Tag: political correctness

New York and New Jersey Want To Let Felons Serve on Juries. Here’s Why.

The vast majority of states—44, to be exact—suspend people from serving on juries when they are convicted of a felony, and in many states the suspension is permanent. That means millions of people—especially groups of people convicted at relatively high rates, such as black and Hispanic men—are disqualified from jury service, quietly resulting in what some have called the “whitewashing” of American juries.

At least two states, New York and New Jersey, would like to change that.

The New York proposal, which is currently under review by the state’s Senate Judiciary Committee, would repeal the clause in the state’s judiciary law that blocks individuals convicted of felonies from serving on juries. New Jersey’s bill, which was introduced in January and endorsed by Gov. Phil Murphy on May 1, would amend the equivalent clause in its code to permit most felons to serve on juries, barring only people convicted of murder and aggravated sexual assault.

“Jury exclusion laws bar more than 20 million people nationwide from serving,” said Wanda Bertram, a spokesperson for the Prison Policy Initiative. “With this bill, New Jersey has the chance to reverse one of the harshest jury exclusion laws in the country, and to set an example that other states can follow to make their criminal legal systems fairer and more effective.”

Keep reading

Students Sue Indiana University Over “Bias Incident” Reporting System

Following our recent reporting about the rise of “bias incident” reporting systems on college campuses, threatening free speech, Speech First has filed a lawsuit against Indiana University and several of its officials, challenging the university’s bias incidents policy. The lawsuit, filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, alleges that the policy infringes on students’ First and Fourteenth Amendment rights.

We obtained a copy of the lawsuit for you here.

Speech First, a nationwide membership organization dedicated to preserving civil rights and free speech, claims that Indiana University’s “bias incident” policy stifles open discourse and chills protected speech. The policy defines a bias incident as “any conduct, speech, or expression, motivated in whole or in part by bias or prejudice meant to intimidate, demean, mock, degrade, marginalize, or threaten individuals or groups based on that individual or group’s actual or perceived identities.”

According to the complaint, this broad and vague definition allows the university to police a wide range of speech, deterring students from expressing controversial or unpopular opinions. The policy’s enforcement mechanisms include tracking and logging incidents, investigating reports, and potentially referring students for disciplinary action.

Keep reading

The EU is on the Brink off Making “Hate Speech” a Serious Crime

The EU’s European Commission (EC) appears to be preparing to include “hate speech” among the list of most serious criminal offenses and regulate its investigation and prosecution across the bloc.

Whether this type of proposal is cropping up now because of the upcoming EU elections or if the initiative has legs will become obvious in time, but for now, the plans are supported by several EC commissioners.

The idea stems from the European Citizens’ Panel on Tackling Hatred in Society, one of several panels (ECPs) established to help EC President Ursula von der Leyen with her (campaign?) promise of ushering in a democracy in the EU that is “fit for the future.”

That could mean anything, and the vagueness by no means stops there: the very “hate speech,” despite the gravity of the proposals to classify it as a serious crime, is not even well defined, observers are warning.

Despite that, the recommendations contained in a report produced by the panel have been backed by EC’s Vice-President for Values and Transparency Vera Jourova as well as Vice President for Democracy and Demography Dubravka Suica.

According to Jourova, the panel’s recommendations on how to deal with “hate speech” are “clear and ambitious” – although, as noted, a clear definition of that type of speech is still be lacking.

This is the wording the report went for: any speech that is “incompatible with the values of human dignity, freedom, democracy, the rule of law, and respect of human rights” should be considered as “hate speech.”

Keep reading

Department of Labor Facing Backlash for Calling Women ‘Menstruators’

The Department of Labor is facing backlash on social media after it referred to women as “menstruators” in a blog post about employers making “workplaces more menstruation-friendly.”

The post, which the department also shared on social media, celebrated “Menstrual Hygiene Day.”

“#Menstruation affects half the U.S. workforce but talking about it at work can be taboo. For #MenstrualHygieneDay, here are 5 easy actions employers can take to help menstruators thrive at work,” the department posted on X, the platform formerly known as Twitter.

In the blog post, the department urged employers to “Provide a sufficient supply of varied period products in bathrooms and ensure menstruators can access products privately” and “Allow flexibility in uniforms, with options in dark colors to ensure menstruators do not need to worry that an unexpected period or heavier flow will lead to noticeable stains.”

“Do you mean women?” former Missou cheerleader Andrea Katherine responded.

Keep reading

AMC Slaps Trigger Warning On Goodfellas For Lack Of ‘Inclusion And Tolerance’

AMC has angered audiences by placing a trigger warning on the classic mobster movie Goodfellas, noting that it lacks “inclusion and tolerance.”

The New York Post notes that “AMC Networks added a trigger warning to the classic mob movie Goodfellas — rankling those who were in the film and wiseguys alike.”

The warning noted that “This film includes language and/or cultural stereotypes that are inconsistent with today’s standards of inclusion and tolerance and may offend some viewers.”

It’s a film about the mafia directed by Martin Scorsese and starring Robert De Niro, Ray Liotta, and Joe Pesci. It isn’t supposed to be inclusive.

It is also based on a true story about Henry Hill, the infamous mobster who was associated with the Lucchese crime family of New York City from 1955 until 1980.

Pretty sure that he wasn’t tolerant or inclusive.

Keep reading

Canadians could be prosecuted for alleged hate crimes BEFORE the date Bill C-63 becomes active or undefined “hate” crimes MIGHT be committed

I repost an email from Terry H in full – please forward to fellow Canadians and others that are facing the mass censorship of social media that is intended to suppress any contrary views to those of the UN, WHO and WEF

The recent buzz around Bill C-63, labeled the “Online Harms Act,” might have you thinking twice before posting on social media. – Why?

Because it poses a risk of imposing fines up to $70,000 for what could potentially be labelled as “HATE”, which is defined in very general and broad terms by a “Ministry of Truth”.

And to make matters worse, the supposedly “non-partisan and apolitical” Governor General of Canada, Mary Simon, is endorsing the Bill and the death of Canadians’ Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression.

Governor General Simon had a meeting on April 15 in Rideau Hall with supporters of the Bill C-63, which included the (In)Justice Minister Arif Virani, who introduced the bill into Parliament.

Further supporters of the bill in attendance included:

·  Former mainstream media journalists Lisa LaFlamme and Emilie Nicolas,
·  Bailout mainstream journalist/TikToker Rachel Gilmore,
·  Government-funded transactivist and former Hershey “International Women’s Day” chocolat bar wrapper model “Fae Johnstone”,
·  And the authoritarian unelected health cheif bureaucrat, Theresa Tam.

Interestingly enough, no invites sent opposition party members or anyone who opposes the bill…

Keep reading

This Student Was Allegedly Suspended for Saying ‘Illegal Aliens.’ Did That Violate the First Amendment?

A 16-year-old boy has kicked off a free speech debate—one that’s already attracting spectators beyond his North Carolina county—after he was suspended for allegedly “making a racially insensitive remark that caused a class disturbance.”

The racially insensitive remark: referring to undocumented immigrants as “illegal aliens.” Invoking that term would produce the beginning of a legal odyssey, still in its nascent stages, in the form of a federal lawsuit arguing that Central Davidson High School Assistant Principal Eric Anderson violated Christian McGhee’s free speech rights for temporarily barring him from class over a dispute about offensive language.

What constitutes offensive speech, of course, depends on who is evaluating. During an April English lesson, McGhee says he sought clarification on a vocabulary word: aliens. “Like space aliens,” he asked, “or illegal aliens without green cards?” In response, a Hispanic student—another minor whom the lawsuit references under the pseudonym “R.”—reportedly joked that he would “kick [McGhee’s] ass.” 

The exchange prompted a meeting with Anderson, the assistant principal. “Mr. Anderson would later recall telling [McGhee] that it would have been more ‘respectful’ for [McGhee] to phrase his question by referring to ‘those people’ who ‘need a green card,'” McGhee’s complaint notes. “[McGhee] and R. have a good relationship. R. confided in [McGhee] that he was not ‘crying’ in his meeting with Anderson”—the principal allegedly claimed R. was indeed in tears over the exchange—”nor was he ‘upset’ or ‘offended’ by [McGhee’s] question. R. said, ‘If anyone is racist, it is [Mr. Anderson] since he asked me why my Spanish grade is so low’—an apparent reference to R.’s ethnicity.”

McGhee’s peer received a short in-school suspension, while McGhee was barred from campus for three days. He was not permitted an appeal, per the school district’s policy, which forecloses that avenue if a suspension is less than 10 days. And while a three-day suspension probably doesn’t sound like it would induce the sky to fall, McGhee’s suit notes that he hopes to secure an athletic scholarship for college, which may now be in jeopardy.

So the question of the hour: If the facts are as McGhee construed them, did Anderson violate the 16-year-old’s First Amendment rights? In terms of case law, the answer is a little more nebulous than you might expect. But it still seems that vindication is a likely outcome (and, at least in my opinion, rightfully so). 

Keep reading

Woke NPR CEO Katherine Maher Invited To Testify By House Committee For Alleged Biased Coverage

The House Energy and Commerce Committee issued an invitation on Tuesday to NPR CEO Katherine Maher, summoning her to address allegations of biased news coverage by the outlet.

The invitation came less than one month after NPR’s former senior editor, Uri Berliner, alleged that the outlet operates with a left-wing bias.

Resist The Mainstream reported last month that Berliner’s allegations have sent shockwaves through the news organization, sparking what insiders describe as “turmoil.”

ABC News reports that the committee will conduct a hearing, scheduled for May 8, to scrutinize NPR’s trajectory under Maher’s leadership, following her assumption of the role in March.

Keep reading

Pathetic: Biden Wants To Fire His Press Secretary But Is Afraid Of ‘Diversity Optics’

Joe Biden is apparently incapable of firing his own Press Secretary, according to sources inside the White House who say that Karine Jean Pierre was told to resign but refuses to do so.

A report in the New York Post over the weekend stated that Biden’s top aides tried to “nudge” the woeful Press Secretary out of the door, telling her it was “time to move on.”

They even recruited people close to Jean Pierre last year to convince her that it would benefit her career to quit.

Another source noted that Biden’s aides were “trying to find Karine a graceful exit,” and that sacking her would be bad optics because she is essentially a DEI hire.

Keep reading

AI Chatbots Refuse To Produce ‘Controversial’ Output – Why That’s A Free Speech Problem

Google recently made headlines globally because its chatbot Gemini generated images of people of color instead of white people in historical settings that featured white people. Adobe Firefly’s image creation tool saw similar issues. This led some commentators to complain that AI had gone “woke.” Others suggested these issues resulted from faulty efforts to fight AI bias and better serve a global audience.

The discussions over AI’s political leanings and efforts to fight bias are important. Still, the conversation on AI ignores another crucial issue: What is the AI industry’s approach to free speech, and does it embrace international free speech standards?

We are policy researchers who study free speech, as well as executive director and a research fellow at The Future of Free Speech, an independent, nonpartisan think tank based at Vanderbilt University. In a recent report, we found that generative AI has important shortcomings regarding freedom of expression and access to information.

Generative AI is a type of AI that creates content, like text or images, based on the data it has been trained with. In particular, we found that the use policies of major chatbots do not meet United Nations standards. In practice, this means that AI chatbots often censor output when dealing with issues the companies deem controversial. Without a solid culture of free speech, the companies producing generative AI tools are likely to continue to face backlash in these increasingly polarized times.

Keep reading