Free Speach as a Right

For John, BLUF:  I joined the ACLU some 30 years ago, to help ensure my Civil Rights, especially the Right to Free Speech.  Today, not so much, and my membership has lapsed.  They went "Woke".  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Move over ACLU, FIRE is the New Champion of Free Speech

Here is the sub-headline:

The expansion of the Foundation of Individual Rights in Education marks the end of an era, when free speech issues were the sole province of American liberalism

From Taibbi Substack, by Reporter Matt Taibbi, 6 June 2022.

Here is the lede plus three:

After years of planning, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, better known as FIRE, announced a major expansion Monday, moving “beyond college campuses to protect free speech — for all Americans.”

FIRE was the brainchild of University of Pennsylvania history professor Alan Charles Kors and Boston civil liberties lawyer Harvey A. Silverglate, who co-authored the 1999 book, The Shadow University:  The Betrayal of Liberty on America’s Campuses.  To the modern reader the book reads like a collection of eccentric cases of students and teachers caught up in speech code issues, most (but not all) being conservative.

To take just one of countless nut-bar examples, Kors and Silverglate told the story of a professor in San Bernardino reprimanded for violating sexual harassment policies because, among other things, “he assigns provocative essays such as Jonathan Swift's A Modest Proposal,” as the court case later put it.  This was apparently the “cannibalism” portion of the accusation that he delved into such subjects as “obscenity, cannibalism, and consensual sex with children.”

The book triggered such an overwhelming number of responses from other faculty members and students that the pair decided to set up an organization to defend people who found themselves in tricky speech controversies on campuses.  They soon found they had plenty of work and, by 2022, enough of a mandate to expand beyond colleges and universities into America at large.  According to FIRE CEO Greg Lukianoff, as quoted in a Politico story, the group has already raised over $28 million toward a $75 million “litigation, opinion research and public education campaign aimed at boosting and solidifying support for free-speech values.”

I am very disappointed in the ACLU and in those Liberals who have abandoned the principles of Liberty.  We are talking about People who have abandoned Liberal Principles for Frankfurt School Progressiveism, intellectuals who fled the rising tide of Fascism, only to implant their own version n the United States.

The Right to Free Speach doesn't mean you can stop me from saying it, but you can point out my comment was wrong, boorish, prejudiced or silly.  It also means you don't have to listen, even if we are married.

Stiffling Free Speech will destroy higher education and slow scientific progress, to our ultimate detrimnt.  It is what gave us the Dark Ages and what ended the Golden Age of Islam (from the 8th century to the 14th century).

Regards  —  Cliff

Free Communication

For John, BLUF:  One of the reasons we have tensions within our democracy is that we don't trust the other side to protect our right to speak out.  As George Orwell said:  “If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.”  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Biden’s FCC Commissioner Nominee Gigi Sohn Wants To Nuke Right-Leaning Broadcasters From Air

From Conservative Review, by Mr Jordan Boyd, 18 January 2022.

Here is the lede plus four:

President Joe Biden’s nominee for commissioner of the Federal Communications Commission hates Fox News and wants the federal agency to regulate conservative broadcasts because she disagrees with them.

The White House first announced Gigi Sohn as Biden’s FCC nominee in October.

“Gigi is one of the nation’s leading public advocates for open, affordable, and democratic communications networks,” the Biden administration claimed. “For over thirty years, Gigi has worked to defend and preserve the fundamental competition and innovation policies that have made broadband Internet access more ubiquitous, competitive, affordable, open, and protective of user privacy.”

Sohn’s inclination towards censorship and partisan regulation, however, torpedoed her chances of confirmation. Biden re-nominated Sohn at the beginning of the year but her chances of gaining Republican support are once again slim considering her history of criticizing and painting TV networks she disagrees with as threats to our democracy that need to be punished.

In one 2019 tweet, Sohn hinted that Fox News should be scrutinized because they “have played their own role in destroying democracy.”

I thought the headline and early paragraphs were a littly hysterical, but then I read on.  Frankly, her views on Fox would be OK with me, if they were coupled with strong support for the First Amendment and the importance for democracy of airing all views.♠  Sadly, that doesn't seem to exist in her public utturances.

I am happy to see her on the FCC, as long as she is willing to support the free speech rights of all Americans, as did the ACLU,♥ back in the day of demonstrations in Skokie, Illinois.

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  "I wholly disapprove of what you say—and will defend to the death your right to say it.”  Voltaire
♥  Funnily enough, today is the day, back in 1920, that the American Civil Liberties Union was founded.  Happy Birthday, but I am not sending a gift.

Fighting to Retain Kangaroo Courts

For John, BLUF:  I am hoping this is just a rear guard action by those who favor a nanny state that prioritizes the rights of some over the rights of others.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

ACLU sues Betsy DeVos over new campus sexual assault rules

From Yahoo News, by Reporter Erik Ortiz, of NBC News, 14 May 2020.

Here is the lede plus two:

Education Secretary Betsy DeVos' revised federal guidelines on how sexual assault allegations should be handled on college and K-12 campuses is the target of a federal lawsuit filed Thursday, claiming the changes would "inflict significant harm" on victims and "dramatically undermine" their civil rights.

The suit, filed on behalf of four advocacy groups for sexual assault survivors, including Know Your IX and Girls for Gender Equity, is the first that attempts to block the Department of Education's new provisions before they go into effect on Aug. 14.

The rules championed by DeVos effectively bolster the rights of due process for those accused of sexual assault and harassment, allowing for live hearings and cross examinations.  It's what agency officials say was lacking under the Obama administration to protect all students under Title IX, a 1972 law that prohibits gender discrimination, including sexual assault, at schools.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

A Once Great Institution Craters

For John, BLUF:  Yup, I mailed off my letter to the Executive Director earlier this week, asking them to take me off their list, as I no longer saw the ACLU as aligned with my civil rights views.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

American Civil Liberties Union, RIP

Here is the sub-headline:

The ACLU no longer even pretends to believe in civil liberties.

From The Volokh Conspiracy, by Law Professor David E. Bernstein, 17 November 2018.

Here is the first sentence:

In the late 1960s, the ACLU was a small but powerful liberal organization devoted to a civil libertarian agenda composed primarily of devotion to freedom of speech, free exercise of religion, and the rights of accused criminals.

And here is how the article ends:

Meanwhile, yesterday, the Department of Education released a proposed new Title IX regulation that provides for due process rights for accused students that had been prohibited by Obama-era guidance. Shockingly, even to those of us who have followed the ACLU's long, slow decline, the ACLU tweeted in reponse that the proposed regulation "promotes an unfair process, inappropriately favoring the accused." Even longtime ACLU critics are choking on the ACLU, of all organizations, claiming that due proess protections "inappropriately favor the accuse."

The ACLU had a clear choice between the identitarian politics of the feminist hard left, and retaining some semblance of its traditional commitment to fair process. It chose the former. And that along with the Kavanaugh end signals the final end of the ACLU as we knew it. RIP.

It is sad, very sad.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

ANTIFA Redefined

For John, BLUF:  Some of those acting to save us from President Trump are downright scary.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

ANTIFA - Anti-First Amendment!

I got this somewhere in an EMail, and liked it.

And where is the American Civil Liberties Union in all of this?

Regards  —  Cliff

ACLU Goes SJW

For John, BLUF:  This is why the current and past) Administrations don't want employees freely talking to the Press, rather than checking with Public Affairs first.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Leaked Internal Memo Reveals the ACLU Is Wavering on Free Speech

Here is the sub-headline:

"Our defense of speech may have a greater or lesser harmful impact on the equality and justice work to which we are also committed."

From Reason Magazine, by Mr Robby Soave, 21 June 2018.

Here is the lede plus one:

The American Civil Liberties Union will weigh its interest in protecting the First Amendment against its other commitments to social justice, racial equality, and women's rights, given the possibility that offensive speech might undermine ACLU goals.

"Our defense of speech may have a greater or lesser harmful impact on the equality and justice work to which we are also committed," wrote ACLU staffers in a confidential memo obtained by former board member Wendy Kaminer.

I used to give, annually, to the ACLU, and the NRA (to cover what the ACLU didn't in terms of rights), but now I don't know who covers the First Amendment.  Apparently not the ACLU, at least any longer.

Hat tip to the The Drudge Report.

Regards  —  Cliff

SPLC is About Destroying Its Targets

For John, BLUF:  Once you are identified you are going to suffer.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Southern Poverty Law Center: ‘Our Aim in Life Is to Destroy These Groups, Completely’

This is from Pajama Media by Blogger Tyler O'Neil, 1 September 2017.

Here are the pertinent paragraphs:

The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) has gained traction in recent weeks, but contrary to media reports, the group does not exist to "monitor hate groups" but to destroy groups that it targets for "strictly ideological" reasons.  In light of large donations from Apple, J.P. Morgan, and George Clooney, and CNN's favorable coverage of the SPLC, Americans should learn the real motivations behind this far-left organization.

In the words of SPLC former spokesman Mark Potok (who spent 20 years as a senior fellow at the SPLC and only retired this year, according to LinkedIn), the group does not exist to monitor hate groups.

"Sometimes the press will describe us as monitoring hate groups, I want to say plainly that our aim in life is to destroy these groups, completely destroy them," Potok declared at an event in Michigan in 2007.

And, they get to decide who is a "hate group."  Sometimes they protect one side of an argument against another side.  See, for example, Ayaan Hirsi Ali.  As you may recall, the person she was collaborating with on a film on Islam, in the Netherlands, Theo van Gogh, was brutally murdered on the streets of Amsterdam.  The murderer, Mohammed Bouyeri, left a note on the body, pinned by a knife, threatening Ms Ali with death.  But, to SPLC, Ms Ali is the bad person, the hateful person, the oppressor.  Go figure.

So, who are the haters?

And why can't the ACLU see it?

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

ACLU States the Obvious

For John, BLUF:  Out of cowardice.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Odd statement from the ACLU:  ‘White Supremacist Violence is Not Free Speech’ [UPDATE: National ACLU endorses the statement]

From the Eugene Volokh blog, The Volokh Conspiricy, in The Washington Post, 16 August 2017.

This from the three California Chapters of the American Civil Liberties Union.

Want to know what happened?  The President tried to maintain a level hand and got creamed.

UPDATE:  From The LA Times.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Picking Sides

For John, BLUF:  Apparently no longer working for my rights.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

The ACLU Exec. Director Said 'We'll Do the Work in the Courts, You Do the Work in the Street'

Which confirms me in my decision, earlier in the year, to not renew my membership in the ACLU.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Rules for Photo IDs

For John, BLUF:  I am thinking perhaps photo IDs need to be replaced with some other easily used technology.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Alabama ACLU sues government, claiming pro-Muslim discrimination

It is "The Volokh Conspiracy", featuring Law Prof Eugene Volokh, in The Wash Post.

The issue is, a woman went to get her driver's license and asked to be allowed to keep her hair covered for the photo, for religious reasons.  The problem for the driver's license officials was that she was not Muslim and thus they couldn't grant her an exemption.  That is when the ACLU stepped in, and rightly so.

Here is the Law Prof's opinion:

The First Amendment doesn’t generally require government to give religious exemptions from generally applicable laws (such as requirements that people have driver’s licenses that show them bareheaded) — but when the government does grant religious exemptions, it generally can’t grant the exemption to members of one religion and then deny the same exemption to members of other religions.

Agreed!

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Child Proofing the White House

For John, BLUF:  Mr Trump is the focus of all our hopes, or, on the other side, all our fears.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

The Atlantic Monthly has a strange article earlier this month, written by Mr Conor Friedersdorf.  The headline was "Tyrant-Proof the White House—Before It's Too Late".

The subheadline was:

Bush and Obama ran roughshod over Madisonian checks and balances, but there's still time to restore them.

Here is the lede plus two:

An op-ed in Tuesday’s New York Times points out that, thanks to precedents set by President Obama, “whoever prevails in November will inherit a sweeping power to use lethal force against suspected terrorists and militants, including Americans.”

Let me put things more starkly: Under current precedent, the commander in chief can give a secret order to kill an American citizen with a drone strike without charges or trial.

Should Donald Trump have that power?

My initial instinct is to scoff, but Mr Friedersdorf recognizes that President Obama (and before him, President George W Bush) has too much power and his instinct is to use this transition in January 2017 to rein it in. After talking about the ACLU's wish to rein in drone attacks,♠ or more specifically Presidential authorization of targeting killings, the author appeals to my sense by saying "Congress should reassert itself…".

Reforms of that sort would do more to limit abuses under the next president than the status quo.  But as I’m sure the ACLU co-authors would agree, even more steps are necessary, and Congress should reassert itself and fulfill its role as a coequal branch.♥

While framed as protecting us from a President Trump, the same philosophy should apply to a President Cruz or a President Clinton or even a President Sanders.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  But it isn't "drones" that are the issue but the tools available to the President to execute individuals without trial.  Convenience should not be the issue, or expediency, but justice and retaining our sense of right and wrong.
♥  And while we are at it we should change the name of the GAO back to the General Accounting Office.  Congress is the Government Accountability Office.

NSA v The Internet

For John, BLUF:  When I call somewhere and they say the call is recorded, I wonder if they have contracted it out to NSA.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

From the web site Common Dreams we have "The NSA Has Taken Over the Internet Backbone.  We're Suing to Get it Back.".  This is from ACLU Lawyer Patrick Toomey.

Every time you email someone overseas, the NSA copies and searches your message.  It makes no difference if you or the person you're communicating with has done anything wrong. v If the NSA believes your message could contain information relating to the foreign affairs of the United States – because of whom you're talking to, or whom you're talking about – it may hold on to it for as long as three years and sometimes much longer.

A new ACLU lawsuit filed today challenges this dragnet spying, called "upstream" surveillance, on behalf of Wikimedia and a broad coalition of educational, human rights, legal, and media organizations whose work depends on the privacy of their communications.  The plaintiffs include Amnesty International USA, the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, and The Nation magazine, and many other organizations whose work is critical to the functioning of our democracy.

I expect this will fall into an infinity of mirrors and disappear, but it is something for Citizens to be interested in.

Regards  —  Cliff

ACLU Swatting At SWAT

For John, BLUF:  The Police are a powerful force for good or evil, and must be subject to the People and not a force unto themselves.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

From The [Lowell] Sun we have a report titled "Regional SWAT team faces ACLU suit over records".  On Wednesday last this blog mentioned the issue.  The Sun article has additional information on SWAT teams and the ACLU. 

The ACLU released a report Tuesday about the increasing militarization of the country's police departments.  The report, titled "War Comes Home:  The Excessive Militarization of American Policing," looked at the use of SWAT teams in law enforcement,♠ especially when it comes to drug raids, in Massachusetts and across the nation.  The report examined 818 SWAT operations from July 2010 to last October, which were conducted by more than 20 law-enforcement agencies in 11 states, including Massachusetts.

. . . The ACLU of Massachusetts has sued NEMLEC in Suffolk Superior Court for refusing to release records for the report. The ACLU wants a judge to rule that the documents are public records and to order the agency to release them.  No court hearing has been scheduled.

"NEMLEC can't have it both ways," said ACLU of Massachusetts staff attorney Jessie Rossman.  "Either it is a public entity subject to public-records laws, or what it is doing is illegal."

The Police fill an important function in our society and deserve our respect and support.  As City Life host George Anthes said Thursday last on the show, nothing better than a good cop and nothing worse, than a bad cop.  We give our police broad discretion and that makes for the best kind of civil society.  With certain criminal activities, and the associated criminals, for example, illegal drugs, the danger to police and bystanders is increased.  Where intelligence says that there will be problems, addition effort may be required, but always with the recognition that part of what we expect from our Police is a certain acceptance of risk to protect the civilian population in the area.♥  And, I believe we expect that all doing police functions do so as agents of the Government, and subject to Government rules.

I see no reason that local SWAT Teams should be organized in any way other than under a Government entity.  If frequency of use precludes smaller towns from having their own SWAT Team (and I think it would) perhaps the Sheriff can help or a mutual aid agreement with a nearby City would work.  That said, I am open to hearing other views.

The reporter was Ms Lisa Redmond.

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  From the article, "Created in the late 1960s as "quasi-militaristic" units to handle emergency situations such as riots, hostage scenarios and active shooter situations, SWAT squads have since surged in number, and are "used with greater frequency and, increasingly, for purposes for which they were not originally intended — overwhelmingly to serve search warrants in drug investigations," according to the report."  I think "quasi-militaristic" is the wrong term.  Better would be "quasi-military", unless the Reporter or Editor really meant "militaristic".
♥  This is no different from what the Law of Armed Conflict expects of military personnel with regard to civilians.  Reasonable care to avoid the killing of civilians.

Your Local SWAT Charity

For John, BLUF:  Did Lois Lerner know about this?.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

At the blog Arms & The Law Mr David Hardy wrote yesterday, "SWAT Teams as Public Charities?"

I find this story troubling.  ACLU was seeking to compile data on how often SWAT teams are called out in Massachusetts.  It found that about 3/4 of LE agencies in the State organize their SWAT teams under "Law Enforcement Councils," which are entirely funded from LE agency budgets, but insist they are separately incorporated as 501(c) tax-exempt charities, and thus are not subject to public records requirements.

Of course there are some interesting implications, such as SWAT Teams being stripped of the immunity Police Officers normally rely on.

You are a member of the ACLU, and the NRA, aren't you?&nBsp; Don't just count on Congress and the Courts to protect your rights.  Get a public advocate.

Regards  —  Cliff