In an interview with The Daily Signal, Governor Phil Bryant (R-Miss) explains what his state’s new religious liberty law does and doesn’t do. While many opponents of the law say it will harm Mississippi’s economy, Bryant paints a different picture. He’s lowered taxes a whopping 50 times since taking office and says that, among other pro-growth policies, have made Mississippi a very friendly environment for businesses of all shapes and sizes.
EDITORS NOTE: This video interview with Governor Bryant first appeared on The Daily Signal.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/governor-phil-bryant-mississippi.jpg312600Dr. Rich Swierhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngDr. Rich Swier2016-04-12 08:19:342016-04-14 07:33:15VIDEO: Why I Signed the Religious Liberty Law
Hedegaard discusses his struggle and survival fighting a Palestinian émigré shooter disguised as a Danish postman in an attempted assassination in February 2013 by who fled Denmark. Today he lives under 24/7 protection of the Danish security police in what he calls “a near Fort Knox-like complex.” He addresses Denmark’s inundation in the current massive wave of Muslim immigration, desperate assertion of border control and repression of free speech concerning the Islamization of Europe. See our original interview with Hedegaard published in the New English Review Press collection, The West Speaks.
Hedegaard was forthright, honest about his experience in the face of the attempt on his life in February 2013 by a Palestinian émigré, a well educated engineer who had become radicalized. The perpetrator, “BH”, as Lars discussed on the program fled Denmark only to be arrested in Turkey in April 2014, later traded to release Turkish diplomats in Mosul, Iraq in October, despite Danish extradition requests. “BH” could have ended up in Syria with the Islamic State, as did a colleague who Hedegaard said had been killed by the Americans recently. Almost Kafkaesque was Hedegaard’s discussions of the fines levied recently on him and others in the Danish Free Press Society publishing group, other Danish media and Pegida.dk for revealing “BH’s” true identity.
His discussion of the political and social environment in neighboring Sweden, that we heard from Kent Ekeroth, Sweden Democrat and Riksdag parliament deputy in our interviews with him, is appalling. Hedegaard spoke of Geert Wilders being denied speaking in Sweden by hordes of protesters, persecuted Jews of Malmo fleeing Sweden for safety and the rapine misogyny of Muslim migrant males inflicted on unwary Swedish girls and women. In Sweden, today, “it is nearly impossible to hold an open meeting.”
Hedegaard gave to truth to power about the ineptness of the current center right ruling coalition government in Denmark. He suggests that the public outrage in his country presages a move to the right politically in the hopes that might stanch Islamic immigration and bolstering free speech from intimidation by the EU and sharia Islamic blasphemy.
While Denmark’s Jews may not be as threatened as our Sweden’s; nevertheless, Hedegaard cited the recent occurrence of a 16 year girl Islamic convert from Kundby, Denmark and her 24 year old boyfriend, an ISIS returning fighter ‘mentor’, caught attempting to bomb a Jewish Day school in Copenhagen. More of that, as Hedegaard opined, might spur sending Denmark’s 6,400 Jews to Israel, Canada or the US which as he pointed the Jewish community made many contributions to the Scandinavian country.
Hedegaard readily admitted that he is not a man of the right by virtue of his former Marxist political background that he now rejects. Nevertheless, he believes that background has enabled him to analyze the dangers of Islamization to his country, Europe and the West. His response to a final question about what message he wanted to send to the Lisa Benson Show program listeners, “Keep the Faith. Don’t be intimidated. You might as well be killed standing than crawling on your knees.” Brought a rejoinder from host Benson about a General saying, “keep up the fire.” That reminded this writer of how Danish editorial cartoonist, Kurt Westergaard, responded to a similar question in a 2009 interview , “free speech, use it!!”
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/free-speech-woman-tape.png352640Jerry Gordonhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngJerry Gordon2016-03-15 06:32:422016-03-15 06:34:30Defending Free Speech in an Islamic Europe
This video is from April 14, 2015, when I was the featured speaker at the David Horowitz Freedom Center’s Wednesday Morning Club. I discussed Hillary Clinton’s war against the freedom of speech, explaining how Clinton as Secretary of State, along with others in the Obama Administration and Barack Obama himself, knowingly and actively aided the advance of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation’s campaign to restrict the freedom of speech and stigmatize counter-terror efforts as “hate speech.”
In light of the very real possibility that Hillary Clinton could be the next President of the United States, I thought it would be a good time to repost this video.
And here is Paul Schnee’s introduction:
Today we will have the great pleasure of listening to Robert Spencer talk about, “Is the Islamic State Islamic and why does it matter?” To ask this question is to answer it unless, of course, you happen to be president of the United States. Mr. Spencer is a scholar who has become a sovereign figure in the fight against the Islamization of America and the West. Indeed, he has been so successful in making the country aware of Islam’s true meaning and intentions that he now has to live in an undisclosed location in order to avoid the threats of violence of which he is a regular recipient from the votaries of the “Religion of Peace”.
At 5ft. 4ins. tall it was said of James Madison that there had never been a greater ratio of mind to mass. At 5ft. 6ins. tall, of Robert Spencer it can be said that there has seldom been a greater ratio of courage to mass.
He was telling me earlier that he is always gratified to see how many people come to hear him speak but, like Winston Churchill, he suspects that if he were instead being hanged, the crowd would be 100 times larger.
Robert is the director of Jihad Watch, a program of the David Horowitz Freedom Center, and the author of some 13 books, available at fine book shops everywhere. These include two New York Times bestsellers, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam and The Truth about Muhammad. His latest book is Arab Winter Comes to America: The Truth About the War We’re In, and his next book, The Complete Infidel’s Guide to ISIS, will be released on August 17th. The number 13 is significant not only because it is a great many books to have written, but also because this number exceeds by 3 the combined I.Q’s of John Kerry and Wendy Sherman, who have recently, in Switzerland, concocted one of the most potentially lethal agreements with the messianic ayatollahs of Iran whose apocalyptic vision remains undiminished.
Mr. Spencer has conducted seminars on Islam and jihad for the United States Central Command, the United States Army Command and General Staff College, the U.S. Army’s Assymetric Warfare Group, the FBI, the Joint Terrorism Task Force and the U.S. Intelligence community. To our detriment, these activities have been curtailed by an American president whose insatiable appetite for historical revision anxiously tries to convince us that Islam has always been a part of the rich mosaic of American life. Nothing could farther from the truth, and only demonstrates Barack Obama’s faculty for realizing hallucinations.
As well as having spoken on literally hundreds of university campuses across America, we are pleased to have seen Mr. Spencer appear on a variety of Fox News programs, PBS, MSNBC, CNBC, C-Span and France 24, but you will not, alas, be seeing him on the BBC any time soon.
In June of 2013, along with Pamela Geller he was due to speak at an English Defense League march in Woolwich, where Private Lee Rigby had been brutally murdered by two Islamic jihadists. He was banned from entering Britain.
A British government spokesman said individuals whose presence “is not conducive to the public good” could be excluded by the home secretary.
He added: “We condemn all those whose behaviours and views run counter to our shared values and will not stand for extremism in any form.”
Yet, just days before Robert Spencer was banned, the British government admitted Saudi Sheikh Mohammed al-Arefe. Al-Arefe has said: “Devotion to jihad for the sake of Allah, and the desire to shed blood, to smash skulls, and to sever limbs for the sake of Allah and in defense of His religion, is, undoubtedly, an honor for the believer. Allah said that if a man fights the infidels, the infidels will be unable to prepare to fight.”
Thomas Mann’s observation that tolerance is a crime when applied to evil must have escaped the notice of Britain’s Home Secretary.
This incident shows, at least in this instance, that if it were not for double standards, the British government would not have any standards at all. It also demonstrates just how far the termites have travelled, how well they have feasted, and that these two decisions by the British government could not possibly have been made without the benefit of alcohol.
Will you please give a warm California welcome to a man whose knowledge and analysis so accurately informs us all but terrifies the British government, Ladies & Gentlemen: Mr. Robert Spencer.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/hillary-clinton2-e1457166576210.jpg370640Jihad Watchhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngJihad Watch2016-03-05 03:30:392016-03-05 03:31:09VIDEO: Hillary Clinton’s war against freedom of speech
Criminal laws must be updated to adapt to the new Internet community.
Like any other community the Internet is a place for business, relationships, dating and unfortunately criminal activity, including the sexual exploitation and abuse of children. This is why the National Center on Sexual Exploitation has filed an amicus brief for a court case in Georgia stating that it should not be legal to “talk dirty” to a child.
The Georgia Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on February 22ndregarding this First Amendment challenge to a Georgia statute criminalizing obscene Internet contact with a child. NCOSE believes that Georgia’s statute is necessary to protect children from harm because the First Amendment does not protect sexually exploitive speech to children. The person challenging the statute, states in his brief to the Court that he has a First Amendment right to “talk dirty to a child.” We at NCOSE, think absolutely not. This is not harmless chatting but rather child exploitation. And the most frightening aspect of this case is that a very similar statute in Texas has already been struck down on First Amendment grounds led by the same defense attorney challenging the statute in this case.
The sad and scary reality is that child sexual abuse and exploitation has moved online. And due to the nature of the Internet the problem is only growing. A child predator has instant, anonymous access to children all over the country, and even the world. Meanwhile, young adolescents looking to make friends while both curious and naïve about sex are virtually all online, all the time. And this is not on the family computer under the watchful eyes of mom and dad but on tablets and smartphones, which are carried around with the child everywhere they go. This means those who would mean to harm these children can find them on social media platforms and chat rooms any time, anywhere, and children of these young ages tend to share too much information and actively seek out online friendships. Especially, those children who are most vulnerable to sexual abuse.
States have been trying to protect children from predators since the dawn of the Internet age but there is still much left unaddressed and technology has changed faster than laws have been updated. Most States have laws against online solicitation of minors. And most States have laws against exposing oneself to a minor in person or selling minors obscene or indecent materials. But what if an adult uses a webcam to expose himself/herself to minor online? Or what if he/she describes in graphic detail sexual encounters, or sexual acts he/she would like to perform on the child he/she is speaking to via online messaging? And even more disturbing, what if the adult instructs the child to touch themselves sexually, directing and commanding their movements? These are real examples of the activities which have been prosecuted under this Georgia statute. And without this statute such activity would considered legal. This activity does not fall under other statutes aimed at prohibiting child abuse and exploitation. But because these actions, which amount to cybersex, and sometimes even remote child molestation, are occurring via Internet chat there is a real possibility that it could be given a pass under the guise of First Amendment freedom.
This serious confusion over the First Amendment’s role in the Internet space could cause serious consequences for children who are being victimized and traumatized by predators online. And it would be completely inconsistent with First Amendment jurisprudence. The First Amendment does not protect child exploitation and has always restricted a minor’s access to material that is harmful to them. And the content of these communications meet the standard for material that is harmful to minors. But because harmful to minors laws do not encompass live online communications this statute is needed to cover this ground.
The Supreme Court of the United States has already held that material, such as magazines, books, pictures, or videos containing sexually explicit nudity or sex acts appealing to the prurient interest of a child may be restricted to children, even material that would not be obscene as to adults, without offending the First Amendment. In fact, the Supreme Court has placed the protection of children from sexual exploitation as the highest priority of the States and material that is harmful to them receives no First Amendment protection in its distribution to children. The Georgia state legislature used the same language that has been upheld in harmful to minors laws and merely applied these restrictions to live streaming video or instant message conversations online. Further, we argue that these online communications are even more harmful than obscene magazines or videos, and therefore the State has an even greater interest in protecting children, because it is not simply mass produced and available to children, but created for a specific targeted child by an adult.The exposure is intentional and crafted around that particular child’s vulnerabilities and inexperience with sexual matters.
Furthermore, freedom of speech does not protect criminal speech. For example, conspiracy, which amounts to criminal conversations, obscenity, and advertisements and solicitations for child pornography are all “speech” and yet completely excluded from First Amendment protection. Similarly, there is no reason why conversations or webcam video which would be rightfully restricted if printed in a book or contained on a DVD cannot be restricted merely because they occur in real-time through the medium of Internet communications. Such harmful material does not become transformed into political speech imbued with value simply because it takes place online.
And this statute is careful to prohibit only conversations between an adult and a child online which intentionally exploit and abuse a child. The statute requires belief by the adult that he/she is speaking to a child and the intention to sexually arouse either himself/herself or the child. Any doubt or concerns about overbreadth are dispelled in looking at the statute’s real world application. It reveals that what is in fact prohibited is the grooming of children for sexual abuse and/or exposing them to sexually explicit language and images. Such actions are harmful to children and inherently exploitive.
States must be able to extend the protections for children that already exist in the physical world to the realm of the Internet. And the State of Georgia has properly done so with this statute. This is why the National Center on Sexual Exploitation has written and filed an amicus brief to inform the Georgia Supreme Court on the exploitive nature of the content restricted in this statute, how such exposure to sexually explicit material is harmful to children, how the sexualization of children is harmful to them, and that such explicit conversations are a well recognized tool by researchers and law enforcement in the grooming of a child for further sexual abuse by child predators and should therefore receive no First Amendment protection.
 “Fully 95% of all teens ages 12-17 are now online.” http://www.pewinternet.org/fact-sheets/teens-fact-sheet/
Id. “Three-quarters (74%) of teens have accessed the internet through a mobile device such as a cell phone or tablet. One-quarter of teens (25%) access the internet mostly on a cell phone.”
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE LAW CENTER
Dani Bianculli joined the NCOSE team as Director of the Law Center in August of 2015. Dani has a passion for human rights issues especially those affecting women and children. This passion is what led to her decision to attend law school. Dani received the Wilberforce Award, a full academic scholarship for those with human rights interests, to attend Regent University School of Law. While at Regent, Dani was in the Honors Program, a member of the Moot Court Board, the Journal of Global Justice and Public Policy, and the Student Bar Association. During her studies Dani interned with the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) and the Florida Attorney General’s Office of Statewide Prosecution.
Prior to law school Dani worked as a government relations intern for multiple DC policy organizations and graduated from the University of Central Florida with dual degrees in Psychology and Marketing.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/the-First-Amendment-does-not-protect-sexually-exploitive-speech-to-children.-700x400-e1456570543281.jpg366640National Center on Sexual Exploitationhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngNational Center on Sexual Exploitation2016-02-27 05:57:592016-02-27 06:03:15No, It’s Not Your 1st Amendment Right to ‘Talk Dirty’ to a Child by Dani Bianculli
New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman is pursuing an investigation of the Exxon Corporation in part for making donations to think tanks and associations like the American Enterprise Institute and American Legislative Exchange Council, which mostly work on issues unrelated to the environment but have also published some views flayed by opponents as “climate change denial.”
Assuming the First Amendment protects a right to engage in scholarship, advocacy, and other forms of supposed denial, it is by no means clear that information about such donations would yield a viable prosecution. Which means, notes Hans Bader of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, that the New York probe raises an issue of constitutional dimensions not just at some point down the road, but right now:
A prolonged investigation in response to someone’s speech can violate the First Amendment even when it never leads to a fine. For example, a federal appeals court ruled in White v. Lee, 227 F.3d 1214 (9th Cir. 2000) that lengthy, speech-chilling civil rights investigations by government officials can violate the First Amendment even when they are eventually dropped without imposing any fine or disciplinary action.
It found this principle was so plain and obvious that it denied individual civil rights officials qualified immunity for investigating citizens for speaking out against a housing project for people protected by the Fair Housing Act.
In another case, in which a company had been sued seeking damages over its participation in trade-association-related speech, a federal appeals court found that the pendency of the lawsuit all by itself caused enough of a burden on the firm’s speech rights that the court used its mandamus power to order the trial judge to dismiss the claims, a remarkable step.
Moreover, Bader writes, a string of federal precedents indicate that the constitutional rights Schneiderman is trampling here are not just Exxon’s but those of the organizations it gave to, which have a right to challenge his action whether or not the oil company chooses to do so:
These groups themselves can sue Schneiderman under the First Amendment, if Schneiderman’s pressure causes them to lose donations they would otherwise receive. Government officials cannot pressure a private party to take adverse action against a speaker.
Meanwhile, writing at Liberty and Law, Prof. Philip Hamburger of Columbia Law School takes a different tack: the subpoenas imperil due process and separation of powers because they issue at the whim of Schneiderman’s office.
Earlier ideas of constitutional government “traditionally left government no power to demand testimony, papers, or other information, except under the authority of a judge or a legislative committee.” In more recent years executive subpoena power has proliferated; so has the parallel power of lawyers in private litigation to demand discovery, but the latter at least in theory goes on under judicial supervision that can check some of its abuse and invasiveness.
Extrajudicial subpoenas by AG offices are particularly dangerous, Hamburger argues, because of their crossover civil/criminal potential: the targets do not enjoy a high level of procedural protection when “attorneys general claim to be acting merely in a civil rather than a criminal capacity,” yet the same offices can and do threaten criminal charges. Especially dangerous is New York’s Martin Act, a charter for general invasion of the private papers of anyone and anything with a connection to New York financial transactions.
An attorney general’s concern about fraud or the “public interest” is no justification for allowing him to rifle through private papers.
When he thereby extracts the basis for a criminal prosecution, he evades the grand jury process. When he thereby lays the groundwork for a civil enforcement proceeding, he evades the due process of law, for there ordinarily is no discovery for a plaintiff until he commences a civil action.
Even worse, when a prosecutor uses a subpoena to get a remunerative settlement, it is akin to extortion — this being the most complete end run around the courts.
Previously on the probe here and here (and earlier here and here), and on the New York attorney general’s office here and here.
Cross-posted from Overlawyered.
Walter Olson Walter Olson is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute’s Center for Constitutional Studies.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/polor-bear-swimming-e1455227767891.jpg362640Foundation for Economic Education (FEE)http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngFoundation for Economic Education (FEE)2016-02-11 16:57:522016-02-11 16:57:52New York’s Chilling Global Warming Witch Hunt by Walter Olson
I discussed: House Democrats Go to War Against Free Speech, unveiling why H. Res. 569 is so dangerous.
And make sure to watch the very special Robert Spencer Moment: The Criminalization of Dissent, in which Robert reveals how those who reject establishment views are coming under increased law enforcement scrutiny: Click Here.
In FrontPage today I explain how lumping together violence with “hateful rhetoric” is a call to destroy the freedom of speech:
December 17, 2015 ought henceforth to be a date which will live in infamy, as that was the day that some of the leading Democrats in the House of Representatives came out in favor of the destruction of the First Amendment. Sponsored by among others, Muslim Congressmen Keith Ellison and Andre Carson, as well as Eleanor Holmes Norton, Loretta Sanchez, Charles Rangel, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Joe Kennedy, Al Green, Judy Chu, Debbie Dingell, Niki Tsongas, John Conyers, José Serrano, Hank Johnson, and many others, House Resolution 569 condemns “violence, bigotry, and hateful rhetoric towards Muslims in the United States.” The Resolution has been referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
That’s right: “violence, bigotry and hateful rhetoric.” The implications of those five words will fly by most people who read them, and the mainstream media, of course, will do nothing to elucidate them. But what H. Res. 569 does is conflate violence — attacks on innocent civilians, which have no justification under any circumstances – with “bigotry” and “hateful rhetoric,” which are identified on the basis of subjective judgments. The inclusion of condemnations of “bigotry” and “hateful rhetoric” in this Resolution, while appearing to be high-minded, take on an ominous character when one recalls the fact that for years, Ellison, Carson, and his allies (including groups such as the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations, CAIR) have been smearing any and all honest examination of how Islamic jihadists use the texts and teachings of Islam to incite hatred and violence as “bigotry” and “hateful rhetoric.” This Resolution is using the specter of violence against Muslims to try to quash legitimate research into the motives and goals of those who have vowed to destroy us, which will have the effect of allowing the jihad to advance unimpeded and unopposed.
That’s not what this H. Res. 569 would do, you say? It’s just about condemning “hate speech,” not free speech? That kind of sloppy reasoning may pass for thought on most campuses today, but there is really no excuse for it. Take, for example, the wife of Paris jihad murderer Samy Amimour – please. It was recently revealed that she happily boasted about his role in the murder of 130 Paris infidels: “I encouraged my husband to leave in order to terrorize the people of France who have so much blood on their hands […] I’m so proud of my husband and to boast about his virtue, ah la la, I am so happy.” Proud wifey added: “As long as you continue to offend Islam and Muslims, you will be potential targets, and not just cops and Jews but everyone.”
Now Samy Amimour’s wife sounds as if she would be very happy with H. Res. 569, and its sponsors would no doubt gladly avow that we should stop offending Islam and Muslims – that is, cut out the “bigotry” and “hateful rhetoric.” If we are going to be “potential targets” even if we’re not “cops” or “Jews,” as long as we “continue to offend Islam and Muslims,” then the obvious solution, according to the Western intelligentsia, is to stop doing anything that might offend Islam and Muslims – oh, and stop being cops and Jews. Barack “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam” says it. Hillary “We’re going to have that filmmaker arrested” Clinton says it. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, certain that anyone who speaks honestly about Islam and jihad is a continuing danger to the Church, says it.
And it should be easy. What offends Islam and Muslims? It ought to be a simple matter to cross those things off our list, right? Making a few sacrifices for the sake of our future of glorious diversity should be a no-brainer for every millennial, and everyone of every age who is concerned about “hate,” right? So let’s see. Drawing Muhammad – that’s right out. And of course, Christmas celebrations, officially banned this year in three Muslim countries and frowned upon (at best) in many others, will have to go as well. Alcohol and pork? Not in public, at least. Conversion from Islam to Christianity? No more of that. Building churches? Come on, you’ve got to be more multicultural!
Everyone agrees. The leaders of free societies are eagerly lining up to relinquish those freedoms. The glorious diversity of our multicultural future demands it. And that future will be grand indeed, a gorgeous mosaic, as everyone assures us, once those horrible “Islamophobes” are forcibly silenced. Everyone will applaud that. Most won’t even remember, once the jihad agenda becomes clear and undeniable to everyone in the U.S. on a daily basis and no one is able to say a single thing about it, that there used to be some people around who tried to warn them.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/woman-with-hand-over-mouth-e1435263116690.jpg317640Jihad Watchhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngJihad Watch2015-12-30 06:27:192015-12-30 06:50:37Democrats Move to Criminalize Criticism of Islam
Here again we see how Leftist and Islamic supremacist groups use the term “Islamophobia” for both attacks on innocent civilians, which have no justification under any circumstances, and for honest examination of how Islamic jihadists use the texts and teachings of Islam to incite hatred and violence. These groups use the former to quash the latter, which will have the effect of allowing the jihad to advance unimpeded and unopposed.
Is that what the MSA wants? Probably, since it is a Muslim Brotherhood organization. According to Discover the Networks, “The Muslim Students Association of the United States and Canada, or MSA (also known as MSA National), was established mainly by members of the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) in January 1963 at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign. Nyack College theologian Larry A. Poston writes that “many of the founding members of this agency [MSA] were members of, or had connections to,” the Muslim Brotherhood or Jamaat-i-Islami. The three most significant founders of MSA were Hisham al Talib, Jamal Barzinji, and Ahmed Totanji, and all of whom were MB leaders of Iraqi descent. Other noteworthy individuals who served as early co-founders of MSA were Mahboob Khan and Malika Khan.”
Meanwhile, our nation’s universities are increasingly becoming thuggish centers of Leftist indoctrination where opposing views are forcibly silenced. This holds true across the country, from ostensibly Catholic entities such as Saint Anselm College in New Hampshire to secular ones such as San Diego State University.
“Muslim Student Association demands all ‘Islamophobic speech’ be punished,” by Alec Dent, College Fix, December 28, 2015:
The Muslim Student Association at San Diego State University is demanding that administrators combat Islamophobia by developing a “zero tolerance policy explicitly for Islamophobic speech and actions.”
The demands, modeled after similar ones issued by black student associations at campuses across the nation, were lodged after a female Muslim student was allegedly attacked by a white man in a campus parking lot on the afternoon of Nov. 19, about a week after the Paris terrorist attacks, which killed 130 people.
At SDSU, despite reports that several witnesses stood by and did nothing as the attacker grabbed the woman’s hijab, as well as a police sketch of the alleged attacker, a police investigation could not identify a suspect, according to the San Diego Union Tribune.
Meanwhile, the female student who said she was attacked has not been identified. But she told Hanif Mohebi, executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations-San Diego, that her attacker grabber her from “behind,” called her a terrorist, “choked her with the hajib” and told her to “get out of this country,” the Union Tribune reports.
Several comments on the article expressed incredulity over the attack, questioning whether it is a hate-crime hoax.
Yet less than a week after the alleged hate crime, SDSU’s Muslim Student Association held a protest against Islamophobia on campus that attracted hundreds of students.
Yasser Kaziha, a member of the Muslim Student Association, said that he personally knew the victim of the attack, and “when the attack on our Muslim sister happened here at SDSU, she felt alone after bystanders and witnesses who watched the attack did nothing,” he told the Union Tribune.
At the rally, the Muslim Student Association issued its list of demands, which members claim will help prevent future acts of bigotry against the Muslim community.
They demanded that the university adopt a zero-tolerance policy toward “Islamophobic speech,” mandatory bystander training, develop more courses on Islam, and increase funding for The Center for Intercultural Relations. Moreover, they demanded that “the SDSU administration address, alleviate, and eliminate systems of oppression that disproportionately target students of color, womyn, and all marginalized students on campus.”
Beth Chee, a representative for the university, told The College Fix in an email that the university has not issued a formal response to the demands, but members of the administration have reviewed the list and are currently “meeting internally and with the students to discuss their concerns.”…
I filmed this “Robert Spencer Moment” for Jamie Glazov’s Glazov Gang on some recent experiences that I have had, showing how those who reject establishment views are coming under increased law enforcement scrutiny.
Jamie Glazov adds:
Don’t miss it!
And make sure to watch Robert on the Glazov Gang discuss To Flood America With Muslim Refugees, where he exposes the real meaning of the Islamic State threatening to flood Europe with 500,000 refugees in February, 2015: CLICK HERE.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/silence.jpg431640Jihad Watchhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngJihad Watch2015-12-20 06:08:322015-12-22 07:00:36VIDEO: The Criminalization of Dissent
WASHINGTON, D.C. /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — FRC Action, the legislative affiliate of the Family Research Council, has joined together with Heritage Action for America and American Principles Project, to invite each of the candidates running for President to sign the following pledge:
“If elected, I pledge to push for the passage of the First Amendment Defense Act (FADA) and sign it into law during the first 100 days of my term as President.”
FADA would prohibit the federal government from penalizing people for their personal, moral or religious beliefs on natural marriage in federal employment, grants, contracts, tax treatment, and other programs. It also protects individuals or entities that believe, teach or establish in codes of conduct that sexual intimacy is reserved for natural marriage.
FRC Action President Tony Perkins commented:
“I commend the ten presidential candidates who have signed the pledge or have publicly stated support for legislation that simply protects Americans from being punished by the government for holding a belief in natural marriage.
“Our future President, whoever he or she may be, has an important part to play in making FADA a reality in the first 100 days of the new Administration but Congress still has a responsibility in 2016 and beyond.
“Every day the American people open their newspapers and read about how their fellow citizens are becoming targets of political correctness. This is why candidates who haven’t given into political correctness are being rewarded in the polls. Values voters who make up nearly half of the GOP recognize that our nation is in desperate need of a president who respects what the Constitution plainly states about religious freedom.
“The First Amendment Defense Act reflects our nation’s history of recognizing, respecting and protecting the moral and religious beliefs of people and faith-based organizations. No person or nonprofit should lose tax exempt status, face disqualification, lose a professional license or be punished by the federal government simply for believing what President Obama believed just three years ago, that marriage is the union of a man and a woman,” concluded Perkins.
So far, six candidates have signed the pledge: Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX), Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL), Dr. Ben Carson, Carly Fiorina, former Governor Mike Huckabee (R-AR), and former Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA).
Four candidates did not sign the pledge but have expressed public support for FADA: Donald Trump, former Governor Jeb Bush (R-FL), Senator Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), and Senator Rand Paul (R-KY).
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/frc-action-logo.jpg359640Dr. Rich Swierhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngDr. Rich Swier2015-12-19 03:22:022015-12-19 03:26:07GOP Presidential Candidates Pledge Support of the First Amendment Defense Act
The student speech bullies have won at Yale. Erika Christakis, Assistant Master of Yale’s Silliman College, who had the temerity to suggest that college students should choose their own Halloween costumes, has resigned from teaching. Her husband, sociology professor Nicholas Christakis, Master of Silliman College, will take a sabbatical next semester.
One of the bullies’ demands to Yale President Salovey was that the couple be dismissed, and a resignation and sabbatical are a close second.
As had been widely reported, Erika Christakis said,
Is there no room any more for a child or young person to be a little bit obnoxious, a little bit inappropriate or provocative or, yes, offensive? American universities were once a safe space not only for maturation but also for a certain regressive, or even transgressive, experience; increasingly, it seems, they have become places of censure and prohibition.
At issue are costumes such as wearing a sombrero, which might be offensive to Mexicans; wearing a feathered headdress, which might offend Native Americans, previously termed Red Indians; and wearing blackface to dress up as an African American.
Dr. Christakis’s comment is so obvious that it hardly needs to be said. Students who are admitted to Yale are some of the brightest in the country, and it should not be the role of the University to tell them how, or whether, to dress up at Halloween.
The speech bullies want mandatory diversity training, rules against hate speech, the dismissal of Nicholas and Erika Christakis, and the renaming of Calhoun College because its namesake, John Calhoun, defended slavery.
If America is to be whitewashed of the names of individuals from prior centuries who fall short of the political standards of the 21st century, we will be a nation not only without names but also without a past. The names of our states, our municipalities, and even our universities would disappear. Elihu Yale was a governor of the East India Company, which may have occasionally engaged in the slavery trade. It is easy to condemn the dead who cannot defend themselves. But if we curse the past, what fate awaits us from our progeny?
Not all Yale students agree with the tactics employed by the bullies. Freshman Connor Wood said,
The acceptance or rejection of coercive tactics is a choice that will literally decide the fate of our democracy. Our republic will not survive without a culture of robust public debate. And the far more immediate threat is to academia: how can we expect to learn when people are afraid to speak out?
The Committee for the Defense of Freedom at Yale has organized a petition in the form of a letter to President to express concern with the bullies’ demands. Over 800 members of the Yale community have signed. Zachary Young, a junior at Yale and one of the organizers of the petition, told me in an email, “We want to promote free speech and free minds at Yale, and don’t think the loudest voices should set the agenda.”
Nevertheless, it appears that the loudest voices are indeed influencing President Salovey. He has given in to protesters by announcing a new center for the study of race, ethnicity, and social identity; creating four new faculty positions to study “unrepresented and under-represented communities;” launching “a five-year series of conferences on issues of race, gender, inequality, and inclusion;” spending $50 million over the next five years to enhance faculty diversity; doubling the budgets of cultural centers (Western culture not included); and increasing financial aid for low-income students.
In addition, President Salovey volunteered, along with other members of the faculty and administration, to “receive training on recognizing and combating racism and other forms of discrimination.”
With an endowment of $24 billion, these expenses are a proverbial drop in the bucket for Yale. But it doesn’t mean that the administration should cave. Isaac Cohen, a Yale senior, wrote in the student newspaper,
Our administrators, who ought to act with prudence and foresight, appear helpless in the face of these indictments. Consider President Salovey’s email to the Yale community this week. Without any fight or pushback — indeed, with no thoughts as to burdens versus benefits — he capitulated in most respects to the demands of a small faction of theatrically aggrieved students.
Yale’s protests, and others around the country, including Claremont-McKenna, the University of Missouri, and Princeton, stem from the efforts of a small group of students to shield themselves from difficult situations. Students want to get rid of speech that might be offensive to someone that they term a “micro-aggressions.” This limits what can be said because everything can be interpreted as offensive if looked at in a particular context.
For instance, when I write (as I have done) that the wage gap between men and women is due to the sexes choosing different university majors, different hours of work, and different professions, this potentially represents a micro-aggression, even though it is true. Even the term “the sexes” is potentially offensive, because it implies two sexes, male and female, and leaves out gays, lesbians, and transgenders. The term “gender” is preferred to “sex.”
What about a discussion of the contribution of affirmative action to the alienation of some groups on campuses today? Under affirmative action, students are admitted who otherwise might not qualify. In Supreme Court hearings on Wednesday, Justice Antonin Scalia said, “There are those who contend that it does not benefit African Americans to — to get them into the University of Texas where they do not do well, as opposed to having them go to a less-advanced school, a less — a slower-track school where they do well.”
The majority of students at Yale want an open discussion of all subjects, but the attack on the Christakises have frightened them into silence. Zach Young told me,
If the accusers’ intent was to enlighten and persuade, their result was to silence and instill fear. I worry that because of this backlash, fewer students or faculty — including people of color and those of liberal persuasions — will feel comfortable expressing views that dissent from the campus norms. Why risk getting so much hate, disgust, calls against your firing, just for the sake of expressing an opinion?
Why indeed? The answer is that arguing about opinions is the only way to get a real education. Let’s hope that another university stands up for freedom of speech and offers the Christakises teaching positions next semester.
Diana Furchtgott-Roth, former chief economist of the U.S. Department of Labor, is director of Economics21 and senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/baby-crying-e1450177834940.jpg426640Foundation for Economic Education (FEE)http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngFoundation for Economic Education (FEE)2015-12-15 06:11:412015-12-15 06:15:56Ideas in Exile: The Bullies Win at Yale by Diana Furchtgott-Roth
A good argument can be made that free speech is least safe on private college campuses.
At public universities, the First Amendment applies, thus giving students, faculty members, and everyone else protection against official censorship or punishment for saying things that some people don’t want said.
A splendid example of that was brought to a conclusion earlier this year at Valdosta State University, where the school’s president went on a vendetta against a student who criticized his plans for a new parking structure — and was clobbered in court. (I discussed that case here.)
But the First Amendment does not apply to private colleges and universities because they don’t involve governmental action. Oddly, while all colleges that accept federal student aid money must abide by a vast host of regulations, the Supreme Court ruled in Rendell-Baker v. Kohn that acceptance of such money does not bring them under the umbrella of the First Amendment.
At private colleges, the protection for freedom of speech has to be found (at least, in most states) in the implicit contract the school enters into with each incoming student. Ordinarily, the school holds itself out as guaranteeing certain things about itself and life on campus in its handbook and other materials. If school officials act in ways that depart significantly from the reasonable expectations it created, then the college can be held liable.
As the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) puts it, “There is a limit to ‘bait-and-switch’ techniques that promise academic freedom and legal equality but deliver authoritarianism and selective censorship.”
With that legal background in mind, consider a recent case at Colorado College. If Franz Kafka or George Orwell had toyed with a similar plot, they’d probably have rejected it as too far-fetched.
Back in November, a student, Thaddeus Pryor, wrote the following reply to a comment (#blackwomenmatter) on the social media site Yik Yak: “They matter, they’re just not hot.” Another student, offended that someone was not taking things seriously, complained to college officials. After ascertaining that the comment had been written by Pryor, the Dean of Students summoned him to a meeting.
Pryor said that he was just joking. What he did not realize is that there are now many things that must not be joked about on college campuses. Some well-known American comedians have stopped playing on our campuses for exactly that reason, as Clark Conner noted in this Pope Center article.
In a subsequent letter, Pryor was informed by the Senior Associate Dean of Students that his anonymous six word comment violated the school’s policy against Abusive Behavior and Disruption of College Activities.
Did that comment actually abuse anyone? Did it in any way disrupt a college activity?
A reasonable person would say “of course not,” but many college administrators these days are not reasonable. They are social justice apparatchiks, eager to use their power to punish perceived enemies of progress like Thaddeus Pryor.
For having joked in a way that offended the wrong people, Pryor was told that he was suspended from Colorado College until June, 2017. Moreover, he is banned from setting foot on campus during that time. And in the final “pound of flesh” retribution, the school intends to prohibit him from taking any college credits elsewhere.
With FIRE’s able assistance, Pryor is appealing his punishment. Perhaps the college’s attorney will advise the president to back off since its own “Freedom of Expression” policy hardly suggests to students that they will be subject to severe punishment for merely making offensive jokes on a social media site. If the case were to go to trial, there is a strong likelihood that a jury would find Colorado College in breach of contract.
Even if the school retreats from its astounding overreaction to Pryor’s comment, the administration should worry that alums who aren’t happy that their school has fallen under the spell of thought control will stop supporting it.
This incident is emblematic of a widespread problem in American higher education today: administrators think it’s their job to police what is said on campus, even comments on a social media app. Many colleges and universities have vague speech codes and “harassment” policies that invite abuse; those positions tend to attract mandarins who are not scholars and do not value free speech and unfettered debate. They are committed to “progressive” causes and will gladly use their power to silence or punish anyone who doesn’t go along.
American colleges have been suffering through a spate of ugly protests this fall. Among the demands the protesters usually make is that the school mandate “diversity training” for faculty and staff. Instead of that, what most schools really need is tolerance training, with a special emphasis on the importance of free speech. Those who don’t “get it” should be advised to find other employment.
George Leef is the former book review editor of The Freeman. He is director of research at the John W. Pope Center for Higher Education Policy.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/free-speech-trampled-e1449867804581.png423640Foundation for Economic Education (FEE)http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngFoundation for Economic Education (FEE)2015-12-11 16:05:502015-12-11 16:05:50Where Is Speech Most Restricted in America? by George C. Leef
The day after a horrific shooting spree by what appears to be a radicalized Muslim man and his female partner in San Bernardino, California, Attorney General Loretta Lynch pledged to a Muslim advocacy and lobbying group that she would take aggressive action against anyone who used “anti-Muslim rhetoric” that “edges toward violence.”
Loretta Lynch Vows to Prosecute Those Who Use ‘Anti-Muslim’ Speech That ‘Edges Toward Violence’:
Lynch failed to describe what constitutes speech that “Edges toward violence”. No one wants to see incitement to violence. But the non-standard enunciated by Lynch is so ambiguous that anything Lynch or the Obama administration decides they don’t like may be defined as “edging toward violence” and could subject a person to prosecution. This is also a violation of the standard enunciated by the Supreme Court in the case of Brandenburg vs. Ohio 1969 which held that free speech is protected unless the speech leads to “Imminent Lawless Action” or is a “Clear and Present Danger”. Edges toward violence does not meet this standard. It is no standard at all. Under Lynch’s non-standard the Obama administration could find it actionable if a person notifies the authorities that a Muslim might be involved in terrorist activities but it turns out to be inaccurate.
This is a sad day for the rule of law and free speech in America and only used to happen in totalitarian countries.
The FBI and police are already overwhelmed by the number of Muslims under investigation. Allowing Muslim refugees and other Muslims into the country without more thorough and accurate vetting than in the past will only exacerbate the problem. It is sad that Muslim clerics and the Muslim population don’t publicly call for changes in the interpretation of their ‘Supremacist Religion’ and expose Radical Islamists before they act.
It is no secret that Radical Islamic terrorists generally live and emerge from the bowels of the Muslim population. They are the only ones who can effectively fight extremism.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/lynch1.jpg356637Robert Hellerhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngRobert Heller2015-12-07 15:20:212015-12-07 15:52:37A Sad Day for Free Speech in America
On Thursday, Dec. 5, 2015, Attorney General Loretta Lynch threw down the gauntlet in a speech before the Muslim Advocate’s 10th Anniversary dinner in Arlington, Virginia. Speaking just one day after Muslim terrorists, Sayed Rizwan Farook and his Saudi wife, Tashfeen Malik, murdered fourteen innocent people in an unprovoked terror attack on the Inland Regional Center in San Bernardino, California, Lynch said, “On behalf of our nation’s Justice Department, I am grateful to count you as partners in our work to promotetolerance, to ensurepublic safety, and to protect civil rights (emphasis added)…”
She went on to say, “Since becoming Attorney General last February, I have heard from Arab Americans and Muslims who say they feel uneasy about their relationship with the United States government. Some feel that they have not been afforded the full rights of citizenship. Others are worried about the safety of their families, communities, and places of worship. And, too often, Muslims and Arab Americans have told me that they feel as though they are treated by their fellow citizens, by their government, and especially by those of us in law enforcement as though it were ‘us versus them.’ That is unacceptable, and it is inconsistent with what America is all about.”
So if a few Muslims are worried about the safety of their families, their communities, and their places of worship, what is that compared to the fear and dread that radical Islamists have spread among the hundreds of millions of peace-loving people of Europe and North America? And if Muslims and Arab-Americans feel as if they are the victims of an “us versus them” political and social environment, just who do they think created that atmosphere? It is not Christians and Jews and other non-Muslims who have rejected Muslims, it s Muslims who have come to our country and have refused to assimilate into our culture. Not only have they not assimilated into our culture, they have let it be known that it is their intention to obliterate our culture and our form of government from the face of the Earth.
Lynch went on to say, “Muslims and Arab Americans have helped to build and strengthen our nation. They have served as police officers, teachers, civic leaders and soldiers – strengthening their local communities and safeguarding their country. And the cooperation of Muslim and Arab-American communities has been absolutely essential in identifying, and preventing, terrorist threats. We must never lose sight of this. And, as we work to create a brighter and more prosperous future, we must not fail to heed the lessons of our past.”
No one but an Obama administration toady could ever stand up in public and say with a straight face that Muslims and Arab-Americans have helped to “build and strengthen” our nation, have played a vital role in “identifying and preventing terrorist threats,” and have worked to “build a brighter and more prosperous future” for all Americans.
When asked to comment on the Obama administration’s attitude toward anti-Muslim rhetoric in the days since the Paris attacks, she said, “My message to the Muslim community is that we
stand with you in this. Where we do see anti-Muslim rhetoric and actions turning into violence, we do take action… We have charged 225 defendants with hate crimes over the last six years… most of those in the last three years. Since 9/11 we’ve had over 1,000 investigations into anti-Muslim hatred, including rhetoric and bigoted actions, with over forty-five prosecutions…”
She went on to say, “I think it’s important, however, that as we again talk about the importance of free speech, we make it clear that actions predicated on violent talk are not American. They are not who we are, they’re not what we do, and they will be prosecuted.
Looking directly into the camera, she said, “My greatest fear as a prosecutor, as someone who is sworn to the protection of all the American people, is that the rhetoric will be accompanied by acts of violence… When it comes to combating these heinous crimes, our message is simple: If you engage in violence fueled by bigotry – no matter the object or nature of your hate – we will bring you to justice.
Lynch challenged her Muslim audience, saying, “Often, you learn of incidents before law enforcement and I encourage you to report these incidents to the Justice Department. I assure you: each and every report of a potential hate crime is taken seriously and, as our record of recent activity makes clear, we will investigate and prosecute violations of federal law whenever we can. Last year, two Tennessee men were sentenced to more than 14 years in prison after pleading guilty to spray painting swastikas and the words ‘white power’ on a mosque – and then starting a fire that destroyed the mosque. And last month, an Illinois man was sentenced to one year in prison after he pleaded guilty to sending a threatening e-mail to a mosque.”
Either the attorney general has failed to notice that, in recent years, nearly every act of violence stemming from hateful rhetoric has originated in the Muslim community, or she was delivering a stern message to the Muslim community that, unless they behave themselves, they would find themselves praying to Allah five times a day from behind prison walls. However, being Barack Obama’s principal legal henchman, it’s pretty obvious to all concerned, Muslims and non-Muslims alike, that her thinly-veiled threats were directed toward non-Muslims.
Reaction to the attorney general’s threat was swift and predictable. Radio talk show host Joe Walsh, a former congressman from Illinois’ 8th Congressional District (suburban Chicago) produced the below YouTube video describing exactly how he feels about Muslims and challenging the attorney general to have him arrested.
In his video, he said, “You come out today and you say you’re going to prosecute Americans who use anti-Muslim speech. That doesn’t happen in this country. I can say what I want about Christians, Jews, and Muslims. I think Islam has a real “fricking” problem, alright? There’s a cancer in Islam. And if they’re not gonna’ learn to assimilate, I don’t want them in this country.
“You got a problem, Loretta Lynch, with me saying that? Then throw me in jail. Here… I’ll give you a perfect opportunity. I think Islam is evil. I think Islam’s got a huge problem. I think most Muslims around the world are not compatible with American values. I don’t want ‘em here. So, what?… you’re worried about a backlash against Muslims?”
“Fourteen Americans were killed three days ago and you come up the next day and say you’re greatest fear is anti-Muslim backlash. Well, you know what? I hope there is a backlash. There should be a backlash. I’m going to encourage a backlash. And you know what, Loretta Lynch? If that bothers you, prosecute me. Throw me in jail.”
In a written follow-up, Walsh argued that “most Muslims around the world are (either) terrorists, support terrorism, and/or support Sharia Law.” He went on to say, “Any Muslim that is a terrorist or supports terrorism should be killed. If ‘moderate’ Muslims don’t speak out against terrorism, they are our enemy and we should call them out and kick them out of this country.”
Directing his final words to Loretta Lynch, he said, “Is that ‘anti-Muslim rhetoric’ that edges toward violence? Go ahead and prosecute me. I dare you.”
As sharply divided as liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, are on these issues, one wonders how those liberals and Democrats who support the Obama administration’s policies on Muslim immigration would react when posed with a problem that brings the question of life-or-death a bit closer to home.
Since the San Bernardino attack, conservatives have attempted to put the Muslim immigration question into a context that even liberals can understand. For example, on June 13, 2014, CNN reported that more than 4,000 pounds of rib-eye and other fresh beef, produced by the Fruitland American Meat Company in Jackson, Missouri, were subject to recall because of a fear that the meats could contain mad cow disease. The meat in question was distributed by the Whole Foods distribution center in Connecticut, which services all of New England, one restaurant in New York, and one restaurant in Kansas City, Missouri.
With the understanding that northeastern liberals and Democrats appear quite willing to go along with Obama’s plan to import more than 100,000 Muslims each year because of the belief that only five out of every 100 (5%) of the world’s Muslim population are radicalized, how much of the suspect meat would New Englanders purchase if they were assured that no more than 5% of the meat was contaminated with mad cow disease? If, as an inducement, Whole Foods reduced the price of prime filet mignon and rib-eye steaks to 50ȼ per pound, would New Englanders and New Yorkers be willing to take a chance?
For the Obama base, the low information voters of America, conservatives have restated the question in terms that even they might understand. They were asked, “If you were presented with a bowl of 100 M&Ms and told that five of the 100 pieces were toxic (poisonous), how many pieces of candy would you eat?” Even they, accustomed as they are to accepting “freebies,” would have sense enough to decline.
When Loretta Lynch was before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee for confirmation in April 2015, most conservatives held high hopes that she would be a welcome change from her lawless predecessor, Eric Holder. However, all hope were dashed when Lynch refused to assure senators that, under her leadership, even the president of the United States would be required to obey the law and to uphold the U.S. Constitution. What a disappointment she has been. She must go.
And as for me, I’m with Joe Walsh. If I can’t criticize radical Islamists, then come get me.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/lorettalynch-e1449390825746.jpg322640Paul R. Hollrahhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngPaul R. Hollrah2015-12-06 03:35:152015-12-06 06:18:18Loretta Lynch Must Go
This Daily Caller report is all about how a large percentage of young people favor restrictions on speech deemed offensive to minorities, and while it discusses only racial minorities, there is no doubt that its findings apply to Muslims as well, and that many young people would want speech offensive to Muslims restricted as well. In 2014 I spoke at Cal Poly (video here) and took a question from an angry young woman who told me that there was a difference between “free speech” and “hate speech,” and that the latter should be restricted.
This is an increasingly common idea, taken for granted by large numbers of young people who don’t realize what a sleight-of-hand it is. They think “hate speech” is an easily recognized and universally accepted category of thought, when actually it is a subjective judgment used by those who are in power to discredit and marginalize their opponents. At Cal Poly I asked the questioner who should be entrusted with the momentous responsibility of determining what is hate speech and what isn’t, and pointed out that that person would have tyrannical powers over the rest of society. That didn’t trouble her at all, and that was the problem.
And meanwhile, while college students are indoctrinated into this taste for authoritarian government, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) continues to work to compel Western governments to criminalize all criticism of Islam, which would allow jihad terror to advance unopposed and unimpeded.
“Poll: 40 Percent Of Millennials Want Speech Censored,” by Kerry Picket, Daily Caller, November 21, 2015:
A new Pew Research Center poll shows that 40 percent of American Millennials (ages 18-34) are likely to support government prevention of public statements offensive to minorities.
It should be noted that vastly different numbers resulted for older generations in the Pew poll on the issue of offensive speech and the government’s role.
Around 27 percent of Generation X’ers (ages 35-50) support such an idea, while 24 percent of Baby Boomers (ages 51-69) agree that censoring offensive speech about minorities should be a government issue. Only 12 percent of the Silent Generation (ages 70-87) thinks that government should prevent offensive speech toward minorities.
The poll comes at a time when college activists, such as the group “Black Lives Matter,” are making demands in the name of racial and ethnic equality at over 20 universities across the nation….