care about the universal right of free speech; they care about their own free speech. (To be fair, Maher is not really a white supremacist asswipe; he really is a white, supremacist asswipe. He doesnt believe that white people are better than everyone. He just believes thathe is better than everyonethe comma placement makes all the difference.)

The hooded terrorists, the alt-right gangs and the one particular TV host who believes he can denigrate black people because he regularly inserts his penis into black vaginas dont want freedom of speech, because that would mean equality. They want the privilege to say whatever they want, but still be able to make Colin Kaepernick a pariah. They want to fight anti-fascists but condemn black-on-black violence. They want Milo Yiannopoulos to be able to spew his rhetoric while calling for boycotts when Beyoncs clothes remind them of Black Panthers.

They dont really give a damn about the right to free speech.

Theyd rather have the privilege.

See original here:
Apparently, Free Speech Is A White Privilege - The Root