Free Speech

For John, BLUF:  I worry that Minnesota Governor Tim Walz does not understand Free Speech the way the Founding Fathers did and I do.  Maybe he doesn't understand Democracy.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

THEY BELIEVE THAT RIGHTS AREN’T ABSOLUTE,
BUT POWER IS

From Instapundit, by Professor Glenn Harlan Reynolds.

Here is the first social media post in this larger blog post:

Gad Saad
@GadSaad
What we are seeing is precisely why the West was such an anomaly in the history of mankind.  Specifically, the reflex to suppress speech with which the rulers/elite disagree is the default reflex, and we are seeing a return to it.  The West is facing the classic Herculean fork in the road.  Take the easy or hard road in defending free speech.

This post by Professor Saad was in response to this 𝕏 post:

BBC Newsnight
@BBCNewsnight
Aug 9
"[Elon] Musk is trying to pretend freedom of speech as some absolute right.  It's never been an absolute right."  Keir Starmer's biographer Tom Baldwin says there should be more regulation of social media. #Newsnight

This is a fight for the West, for the Anglo-Saxon tradition of free speech and the idea of competing ideas in the search for truth and for a better future.  The problem is, if we squash free speech then we stunt our future.  We end up with hundreds of years of stagnation.

One person laid the issue at the feet of Wokeness:

Robert ₿reedlove
@Breedlove22
Wokeism is a psyop designed to destroy basic definitions to undermine rational discourse and divide people.  When people are unable to use speech to resolve conflicts, then their only alternative is force, and in the domain of force The State is unrivaled.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Speak Freely, as an American

For John, BLUF:  The Babylon Bee headline:  Ketanji Brown Jackson Warns Right To Free Speech Could Lead To People Speaking Freely.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Ketanji Brown Jackson ‘concerned’ First Amendment is ‘hamstringing’ government from censorship

From The Washington Examiner, by Reporter Annabella Rosciglione, 18 March 2024, 5:00 pm.

Here is the lede plus six:

Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson raised concerns that the First Amendment may stand in the way of government censorship in unique times.

In Monday’s oral arguments for Murthy v. Missouri, Jackson appeared to be skeptical that the government could not censor social media posts in “the most important time periods.”

“My biggest concern is that your view has the First Amendment hamstringing the government in significant ways in the most important time periods,” Jackson said to Louisiana Solicitor General Benjamin Aguiñaga.

“You seem to be suggesting that that duty cannot manifest itself in the government encouraging or even pressuring platforms to take down harmful information,” Jackson said. “So, can you help me? Because I’m really worried about that because you’ve got the First Amendment operating in an environment of threatening circumstances, from the government’s perspective, and you’re saying that the government can’t interact with the source of those problems.”

Aguiñaga said his view was that the government should intervene in certain situations, but it has to do so by following the First Amendment.

“Our position is not that the government can’t interact with the platforms there. They can and they should in certain circumstances like that, that present such dangerous issues for society and especially young people,” Aguiñaga said in response. “But the way they do that has to be in compliance with the First Amendment. And I think that means they can give them all the true information that the platform needs and ask to amplify that.”

Jackson said a “once-in-a-lifetime pandemic” or other emergencies would provide grounds for the government to censor social media posts that are misinformative.

I am not a lawyer, just a graduate of Grade School, but I thought the Founders gave us the First Amendment for the purpose of allowing People to speak out against the Government, when the Government would rather they didn’t.

For example, The Great Barrington Declaration.

Is it that Justice Jackson not only doesn’t know what a woman is, but also doesn’t know the role of free speech in our federal Government?  If the federal Government drifts into tyranny, how else do the People give it correction, except by speaking out against the tyranny they see.  As Delegate Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1776, "let Facts be submitted to a candid world."  This requires free speech.

Sadly, we are still seeing reverberations from the Federal Government suppressing information on COVID-19. To quote Wikipedia, "In March 2024, Kulldorff announced that Harvard had dismissed him."  Dr Kulldorff was one of the signatories of the Grest Barrington Declaration.

With the outbreak of COVID-19 we embarked on a path that damaged the lives of Citizens and harmed our economy.  Decisions were taken without a larger debate.  Mistakes were made and the average Citizen, and dissenting experts, were made to kowtow to the dictates of the Federal Government.  There was no larger debate.  There was no Congressional Declaration of War, in any form.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

American Support for Israel

For John, BLUF:  I have been surprised and disappointed by the reactions to the Hamas slaughter of Israelis on 7 October.  But, these outbreaks do not represent all of America.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

In red America, standing up for Israel isn’t controversial

From The New York Post, by Professor Glenn H. Reynolds, 21 Novwember 2023, 6:48 p.m. ET.

Here is the lede plus seven:

In some parts of the country, standing up for Israel is controversial, even dangerous.

On the campuses of places like Harvard, Columbia and the University of Pennsylvania, anyone who dares to wave an Israeli flag — or, increasingly, wear a kippah in public — is at risk of being assaulted by angry mobs of people with their faces covered.

In Los Angeles, a pro-Israel protester was allegedly killed by a pro-Palestinian computer-science professor.

(Judge Ryan Wright slashed the prof’s bail from the original $1 million to just $50,000.)

Many parents of Jewish students are concerned, and rightly so, about their kids’ safety at these institutions.

Even off campus, the streets of New York and many other big blue metropolises seem kind of dangerous for Jews these days.

Things are a bit different in my neck of the woods.

I live in Knoxville, Tenn., home of the University of Tennessee, where we’ve seen none of this sort of violence.

I think it is fair to say that in much of the United States citizens of the Protestant faith have been caught up in what some call Christian Zionismn.  This understanding that the Jewish People have a role in God's plan for the end times.

To the larger issue of civility in today's America, I think the Professor captures the point in a quote from Adlai Stevenson, "A free society is one in which it is safe to be unpopular."  When I think about it I think Free Speech includes the right to be wrong.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Free Speech on Campus

For John, BLUF:  Free Speech is our right, but it can carry consequences for the utterer.  The author Mr Ken Tashjy, who served as General Counsel for the Massachusetts Community College System for over 21 years.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Campus unrest over Hamas attacks on Israel offers students tough lessons on free speech in higher education

Here is the sub-headline:

Many students are coming to the vivid realization that their speech, although free, may carry with it consequences they never contemplated.

From Campus Reform, by Mr Ken Tashjy, 19 October 2023, 12:00 pm ET.

Here is the lede plus four:

In the aftermath of the terrorist attacks by Hamas on Israel, there has been much attention focused on America’s colleges and universities and the profoundly conflicting views expressed by students over the origins of the ongoing conflict in the Middle East and the justification for Israel’s declaration of war and strong military action in respond to the attacks.

Following a call for a ”Global Day of Jihad” by a former Hamas leader, and a “Day of Resistance” by the National Students for Justice in Palestine, protests erupted on campuses with many students not only expressing support for Palestinians, but also endorsing the deadly Hamas attacks.

Other students stood with Israel, denouncing the murder by Hamas of more than 1,200 innocent people and the rape and kidnapping of dozens more, including many Americans.

In the wake of these campus protests, renewed attention has been focused on the right of free speech in higher education, the right to protest, and the authority and responsibility of campus leaders to limit or prohibit certain speech.

Many students are coming to the vivid realization that their speech, although free, may carry with it consequences they never contemplated. For other students, these events have crystalized the glaring disconnect that exists between their views and the views of institutional leaders and faculty.

Mr Tashjy's three lessons learned are:.

1. "Students have no First Amendment protections for illegal conduct."
2. "While a person may have a right to free speech and expression, they have no right not to be criticized, ridiculed, or held to account for their opinions."
3. "Those who support Israel and have witnessed the anti-Israel protests on their campuses should expect no support or assistance from their institution’s so-called Bias Response Teams."

I admit to taking some private pleasure in seeing Pro-Palistinian protestors finding near future employment opportunities shrinking as a result of their protests.  As retired National War College Dean of Faculty Cynthia Watson titles her Blog, Actions Create Consequences.  Is this Cancel Culture come home?

And the question in the background is how our vision of ourselves and others has drifted from that of the Silent Generation to the current group of college students.  A recent CNN Poll shows the stark contrasts by age regardsing the Israel/Palestine imbroglio.

Regards  —  Cliff

Musk Restores Balance

For John, BLUF:  It appears Mr Elon Musk has restored balanve to X, but that is seen by some as inbalance.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

"X, Elon Musk’s social media platform formerly known as Twitter, appears to be attempting to limit its users’ access to The New York Times."

From Althouse, by Professor Ann Althouse, 12 September 2023.

Here is the lede plus rhree:

"Since late July, engagement on X posts linking to the New York Times has dropped dramatically.  The drop in shares and other engagement on tweets with Times links is abrupt, and is not reflected in links to similar news organizations including CNN, the Washington Post, and the BBC...."

From "Twitter appears to throttle New York Times" (Semafor).

We're told this might have something to do with "a broad shift in platforms over the last five years... toward a splintering in which Facebook has largely gotten out of the news business, Twitter has shifted increasingly toward becoming a conservative media company, and Google and Apple are the remaining the platform giants interested in distributing other outlets’ news."

That's so sloppily written I feel insulted putting my time into trying to understand it.  There's been a "shift" in which "Twitter has shifted."  The double "shift" tells you no one serious is proofreading over there.  And what's the "splintering"?  It sounds exciting, but the sentence just goes on to make vague, questionable assertions.  My impression was that Twitter (AKA X) has stopped censoring conservative speech.  If you think it now looks like "a conservative media company," perhaps you're observing how important censorship has been to the dominance of liberal speech in social media.

Professor Althouse writes:  "If you think it now looks like "a conservative media company," perhaps you're observing how important censorship has been to the dominance of liberal speech in social media."  Yes, there has been a sense from some quarters that there was a thumb on the scale.  And Federal Courts are recognizing that.

Mr Stewart Brand coined the phrase Information wants to be free.  I take it to mean that information wants an even playing field, so people can determine the truth, for themslves.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Dark Times

For John, BLUF:  The Press has always been partisan, but now it seems to be involved with Government Agencies to suppress free speech.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

The Washington Post Says Democracy Demands Less Freedom of Speech

Here is the sub-headline:

The paper worries that "social media companies are receding from their role as watchdogs against political misinformation."

From Reason, by Editor Jacob Sullum, 25 August 2023, 4:20 PM.

Here is the lede plus two:

Donald Trump was back on X, the social media platform formerly known as Twitter, last night for the first time since he got the boot in 2021 following the riot by his supporters at the U.S. Capitol. Trump posted the mug shot of him that was taken at Atlanta's jail this week when he was booked on the charges laid out in his Georgia indictment, which stem from his efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election results in that state. He included a caption that described the indictment as "ELECTION INTERFERENCE" and urged his followers to "NEVER SURRENDER!"

After taking over the platform that was then known as Twitter last year, Elon Musk, an avowed "free speech absolutist," reinstated Trump's account. But this is the first time that Trump, who started a competing platform that is still known as Truth Social, has made use of Musk's permission. The Washington Post, in a news story published this morning, portrays Musk's decision and the attitude underlying it as part of a worrisome trend that threatens "democracy" by allowing "political misinformation" to proliferate on social media. The piece nicely illustrates the confusion, obfuscation, and hypocrisy that characterize mainstream press coverage of that subject.

As is typical of this journalistic genre, Post reporters Naomi Nix and Sarah Ellison never address the question of what counts as "misinformation," a highly contested category. Nor do they grapple with the content moderation problem of how to deal with politicians who say things of public interest that are arguably or demonstrably untrue. And although they allude to a constitutional challenge provoked by the federal government's efforts to restrict speech on social media platforms, they never mention the First Amendment. That is a pretty striking omission by people whose profession relies on that amendment's protections and who claim to be worried about the health of our democracy.

If our speech is moderated by the Government then how we vote will be influenced by the Gvernment, or the Deep State.  That there isn't absolute outrage over actions to suppress the Hunter Biden Laptop story is a major disappintment to me.  I understand that such suppression helped Candidate Joe Biden win election in 2020, but the ends don't justify the means.

There should be no doubt in peoples' minds that The Washington Post is helping to subvert the principles of The Declaration of Independece and The Constitution.  It is sad.  Very sad.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

The Joke

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

---

China has fallen into a psycho-political funk

Here is the sub-headline:

Fragile consumer confidence is just one sign of a malaise that is not merely economic

From The Financial Times, by Reporter James Kynge, 11 August 2023.

Here is the lede plus three:

Sly, Soviet-style jokes are enjoying a subtle revival on Chinese social media platforms.  Their art resides in being too obscure for censors to understand yet clear enough for cynics to chuckle at their mockery.

Some are so esoteric that their satire is confirmed only by the censors’ decision to delete them — echoing the cat-and-mouse dynamic that distinguished dissident humour in the former Soviet Union.  One joke this week monitored by the China Digital Times, a US-based site that covers Chinese affairs, belonged to this genre.

It read:

While out and about on vacation, I stubbed my toe on something. Upon closer inspection, I saw it was a bronze lamp.  It was smudged, so I picked it up and gave it a good wipe — and out popped a genie!  The genie said it could grant me any wish. ‘Is that so?’ I said.  ‘Well then, could you make you-know-who you-know-what?’  No sooner had the words escaped my lips than the genie rushed over, clamped my mouth shut, and asked:  ‘Are we even allowed to say that?’

The author’s account appears to have been shut down after the joke was deleted.

I hope we are not headed down the path of a humorless social credit society.  That would be the end of open capitalism and the economic growth we need to give everyone a chance to achieve their best.  It likely would be the end of open worship of one's God.

Let us, as a society, accept that some people will be wrong, but the advantage to society of free inquiry requires we accept such people as our brothers and sisiters, even if they reject us.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Voltaire Weeps

For John, BLUF:  Free Speech is on the docket.  The right to hold an unpopular view is being refuted.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Professor Amy Wax—The Disciplinary Committee’s Decision Is Expected By September 5, 2023: What Is At Stake?

From New Reform Club, by Blogger Seth Barrett Tillman, 10 August 2023, 1:51 PM.

Here is the last paragraph:

I do not know Professor Wax.  I cannot and do not speak to the remainder of your “charge sheet.” I do know something about Powell.  On that basis, I state that should Wax be disciplined, in whole or in part for assigning the Powell interview, or for voicing her unpopular opinions in a non-discriminatory fashion, I tremble in regard to what the consequences will be for freedom of speech, thought, and conscience in your university, in the United States, and elsewhere.

Blogger Tillman nails it.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

First Amendment Protected

For John, BLUF:  On the 4th of July a Federal Jusge told the Biden Administrstion to stip colluding with social media companies to suppress free speech.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Poetic Justice for the Biden ‘Ministry of Truth’

From American Greatness, by Opinionator Roger Kimball, 9 July 2023.

Here is the lede plus fourteen:

At some point in this column, I have probably had occasion to quote these famous lines from Walter Scott’s poem “Marmion”:

“Oh, what a tangled web we weave

When first we practice to deceive.”

In another, better world, I like to think, the Bidens and their protectors and puppet masters would ruefully be contemplating Scott’s admonitory observation.

In this world, however, I suspect that—until quite recently, anyway—they had smugly sided with J.R. Pope’s sly amendment to Scott’s moralizing couplet:

“But when we’ve practiced for a while

How vastly we improve our style.”

I note that Pope’s amusing title for his observation is “A Word of Encouragement.”

Many of us feel a great contradiction at the heart of the Biden phenomenon.

On the one hand, he—“Big Guy” Joe—and his entire Snopes-like family—coke-head Hunter, “Dr.” Jill, the litter of grasping, on-the-make siblings—all seem like ciphers, the veritable incarnation of Gertrude Stein’s description of Oakland, CA: “there’s no there there.”

Indeed, from this point of view, Joe’s painful mental and, increasingly, physical vacancy seems to be the objective correlative for the entire Biden enterprise. It’s as if the nasty brother of the scarecrow from The Wizard of Oz suddenly came to life and occupied the White House. “If I only had a brain,” he snarls softly to himself, frightening everyone around him.

And that “as if” brings me to the extraordinary “other hand.” Joe Biden is President of the United States, still, if just barely, the most important political office in the world. Amazing. How could that be? Talk about going from zero to one!

Of course, history is littered with the spectacle of destructive lunatics and incompetents in high office, as such names as Caligula, Nero, Commodus, and Elagabalus remind us. (As an aside, I hereby note that Elagabalus is poised for a rerun, so perfectly does that epicene, “gender fluid” freak epitomize some of the central pathologies of our time).

The Bidens have yet to achieve the notoriety of such grimly illustrious predecessors. Nevertheless, these past months have not been kind to the Biden conglomerate.

And here is a seven page summary of the Court Order:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
MONROE DIVISION

STATE OF MISSOURI, ET AL.		CASE NO. 3:22-CV-01213
VERSUS		JUDGE TERRY A. DOUGHTY
JOSEPH R BIDEN JR., ET AL.		MAG. JUDGE KAYLA D. MCCLUSKY

This is important work.  Important in terms of our right to free speech and important in terms of having a fair and open debate on things that matter to us as Citizens.  Think of the suppressing of the Great Barrington Declaration,  Wikipedia notwithstanding, the Great Barrington Declaration, shunned by the Bureaucracy, turned out to have important points.

If we can't handle free and open debate then we can't claim to have a democracy.  We will have lost our Republic.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Humor Before the Bar

For John, BLUF:  I am worried that between the Progressives and Corporations, we will kill Free Speech in these United States.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

No joke:  Supreme Court case could take a big bite out of the First Amendment

From The Hill, by Opinion Contributor Jonathan Turley, 26 November 2022, 10:30 AM ET.

Here is the lede plus one:

The court system often is where humor goes to die. For those seeking to use satire or parody of corporations, jokes often run into trademark or other lawsuits and result in a little more than “ha, ha, thump.”

The same bad audience could await the defendant in Jack Daniel’s Properties Inc. v. VIP Products LLC.  The Supreme Court just accepted a case involving a tongue-in-cheek dog chew toy made to resemble a Jack Daniel’s whiskey bottle.  VIP prevailed in defending the toy as protected speech, but the distiller wants the Supreme Court to declare such parodies to be trademark violations.

If the Supreme Court quashes parody the reach of the First Amendment protection of Free Speech, and especially humor, will be severly surtailed.  Which would be bad.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

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

Seeking Truth and Jutice

For John, BLUF:  The below describes an revered institution of higher eduction that is not reflective.  Otherwise, they would be appalled by their conduct in this situation.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Ilya Shapiro resigns from Georgetown following reinstatement after 122-day investigation of tweets

From The Fire, by Ms Sabrina Conza, 6 June 2022.

Here is the lede plus two:

After a more than four-month investigation that led to his reinstatement last week,  Ilya Shapiro resigned today from Georgetown University Law Center.

On June 2, Shapiro was reinstated as senior lecturer and executive director for the Georgetown Center for the Constitution after a 122-day investigation — which began before Shapiro started his first day on the job.  Georgetown investigated Shapiro after he tweeted that Sri Srinivasan, chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, would be President Biden’s “best pick” for the Supreme Court.  He continued:  “But alas [Srinivasan] doesn’t fit into latest intersectionality hierarchy so we’ll get lesser black woman.”  Shapiro’s “lesser black woman” phrasing gained considerable attention on Twitter and within the Georgetown community, and led Georgetown Law Dean William Treanor to denounce the tweet as “appalling” and “at odds with everything we stand for at Georgetown Law.”

Although Georgetown was correct to reinstate Shapiro, its initiation of an investigation transgressed its purported commitment to “the untrammeled expression of ideas and information.”  Investigations of protected speech produce a chilling effect.  Moreover, Georgetown, in its stated justification for reinstating Shapiro, made little effort to defend these principles, making clear that it is not interested in protecting the expressive rights of faculty and students with dissenting viewpoints.  For this reason and more, Shapiro’s decision to resign from Georgetown is readily understandable — indeed, his resignation letter is mandatory reading for anyone interested in FIRE’s issues.

In her article, including two of the three quoted paragraphs, Ms Conza provides a number of links.  Plus, she publishes Mr Shapiro's letter of resignation.

If my friend Jim Shannon, from Church, were still with us I would tell him how sorry I felt for him, what with his graduation from and affection for Georgetown University.  This is an embzrrassment for Georgetown University, for Higher Education, for the Catholic Church and for the Jesuits.  As a person who has persued a college degree and a post graduate degree, but never associated with Georgetown, I am embarrassed.  As an American I am embarrassed.

As for Mr Shapiro's tweet, it might hurt the feelings of some, but seems a fair assessment of the situation at the time.  Back in the old dsys we would say "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me."  Can't we all grow up a little and learn to accept comments and criticism?

The more importnt lesson to be lerned is tht the western tradition of free inquiry, which moves forward science and the humanities, is in jeopardy.  That will be a loss for all of us.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Terrorism or Vandalism

For John, BLUF:  intellectual Honesty is in short supply these days.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

What's the difference?

From Althouse, by Professor Ann Althouse, 9 May 2022.

Here is the lede plus one:

It's interesting, the differences that matter to people, the endless quest to distinguish alligators from crocodiles and psychopaths from sociopaths, but what I wanted to know was the difference between vandalism and terrorism.

I'm reading "Madison anti-abortion headquarters hit by apparent Molotov cocktail, vandalism, graffiti" in the Wisconsin State Journal:  "Vandals set a fire inside the Madison headquarters of the anti-abortion group...."

It is obviously terrorism.  It was done to cause terror, rather than just make a mess of things.  However, how one classifies the event is a good indicator of one's position on this issue and on Democracy.

I think, for sure, a clear headed thinker does not call it terrormism when the other side does it and vandalism when one's own side does it.

Hat tip to Ann Althouse.

Regards  —  Cliff

Twitter has a New CEO

For John, BLUF:  If one really believes in Democracy, one must believe in Free Speech, which means listening to all sides, or at least allowing space for all sides.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

MID-WEEK IN PICTURES: MUSKAGEDDON EDITION

From Power Line Blog, by Mr Steven Hayward, 25 April 2022.

Here is the lede:

I have no idea whether Elon Musk is fundamentally sound or not, but one of Churchill’s remarks comes to mind as the sensible way of thinking about the wider scene:  “If Hitler invaded Hell, I would at least make a favorable mention of the devil in the House of Commons.”  The wailing and gnashing of teeth on the left today makes it all worth it, even if we’re disappointed with the results down the road.  It is another demonstration of how insecure liberals are at their core.  Meanwhile, I expect the next Tesla models will be equipped with voice-activated Twitter posting.

And beyond is photos and cartoons.

The outcry from some at Twitter, and some Twitter users, about Freedom of Speech is tone-death.  The rest show their lack of belief in Free Speech on the part of the prt of the Twitter Using left.  My favorite is those who fear their candidate could be banned by Twitter.♠  Equally lame are those who think speech has to be curated, because the folks out cross the fruited planes may not bre smzrt enough to sort through free information.  This would be unlike the period around the American Revolution.

Remember, if they can censor you now, at some point someone else will be censoring them.

I recommend (at the link) the screen capture of the Tweet by Mr Hillel Neuer, showing how political contributions are mde by various high tech workers.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  Like President Trump?

The Internet and Freedom

For John, BLUF:  When I first cmer scross the Internet the watchword was "Informstion Wants to be free."  Todaay the industry leaders, and their academic supporters, are dvocztes for "Information needs to be curated."  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Elon Musk’s vision for the internet is dangerous nonsense

Here is the sub-headline:

Musk now faces no limit on how much of Twitter’s stock he can buy. He’ll buy as much as he needs to gain total control

From The Guardian (UK), Professor Robert Reich, 12 April 2022, 06.31 EDT.

Here is the lede plus three:

The Russian people know little about Putin’s war on Ukraine because Putin has blocked their access to the truth, substituting propaganda and lies.

Years ago, pundits assumed the internet would open a new era of democracy, giving everyone access to the truth.  But dictators like Putin and demagogues like Trump have demonstrated how naive that assumption was.

At least the US responded to Trump’s lies.  Trump had 88 million Twitter followers before Twitter took him off its platform – just two days after the attack on the Capitol, which he provoked, in part, with his tweets. (Trump’s social media accounts were also suspended on Facebook, YouTube, Instagram, Snapchat, Twitch and TikTok.)

These moves were necessary to protect American democracy.  But Elon Musk – the richest man in the world, with 80 million Twitter followers – wasn’t pleased.  Musk tweeted that US tech companies shouldn’t be acting “as the de facto arbiter of free speech”.

Reviewing the fourth pargraph, Mr Musk is correct. "US tech companies shouldn’t be acting 'as the de facto arbiter of free speech.'"  Isn't that how dictatorships work?  As Citizens, we get to decide who is telling the truth.  For example, every four years, when we vote for President.  We don't need tech compnies telling us how to vote.

This is from Mr Ed Driscoll, blogging at the InstaPundit:

ROBERT REICH IN THE GRAUNIAD:  Elon Musk’s vision for the internet is dangerous nonsense. “Musk has long advocated a libertarian vision of an ‘uncontrolled’ internet.  That’s also the dream of every dictator, strongman and demagogue.”

Because if there is one thing that Iran, CCP China, North Korea, and Putin’s wartime Russia are all famous for, it’s the sweet, unfettered, free flow of information.

Sadly, Professor Reich sounds like a member of the elite who is now affraid that the masses are about to turn out the politicians he favors.

In his book Guns, Germs and Steel, author Jared Diamond says that early on in writing language the way of writing was complicated and restricted to a small group of scribes and was a system for keeping the mjority down.  However, when writing came back with Guttenburg's printing press it turned into a tool for democracy for the maasses.  People like Professor Reich and their Lordships in high tech want to go back to the scribe mode, to control the masses.  As a member of the masses I oppose and resent this way of doing business.

And this assault on the Internet, and on free speech, will impact how I vote.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

A Professor Challenges Wokeness

For John, BLUF:  Without the freedom to think and exchange ideas, and to challenge the ideas of others, one cannot claim to have a University.  God Bless fair Judges.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Pushback:  Judge rules university officials can be held personally responsible for firing a professor for his political opinions

From the Blog Behind the Black, by Author Robert Zimmerman, 21 March 2022 12:36 pm.

Here is the lede plus three:

A major victory for free speech: A federal judge ruled on March 11th that officials at the University of North Texas can be held personally responsible for firing a professor because they did not like his political opinions.

In his 69-page order of March 11, Judge Sean Jordan, of the United States District Court for Eastern Texas, found that university officials should have known that math professor Nathaniel Hiers’ speech “touched on a matter of public concern and that discontinuing his employment because of his speech violated the First Amendment,” before they fired him for going public with his disagreement with the left-wing concept of “microaggressions.”

The university was claiming qualified immunity for school officials in the case, meaning that the school wanted its officials to be excluded from being held responsible for their actions merely because they were acting in their position as state employees.  Jordan denied the claim of qualified immunity and also denied the school’s demand to have the case dismissed outright.

You can read the judge’s order here [pdf].

And Professor Hiers is not the only one.  From January we have a Professor Jackson being cleared to sue the same institution.

Should we use the term "university" to describe this North Texas institution?  Without "Academic Freedom' can the institution be a Univeristy?  Or is it just another institution, unworthy of the name University?.

I celebrate this judicial decision.

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.

Julian Assange Coming to America

For John, BLUF:  This is a saga that has gone on for too long a time.  It should have been ended under the last administration.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Julian Assange Loses Appeal:  British High Court Accepts U.S. Request to Extradite Him for Trial

Here is the sub-headline:

Press freedom groups have warned Assange's prosecution is a grave threat.  The Biden DOJ ignored them, and today won a major victory toward permanently silencing the pioneering transparency activist.

From Greenwald Substack, by Reporter Glenn Greenwald, 19 December 2021.

Here is the lede plus one:

In a London courtroom on Friday morning, Julian Assange suffered a devastating blow to his quest for freedom.  A two-judge appellate panel of the United Kingdom's High Court ruled that the U.S.'s request to extradite Assange to the U.S. to stand trial on espionage charges is legally valid.

As a result, that extradition request will now be sent to British Home Secretary Prita Patel, who technically must approve all extradition requests but, given the U.K. Government's long-time subservience to the U.S. security state, is all but certain to rubber-stamp it.  Assange's representatives, including his fiancee Stella Morris, have vowed to appeal the ruling, but today's victory for the U.S. means that Assange's freedom, if it ever comes, is further away than ever: not months but years even under the best of circumstances.

This is not a good turn for press freedom, either in the UK or the US.  I wonder what they are afraid of.

As an aside, I did think that Mr Greenwald was a bit snarky about the UK being subservient to the US in the area of national security.  However, the issue of press freedom should be paramount for both nations.

Regards  —  Cliff

Wokeness v Democracy

For John, BLUF:  The Author, Ms Bari Weiss, knows of what she speaks.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

We Got Here Because of Cowardice. We Get Out With Courage

Here is the sub-headline:

Say no to the Woke Revolution

From Commentary Magazine, by Writer Bari Weiss, November 2021.

Here is the lede plus one:

A lot of people want to convince you that you need a Ph.D. or a law degree or dozens of hours of free time to read dense texts about critical theory to understand the woke movement and its worldview.  You do not.  You simply need to believe your own eyes and ears. Let me offer the briefest overview of the core beliefs of the Woke Revolution, which are abundantly clear to anyone willing to look past the hashtags and the jargon.

And now you need to go to the article.

"Wokeness" is allowing a group of bullies to shut dow the free speech of many other citizens.  It filters a bunch of bad stuff, but also truths,  Truths free men and women, even if in jest, should feel free to speak,  No freedom to speakmeans no free elections, which means no democracy.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Stop Criticizing Democrats

For John, BLUF:  Show some sypathy for the poor Democrafts.  They are a poor, overly sensitive, oppressed group, trying to impose socialism on our nation.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Democrats Agree:  Criticizing Our Behavior Is Racist, Sexist, Homophobic

From The Washington Free Beacon, by Reporter Andrew Stiles, 21 September 2021, 2:40 pm.

Here is the lede plus five:

Democratic politicians have repeatedly argued that criticizing a Democrat's behavior just isn't something a normal, kindhearted person would ever do.  Their critics, by definition, are exclusively composed of racists, sexists, homophobes, xenophobes, white supremacists, and other bigots.  The journalists who report on these criticisms are just as evil, Democrats agree.

When several media outlets reported that Vice President Kamala Harris presided over a "toxic" work environment where "people feel treated like s—t," the VP's allies lashed out at the "gendered" criticism voiced by former Harris staffers and current Biden administration officials.  Senior Democrats even suggested sexist media coverage was to blame for Harris's low approval rating.

BuzzFeed reported similar allegations from former staffers against Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D., Wash.), who reportedly "berated staff in front of others, demanded grueling hours, and maintained an office culture marked by constantly changing expectations and little tolerance for error."  The Democratic congresswoman insisted she was the real victim.

"Women of color are often unjustly targeted, regularly held to higher standards than their male colleagues, and always put under a sexist microscope," said Jayapal's chief of staff, Lilah Pomerance, who dismissed the comments from former staffers as "cherry picked" and riddled with "ugly stereotypes."

Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney (D., N.Y.), chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, responded in similar fashion after the Washington Free Beacon reported that he violated State Department guidance by vacationing in Italy and France, where he attended a maskless wedding at a billionaire's estate.  The DCCC paid for an Air France ticket just weeks before Maloney jetted off to Europe, claiming it was purchased "to conduct DCCC business with Americans living overseas."

In response to questions about Maloney's travel, DCCC communications director Chris Hayden suggested the Free Beacon‘s coverage was homophobic because it included a picture of Maloney posing for a photo with his shirtless husband on a beach in France.  "A lot of homophobia veiled as subtext re:  his husband swimming with his shirt off," Hayden wrote on Twitter.  "Disappointing."

It looks like Democrats wish for Republicans, and the free press, to just shut up.

The First Amendment has been suspended.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff