TONGUE TIED 2 ARCHIVE
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press"
The primary site for this blog mirror is HERE. Dissecting Leftism is HERE (and mirrored here). The Blogroll. My Home Page. Email me (John Ray) here. (Click "Refresh" on your browser if background colour is missing) See here or here for the archive index of this site
30 April, 2014
The license plate South Australian transport officials said was too rude for its roads
CHRIS Owens thought having “OMGITSU” as his numberplate would be a bit of a laugh - but there was no “LOL” from Transport Department censors who rejected it as offensive.
Mr Owens, of West Beach, had no inkling his abbreviation for “oh my God, it’s you” would raise the ire of department staff when he applied, and then paid $270, for the personalised plate earlier this month.
“It was just supposed to be a bit of fun, I thought it would be a funny joke for me and people I know when they see me,” he said. The 61-year old said he was stunned to receive a letter from the department’s “plate administrator” informing him his “little joke” had been knocked back.
“Please be advised that your application for OMGITSU has been declined on the basis that it may offend some members of the community and is not considered to be an appropriate message to be displayed on a vehicle,” the letter states. “As a general rule numberplates that are allowed are words that can be used openly in the community or in the media.”
Mr Owens said he then conducted his own snap poll of about 30 shoppers at Harbour Town, the shopping precinct in Adelaide’s west, with not one person finding the numberplate offensive.
"Man" is a bad word
University of Utah students say a century-old fight song “Utah Man” is not “inclusive” enough
University of Utah supporters could soon be singing a new fight song for the first time in over a century after the student government voted on a resolution to change the lyrics of “Utah Man” because of its sexist and racial overtones.
Members of the Associated Students of the University of Utah (ASUU) alleged that the title and some of the lyrics are “problematic” and could lead to “feelings of exclusion” for some students, specifically minorities and women.
Instead, it asks the university’s administration to replace those portions of the tune with broader, more politically correct terms.
“It’s time for a change,” student-government president Sam Ortiz told the Deseret News, describing the current version as “divisive.”
Ortiz and others point to the song’s gender- and race-specific lyrics as the issue.
The male-centered lyrics could lead students who “do not identify as men or being a man” to feel excluded from the campus community, the resolution states.
Additionally, members took issue with a lyric in the first verse that states “Our coeds are the fairest.” The resolution argues the line is “supporting a hierarchy built on complexion and skin tone, privileging a light or ‘fair’ appearance.”
Alison Boyer, a member of the ASUU Assembly, said that not changing the song is “allowing hurtful speech to be perpetrated” on campus.
29 April, 2014
At Dartmouth, The Word ‘Fiesta’ Is Racist And White People Can’t Use It
Or even "Phiesta"
Another ridiculous politically-correct brouhaha has broken out at Dartmouth College, America’s most hopelessly and disturbingly fragile Ivy League school.
This time, the fracas is over a fundraiser for cardiac care that the Phi Delta Alpha fraternity and the Alpha Phi sorority had planned to jointly sponsor, reports Campus Reform.
Problems arose because a single student, junior Daniela Hernandez, was offended by the party’s theme of “Phiesta.”
As a result, the soiree, which was scheduled for Saturday, has been canceled by the presidents of the respective Greek organizations.
Had the party happened, it would have included a live band as well as virgin piña coladas and strawberry daiquiris. There would also have been burritos, chips and salsa, and guacamole.
The cash raised at the event would have gone to benefit cardiac treatments.
However, Hernandez’s deep offense about racial insensitivity was enough to call it off.
The self-proclaimed “Mexican-born, United-States-raised, first-generation woman of color” declared in an angry email that “there are various problematic structures and ideologies regarding a Cinco de Mayo-inspired event,” according to Campus Reform.
She decreed her distaste for “the Americanization of Cinco de Mayo and its construction as a drinking holiday in the United States, cultural appropriation and the inappropriate usage of cultural clothing, and the exploitation of groups of people and cultures for the sake of business opportunities”—and, apparently, charity opportunities.
“It was sadly unsurprising that a culturally-themed party was seen as a casual venture for such a privileged institution such as Dartmouth,” Hernandez proclaimed.
Phi Delt president Taylor Catchcart explained why the Greek organizations folded. “We felt that the possibility of offending even one member of the Dartmouth community was not worth the potential benefits of having the fundraiser,” he said.
This incident is one more in a long of episodes that pretty clear prove that Dartmouth is slowly going insane as an institution.
Republicans once again blamed for Democrat racism
Almost all Americans seem to think that the KKK were Republicans (when the KKK in fact ATTACKED Republicans) so Leftists get a lot of mileage out of lies
L.A. Clippers owner Donald Sterling, whom commentators have tried to tie to the Republican party after his alleged racist statements, is in fact a Democrat, according to campaign-contribution records.
Sterling is in hot water after TMZ released recordings purporting to be a weird psychosexual rant he directed at girlfriend V. Stiviano, accusing her of publicly associating with black people. The highly offensive comments have drawn condemnation from across the National Basketball Association as well as from many other sources; and inevitably, attempts have been made to link him to the Republican party.
These appear to be based on campaign contribution records for a different Sterling, who lives in the state of Texas. Clippers owner Donald Sterling lives in Beverly Hills, has a long history of bigoted behavior in his Los Angeles business dealings, and according to a 2011 RealGM report, was a very occasional Democratic donor in the 1990s:
Records show Sterling has donated just $6,000, with no activity since the early 1990s. He supported Gray Davis early in his career, as well as Bill Bradley.
At the American Power blog, Donald Douglas has an extended discussion of Sterling’s donations to liberal causes and the left-leaning commentators who have lauded him in the past. At the time TMZ released its recording, Sterling was scheduled to receive a lifetime achievement award from the NAACP.
Full details of the furore here.
It seems that Sterling doesn't want any personal association with blacks. Judging by white flight, nor do most Americans. Saying so in a rough manner was certainly unwise however.
It might be noted however that the conversation concerned was supposed to be personal and private. So how did it get out? Only via Ms Stiviano, it would seem. Ms Stiviano is herself of mixed black and Hispanic ancestry so the alliance between her and Sterling would have to be fragile. It's probably only her good figure that is keeping Mr Sterling interested -- and he has given her some very valuable gifts.
Maybe I should note that Sterling says the tape is a fabrication. Comment on Mr Sterling's character here
28 April, 2014
"Hate speech" and hate-crime
Leftists routinely claim that hate speech leads to hate crime -- but never offer any proof of that assertion. It is clear why they do not. Because it is false. By Leftists' own definition, conservatives are constantly guilty of hate speech but where is the conservative who has committed a hate crime? There is none. Clearly, hate speech does NOT lead to hate crime.
Crashingly obvious though that is, however, it is not obvious to Leftists. 10,000 instances of hate speech lead to 0 hate crimes? Leftists can see nothing to learn from that. Even if the ratio were 10,000 to 10, there would be 9,990 instances of hate speech that did not lead to hate crimes -- again busting the relationship that Leftists so boldly assert.
Stories are more persuasive than statistics, however, so let me mention one.
Richard Wagner is one of history's most noted antisemites. He was one of Hitler's heroes. Yet in his personal life Wagner was exceptionally kind and supportive to the Jews around him -- and they often cared strongly for him. In behaviour he was a model PHILO-Semite. So racist words did certainly not lead to race-crimes in his case.
I put the whole story up last year, which please see.
What I conclude is that it is only behaviour that matters. Words are just not useful as predictors of evil deeds. So it is only a person who does actual harm to another person solely because of that person's race who is a real racist. It is deeds, not words, that count.
Hawaii college sued for stopping students from handing out Constitution
Two students at the University of Hawaii at Hilo are suing the school over alleged First Amendment violations after they were told by a campus official that they couldn't approach fellow students to hand out copies of the Constitution.
Merritt Burch and Anthony Vizzone, members of the campus chapter of Young Americans for Liberty, filed the lawsuit Thursday in federal court, alleging that administrators violated their constitutional rights by stopping group members from passing out copies of the document during an outdoor event in January where student organizations had set up tables to distribute literature.
The students are being represented by Davis Wright Tremaine, the law firm that recently helped a student who was blocked last year from handing out copies of the Constitution win a $50,000 settlement against Modesto Junior College in California.
“The First Amendment is not optional at public colleges—it’s the law. Enforcing restrictive ‘free speech zone’ policies that prevent students from passing out copies of the Constitution is impossible to justify," Lukianoff said in a statement.
27 April, 2014
'Under God' Under Assault
Francis Bellamy, an American Socialist, wrote the Pledge of Allegiance in 1892. Congress formally adopted it in 1942, and the words “under God” were added in 1954.
Today, that phrase gives modern Socialists serious heartburn. The American Humanist Association, an atheist group, is suing a New Jersey school district over the words “under God,” saying the phrase “marginalizes atheist and humanist kids as something less than ideal patriots.”
There are some who will not rest until God is expelled altogether from public life.
No free speech in Peoria?
Satire is protected free speech
On April 15, seven police officers in Peoria, Illinois raided the home of Jon Daniel and his roommates. They took various electronics, and kept several residents of the house cuffed for hours. The reason for this raid? Any good student of the current state of American policing might have guesses – was it drug trafficking? Immigration issues? Terrorism?
No. Nothing as disturbingly expected as all that. This particular raid was over a parody Twitter account made by Jon Daniel that mocked Peoria Mayor Jim Ardis, portraying him as a Rob Ford-esque party animal and user of recreational substances. Though Daniel eventually marked the account as fake, and then Twitter suspended the damn thing anyway, that wasn’t enough for Ardis, who filed a complaint with the police department. And three different judges signed off on the search warrant that permitted seizing electronics, computer equipment, and mysteriously, "cocaine, heroin, [or] drug paraphernalia." Police came in, searched, seized, and interrogated for hours
Daniel, the criminal mastermind behind the fake mayor, had "impersonating a public official" dangling over his head for a time, but Illinois state attorney Jerry Brady on Wednesday declined to press charges. Perhaps the cascade of mocking and outrage suddenly directed at Peoria helped that decision. It might just be that impersonating has to be in person according his reading of the Illinois statute.
25 April, 2014
More hate speech against conservatives
A professor at Eastern Connecticut State University (ECSU) was caught on audio telling his creative writing class that Republicans will close colleges if they prevail in 2014 and that “racist, misogynist, money-grubbing people” want to suppress the liberal vote.
In a four-minute recording of a classroom lecture obtained by Campus Reform, Professor Brent Terry is heard strongly suggesting that conservatives are greedy racists who want to suppress the vote of anyone who might vote liberal.
“It's absolutely possible that the Republicans will take over the Senate as well as the House. And we will live in a very, very, very different kind of country if that happens. I mean, colleges will start closing up if they, if these people have their way.
“...racist, misogynist, money-grubbing people have so much power over the rest of us. And want things to go back—not to 1955, but to 1855,” Terry said to his Introduction to Creative Writing class Monday morning.
“There are a lot of people out there that do not want black people to vote, do not want Latinos to vote. Do not want old people to vote, or young people to vote. Because generally, people like you are liberal.”
Feel the hate
Martin Hirst, an old Trot (extreme communist), teaches journalism at Deakin university, Australia
24 April, 2014
Must not refer to Serb/Croat animosity
There is great hatred between those two nations. They were even on opposite sides in WWII. Dylan was clearly NOT comparing Croatians to white supremacists and the Nazis
Prosecutors in France have dropped charges brought against Bob Dylan by a Croatian community association, for violating anti-discrimination laws in comments he made in a 2012 Rolling Stone cover story.
Instead, the magistrate ruled in favour of indicting Rolling Stone's French edition for printing the allegedly racist remarks in the first place. In December last year, the Council of the Croat Community and Institutions of France (CRICCF) brought charges against Dylan for comparing Croatians to white supremacists and the Nazis.
In a discussion about race relations in the US, the 72-year-old singer remarked, “If you got a slave master or [Ku Klux] Klan in your blood, blacks can sense that. That stuff lingers to this day,” he added. “Just like Jews can sense Nazi blood and the Serbs can sense Croatian blood.”
The interview was conducted with the US edition of the magazine and was republished in the French version. Under France’s stringent laws “hate speech” allegations are considered a crime and almost always go to trial.
After the statement was published the community organisation filed preliminary charges against the musician for “incitement to hatred”. Those charges were this week dismissed by magistrate Marion Potier.
Dylan’s French lawyer Thierry Marembert said the magistrate ruled the performer could not be held accountable for remarks published in France as he had not given the go-ahead for his US interview to be re-published in Rolling Stone’s French edition.
While the charges against Dylan have been dropped, the same charges have been brought against Rolling Stone France publisher Michael Birnbaum, who, reports Billboard, faces up to one year in jail and a maximum fine of €45,000 (AU $66,000) for publishing the remarks.
So Dylan is off the hook on a technicality but a publisher is in trouble for printing his rather asinine remark
Authoritarian Canada again
Americans for Truth About Homosexuality founder Peter LaBarbera has returned to the U.S. from Canada, where he experienced the ramifications of that country's hate speech law – firsthand.
LaBarbera traveled to Saskatchewan last week for a speech before a pro-life group, but was detained at Regina International Airport and told he would be deported from Canada on the basis of violating the country's hate speech law, although he had yet to speak.
LaBarbera, Peter"Which is incredible," he tells OneNewsNow. "We appealed the decision and some political pressure was brought to bear by conservative members of Parliament; and when I went back for my appeal, they let me in [the country] – but I was very close to being banned from Canada under the guise that my group ... promotes hate against homosexuals."
He was released, then made his speech, but later was arrested at the University of Regina while distributing pro-life pamphlets and information on homosexuality. LaBarbera wasn't accused of violating the hate speech law in that matter, but was charged with trespassing – a charge that later was reduced to mischief.
"So what I witnessed was a firsthand lesson in hate-speech politics," he summarizes. "If you say that certain ideas – for example, opposition to homosexuality – are 'hateful,' then the next step is to ban those points of view. And that's what's going on in Canada."
23 April, 2014
Clarkson is teasing again
Jeremy Clarkson was accused of racism yesterday for naming his dog Didier Dogba after former Chelsea star Didier Drogba.
The 54-year-old Top Gear host was criticised after tweeting a picture of his black West Highland terrier and revealing he had named it after the striker, a prolific goal scorer from the Ivory Coast.
Clarkson, who often mocks political correctness, asked: ‘Why is it racist to name our amazingly brilliant dog after a footballer?’
Twitter user Gbolade Oguntomole said: ‘It’s racist man! Casual racism! You should be ashamed of yourself. I like you Jeremy Clarkson but this is wrong!’
Nick Ford labelled him a ‘racist’, while Josh Underwood wrote: ‘Tad racist.’
Others, however, defended the television host, saying that the name was funny and labelling Clarkson a racist was an over-reaction.
Pub blasted for 'sexist' online advertising campaign showing barmaid's cleavage
Pub bosses have been branded sexist for using a barmaid's cleavage to advertise their new ales. Staff at The Victoria, in Birmingham city centre, posted the picture of Lucy Wedge, 22, posed between the pumps of their guest ales, on the venue’s Twitter and Facebook profiles.
Miss Wedge was wearing a low-cut black vest in the photo, exposing her cleavage, and numerous complaints were posted under the image, claiming it objectified women.
The photo was quickly removed from Facebook and an apology was posted, saying: 'It was meant as a light hearted joke between two female bartenders and a few of our regular guests and we could not have predicted the strong response it would receive.'
Lucy Wedge, 22, who posed for the photo, said the image was not provocative. 'If I had been there with my boobs out then fine but a bit of cleavage isn't a big problem. It wasn't a provocative photo.
22 April, 2014
Fierce push-back as bike-race guides banned from using Yorkshire greetings
Volunteers hired to offer a warm welcome to visitors flocking to Yorkshire for this year’s Tour de France have been banned from using local phrases such as ‘love’ in case they offend visitors.
Now, chat show host Sir Michael Parkinson and veteran cricket umpire Dickie Bird have joined the protests at the ban on traditional Yorkshire terms of endearment.
And it’s not just that traditional Tyke term of endearment that’s off limits; they are also told to steer clear of addressing people as ‘mate’ and ‘darling’.
Sir Michael Parkinson, who was born near Barnsley, South Yorkshire, said: “I have never heard of anything as daft in my life. “They are trying to ban a word that is a classic term of endearment in the north and everyone know it. Absolutely unbelieveable.
Cricketing umpire legend and Yorkshireman Dickie Bird described the ruling as ‘daft’ as he celebrated his 81st birthday watching the big derby match between Barnsley and Leeds at Oakwell. “Nah then, lad,” he said, “there’s a lot worse problems to worry about than people goin’ around calling each other ‘love’.
Proud Yorkshireman and Labour politician Lord Hattersley, still fiercely loyal to his native Sheffield, said: “The old steelworkers always called each other ‘luv’ and it did not seem to be a problem. “It is all part of our heritage, a part of our culture.
The people of Yorkshire also voiced their annoyance at the ruling. Roy Stockdill, said: “What a load of old toffee and twaddle! Is there nowhere these days that the tyranny of lunatic political correctness doesn't raise its ugly head? "Good job the Tour de France isn't going through Newcastle because I believe Geordies call everybody "pet". Honestly, what is the world coming to?”
If men are called Sir, then I want to be Madam
I haven’t met many who agree with the daft claims from a UN official that Britain is the most sexist country in the world. But there is one small area of everyday British experience that is commonly less respectful to women than to men; an anecdote will illustrate the point.
I was in my local Marks & Spencer on Saturday, waiting to pay. There was a middle-aged man just ahead of me. “Thank you, Sir,” said the check-out woman, as he gathered his purchases. After mine came through the conveyor belt and I paid, she looked up and said: “Thank you, my darling.”
This scenario occurs regularly and I often ask the same question. “If you address a man as 'Sir’, why don’t you address a woman as 'Madam’?” Marks & Spencer staff are well-trained and polite and she didn’t quite know how to respond. She just smiled and shrugged: “I’ve never thought about it.”
This virago was addressed in a pleasant way but that was no good to her. Her loss.
21 April, 2014
UK: Blacked-up Morris dancers not OK
Jack Straw's son has caused a stir today after posting a photograph on Twitter celebrating an Easter tradition with Morris dancers with blacked-up faces.
Will Straw, 32, who has been selected by Labour to fight one of the party's top target seats at next year's general election, uploaded the tweet after meeting The Britannia Coconutters.
The 32-year-old, who is hoping to win back the Rossendale and Darwen constituency in East Lancashire, responded to the outcry - some have branded the tradition 'racist' - defending the historic performances and urging people to find out more via the group's website.
He tweeted: 'Just checked back on twitter & (sic) seen torrent of ignorant tweets on Britannia Coconut dancers. Nothing racist about it', posting a link to the dancer's website.
The group, who dress up in turbans and red and white skirts and clogs, congregate on Easter Saturday every year in the Penine town of Bacup.
The tradition, which dates back to the turn of the century, sees the dancers perform through the streets, from one edge of the town to the other over a 12-hour period.
The group's website reveals: 'The dances they perform are actually folk dances and the custom of blackened faces may reflect a pagan or medieval background which was done to disguise the dancers from being recognised by evil spirits afterwards, it may also reflect mining connections.'
Congressional Democrats Making Huge Mistake Targeting Hate Speech
Democrats Ed Markey of Massachusetts and Hakeem Jeffries of New York want to clamp down on what can be said on radio under the rubric of "hate speech," and it's a terrible idea. Government should stay as far away from broadcast content as possible. And who will define "hate speech?" Hate speech can be anything you disagree with. It can be speech directed at a person who is offended. There is no asterisk in the Constitution that says "except for hate speech."
"With bills in the House and Senate, the lawmakers would direct the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) to "analyze" media outlets -- including radio -- to determine if they're working to "advocate and encourage" hate crimes."
Oh, and how are they going to "analyze" media outlets? Using what metric?
"Tying their bill to this week's alleged white supremacist shootings in Kansas, Markey says it is "critical to ensure the internet, television and radio are not encouraging hate crimes or hate speech." He brushes aside expected First Amendment arguments, saying "criminal and hateful activity" aren't covered by the Constitution."
Well, the Constitution isn't something to "brush aside." And, no matter how many heinous crimes are committed by deplorable white supremacists, it's inane to make the case that it's because something someone said on the radio. It takes more than a ranting talk show host to instill the kind of hate in someone that spurs on this kind of depraved behavior.
20 April, 2014
Clarence Thomas is right about disclosure laws
The post below was written before the recent Firefox/Eich imbroglio, so is rather prophetic
In the famous Citizens United Supreme Court case dealing with campaign finance restrictions, Clarence Thomas was the only justice to argue that disclosure laws violate the First Amendment. Thomas's position was that political organizations have the right to keep their donors secret. I was initially skeptical. After all, if donors are so confident in their views, they should be willing to publicly defend them. Don't we have a "marketplace of ideas" for a reason?
But I've come to agree with Thomas. Some views are so unpopular that people risk their livelihoods and even their personal safety when expressing them. What's troubling is that these views need not be considered universally heinous--they need only be unpopular among influential media figures or politically-connected lobbying groups. Consider the ongoing case of sociologist Mark Regnerus, whose scholarly research has questioned the "no differences" orthodoxy regarding the children of gay parents. I wrote about Regnerus for National Review recently:
Jennifer Marshall and I detail here the furious reaction that Regnerus sparked, but suffice to say that it involved hysterical condemnations in the press, a frivolous “scientific misconduct” investigation conducted at the behest of a blogger (!), emotion-laden joint statements, evidence-free accusations of corruption on the part of the journal, and more. Now the journal’s editor will have his e-mails scrutinized for the slightest inappropriate thought.
I went on to note that other researchers will be understandably leery of broaching this issue, given the harassment that Regnerus and his editor have endured. The same goes for grant writers and other donors interested in publicly supporting the research. Their case illustrates that the First Amendment must be about more than just a formalistic legal right to speak. The purpose of free speech in a democratic society is to ensure that all ideas have the chance to be heard and debated. By forcibly "outing" supporters through disclosure laws, the government effectively discourages speech that influential people don't want to hear.
Free Speech Win for Paramedics Instructor Deemed Insufficiently 'Sensitive to Diversity'
A California paramedics instructor deemed insufficiently "sensitive to diversity" will be allowed to return to his position at Antelope Valley College (AVC). The college settled with the instructor, Lance Hodge, after a federal judge deemed his lecture about unusual cultural practices paramedics might encounter a matter "of public concern" and allowed Hodge's first amendment claim against AVC to proceed.
In 2010, Hodge—a long-time paramedic and tenured AVC instructor—gave a lecture about "weird" cultural practices his students might encounter in the field. In his career as an emergency medical technician (EMT), Hodge said he'd been exposed to "witch stuff," people using heated coins for healing, and women eating placenta after childbirth.
In the complaint, Hodge alleged First Amendment retaliation and infringement of academic freedom under the First Amendment. In February, District Judge Philip S. Gutierrez allowed Hodge’s First Amendment retaliation claim to proceed.
The Ninth Circuit recently held (in Demers v. Austin, 2014) that teaching and academic writing must receive greater protection under the First Amendment than what Garcetti currently provides. It concluded tha a public university professor’s academic speech is protected by the First Amendment under two conditions: it addresses "matters of public concern" and the employee’s interest in commenting on these matters outweighs the state’s interest in "promoting the efficiency of the public services."
Guiterrez decided that both Hodge's situation fulfilled both conditions. He chastised AVC for "consider(ing) the form of (Hodge's) speech to the exclusion of its context and content."
Earlier this month, AVC and Hodge settled the case out of court. The school will pay half of Hodge’s legal fees, he will retain tenure, and he will not face disciplinary action nor be required to offer an approved diversity lecture.
18 April, 2014
First ever constitutional ruling against Dodd-Frank voids destructive “conflict minerals” section
"Today’s ruling of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals that Dodd-Frank’s 'conflict minerals' disclosure mandate violates the First Amendment is the first time ever a court has ruled that a provision of Dodd-Frank violates the Constitution.
Regulations issued under Dodd-Frank have been struck down for reasons such as inadequate cost-benefit analysis and other procedural violations, but this is first time a provision has been found to be unconstitutional.
And it couldn’t happen to a more misguided and destructive provision of the law! As my Competitive Enterprise Institute colleague Hans Bader and I have written in blog posts, articles, and regulatory comments, the conflict disclosure mandate creates a compliance nightmare, hurts American miners and manufacturers, and does the greatest harm to those it was intended to help — the struggling worker in and nearby the Democratic Republic of Congo.
Section 1502, championed by celebrities, including Ashley Judd and Ben Affleck, requires all types of firms to disclose their products’ use of five “conflict minerals” — including gold, tin, and tungsten — that can be sourced to war-torn regions of the Congo.
The Court looked at this leap of logic and decided that the provision could not survive the First Amendment’s prohibition against “compelled speech,” even under the lesser standard for “commercial speech.”
VA Community College System to Change 'Free Speech Zone' Policy
A system of 23 community colleges in Virginia is about to become more in line with the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The Virginia Community College System (VCCS) is seeking to alter its policy on free-speech zones in response to a lawsuit brought by student Christian Parks.
Last September, Thomas Nelson Community College prohibited Christian Parks from expressing his Christian beliefs in a large courtyard of the college. An officer from the college’s police department told him he must stop preaching because the content of his speech might offend someone. School officials then told Parks that his speech violated the Student Code of Conduct and VCCS policies.
In a court filing last week in support of a motion from both sides to put the lawsuit on hold, the community college system said it would not enforce its current policy as it works to develop a new student policy.
"Both parties desire to suspend the … current policy in order to allow (Parks) and all other students to speak freely on campus" until a new policy is adopted, the joint filing said. With continuing talks between the Alliance and the state's attorney general's office, "counsel for the parties believe that they may be able to reach an amicable settlement in this case."
17 April, 2014
Must not mention kidnapping
Wicked Campers is known for painting its campers with slogans some people find in bad taste.
Brisbane-based Wicked Campers was found to have made light of abduction by splashing the slogan “Fat chicks are harder to kidnap” on one of its vehicles.
The Advertising Standards Bureau has upheld a complaint that the company breached Section 2.6 of the Advertiser Code of Ethics, which states that advertising or marketing communications should not depict material contrary to prevailing community standards on health and safety.
The board’s judgement noted that “there is significant community concern regarding kidnap, especially in light of current high profile cases involving the abduction and murder of children both in Australia and overseas”.
The judgement noted the reference to “fat girls” and considered that the statement was general and not directed at a specific person.
“The board considered that the reference to fat girls in this instance, whilst tasteless and not a nice reference, does not meet the threshold for being discriminatory or vilifying towards overweight females or to females in general,” the judgement read.
Should Revenge Porn Be a Crime?
Romantic breakups are never fun — but add revenge porn to the mix and things can get downright cruel. Revenge porn is defined as the dissemination of sexually explicit images of an ex-lover without their permission. It can often be emotionally devastating and have lasting effects on a person's reputation and employability.
Virginia, Utah, and Idaho have all enacted legislation this year criminalizing revenge porn; they join New Jersey and California which were the first states to do so. Nineteen other states have proposed similar legislation.
While most people sympathize with the victims, some fear criminalizing this behavior will have dire consequences on constitutionally protected free speech.
"The Supreme Court's position, rightly, is that all speech is by default protected by the First Amendment," says Lee Rowland of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).
Revenge porn, according to Rowland, is better handled under civil law. In most states, civil laws are already on the books that make it unlawful to maliciously cause emotional distress, intentionally invade someone's privacy, or participate in extortion and harassment. Expanding civil laws to include revenge porn where they don't, Rowland says, is a better solution than criminalizing it.
16 April, 2014
Must not disrespect suicide
A seventeen-year old girl has been arrested by police investigating 'grossly offensive' comments left on social networks after a schoolboy was found hanged close to his school gates.
James Lock, 15, left home to go to school on Thursday as usual but never turned up for lessons. He was later found hanged in woodlands next to Olchfa comprehensive school in Swansea.
Police later confirmed they were investigating offensive 'troll' comments posted on social media including Facebook making light of the tragedy. A 17-year-old girl was later arrested.
'She was questioned and released on police bail pending further enquiries.
'The public are reminded about their responsibilities to keep comments on social media within the law.
South Wales Police she said was arrested under Section 127 of the Communications Act which 'prohibits the sending by means of electronic communications network, a message of a matter that is grossly offensive or causes any such matter to be sent.'
Good News: IRS Set to Water Down Newly Proposed Free Speech Regulation
Shortly after former IRS Director of Tax Exempt Groups Lois Lerner admitted last year that her agency had been inappropriately targeting conservative organizations, a new set of rules were proposed that would make what the IRS did to tea party groups legal and would limit the free speech of tax-exempt groups across the political spectrum.The rules specifically define "candidate related activity" as voter registration, candidate forums and debates, distribution of voter guides, discussion of incumbent voting records, simply referencing the names of candidates during meetings and more.
During the public commenting period, a record breaking 150,000 people left comment strongly suggesting the rule be completely thrown out. Conservative groups like the Tea Party Patriots and liberal groups like the ACLU are both opposed to this type of regulation on the free speech of tax-exempt groups.
Now, IRS head John Koskinen plans to rewrite the previously proposed rules and will open up another public comment period once they are finished.
"He said the new rule would take into account backlash from conservative Tea Party groups as well as some liberal advocacy organizations that the agency's proposal – intended to address concerns that the tax-exempt groups were engaged in partisan warfare – would bar, even voter education and registration programs."
15 April, 2014
Must not say that criminal immigrants should be sent home
Geert Wilders in the Netherlands:
What happened was that, in a bid to rouse the crowd, Wilders turned to a reliable old bogeyman, Moroccan immigrants – particularly those between 12 and 24, who can be shown statistically to be responsible for a disproportionately high share of crime in parts of the country.
“Do you want more or fewer Moroccans in your city and in the Netherlands”, Mr Wilders roared to the crowd? “Fewer, fewer, fewer”, they roared in return.
To the delight of the crowd and the amazement of watching journalists, this went on for several minutes until finally, with a slight smile, Wilders leaned to the microphone and said: “Then we’re going to organise it.”
That may turn out to have been the worst mistake the Freedom Party leader has ever made. The Dutch hate to appear intolerant, even about intolerance, and so attacking Wilders, even as a political opponent is always a delicate operation. Not this time, however. Broadcaster RTL took the unprecedented step of publishing an editorial saying Wilders “should be deeply ashamed” and warning his performance would invite comparisons with Hitler and revive memories of the Dutch deportation of 110,000 Jews during the second World War.
This was a theme taken up by BNR Radio News editor in chief Sjors Frohlich, who said that in the past he had always dismissed comparisons between Wilders and Hitler.
“But after last night, I finally at least understand where the people who make that comparison are coming from. Especially since it’s clear that Wilders was consciously and deliberately manipulating his audience.”
Both the UK and the USA do already deport criminal immigrants
Must not discuss abortion
The latest, and most extreme, example of intolerant liberalism comes with the story of Irish film-maker Phelim McAleer, who has been forced to withdraw from the movie fundraising site, Kickstarter, when they tried to censor calls for funding for his latest project.
McAleer, who has previously courted controversy and barbecued sacred cows with films such as Mine Your Own Business and FrackNation, has been described in the past as a sort of right-wing Michael Moore, and his films pull no punches.
His latest project, however, was nearly killed before it was born – which is more than can be said of its subject, the serial killing abortion 'doctor' Kermit Gosnell, who had no problem killing breathing babies.
Gosnell's name should be written in blood in everyone's brain, but he remains largely unknown in his native America and on this side of the pond. Because Gosnell was no ordinary abortion provider, he was the Harold Shipman of abortion providers.
By the time he faced trial for multiple murders in 2011, a Grand Jury had accused him of killing hundreds, if not thousands, of viable children.
The shocked mayor of the city, at the time, Michael Nutter, admitted that: "We've had a monster living in our midst", while ABC's Terry Moran, who was one of the few to cover the murder trial, said: "Kermit Gosnell may be the most successful serial killer in the history of the world."
As McAleer points out: "There have been four movies about Ted Bundy, five about the Zodiac Killer, three about John Wayne Gacy..." and yet Kickstarter accused McAleer of "breaching its community standards," and demanded the filmmaker amend the subject matter to make it less offensive.
Those same community standards are fine with movie projects that include rape and murder and, yes, serial killers and that is how it should be – no topic, absolutely none at all, can ever be considered unsuitable for movie treatment. Except Gosnell, apparently.
14 April, 2014
The photos are just the usual arty fashion crap. There is no pretence that they represent anything but themselves
Heidi Klum is facing backlash for posting photos from a photoshoot inspired by Native American costumes, which included feather headdresses and face paint.
Hostile responses began pouring in directly after Klum shared several photos on her Facebook page late last month. The photos feature models who are competition on "Germany's Next Top Model," the reality television series which Klum hosts.
"Here are my beautiful GNTM girls," Klum captioned the post, which featured 12 black-and-white photos.
In almost every photo, the models donned feather headdresses, face paint, animal skin dresses and some even posed with items such as drums, bows, and arrows. Other images, which were all shot in Utah, include a model posing before a teepee wearing a Navajo patterned blanket, moccasin boots and face paint, while in the next a model wears her hair in brads with antlers on her head.
In one particularly controversial photo, a close-up of a blonde model reveals intricate face paint, a turquoise ring and one tear rolling down her cheek- bringing to mind the Trail of Tears and the forced relocation of Native Americans in parts of the U.S. during the 1830s.
As a result, thousands of comments have flooded Klum's Facebook accusing the German supermodel of being intolerant. Comments range from calling the "GNTM" photo shoot "racist," "culturally insulting," and "disrespectful," among many other angrier reactions.
Just who exactly is being intolerant here?
"Inner city" is racist
Ryan's had a bad week. After he made comments that conflated the inner city with "generations of men not even thinking about working or learning the value and the culture of work," Ryan quickly had to step away from allegations that his comments were racially motivated. Among those leveling the charge were California Rep. Barbara Lee, who represents Oakland. "My colleague Congressman Ryan's comments about 'inner city' poverty are a thinly veiled racial attack and cannot be tolerated," she said in an email earlier this month. Last night, Ryan appeared on Fox News to explain to Bill O'Reilly that Lee was wrong. "She knows that I don’t have a racist bone in my body," Ryan said.
13 April, 2014
Suppression by liberals continues
On the heels of calling for Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich to resign for the liberal sin of disagreeing with their view of gay marriage comes a campaign to pressure Dropbox to drop former Secretary of State Condi Rice from their board. Rice’s sin, in Silicon Valley’s eyes, is serving as America’s Secretary of State and National Security Advisor to a Republican president.
For decades, the liberal media eviscerated the religious right and other conservatives for their own attacks against liberal social causes. Over time, the media labeled anyone who didn’t agree with the left’s world view as intolerant. Progressive journalists were quick to support the Democrats’ meme of their opponents as mean-spirited, bigoted, homophobic or racist.
But the pendulum has now swung the other way. Diversity is no longer about differing views. The new bullies are the left. Yesterday’s champions of diversity have become today’s intolerants. Black, gay and Hispanic conservatives are labeled self-haters and considered sell-outs to their communities. The left sees no place for differing opinions. In fact, if you have a minority opinion from the majority liberal view then you will be run out of the room.
Liberal intolerance in Ireland too
The hullabaloo over an article by Brenda Power in relation to a piece she wrote earlier this week that bemoaned the current state of Traveller 'culture' has seen her attacked on all sides, with her opponents seemingly queueing up to portray the woman as the new Hitler.
But this may be an argument that the likes of Pavee Point and the Irish Council for Civil Liberties come to regret starting.
It's easy to mock Liveline, and Lord knows I am the first to make a snarky comment about some of the loonier contributors to that show. But there are times when it simply comes into its own and acts as a vague barometer for the nation and Wednesday's bust-up between Martin Collins of Pavee Point and Power, quickly followed by Mark Kelly of The Irish Council for Civil Liberties, gave us a chilling illustration of just how dangerously intolerant some people can be.
And no, I'm not referring to Power.
I am instead referring to the fact that not only are the 'offended' parties busy writing angry letters to Power's editor, which is their right, and making plaintive calls to the Press Council, which is also their right, they then informed us that they were also going to scuttle off to the gardaí to report her for Incitement to Racial Hatred. There's little point in going through the offending piece. It has been rehashed elsewhere and the points she raised are nothing we haven't seen or heard before.
But the hysteria that greeted it, and the determined efforts to portray the woman as a criminal menace for expressing an opinion, are a perfect, if unpleasant, example of the deranged intolerance of the liberal diversity industry.
11 April, 2014
Wonga advert banned for saying 5853pc rate was 'irrelevant'
Wonga is a British payday loan company. It was making a fair point in its advertisement. The annual rate IS irrelevant to short-term customers
A Wonga advert has been banned for implying that the representative APR of 5853pc was "irrelevant".
The television ad for the payday loans company featured a conversation between two puppets, who said: "Right, we're going to explain the costs of a Wonga short-term loan.
"Some people think they will pay thousands of per cent of interest. They won't of course - that's just the way annual rates are calculated. Say you borrowed £150 for 18 days, it would cost you £33.49."
The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) received 31 complaints that the ad confused viewers about the interest rate applied to a Wonga loan, implied that the representative APR was irrelevant to a short-term loan and was irresponsible because it encouraged consumers to disregard the representative APR and thereby trivialised the decision to take out a short-term loan.
Wonga said its objective had been to transparently explain the total "true" cost of a short-term Wonga loan.
Ex-Premier League footballer found guilty over allegation he made homophobic gesture to fans
No matter how much people abuse you, you must not imply that they are homosexual as a response
Former Blackburn Rovers striker Colin Kazim-Richards has been found guilty of making a homophobic gesture at a match while playing against one of his previous clubs.
The 27-year-old claimed he was bantering with the crowd when he allegedly made a homophobic gesture towards them while playing against Brighton, a court has heard.
But magistrate Darren Reynolds sitting at Brighton Magistrates' Court, told the footballer they accepted the evidence the four prosecution witnesses had given them.
Kazim-Richards said he was being booed and being called names when he turned around and made a rude gesture behind his back to the crowd to join in with their banter, Brighton Magistrates' Court was told.
He said: 'There were certain voices and certain things which stick in your head. There was this one lady who kept on giving me abuse and kept on doing that.'
Simon Reiz, defending the player, asked him if he reacted in any way. Kazim-Richards demonstrated to the magistrates the sign he had made behind his back and told them: 'I was interacting with the fans. 'I was basically doing what they were doing to me. I was having a bit of banter back.'
Prosecutor Simon Allen told the court that the player had mimicked pulling his shorts down, put his left arm behind his bottom and made a homophobic gesture towards the Brighton and Hove Albion crowd.
He said: 'It seems that the player reacted to this and he mimicked pulling down his shorts and with his left hand behind his back mimicked that he had something in his hand and moved it back and forward.'
Mr Allen said that each time he did this the chants from the crowd grew louder.
But London-born Kazim-Richards, who now plays for Turkish club Bursaspor, said he did not agree with discrimination in 'any shape or form' and told the court he had been an ambassador for the Kick It Out Campaign.
He described himself as a 'flamboyant' player who had interacted with the crowd to 'acknowledge' and 'accept' the banter but that he would never make a homophobic gesture.
Mr Reiz said that hand gestures were made during football matches all the time and that due to Brighton having a large gay community an innocent hand gesture made behind his back had been perceived as being homophobic.
10 April, 2014
Australia: Must not refer to illegals as "Fu**ers"
Up to six Navy sailors have been sacked or ordered to justify their jobs over racist and anti-Muslim Facebook posts.
Chief of Navy Ray Griggs said in a statement on Tuesday that the investigation had found that "a number of personnel have … been found to have made inappropriate comment on social media or to have an affiliation with different social media groups that are not consistent with our values”.
"Several sailors have had their employment terminated or have been issued with notices of cause for termination,” Vice Admiral Griggs said.
Fairfax Media revealed in January that a Navy member working on border protection duties had posted comments on the Facebook page of a friend who claimed to be a member of the Australian Defence League.
The friend had written that asylum-seekers whose boat had sunk were coming to Australia "to jump on Centrelink and get free government housing".
The navy member commented: "I'm about to head out today to deal with these f---ers."
Must not say Trayvon Martin was at fault
Branca is a Massachusetts lawyer traveling the nation by motorcycle -- a one-man lecture tour on guns and self-defense law.
His strong opinions have been in hot demand since Zimmerman was acquitted of murdering Martin.
"I decided what people really needed to know was the rules up front to avoid getting in trouble in the first place," Branca said.
Branca's appearance at Campbell Law School did not go unnoticed by his critics, who call him inflammatory and say he is viciously attacking Martin and his family.
Critics point to Branca's Twitter feed. He once tweeted, "To handle Trayvon, a KelTec and one 9mm round would be fine."
"Well anyone who violently attacks another person has to be prepared that person might defend themselves," Branca said.
Another tweet read, "Only person responsible for the death of Trayvon, is Trayvon. Oh, and maybe his father."
9 April, 2014
More on Leftist intolerance at CU-Boulder
A letter to the editor from a student
The recent controversy surrounding the University of Colorado's Visiting Scholar of Conservative Thought Steven Hayward should give us all some pause.
As background, Mr. Hayward recently wrote a blog post on the website PowerLine titled "Off on a gender-bender" in which he expressed confusion about the convoluted gender sensitivity training at CU-Boulder, including a joke about the ever-expanding LGBT acronym. This provoked a response from the CU Student Government President of Student Affairs and the Student Government Director of Safety and Inclusion, calling the post "oppressive and discriminatory." Not to be outdone, the chairman of the Boulder Faculty Assembly at CU responded by describing the post as "bordering on hate speech" and going on to say that he doesn't think the assembly "should allow that behavior."
Am I the only one who is appalled with these banal statements that constantly trickle down from our faculty and student government? True tolerance starts with the ability to tolerate the opinions of those who disagree with you. But the self-righteousness and self-assured moral superiority of the left at this school seems to know no bounds. I do not question their motivations and unreservedly support their right to their opinion. All I ask is that they return the favor.
As a conservative student at this school (yes, we exist), I can attest to the fact that any dissension from the leftist doctrine in the classroom is most often met with derision, accusations of bigotry, and a general underlying antipathy. I feel no shame in admitting that I have held my tongue in class many times out of reluctance to be pilloried as an amoral person for the next half hour. Higher learning is supposed to be about free expression and discussion of ideas. But my experience has seen many students and teachers more interested in suppression than any sort of honest discourse. Any disagreement is intolerant. If not sexist, then racist. If not racist, then homophobic. Is this what the progressive movement at CU has become?
Mr. Hayward is experiencing what many of us have known for years: CU does not tolerate deviations from accepted ideology. Question their beliefs and you are paraded down Pearl street in stocks as a heretic. I believe the Faculty Assembly is voting on that resolution next week.
Must not mention IQ scholar Charles Murray
Last week in Texas, Republican gubernatorial nominee and current Attorney General Greg Abbott released a comprehensive education plan for Texas.
It is thorough, well-documented and heavy on citations. But one of those citations comes from well-respected scholar Charles Murray. Murray's work on IQ has, for years, been badly mischaracterized by the left.
Liberal journalists in Texas, joining the Democrats' gubernatorial nominee Wendy Davis, are now willingly painting Greg Abbott as a racist for relying on Murray's work. In doing so, they are again misrepresenting Murray's work, largely because it ran afoul of acceptable standards of political correctness.
8 April, 2014
Must not laugh at Leftist meanderings about sexual identity
The chairman of the Boulder Faculty Assembly at the University of Colorado said he feels a blog post written by Steven Hayward, the school's first-ever visiting scholar of conservative thought, borders on hate speech.
The day after CU Student Government leaders spoke out against Hayward's "oppressive and discriminatory" ideas, the Boulder Faculty Assembly discussed statements made by the professor and whether it should respond officially as a faculty group.
"I found this offensive, bordering on what I think most people would say is hate speech," Chairman Paul Chinowsky told the group during a meeting Thursday. "If any (other) faculty member said this, we would find ourselves in a dean's office or possibly on suspension for writing this. I applaud the students for having the nerve to stand up to this. The question is, are we going to allow this or condone this from someone in our own faculty?"
Chinowsky said he couldn't believe what he read in Hayward's blog post, titled "Off on a gender-bender," on the website Powerline.
In the post, Hayward poked fun at the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community — referring to the community as "LGBTQRSTUW (or whatever letters have been added lately)" — and expressed his discomfort and confusion with university training about how to respect a student's gender identity.
"Free" speech in Italy
In Italy, neither truth nor notoriety is a defense to a charge of criminal defamation. A person can be imprisoned for saying something about another person that everyone knows is true.
An Italian archbishop was even convicted of defamation for referring in a sermon to a civilly married couple as “concubines.”
Italy also has speech crimes, like “apology for Fascism” and “defamation of the Resistance.”
One who is acquitted of a crime in Italy can be convicted for accusing the police of third-degree tactics.
7 April, 2014
A First Amendment Victory
As is often the case, a 5-4 majority decided a key Supreme Court case. But that one vote restored a portion of the idea that political speech should be unfettered by government, in this case striking down arbitrary federal limits on overall individual campaign contributions. While the current federal maximum of $5,200 for specific candidates remains in place, the Court threw out the overall limit of $48,600.
Based on the caterwauling by the Left, though, you'd think McCutcheon v. FEC was the second coming of the Dred Scott decision. (In fact, one Senate candidate did liken the two.) Playing the class envy card was the Sunlight Foundation, which whined that the “Citizens United ruling four years ago opened up the floodgates for unlimited spending in our elections, and now it might as well have tied a big bow around Congress and deliver it to the one percent.”
As a pot decrying the kettle, American Federation of Teachers president Randi Weingarten cried, “We once had rules that allowed everyone a fair shot at the American dream and access to democracy, but now access to government is reserved for the most powerful and influential with millions and millions of dollars to buy elections.” Never mind that over the last quarter-century the AFT was one of the largest political donors, spending the vast majority of its $37 million on Democrats. Or that the National Education Association, its larger sibling, is the third largest political donor. Republicans aren't exactly raking it in there, either.
With the McCutcheon ruling, the Supreme Court comes a step closer to undoing the damage done to free speech by onerous campaign finance laws. It's obvious that the Left liked the system because the list of top donors revealed by the OpenSecrets website shows most donate primarily to Democrats. The right-wing donor most demonized by Democrats like Harry Reid, Koch Industries, comes in all the way down at number 59; meanwhile, 10 of the top 15 donors are heavily invested in Democrat candidates.
But even if the tables were turned, the idea of limiting speech is out of step with this court. As Chief Justice John Roberts pointed out, “If there is no corruption concern in giving nine candidates up to $5,200 each, it is difficult to understand how a tenth candidate can be regarded as corruptible if given $1,801, and all others corruptible if given a dime.” We don't get the connection either. Roberts also wrote, “An aggregate limit on how many candidates and committees an individual may support through contributions is not a 'modest restraint' at all” on protected political speech. “The government may no more restrict how many candidates or causes a donor may support than it may tell a newspaper how many candidates it may endorse.” So how then is it constitutional for the government to dictate how much an individual can gift any one candidate?
The most important point is this: The First Amendment was designed primarily to protect political speech, of which campaign donations are a major part. Congress – and the Court – should remember that.
IRS Likely to Delay First Amendment squelching regulations
Citizens concerned about the IRS’ abuse of power against tea party organizations rose up and told the IRS to stop their assault on First Amendment rights in record numbers.
In response to the more than 150,000 comments (approximately 95 percent negative toward the regulation), IRS Commissioner John Koskinen noted, “That’s a record for an IRS rulemaking comment period. In fact, if you take all the comments on all Treasury and IRS draft proposals over the last seven years and double that number, you come close to the number of comments we are now beginning to review and analyze.”
Koskinen continued saying, “It’s going to take us a while to sort through all those comments, hold a public hearing, possibly repropose a draft regulation and get more public comments. This means that it is unlikely we will be able to complete this process before the end of the year.”
This changed timetable is a huge victory.
President Obama was demanding that this regulation be completed before the 2014 election, but instead 150,000 citizens stood up to him and demanded that the regulation be taken down.
Groups organized under the 501(c)(4) regulations of the tax code are usually conservative. They campaign more for conservative causes rather than for particular candidates. Donations to them are tax exempt. Obama wants to narrow the definition of what they can do so that donations are no longer tax exempt. By taking away a large part of their donations, he hopes to shut them up. Labor unions doing political campaigns would face no such restrictions.
5 April, 2014
A provocation in Texas
A news channel used a foreign term that would not have been understood by most listeners. Protesting about that was "racist", allegedly
On March 11, KCBD News Channel 11 in Lubbock made a Facebook post announcing that a haboob was approaching the city. The post was responded with an uproar from enraged Texans who were offended by the use of the word “haboob,” rather than “sandstorm.”
One of the many irate comments read, “Since when do we need to apply a Muslim vocabulary to a good ole American dirt storm? I take great offense to such terminology! Go back to calling them dirt storms!”
Luckily, this clamor did not go unacknowledged, as fellow Texans responded and fought back with responses such as, “You realize your racist comments made are going viral and brought down Lubbock as a whole? You people are really just intolerant and racist.”
With that being said, the uproar on the KCBD Facebook wall reflected poorly on not only the lone star state but America. Feeling insulted by a term used more frequently in other parts of our world makes one appear uncultured.
Must not oppose homosexual marriage
Homosexuality has become totalitarian
Tolerance is no longer sufficient. Enforced celebration is the new standard. Those who resist will be labeled bigots, and may be subject to having their lives or livelihoods destroyed. We're way past "live and let live." We've moved on to coercion in the name of "tolerance." The Christian photographer must agree to photograph a lesbian ceremony, or face lawsuits. The Muslim pastry chef must bake a cake for a gay ceremony that violates the teachings of her faith. And the CEO who once opposed legalized same-sex marriage through a private donation must be ousted from his job:
Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich resigned under pressure after gay rights activists demanded that he step down or recant his support of traditional marriage laws. Eich donated $1,000 to support Proposition 8, the California ballot initiative that amended the state's constitution to define marriage as between one man and one woman.
"I don't want to talk about my personal beliefs because I kept them out of Mozilla all these 15 years we've been going,” Eich told The Guardian. “I don't believe they're relevant.”
That wasn't an option. "CEO Brendan Eich should make an unequivocal statement of support for marriage equality," a Credoaction petition signed by almost 75,000 people said, per The Inquirer. "If he cannot, he should resign. And if he will not, the board should fire him immediately."
Eich is out on his ear for the unpardonable sin of subscribing to a moral and political belief so mean-spirited and close-minded that it was shared by President Obama back when the fateful contribution was made. (Obama was never actually against gay marriage, but it was his public stance for awhile).
Indeed, a majority of California voters endorsed Proposition 8 that year, including substantial majorities of Hispanics and African-Americans.
When Eich's private beliefs recently came to light, online petitioners demanded that he either renounce them or be fired. Think about that. "Renounce your beliefs and agree with us, or else" is not a sentence that should be uttered lightly, if ever, in a free society.
Some conservatives are now uninstalling Firefox as a protest. Google Chrome is generally a good substitute for Firefox.
4 April, 2014
Canada still intolerant of free speech
A Toronto man has been sentenced to nine months in jail after he was convicted of willfully promoting hatred against Muslims -- a charge rarely laid in Ontario courtrooms. Eric Brazau was found guilty in February of the charge only after police and the Crown attorney received consent from the deputy attorney general.
The hate charge stemmed from incidents dating back to September 2012, when Brazau handed out homemade flyers bearing the hand-written words, "They are here and breeding." Printed below was an excerpt from the Qur'an, which read, "Kill them wherever you find them."
Brazau was sentenced to nine months in jail on Tuesday afternoon. However, since Brazau has already spent 9.5 months in pretrial custody, he will not be held any longer. In addition, he must serve 18 months' probation, cannot contact victims and must avoid certain places where he was known to distribute flyers.
Brazau told CTV Toronto that no sentence would deter him from continuing to spread his sentiments about Islam.
The flyers included photos of men, women and children dressed in tradition Muslim garb, including one photo of a Toronto man and his wife as she pushed a stroller.
On the other side of the pamphlet were "a number of graphic images... (that) associated the Islamic religion and the prophet Muhammad with pedophilia, bestiality and Satanism," Justice Ford Clements wrote in a judgement last February.
Sounds like there was too much truth in the flyers
Australia: Jewish Community Council of Victoria ‘deeply concerned’ over proposed race law Act changes
This report concerns what is a hot political issue in Australia at the moment: An attempt to tone down Federal hate-speech legislation.
Michael Danby (below) has a good point: With the moderation that is characteristic of Australians, the existing law was enforced for many years with very little controversy. It is when the law got into the hands of an immoderate judge that it delivered an atrocious outcome -- which the Parliament is now trying to prevent for the future
The obnoxious verdict was delivered by Jewish judge Mordecai Bromberg. As a Jew, his great sensitivity to any hint of racism is readily understood. But he should not have allowed that sensitivity to warp his verdict. He should have recused himself from the case. It is he who has made the existing law untenable.
THE Caulfield South-based Jewish Community Council of Victoria says it is “deeply concerned” about proposed changes to the Racial Discrimination Act.
In a statement, it says it wants protections against hate speech maintained and is making a submission to the Attorney-General.
The Abbott Government is proposing to water down the Act in the name of free speech.
The JCCV, however, says freedom of speech is a “very important right but not an absolute right’’. President Nina Bassat AM said “hate speech based on race, ethnicity or religion should be deplored and all members of society should be protected from it’’.
“Just as freedom of speech should be valued, so should the right of people to be part of a free and fair society without suffering the emotional and mental damage caused by hate speech.
“We believe that the Racial Discrimination Act as it stands has been working well and is effective in creating an environment that supports multiculturalism and a harmonious Victorian community.”
She further said it was not just a Jewish issue or an Aboriginal issue, but an issue for all members of society.
Melbourne Ports federal Labor MP Michael Danby has been critical of the proposed changes, telling Parliament on March 27 that Australians would be “scratching their heads’’.
“Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act existed for the 11 years of the Howard government. It worked very well,’’ he said.
“There were 1650 complaints, 500 of those dealt with conciliation and most of the rest were dropped — very few went to court. If it was good enough for John Howard for all of those years, I cannot understand what is not good enough for this government.’’
3 April, 2014
Only Racist When Whites Say It
HBO's Bill Maher is a leftist of leftists who holds no punches when it comes to fighting the Right, but he tripped up some fellow travellers on race. First he quoted Paul Ryan on the causes of poverty and led a panel discussion on whether racism was at play in those comments. Predictably, the two leftists on the panel, one of whom was black comedian W. Kamau Bell, thought Ryan's comments showed racism. So Maher asked them to weigh in on this statement:
"When it comes to getting an education, too many of our young people just can't be bothered. They're sitting on couches for hours playing video games, watching TV. Instead of dreaming of being a teacher or a lawyer or a business leader, they're fantasizing about being a baller or a rapper."
When he revealed that it was Michelle Obama, not Paul Ryan, who said that, his guests had to wipe egg off their faces. Bell pathetically explained, "She was talking to black people -- we talk to each other differently than how we talk in front of you." That's precisely the point.
Whites must not adopt blacks?
Comedian type Chelsea Handler has found herself at the centre of a bit of a scandal after she made a rather well, bad joke about girl of the moment Lupita Nyong’o.
Tweeting about the Oscars on Sunday night for the Huffington Post Jennifer Aniston’s bezzie wrote:
'#AngelinaJolie just filed adoption papers #lupitanyongo #Oscars -@chelseahandler.'
Some people are saying that Chelsea’s joke was racist – but whether you think that or not one thing is definite – the joke sucks, racist or not.
We suspect Chelsea was trying her very best to be super controversial and raise a few eyebrows however, if you ask us that joke was always going to fall very flat.
And Twitter certainly agreed with Chelsea being called 'disgraceful,' 'offensive' and 'racist' about 0.5 seconds after posting the 'joke'.
2 April, 2014
Europe uses tolerance to justify intolerance
As soon as you say what speech may or may not be tolerated, you are a bigot
Have a look at this document, recently debated by the Civil Liberties committee of the European Parliament. It's a good example of how well-meaning people, convinced that they are standing up for the underdog, can end up doing enormous damage to freedom, to equality before the law and, perversely, to the minorities on whose behalf they presume to speak.
The draft Statute for the Promotion of Tolerance runs through all the usual Leftie desiderata: group defamation, hate crimes, yada yada. It argues, without the slightest trace of irony or self-awareness, for statutory tolerance. Not for everyone, though:
There is no need to be tolerant to the intolerant. This is especially important as far as freedom of expression is concerned: that freedom must not be abused to defame other groups.
You get a lot of these untintentionally funny statements from bien pensant types online: "Don't give the bigots a platform", "I hate the haters", "I refuse to read your newspaper, it's too prejudiced".
It's hard to improve on the response to them by a Toronto blogger addressing the Canadian Human Rights Commission: "You're too stupid to tell me what to think".
Must not support creationism
Something that most of the human race believes in to this day may not be mentioned in an American university? Clear bigotry
Montana Tech is a science-oriented unit of the University of Montana, offering a range of degrees in science and technology fields. So Montana-based technology entrepreneurs might seem like logical choices for commencement speakers. This year's speakers will be Greg and Susan Gianforte, engineers who started several technology companies and have been donors to computer science programs at several Montana colleges.
Does it matter that they also support a creationist museum that seeks to convince people that evolution is incorrect? Is there anything inconsistent with a science university honoring people who back creationism?
Some faculty members and students are organizing a graduation boycott (an unprecedented level of protest for Montana Tech) because they think the university should not give a platform to people who argue against science. The university says that since they won't be talking about creationism at graduation, the issue doesn't matter.
The Gianfortes, through their foundation, were major donors to the Glendive Dinosaur and Fossil Museum, an institution that frustrates scientists and academics in Montana for promoting ideas that are widely seen as religious belief, not science. The museum does not in any way hide its views that natural history, as taught by science professors and museums nationally, should be fought.
1 April, 2014
The Welsh windbag puts his foot in it
"The Welsh windbag" was Kinnock's nickname when he was running for Prime Minister. He lost
Ex-Labour leader Neil Kinnock tonight apologised to Eric Pickles after joking that the Tory minister would drop dead if he took part in the London Marathon.
Sadiq Khan, Labour's shadow justice minister, posted a letter from Lord Kinnock online in which he suggested getting Mr Pickles to join him in this year's race 'so we have a helpful by-election'.
The Tories condemned both men for the 'nasty' remarks, and tonight Lord Kinnock said he has written Mr Pickles 'apologising for the poor taste which I showed in a light-hearted private note'.
Earlier Mr Khan deleted the tweet featuring the letter and also apologised.
Posting the letter online amounted to an 'offensive, personal attack', the Tories said which raised doubts about Mr Khan's ambitions to run the capital.
Mr Pickles is a solid conservative but he is also greatly overweight
American Airlines staff leaves "cruel" note on deaf passenger’s bag
This is largely a misunderstanding. People born deaf are unable to learn to speak so were once routinely referred to as "deaf and dumb". That won't do in the sensitive times of today, however
James Moehle and Angela Huckaby were returning home to Houston from a vacation in Hawaii when one of their bags was misplaced by the airline. When it was delivered later, a handwritten note attached to the bag read, “Please Text Deaf And Dumb.”
Moehle’s mother, Kaye Moehle, said the note was “outrageous and cruel and unnecessary.”
Airline spokesman Casey Norton said Friday that the employee who wrote the note did not intend to insult anyone and will go through sensitivity training.
One of the couple’s bags was misplaced on the final leg of the couple’s journey home, from Dallas to Houston. In such cases, American uses another company to delivery late-arriving baggage to passengers.
Norton said an American employee who is not a native English speaker scrawled the note to alert a delivery driver that he should contact the couple by text message when delivering the bag.
"HATE SPEECH" is free speech: The U.S. Supreme Court stated the general rule regarding protected speech in Texas v. Johnson (109 S.Ct. at 2544), when it held: "The government may not prohibit the verbal or nonverbal expression of an idea merely because society finds the idea offensive or disagreeable." Federal courts have consistently followed this. Said Virginia federal district judge Claude Hilton: "The First Amendment does not recognize exceptions for bigotry, racism, and religious intolerance or ideas or matters some may deem trivial, vulgar or profane."
Even some advocacy of violence is protected by the 1st Amendment. In Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), the U.S. Supreme Court held unanimously that speech advocating violent illegal actions to bring about social change is protected by the First Amendment "except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."
The double standard: Atheists can put up signs and billboards saying that Christianity is wrong and that is hunky dory. But if a Christian says that homosexuality is wrong, that is attacked as "hate speech"
A prophetic comment on Norwegian hate speech laws: As Justice Brandeis once noted, repressive censorship “breeds hate” and “that hate menaces stable government,” rather than promoting safety; “the path of safety lies in the opportunity to discuss freely supposed grievances and proposed remedies.”
Voltaire's most famous saying was actually a summary of Voltaire's thinking by one of his biographers rather than something Voltaire said himself. Nonetheless it is a wholly admirable sentiment: "I disagree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it". I am of a similar mind.
The traditional advice about derogatory speech: "Sticks and stones will break your bones but names will never hurt you". Apparently people today are not as emotionally robust as their ancestors were.
The KKK were members of the DEMOCRATIC party. Google "Klanbake" if you doubt it
A phobia is an irrational fear, so the terms "Islamophobic" and "homophobic" embody a claim that the people so described are mentally ill. There is no evidence for either claim. Both terms are simply abuse masquerading as diagnoses and suggest that the person using them is engaged in propaganda rather than in any form of rational or objective discourse.
Leftists often pretend that any mention of race is "racist" -- unless they mention it, of course. But leaving such irrational propaganda aside, which statements really are racist? Can statements of fact about race be "racist"? Such statements are simply either true or false. The most sweeping possible definition of racism is that a racist statement is a statement that includes a negative value judgment of some race. Absent that, a statement is not racist, for all that Leftists might howl that it is. Facts cannot be racist so nor is the simple statement of them racist. Here is a statement that cannot therefore be racist by itself, though it could be false: "Blacks are on average much less intelligent than whites". If it is false and someone utters it, he could simply be mistaken or misinformed.
Categorization is a basic human survival skill so racism as the Left define it (i.e. any awareness of race) is in fact neither right nor wrong. It is simply human
Whatever your definition of racism, however, a statement that simply mentions race is not thereby racist -- though one would think otherwise from American Presidential election campaigns. Is a statement that mentions dogs, "doggist" or a statement that mentions cats, "cattist"?
Was Abraham Lincoln a racist? "You and we are different races. We have between us a broader difference than exists between almost any other two races. Whether it is right or wrong I need not discuss, but this physical difference is a great disadvantage to us both, as I think your race suffer very greatly, many of them by living among us, while ours suffer from your presence. In a word, we suffer on each side. If this be admitted, it affords a reason at least why we should be separated. It is better for both, therefore, to be separated." -- Spoken at the White House to a group of black community leaders, August 14th, 1862
Gimlet-eyed Leftist haters sometimes pounce on the word "white" as racist. Will the time come when we have to refer to the White House as the "Full spectrum of light" House?
The spirit of liberty is "the spirit which is not too sure that it is right." and "Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can even do much to help it. While it lies there it needs no constitution, no law, no court to save it." -- Judge Learned Hand
Mostly, a gaffe is just truth slipping out
Two lines below of a famous hymn that would be incomprehensible to Leftists today ("honor"? "right"? "freedom?" Freedom to agree with them is the only freedom they believe in)
First to fight for right and freedom,
And to keep our honor clean
It is of course the hymn of the USMC -- still today the relentless warriors that they always were.
It seems a pity that the wisdom of the ancient Greek philosopher Epictetus is now little known. Remember, wrote the Stoic thinker, "that foul words or blows in themselves are no outrage, but your judgment that they are so. So when any one makes you angry, know that it is your own thought that has angered you. Wherefore make it your endeavour not to let your impressions carry you away."
"Since therefore the knowledge and survey of vice is in this world so necessary to the constituting of human virtue, and the scanning of error to the confirmation of truth, how can we more safely, and with less danger, scout into the regions of sin and falsity than by reading all manner of tractates, and hearing all manner of reason?" -- English poet John Milton (1608-1674) in Areopagitica
Hate speech is verbal communication that induces anger due to the listener's inability to offer an intelligent response
Leftists can try to get you fired from your job over something that you said and that's not an attack on free speech. But if you just criticize something that they say, then that IS an attack on free speech
"Negro" is a forbidden word -- unless a Democrat uses it
"It is impossible to speak in such a way that you cannot be misunderstood." -- Karl Popper
Why are Leftists always talking about hate? Because it fills their own hearts
Leftists don't have principles. How can they when "there is no such thing as right and wrong"? All they have is postures, pretend-principles that can be changed as easily as one changes one's shirt
When you have an argument with a Leftist, you are not really discussing the facts. You are threatening his self esteem. Which is why the normal Leftist response to challenge is mere abuse.
The naive scholar who searches for a consistent Leftist program will not find it. What there is consists only in the negation of the present.
The intellectual Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius (AD 121-180) could have been speaking of much that goes on today when he said: "The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane."
I despair of the ADL. Jews have enough problems already and yet in the ADL one has a prominent Jewish organization that does its best to make itself offensive to Christians. Their Leftism is more important to them than the welfare of Jewry -- which is the exact opposite of what they ostensibly stand for! Jewish cleverness seems to vanish when politics are involved. Fortunately, Christians are true to their saviour and have loving hearts. Jewish dissatisfaction with the myopia of the ADL is outlined here. Note that Foxy was too grand to reply to it.
DETAILS OF REGULARLY UPDATED BLOGS BY JOHN RAY:
"Dissecting Leftism" (Backup here)
"Education Watch International"
"Political Correctness Watch"
"Food & Health Skeptic"
"Immigration Watch International" blog.