Tag: free speech

Affiliate ACLU Members Revolt After Left-Wing Group Agrees To Represent NRA

Infighting at the American Civil Liberties Union shortly began after the group revealed on X on Saturday that it would represent the National Rifle Association in an upcoming Supreme Court case. 

Several of the ACLU’s affiliates, such as the ACLU of Montana, the ACLU of North Carolina, and the New York Civil Liberties Union, wrote on X that they disagree with the ACLU’s move to provide legal representation to the NRA. 

As clarified yesterday, the ACLU emphasized that their support is not for the NRA’s Second Amendment goals but instead on the First Amendment issue, opposing the federal government’s blacklisting of an advocacy group based solely on its viewpoints.

Keep reading

Al Gore Says People Having Access to Non-Mainstream Information ‘Threatens Democracy’

Al Gore says that people having access to information outside of mainstream media sources is a threat to “democracy” and that social media algorithms “ought to be banned.”

Yes, really.

Gore made the comments during an appearance at the Cop28 climate change hysteria conference in Dubai.

Gore whined that social media had “disrupted the balances that used to exist that made representative democracy work much better.”

The former Vice President said that functioning democracy relied on a “shared base of knowledge that serves as a basis for reasoning together collectively” but that “social media that is dominated by algorithms” upsets this balance.

According to Gore, people are being pulled down “rabbit holes” by algorithms that are “the digital equivalent of AR-15s – they ought to be banned, they really ought to be banned!”

Gore claimed, “It’s an abuse of the public forum” and that people were being sucked into echo chambers.

“If you spend too much time in the echo chamber, what’s weaponized is another form of AI, not artificial intelligence, artificial insanity! I’m serious!” he added.

Keep reading

The West Is Taking Draconian Measures to Silence Free Speech

Western culture has valued free speech as a necessary check on overreaching centralized power for centuries.  Yet we’re watching the ability to speak freely disappear before our eyes.

Imagine going to federal prison for a meme.

Douglass Mackey, also known by his Twitter name Ricky Vaughn, is going to jail for memes mocking Hillary Clinton back in 2016.  He made fake memes telling people to vote from home via text messages. Mackey insisted in court that he was just sh*tposting. He didn’t think anyone would be stupid enough to actually fall for it.

But never underestimate the power of stupid!  At least 4900 people did call the prank number to vote for Hillary. The federal government did not find it funny and sentenced Mackey to seven months in prison.

What’s happening in Ireland is even worse.

This is bad, but it’s mild compared to what Ireland has planned.  In November 2022, the Criminal Justice (Incitement to Violence and Hatred or Hate Offences) Bill 2022 was initiated in Ireland’s legislature.

Section 10 (1) (a) states that a person will be found guilty of an offense if he “prepares or possesses material that is likely to incite violence or hatred against a person or a group of persons on account of their protected characteristics or any of those characteristics with a view to the material being communicated to the public or a section of the public, whether by himself or herself or another person.”

These incredibly vague and potentially broad offenses can land individuals jail time and hefty fines. The police will have the authority to search homes and confiscate devices under the new law.  They could search citizens’ devices for offensive memes.  Possessing movies with offensive jokes will be punishable.  Will everyone in Ireland have to destroy their copies of Hot Shots Part Deux and Tropic Thunder?

As ridiculous as it sounds, this law is most of the way through the Irish legislature already.  It had been facing some resistance from the public. Irish senators have been hearing a lot about it from their constituents. There had been some hope that the law would be heavily amended or retracted, but that was before the Dublin riots.

Keep reading

The House of Representatives Rules That Anti-Zionism Is Antisemitism

The House of Representatives seemed to achieve its summit of cynical grandstanding today, with debate over a resolution proclaiming that anti-Zionism is antisemitism. That measure is not only a kind of photographic negative of the 1975 UN resolution condemning Zionism as racism (revoked in 2019); it also is founded on the antisemitic equation of Zionist sentiment with Jewish identity, even though many Orthodox Jews, and secular dissenters, remain opposed to Zionism. New York Democratic Rep. Jerry Nadler raised that crucial objection, among others, in an impassioned dissent to the resolution, but the measure will likely be endorsed in a majority vote this week—not least because its language leaves ample room for anyone voting “no” to be branded an antisemite. Sure enough, the resolution passed by a resounding 311-14 margin, with 92 representatives voting “present.” 

As a kind of calisthenic warm-up for that pending floor vote, the House Education and Workforce committee conducted a marathon hearing on the spread of antisemitism on American college campuses—in part, no doubt, because the long-running right-wing culture war on the American university is such an inviting rhetorical proving ground. This is not to deny that antisemitic rhetoric and harassment aren’t distressingly apparent on many college campuses, and that universities should do more to ensure the safety and well-being of Jewish students. But it is to note that reckoning with these issues entails a good deal more than enlisting a trio of elite university presidents as ideological foils for future electioneering, which was the clear objective of the panel’s inquiry. The game was given away in the committee’s own advance news release; the title of the hearing was “Holding Campus Leaders Accountable and Confronting Antisemitism” but the document bore the red-meat sobriquet “College Presidents to Answer for Mishandling of Antisemitic, Violent Protests.” 

The same rhetoric opened the committee’s proceedings, as committee Chair Virginia Foxx of North Carolina—whose last tour of media renown occurred when she graciously yelled “Shut up!” to a reporter questioning newly appointed House Speaker Mike Johnson on his election-denying record—sternly lectured the committee’s witnesses on the “moral rot” and “poisonous fruits” of their agenda of curricular subversion. Diversity, equity, and inclusion divisions were rapidly namechecked, as were course offerings that mentioned settler colonialism in the context of the Middle East. And true to reactionary form, she threw an obligatory “social justice” into the bargain. “This moment is an inflection point,” she concluded. “It demands leaders of moral clarity with the courage to delineate good from evil, and right from wrong.”

Keep reading

Even Hateful Protests Are Protected, Free Speech Group Reminds Congress

If you know the history of Israel, that the country was created after one-third of the world’s Jewish population was murdered by Nazis (it has yet to fully recover), it’s difficult to stomach protesters who often slip from supporting the Palestinian cause to gloating over Hamas’s terrorism and the prospect of destroying the Jewish state. There’s not a lot of good will in projecting “Glory to Our Martyrs” on buildings or chanting “from the river to the sea“—let alone explicit endorsements of the attack.

But even assholes have speech rights. That’s because all individuals have rights, however they use them, and because free expression only works if it’s available to everybody, not reserved as privilege for the “right” ideas. And, importantly, respecting free speech lets people show us who they are.

Unfortunately, political officials’ natural distaste for dissent can combine with honest revulsion at despicable sentiments to produce a reaction that would violate the right to free expression.

“Today, Congressman Mike Lawler (NY-17) announced that the House passed two amendments he put forward to the House’s appropriations bill for Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education (LHHS) to combat antisemitism on college campuses,” the New York Republican announced November 15. “His second LHHS amendment, rescinding federal funding for college campuses that give a platform to antisemitism hate, was adopted with broad, bipartisan support.”

One reaction to this is that the federal government shouldn’t be funding colleges to begin with. I agree. But so long as it is handing out cash, those funds shouldn’t be used to bypass legal protections for individual rights. And no, just deciding to reject federal money might not be enough; Hillsdale College did that to escape federal regulation and now faces efforts to subject the school to control just because it has tax-exempt status enjoyed by many institutions.

The only way to keep authoritarians from getting a foot in the door is to defend liberty as a principle.

Keep reading

Texas Newspaper Virally Claims Ted Cruz Wanted To ‘Limit’ Preferred Pronouns. His Bill Doesn’t Do That.

A headline published Thursday in the San Antonio Express-News claimed that Sen. Ted Cruz (R–Texas) had introduced a bill that would “limit using preferred names, pronouns,” noting that the senator himself uses a preferred nickname, not his legal name. The outlet tweeted a link to the article repeating the same claim, and it quickly racked up over 6 million views on X, formerly Twitter, by Friday afternoon.

“We already knew that Republicans were synonymous with hypocrisy, but this is so typical of them. How is it no one ever calls them out on it?” read one reply.

“I don’t see how this is remotely constitutional,” another commenter added.

But the bill Cruz introduced doesn’t limit individuals’ ability to respect preferred names or pronouns for transgender people. Instead, it would prohibit the government from enacting any rule forcing its employees to use preferred pronouns or names. Instead of compelling speech, the bill prevents the government from trying to compel speech from their employees.

While the article headline was eventually updated to accurately reflect the bill’s content, the original viral post remains online at time of publication.

The “Safeguarding Honest Speech Act,” introduced by Cruz and Rep. Andy Ogles (R–Tenn.) in November, states that “No Federal funds may be used for the purpose of implementing, administering, or enforcing any rule…requiring an employee or contractor of any Federal agency or Department to use—(1) another person’s preferred pronouns if they are incompatible with such person’s sex; or (2) a name other than a person’s legal name when referring to such person.”

And the bill would likely enforce already existing First Amendment protections.

Keep reading

The Backpage Defendants Never Stood a Chance

Eighty-six counts of criminal activity—that’s what veteran journalist and publisher Michael Lacey faced in the federal case against him, a saga kicked off by federal agents raiding his house and shutting down a website he co-founded in 2004, Backpage. A saga that has stretched on for more than five years, through multiple judges, one mistrial, and the death of Lacey’s longtime business partner James Larkin. A case premised on a moral panic that previewed tactics threatening to all sorts of speech.

One count of international concealment money laundering—that’s the only charge of which a jury found Lacey guilty. Lacey’s offense? Moving money from a U.S. bank to a Hungarian bank in 2017.

Transferring money between bank accounts doesn’t seem like it should be a crime. Then again, neither does most of the underlying activity in this case—consensual hookups between adults; providing a platform for sex-worker speech; letting people pay for services with Bitcoin, and so on.

The Department of Justice claimed this was about “keeping women and children across America safe” from sex trafficking. But behind that bravado, the government’s actual case was clearly something less noble. A performance of protection. A publicity stunt. A massive scapegoating set against the backdrop of a moral panic. And a politicized prosecution against people who engaged in and defended the most dangerous thing to any government: free speech.

Keep reading

Inside The UN Plan To Control Speech Online

A powerful United Nations agency has unveiled a plan to regulate social media and online communication while cracking down on what it describes as “false information” and “conspiracy theories,” sparking alarm among free-speech advocates and top U.S. lawmakers.

In its 59-page report released this month, the U.N. Educational, Cultural, and Scientific Organization (UNESCO) outlined a series of “concrete measures which must be implemented by all stakeholders: governments, regulatory authorities, civil society, and the platforms themselves.”

This approach includes the imposition of global policies, through institutions such as governments and businesses, designed to stop the spread of various forms of speech while promoting objectives such as “cultural diversity” and “gender equality.”

In particular, the U.N. agency aims to create an “Internet of Trust” by targeting what it calls “misinformation,” “disinformation,” “hate speech,” and “conspiracy theories.”

Examples of expression flagged to be stopped or restricted include concerns about elections, public health measures, and advocacy that could constitute “incitement to discrimination.”

Critics are warning that allegations of “disinformation” and “conspiracy theories” have increasingly been used by powerful forces in government and Big Tech to silence true information and even core political speech.

Just this month, the U.S. House Judiciary Committee released a report blasting the “pseudoscience of disinformation.”

Among other concerns, the committee found this “pseudoscience” has been “weaponized” by what lawmakers refer to as the “Censorship Industrial Complex.”

The goal: silence constitutionally protected political speech, mostly by conservatives.

Keep reading

Professors: Free Speech And Intellectual Diversity Are Not Essential To Higher Education

In “The Indispensable Right,” I discuss how academics are now leading an anti-free speech movement on campuses that challenges the centrality (or even the necessity) of free speech protections in higher education. The latest such argument appeared this month in the Chronicle of Higher Education.

Two Arizona State University professors — Richard Amesbury and Catherine O’Donnell — wrote that free speech concerns yield too much to the “right wing” and that free speech should not be given the protection currently afforded by universities and colleges. Indeed, they argue that free speech may be harming higher education by fostering “unworthy” ideas.

Amesbury teaches religious studies and O’Donnell teaches history at ASU. They wrote an article titled “Dear Administrators: Enough with the Free Speech Rhetoric! It Concedes Too Much to the Right-Wing Agenda.”

The two academics challenge the long-held view of the centrality of free speech to higher education. Notably, many of us have been alarmed by the erosion of free speech on our campuses, but Amesbury and O’Donnell seem to worry that there is still too much protection for opposing views. Worse yet, they suggest that the free speech objections are often part of a right-wing funded agenda.

In fairness, to the two professors, they do not reject the overall value of free speech, but challenge “the assumptions that free speech is a cardinal virtue of higher education, and that colleges should aspire to a diversity of opinions.” They insist that higher education is about finding truth and that means that false ideas are inimical to our mission as educators. Indeed, they question the need for “intellectual diversity”:

Our contention is that calls for greater freedom of speech on campuses, however well-intentioned, risk undermining colleges’ central purpose, namely, the production of expert knowledge and understanding, in the sense of disciplinarily warranted opinion. Expertise requires freedom of speech, but it is the result of a process of winnowing and refinement that is premised on the understanding that not all opinions are equally valid. Efforts to “democratize” opinion are antithetical to the role colleges play in educating the public and informing democratic debate. We urge administrators toward caution before uncritically endorsing calls for intellectual diversity in place of academic expertise…

A diversity of opinion — “intellectual diversity” — isn’t itself the goal; rather, it is of value only insofar as it serves the goal of producing knowledge. On most unanswered questions, there is, at least initially, a range of plausible opinions, but answering questions requires the vetting of opinions. As some opinions are found wanting, the range of opinion deserving of continued consideration narrows.

As a threshold matter, what is so striking about this argument against intellectual diversity is that it is made at a time with little such diversity in most departments. Seeking a wider range of viewpoints on departments does not “concedes too much to the right-wing agenda.” It acknowledges a growing problem across higher education, It is an educational agenda that has prompted many of us to raise the reduction of intellectual diversity.

Keep reading

New York Governor Kathy Hochul Announces Plans to Implement Pre-Crime Surveillance, Target Online “Hate”

In a press conference today, New York Governor Kathy Hochul outlined her administration’s aggressive new strategy for combating online “hate” and implementing pre-crime-esque online surveillance.

As part of this approach, New York’s Threat Assessment and Management Teams (TAM teams), which were established in August 2022 in response to the Buffalo mass shooting, will extend their efforts and start targeting speech surrounding the conflict in the Middle East, with a focus on preventing crimes before they occur. TAM teams will be given an additional $3 million investment for their implementation across New York State college campuses.

“We’re creating strategies, first time ever, to help identify hate at the source and prevent crimes before they occur,” Hochul said.

The TAM teams, primarily focused on tracking and stopping violent acts of hate, work in collaboration with mental health professionals. They establish reporting systems for red flags and provide training to identify early warning signs of radicalization. This initiative, while seemingly noble in its intent to protect New Yorkers, raises significant privacy and First Amendment concerns.

Keep reading