I thought free speech was a well understood constitutional principle in our country. Well litigated and well resolved. UC Berkeley was the birthplace of the Free Speech Movement.
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; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Free speech? Not so much anymore it seems.
Ann Coulter’s canceled Berkeley speech has set off a delightful firestorm, and now we are in the midst of an absurd free speech debate that’s opened an oozing chasm on the left.
The recent protests on college campuses from Berkeley to NYU have shown that loud lefties are using fascism to curtail free speech.
Violence has erupted to squash words, so sticks and stones may break your bones, and they may be used to forcefully silence unpopular ideas. You know it’s an interesting debate when Liz Warren, Bernie Sanders and Bill Maher are, for once, on the right side of it
However, the left is not in lockstep, as a New York Times oped from NYU comparative literature professor Ulrich Baer shows some commies are more than happy to force their enemies into silence. He writes:
“Freedom of expression is not an unchanging absolute.”
Yes it is. He continues…
The recent student demonstrations…should be understood as an attempt to ensure conditions of free speech for a greater group of people rather than censorship”
He goes on to say when monsters like Milo & Ann Coulter step foot on a safe space haven, their mere presence and thoughts aggrieve the oppressed.
This is absurd. We need to teach students the importance of the U. S. constitution.
As the Wall Street Journal recently reported:
The William F. Buckley Jr. Program at Yale recently commissioned a survey from McLaughlin & Associates about attitudes towards free speech on campus. Some 800 students at a variety of colleges across the country were surveyed.
The results, though not surprising, are nevertheless alarming. By a margin of 51 percent to 36 percent, students favor their school having speech codes to regulate speech for students and faculty.
Sixty-three percent favor requiring professors to employ ‘trigger warnings’ to alert students to material that might be discomfiting.
One-third of the students polled could not identify the First Amendment as the part of the Constitution that dealt with free speech.
Thirty-five percent said that the First Amendment does not protect ‘hate speech,’ while 30 percent of self-identified liberal students say the First Amendment is outdated.
Flemming Rose isn’t going to watch the decline of free speech without a fight. In 2005, while an editor at the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten, Rose commissioned twelve cartoons about Muhammad to encourage artists to overcome self-censorship. Extremists responded to the cartoons with attacks on western embassies and riots, resulting in the deaths of over 200 people.
Now Rose has written The Tyranny of Silence, a defense of his decision to publish the cartoons and a guide to unfettered expression in the 21st century.
Free speech isn’t always free. There is a price to be paid.
I’m not willing to sacrifice freedom of expression on the altar of cultural diversity. ~Fleming Rose
Shutting down free speech in the name of religion is absurd. There is only religion I know that does that.
Jesus expects us to speak the truth. He gives us that freedom.
Indeed, Charlie Hebdo routinely drew blasphemous and obscene cartoons making fun of Jesus and the pope. Yet, there was never a serious worry that bunch of Christians would storm their newsroom and shoot them all. The suggestion that “Muslims throughout France” should be expected to rally around extremists who want to kill anyone who draws a cartoon mocking their faith is patronizing at best, racist at worst.
The Johnson Amendment is outrageous. I can imagine Jesus refusing to not speak out. In fact, he frequently did.
In 1954, Sen. Lyndon Johnson, worried about opposition at home, came up with an amendment to the Internal Revenue Code Section 501(c)(3) that prohibited campaign speech by nonprofits and tax-exempt churches.
The effect of the Johnson Amendment is prohibit speech solely on the content of the speech.
Trump is correct to get rid of this.
I will get rid of and totally destroy the Johnson Amendment and allow our representatives of faith to speak freely and without fear of retribution.” ~Donald Trump
Dr. Charles Krauthammer examines the Thought police on patrol. The surest way to stop our constitutional government is to stop free expression of speech.
…[T]he left is entering a new phase of ideological agitation — no longer trying to win the debate but stopping debate altogether, banishing from public discourse any and all opposition. The proper word for that attitude is totalitarian. It declares certain controversies over and visits serious consequences — from social ostracism to vocational defenestration — upon those who refuse to be silenced… To oppose it is nothing but bigotry, akin to racism. Opponents are to be similarly marginalized and shunned, destroyed personally and professionally… Long a staple of academia, the totalitarian impulse is spreading. What to do? Defend the dissenters, even if — perhaps, especially if — you disagree with their policy. It is — it was? — the American way.
It seems like every day schools are trying to shut down free speech and religious liberty. The objections to what is going on here is absurd. Liberty lovers, including the right and left, ought to be outraged.
There’s a religious liberty standoff underway in Middleton, Wisconsin.
On one side is a group of Christian moms armed with Chick-fil-A sandwiches and 400 homemade brownies. On the other side are public school administrators who believe that Jesus and plump juicy chicken breasts are “divisive.”
The controversy surrounds an off-campus lunch event involving students at Middleton High School known as “Jesus Lunch.”
What is really going on the transgender issue around bathrooms? Is it really about bathrooms?
Here is a good sense of the underlying issues.
The great irony of the gay rights agenda is that, ultimately, it’s not about gay rights or transgender rights. They always follow censorship with further centralized power in the state.
Using law to suppress free speech in the name of equality is characteristic of the urge to use centralized state power to promote unique and, frankly, warped agendas. This sort of equality requires having resentments to cultivate and victims to exploit—and state power that “protects” said victims by suppressing all opposing points of view.
The risks inherent in this are deep and frightening. State power feeds on itself. Lenin exploited workers and Mao exploited the peasants, all in the guise of being their “vanguard” and giving them equality. Anyone at the HRC who truly loves freedom will come to rue the day it yielded to the urge to use state power to suppress free expression in the name of equality for gays and transgenders.
This latest attack against the First Amendment is unquestionably another act of war against freedom of conscience and expression. That makes it a campaign against human rights. By killing freedom of religion and speech, it also kills freedom of association. It stunts our growth because it causes people to become more polarized and fearful about sharing perspectives. That’s perfect for a centralized surveillance state. But it’s tragic for true human friendship and love.
Is it going by the wayside in our country and others?
Is “free speech” considered an essential liberty?
Can we trust our leaders, corporate and governmental to protect our rights?
Consider some of the kinds of speech being targeted for censorship or outright elimination.
Offensive, politically incorrect and “unsafe” speech: Disguised as tolerance, civility and love, political correctness has resulted in the chilling of free speech and the demonizing of viewpoints that run counter to the cultural elite. Consequently, college campuses have become hotbeds of student-led censorship, trigger warnings, microaggressions and “red light” speech policies targeting anything that might cause someone to feel uncomfortable, unsafe or offended.
» Bullying, intimidating speech: Warning that “school bullies become tomorrow’s hate crimes defendants,” the Justice Department has led the way in urging schools to curtail bullying, going so far as to classify “teasing” as a form of “bullying” and “rude” or “hurtful” “text messages” as “cyberbullying.”
Hateful speech: Hate speech — speech that attacks a person or group on the basis of attributes such as gender, ethnic origin, religion, race, disability, or sexual orientation — is the primary candidate for online censorship. Corporate internet giants Google, Twitter and Facebook are in the process of determining what kinds of speech will be permitted online and what will be deleted.
Dangerous, anti-government speech: As part of its newly unveiled war on “extremism,” the Obama administration is partnering with the tech industry to establish a task force to counter online “propaganda” by terrorists hoping to recruit support or plan attacks. In this way, anyone who criticizes the government online is considered an extremist and will have his content reported to government agencies for further investigation or deleted.
It is sad that the states need to do this but I guess it needs to be done. Free speech has to be protected. Kudos to Tennessee if they pass it.
Representative Martin Daniel (R-18th District) has filed a bill that would confirm the First Amendment right of students enrolled in Tennessee institutions of higher education.
House Bill 2063, entitled “The Tennessee Student Free Speech Protection Act,” would require that institutions of higher education adopt a policy on speech and expression that would confirm students’ freedom of speech as a fundamental right, guarantee them the broadest latitude to speak about any issue that presents itself, and allow students to openly and vigorously discuss ideas that other members of the institution’s community might oppose. Furthermore, the Act would prohibit higher education institutions from discouraging any type of lawful speech or expressive activity, establishing speech “safe zones,” or shielding individuals from ideas and opinions that they might find disagreeable, unwelcome or offensive.
In Tennessee, the First Amendment does not stop at the campus gate. This Bill would confirm the nearly forgotten concept of free speech. We can’t allow politically correct policies to smother free speech. Courtesy and sensitivity, while encouraged, can never trump basic constitutional rights. Tennessee higher education should prepare our students for the real world, and encouraging expression of all sorts of viewpoints is essential to that objective.
This is absurd. The First Amendment says “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech.”
This sounds like it is clearly abridgingthe freedom of speech.
Auburn has free speech zones on campus, and we were protesting that,” Stone said. “We didn’t bother to get a permit, because why would we need a permit to exercise our free speech rights?
The Constitution guarantees us free speech. It is, in an “originalist” sense, very clear. It didn’t say we guarantee free speech unless …
Is hate speech free speech? It is speech.
I think we should err on the side of free speech. Free speech, while potentially offensive, is still our right. You have the right to offend me. As a lover of liberty, I should defend your rights. You should defend mine. That is our obligation as free citizens.
The First Amendment, ratified December 15, 1791, states: “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, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
In 1969, the Supreme Court protected a Ku Klux Klan member’s racist speech and created the “imminent danger” test to permit hate speech. The court ruled in Brandenburg v. Ohio that; “The constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a state to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force, or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.”
In 2011, the Supreme Court issued their ruling on Snyder v. Phelps, which concerned the right of the Westboro Baptist Church to protest with signs found offensive by many Americans. The issue presented was whether the 1st Amendment protected the expressions written on the signs. In an 8-1 decision the court sided with Phelps, the head of Westboro Baptist Church, thereby confirming their historically strong protection of hate speech, so long as it doesn’t promote imminent violence. The Court explained, “speech deals with matters of public concern when it can ‘be fairly considered as relating to any matter of political, social, or other concern to the community’ or when it ‘is a subject of general interest and of value and concern to the public.”
So what do I make of this (below)? Not much.
Where will America draw its line in the sand? In some cases this speech never evolves beyond rhetoric, so we tolerate it for the sake of free speech, but increasingly the threat of violence looms just past the propaganda. We shake our heads at Ammon Bundy, many quick to make light of a dangerous situation so long as it doesn’t spill over into a deadly one. But in doing so, we are implicitly condoning the segregation of certain groups within the country and allowing influential figures to paint targets on groups that ideologically stand in their way. Then, when our televisions and newspapers are plastered with events like the Planned Parenthood shooting in Colorado (in which the gunman allegedly said “no more baby parts,” a reference to the debunked narrative that the organization was selling baby parts for profit), we need to look in the mirror and ask: at what point must we step in to prevent the needless deaths of innocent citizens?
The policy states that it applies to “Twitter Ads,” but goes on to explain that these “paid advertising products” include all “Tweets,” as well as “trends and accounts.” The policy is then spelled out in question-and-answer form.
Here is the relevant part:
What’s the policy? Twitter prohibits the promotion of hate content, sensitive topics, and violence globally.
Note from the get-go: We are not just talking about the incitement of violence here. Twitter is laying the groundwork to regulate discussions of any topics it deems “sensitive.”
What products or services are subject to this policy? This policy applies, but is not limited, to: Hate speech or advocacy against an individual, organization or protected group based on race, ethnicity, national origin, color, religion, disability, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, veteran status or other protected status.
Note that this prohibition expressly goes beyond “hate speech” (which itself is an absurdly subjective term), additionally banning “advocacy against” people or groups based on, among other things, “religion” (as well as “other protected status” — who knows what that means?).
Twitter has opted to join the campaign to crack down on free expression. And one is left to wonder whether the big Saudi bucks that have come its way are a factor in Twitter’s decision-making.
The First Amendment says that “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; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances”.
These articles mainly show concerning trends abridging our rights.
What corrupts politics more: Millionaires and billionaires? Or the rules that intend to limit the influence of wealthy donors? At Prager University, George Will, author and Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist for the Washington Post, explains who designed campaign finance reform and why Congress’s solution to the problem may actually be the bigger problem.
Summary of the video
George Will
Campaign finance reform is what it pretends to combat: corruption.
Let me say that again, slightly rephrased: campaign finance reform corrupts the political system it presumes to save from corruption.
Now that I’ve taken the trouble to repeat myself, you may be shaking your head, wondering how I could be so… wrong. Don’t we want to “get money out of politics?” Isn’t campaign finance reform an inherent good? The late Senator Eugene McCarthy, the iconic liberal politician of the Vietnam War era, didn’t think so.
McCarthy, a Democrat who represented Minnesota in the Senate from 1959 to 1971, did something unthinkable in 1968. Because of his opposition to the Vietnam War, he challenged a powerful, incumbent President for his party’s presidential nomination.
His challenge to President Lyndon Johnson was possible — and potent — only because five wealthy liberals who shared McCarthy’s opposition to the Vietnam War gave him substantial sums of money. Stewart Mott’s $210,000 would be $1.4 million in today’s dollars. The five donors’ seed money enabled McCarthy to raise $11 million dollars or $75 million dollars today.
But, because of campaign finance reform, the most a wealthy quintet could give to help an insurgent against an incumbent today would be $13,000 (five times the individual limit of $2,600). McCarthy didn’t win the nomination, but he did compel Johnson not to run for a second term. In doing so, McCarthy changed history. But the Democratic Party establishment wasn’t happy about it. To stop it from happening again, they pushed for government regulation of political speech.
Thus in reaction to Eugene McCarthy’s insurgency, campaign finance reform was born.
Not much has changed since then.
Whatever their stated intentions, campaign finance laws are not written to protect the public from corrupt politicians, they are written to protect incumbents from anyone who might challenge them. So, not only doesn’t campaign finance reform disrupt the status quo; it encases it in cement.
All the laws that ever have regulated campaigns, or ever will regulate them, have had or will have one thing in common: They have been, or will be, written by incumbent legislators. That is why such laws are presumptively disreputable and usually unconstitutional.
But, reformers shout, politicians are bought and sold by big money interests, and we have to stop this.
These reformers argue two propositions.
One is that corruption is so pervasive and so subtle that it is invisible.
They resemble the zealots who say proof of the conspiracy to assassinate President Kennedy is the fact that no proof has been found.
Alternatively, reformers argue that corruption is entirely visible everywhere: If politician A votes in a way that pleases contributor B — particularly if contributor B enjoyed “access” to politician A — that shall be designated corruption.
But there is abundant research demonstrating that money almost always moves toward the politician with whom the contributor already agrees. In other words money is rarely given in order to change a politicians’ votes; it is given in order to support politicians who already vote the way donors want them to.
Nevertheless, reformers increasingly argue (see their justifications for restricting political action committees or PAC’s) that regulating the timing, amount and content of political advocacy is necessary to improve the tone of politics.
These reformers apparently think that what James Madison, the author of the Bill of Rights, meant when he wrote: “Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech,” was really “Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech — unless incumbents think abridgements will help keep them in office.”
Even if it were Congress’s business to decide that there is “too much” money in politics, what does “too much” mean?
In the 2007-08 election cycle, spending in all campaigns, from city council members up to the presidency, was $8.6 billion, about what Americans spend annually on potato chips.
Reformers say that regulation of campaign giving and spending will not only spare our leaders the distraction of the governed — that is, seeking “undue” influence on government, it also will make us think better of government.
But a jaundiced view of government is often sensible, and certainly it is justified by all these campaign regulations, which have become a particularly virulent form of the disease it purports to cure.
So, let me repeat myself a third and final time: Campaign finance reform is what it pretends to combat: corruption.
It is astounding how we can be on the right side of liberty and freedom yet losing the communication war that is going on.
“The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.” ~Edumnd Burke
More than anything, we must speak out. Our voices must be heard. We must have courage and not be afraid. That many are ignorant of how important liberty is not an excuse for us to be silent.
But you say, “I’m only one person”. We all have the ability to influence our friends and family in a loving way what the issues are. We all can create a platform on which we can speak the truth. We can engage with those who might make us uncomfortable to lovingly discuss issues of freedom.
Also, remember there are fence sitters. They are thirsty for good reasons to support the truth.
Political Correctness is all about Propaganda Compliance. PC is the engine of the propaganda machine that produces mass delusion. PC is basically a calculated process of molding public opinion through psychological manipulation. The process is twofold: saturation and suppression.
Saturation is the practice of repeating a deception relentlessly and injecting it into every corner of public life so that it becomes accepted as truth. It involves control of most communications outlets.
The Denver City Council is reportedly holding up a new concession agreement for Denver International Airport (DIA) because it does not want to approve the operation of a Chick-fil-A. Specifically, some council members do not like the fact that Chick-fil-A executives were critical of same-sex marriage.
This is not a moral issue. This is a significant constitutional issue. May wisdomprevail and may free speech be recogmized.
“I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I am not in favor of gay marriage.” ~Barack Obama
The Denver Post reports:
Chick-fil-A’s reputation as an opponent of same-sex marriage has imperiled the fast-food chain’s potential return to Denver International Airport, with several City Council members this week passionately questioning a proposed concession agreement. Councilman Paul Lopez called opposition to the chain at DIA “really, truly a moral issue on the city.”
His position comes despite ardent assurances from the concessionaires — who have operated other DIA restaurants — that strict nondiscrimination policies will include protections based on sexual orientation and gender identity. Robin Kniech, the council’s first openly gay member, said she was most worried about a local franchise generating “corporate profits used to fund and fuel discrimination.” She was first to raise Chick-fil-A leaders’ politics during a Tuesday committee hearing.
The idea of silencing those you disagree with is not new. It is, however, escalating. It is particularly true for people of faith, Christians, Jews, and Muslims.
It is helpful to recognize the enemy. It is essential we pray for wisdom. We have to not only speak the truth, we need to act on it as well.
Here are some key ideas:
The first amendment to the constitution says that “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; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”
“To suppress free speech is a double wrong. It violates the rights of the hearer as well as those of the speaker.” ~Frederick Douglass
Hey Christians, Say Goodbye To Religious Freedom It has begun but it will only continue to accelerate. We are under attack for “exercising our religious faith” as guaranteed in the constitution. May God give us guidance on what to do and say. We know Jesus promised that God would do that.
What is the First Amendment Defense Act and why you should support it? Religious liberty and free speech gives us all the right to speak and exercise our religious faith. There are severe cultural forces at play that seek to coerce us into compliance with “acceptable thought and speech”.
What is the First Amendment Defense Act and why you should support it? Religious liberty and free speech gives us all the right to speak and exercise our religious faith. There are severe cultural forces at play that seek to coerce us into compliance with “acceptable thought and speech”. We should never be penalized for believing and acting on our faith.
Imagine this: Amidst a close election, a partisan government lawyer with questionable authority investigates a conservative nonprofit supporting a political candidate. The government theorizes the candidate and organization are communicating too much—”coordinating” in legal parlance. A court eventually exonerates the group finding the government’s theory onerous. But it does so only after a years-long investigation that clouds the group’s operations, impedes its fundraising efforts, and ultimately negates its ability to influence voters during the election.
The above scenario indeed happened. But it was not, as the reader may suspect, the recently terminated ‘John Doe‘ investigation, which targeted Wisconsin Club for Growth–as well as other organizations–for supporting Scott Walker during his recall election. The nonprofit was the Christian Coalition, the candidate was George H. W. Bush, and the government lawyer was then-Federal Election Commission enforcement chief Lois Lerner.
It has begun but it will only continue to accelerate. We are under attack for “exercising our religious faith” as guaranteed in the constitution.
May God give us guidance on what to do and say. We know Jesus promised that God would do that.
Here are some key ideas:
The first amendment to the constitution says that “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; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”
“To suppress free speech is a double wrong. It violates the rights of the hearer as well as those of the speaker.” ~Frederick Douglass
Just in case you need a refresher: Back in 2012, a baker in the Denver suburb of Lakewood was asked by a gay couple to make them a wedding cake—two years before gay marriage was even legalized in Colorado. The owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop, Jack Phillips, declined to participate in Charlie Craig and David Mullins’ celebration, because such an event conflicted with his Christian faith.
Here are a few things Phillips didn’t do: He didn’t query costumers about their sexual preferences. He didn’t bar same-sex couples from purchasing a cake at a place of public accommodation. He didn’t ask consumers traveling in same-sex pairs to leave his shop. He didn’t hang a ‘No Gays Allowed’ sign in his window.
What he could never have known when he first opened his shop was the celebrating gay marriages would be a precondition for making a living. And when you consider that there are at least a few dozen other bakeries within a short drive from Masterpiece Cakeshop that could have accommodated the couple’s celebratory pastry needs, why would he?
Religious liberty and free speech gives us all the right to speak and exercise our religious faith. There are severe cultural forces at play that seek to coerce us into compliance with “acceptable thought and speech”. We should never be penalized for believing and acting on our faith as it relates to marriage being between a man and woman.
The First Amendment Defense Act has been introduced in the House of Representatives and the Senate to address that from a policy and legal perspective. It is a short bill and you can read the text here. It currently has 36 Senate co-sponsors and 130 co-sponsors in the House of Representatives.
If you want to email Congress expressing your support, you can do it here.
“Our bill shields against federal intrusion without taking anything away from anyone. In a shifting landscape, it’s time that Congress proactively defend this sacred right.” ~Labrador, an Idaho Republican
House – Oversight and Government Reform; Ways and Means
LATEST ACTION:
06/17/2015 Referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and in addition to the Committee on Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned
Here is the Senate version which is identical to the House of Representatives version.
06/17/2015 Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
“There’s a reason the right to religious liberty appears first in our nation’s Bill of Rights,” said Senator Lee. “The freedom to live and to act in accordance with the dictates of one’s conscience and religious convictions is integral to human flourishing, serving as the foundation upon which America has produced the most diverse, tolerant, and stable society the world has ever known. The vast majority of Americans today still hold a robust view of religious liberty, yet across the country the right of conscience is threatened by state and local governments that coerce, intimidate, and penalize individuals, associations, and businesses who believe that marriage is a union between a man and a woman. The First Amendment Defense Act is necessary to ensure that this kind of government excess never occurs at the federal level.”
“Religious freedom is at the heart of what it means to be an American,” Labrador said. “America set the standard for upholding freedom of belief and worship in a diverse society. No American should ever doubt these protections enshrined in the First Amendment. Our bill ensures that the federal government does not penalize Americans for following their religious beliefs or moral convictions on traditional marriage. Our bill shields against federal intrusion without taking anything away from anyone. In a shifting landscape, it’s time that Congress proactively defend this sacred right.”
Respecting religious liberty in the marketplace is particularly important. After all, as the first lady, Michelle Obama, put it, religion “isn’t just about showing up on Sunday for a good sermon and good music and a good meal. It’s about what we do Monday through Saturday as well.”
