“While these chalk messages are part of national agendas in a heated political battle, they appeared on campus at a time of significant racial tension in our country and on college campuses. DePaul is no exception,” Depaul’s vice president for student affairs Eugene Zdziarski wrote in a campus-wide email obtained by Campus Reform. “The university has been addressing campus climate issues in an effort to provide an inclusive and supportive educational environment. In this context, many students, faculty and staff found the chalk messages offensive, hurtful and divisive.”
Another conservative attempting to engage in Free Speech on a college campus confronts a leftist mob who not only don’t want to hear what he has to say, but seeks to deny others the opportunity to hear him.
Students who wanted to hear Shapiro speak had to be ushered quietly into the lecture hall through a back door while unhinged student activists and faculty members screamed and tried to force their way through a police barricade protecting the front door.
As we reported earlier, the University tried to cancel/postpone the speech until they could assemble a left-wing panel to provide “balance;” something that is never done when left-wingers
ABC News in Los Angeles reported:
Shapiro arrived at CSULA and was speaking to the campus chapter of Young America’s Foundation on the topic of “When Diversity Becomes a Problem” when a fire alarm was pulled.
While the siren was sounding, Shapiro continued his speech, stating he would not be silenced.
“If this sort of thing happened during classes at this university, the kid who pulled the fire alarm would be off this campus so fast it would make your head spin,” Shapiro said. “But not you out there, the protesters, the special magical leftist children protected from the consequences of living in the real world with my taxpayer dollars. You get to shut us down for disagreeing with your thug tactics and your nasty, pathetic, evil ideology.”
According to tweets by Shapiro, protesters blocked entrances to the University-Student Union where he was speaking, attempting to obstruct those who wished to attend. Cameras captured shouting and pushing as intense interactions occurred between protesters and those attempting to attend the event.
After speaking for about an hour, Shapiro tweeted he had to be escorted by police from the campus for safety concerns.
Liberals (or Progressives, or Leftists, depending on the degree of honesty with which they are willing to label themselves) especially feminists are fanatical about shutting off avenues of Free Speech that questions their dogma. Some feminists demand that, when a speaker they don’t agree with comes to a college campus, they must be given safe spaces with coloring books and stuffed animals, lest the mere presence of such a speaker cause them trauma. Some feminists have demanded making the entire internet a “Safe Space” by outright banning of disagreeable comments from the internet.
The correct response for those of us who cherish open discourse is to label spaces where free and open dialogue occurs as “Danger Spaces.” First of all, it sounds cool. Second, it creates a dramatic contrast with the the prissy “Safe Spaces” demanded by the feminist left. Third, it brands Free Speech as something dangerous and exciting and thereby encourages people to seek it out.
Fourth, and I think this is the most important thing, it points up how idiotic and silly the leftist/feminist notion that free speech is so dangerous they have to create “Speech-Proof” shelters to protect themselves from it really is.
Bad: By a 56-31 majority, U.S. college students want speech to be regulated.
Good: By a 56-41 majority, Americans believe that more people carrying concealed guns would make us all safer. Particularly the young: “Younger Americans are more likely to choose the ‘safer’ option [in Gallup's poll] than those aged 30 and above.”
So, young Americans -at college- are against free speech. But young Americans -in general- understand correctly that a well-armed society is a polite(r) society. I’ll take the difference as a sign that something is very wrong with U.S. colleges.
This past week, we had news that Irwin Schiff passed away on October 16. Schiff was a U.S. veteran, author, heroic income-tax protestor and, sadly, a U.S. political prisoner.
Irwin Schiff, 1928-2015
Big Government advocates will sometimes claim that the U.S. tax system is voluntary. They say it because they want to deny the obvious: that government is force (by its nature, it operates by forcing people against their will) – and that, as advocates of Big Government, they do basically want a dictatorial, regimented society.
I’ve seen lefties making the “voluntary” claim in GP comments. But as a stronger example, here is Democrat leader Harry Reid saying, “Our system of government is a voluntary tax system…We have a voluntary system.” Because, says Reid, if you don’t pay taxes in the U.S., “You don’t go to jail.”
That “voluntary” claim is nonsense, in practice. Some people, such as Eric Garner in 2014, are hounded by the police for selling untaxed cigarettes and then fatally assaulted by the police. Others like Gilbert Hyatt may be hounded by State authorities for decades, although they paid all taxes in full. Others like perceived Tea Party groups may be blocked (silenced) by the IRS for their political beliefs, before they could even have a chance to file tax reports.
And those who refuse to pay income taxes due to their outspoken moral and constitutional principles, such as Irwin Schiff, are jailed – and then forced to die in jail from untreated cancer. So much for the U.S. system being “voluntary”. You can be a conscientious objector to the draft! But not to the federal income tax.
I could try to tell more of Irwin Schiff’s story, but Peter Schiff does it best in his article, Death of a Patriot. Read the whole thing.
And consider downloading and reading Irwin Schiff’s last book, The Federal Mafia: How the Government Illegally Imposes and Unlawfully Collects Income Taxes. It’s free.
It’s free because, during Schiff’s lifetime, the government enjoined him from selling it. That makes it a banned book; indeed, it’s supposed to be the only book banned in the U.S. in the last 50 years (other than libel cases).
The book also claims that the U.S. income tax system is voluntary. I must suggest that Mr. Schiff’s own experience shows that, as a practical matter, he was mistaken about that. But he covers the history of the income tax in the U.S. and the IRS’ own use of the word “voluntary”. As such, Schiff may well have been right about the underlying Constitutional principle, or what *should theoretically* be true under the U.S. Constitution (which today’s U.S. government flouts in many ways).
Anyway, the book’s unusual ban, and Schiff’s cruel death in federal prison, should tell you something about our government’s true priorities. Hint: It’s much more to do with protecting the government’s power and jobs, than protecting or serving you.
Now that the left has firmly taken over the Academic Establishment in the USA, they don’t want any pesky dissenters questioning their authority.
A guide to preventing “bias incidents” published by Rutgers University warns students that the idea of “free speech” is a lie, Campus Reform reports.
“There is no such thing as ‘free’ speech. All speech has a cost and consequences,” opens the page dedicated to the school’s “Bias Prevention & Education Committee.” The page, maintained by the school’s office of student affairs, encourages students to “think before you speak” and also offers four other core suggestions to avoid the specter of bias incidents.
An appeals court in Kentucky has overturned a lower court decision that a Christian owned T-shirt company could not refuse to print T-shirts for a gay pride festival. The higher court upheld the right of the business not to be coerced in participating in speech with which it disagreed.
No doubt, the Gaystapo is preparing an appeal.
Funny how free speech has become a “right-wing thing” isn’t it?
Since so many leftists think that “Hate Speech” falls outside first amendment protection, it’s important to remember that under their rules, they get to define what “hate speech” is. In Maine, apparently, just wearing a Chik-Fil-A is considered anti-gay hate speech.
During the high school’s televised announcements that morning, two students on the broadcast wore Chick-fil-A T-shirts, Snyder said.
The students didn’t say anything about the Gay-Straight Alliance or the school’s LGBT community, but she believes they knew what they were doing.
The appearance started a flurry of tweets, with students calling out the two boys who wore the Chick-fil-A shirts.
The tweets continued over the weekend, and on Monday students who tweeted at the boys wearing the shirts were called to the high school principal’s office.
Students were told they were being punished for tweeting during school hours, and because some of their tweets contained obscenities, [one of the suspended students] said.
[One of the suspended students] responded to a tweet in support of the students in the Chick-fil-A shirt that said, “You’re expressing your feelings … Why can’t he?” Her response was, “Being an offensive [expletive] is not expressing your feelings.”
The LGBT Community is doing a great job training young people to behave like fascist brownshirts.
With this message:
Brought to you by the students that are sick of hearing about your LGBT pride. Nobody cares about what you think you are, or what you want to have sex with. We have nothing against your sexual orientation. We just don’t give a f*ck.
I suppose I Could clickbait this with “You Won’t Believe What Happened Next,” but, the reaction of the gay left and the University Administration was entirely predictable.
YSU’s public information officer, Ron Cole, told the Huffington Post that the posters were “completely bogus.”
“With the help of a bunch of students, we quickly went out to take them all down,” Cole said. “Reaction has ranged from concern to outrage. While we recognize the right to free speech, this is counter to our mission of being a diverse and accepting campus.”
Proving that Mr. Cole does not know the meaning of the words “free speech,” “diverse,” or “accepting.”
The U.S.A., once number one for economic freedom, has sunk to number 12 per the Heritage Foundation. (Top seven: Hong Kong, Singapore, New Zealand, Australia, Switzerland, Canada, Chile.)
Somewhere, some leftist is going “Yeah cool! Because economic freedom sux!” Well then. The U.S.A., once number one as a place to be born, has sunk to number 16 in The Economist magazine’s more Europe-friendly rankings. (Compare to 1988 ranking, here.)
What about political-social freedoms, like freedom of the press? The U.S.A., once number one for that, has sunk to number 49. Behind South Africa, Slovenia, even Germany.
As Reporters Without Borders puts it:
In the United States, 2014 was marked by judicial harassment of New York Times investigative reporter James Risen in connection with the trial of Jeffrey Sterling, a former CIA officer charged under the Espionage Act with giving him classified information. US journalists are still not protected by a federal shield law that would guarantee their right not to name their sources or reveal other confidential information about their work. Meanwhile, at least 15 journalists were arbitrarily arrested during clashes between police and demonstrators protesting against black teenager Michael Brown’s fatal shooting…
And where would RPB rank us, if they could consider that our tax authority specially targets our domestic political dissidents (Tea Party conservatives)?
Je suis… meh, nevermind.
-Nick (ColoradoPatriot, from The Casa)
What Should One Say to a Left-Winger Who Wants to Take Away Your Human Rights to Appease Violent Radicals?
If news accounts are correct, a Libertarian-leaning Australian Senator had a terse reply to a Multiculturalist Social Democrat who wanted to curtail free-speech rights in the name of not offending the oh-so-delicate feelers of Islamics.
An anti free speech social Democrat named Gary Burns in Australia got a firm rebuke when he wrote to senator David Leyonjhelm about how Australia’s multiculturalism is the law. Leyonjhelm responded harshly, saying “Go f**k yourself you communist turd.”
I think pretty much the same thing whenever I hear certain politicians flapping their yaps, but I keep it to myself. I know it was not a civil way to reply, and not one that should typify political discourse, but what should one’s response be to people who want to take your human rights away from you? Some would argue that Leyonjhelm should have replied with a well-thought out argument on the virtues of free and open speech. That probably would have been a waste of time; you can’t reason people out of what they weren’t reasoned into.
Meanwhile, the recipients of Senator Leyonjhelm’ s email have responded with Drama Queen Butthurt.
“This boofhead is not a fit or proper person to represent the good people of NSW. I’ve been called many things in life but never a communist,” he said.
“When I received the offensive email from the Senator I was so shocked I clutched my pearls and reached for the smelling salts.”
Mr Burns has previously sued broadcaster John Laws under the Anti-Discrimination Act for calling gay men “pillow biters”.
The story of the Gang Rape of a woman named Jackie at a fraternity at the University of Virginia in 2012 is partially true. The supposed victim was a female student at the University of Virginia in 2012. Every other part of the story seems to be a complete fabrication.
The Progressive Left is not backing down, still defending the story as, essentially, “fake but accurate.” To quote an editorial in the Washington Post:
This is what we mean in America when we say someone is “innocent until proven guilty.” After all, look what happened to the Duke lacrosse players.
In important ways, this is wrong. We should believe, as a matter of default, what an accuser says. … Because Rape Culture is real.
“Rape Culture” being the name for the Narrative that the UVa story was made up to fit.
The Progressive Left, except for a few out-liars, have quietly begun abandoning defense of the story. They have resorted to the tactic of attacking those who were skeptical of the story. They are claiming that anyone who doesn’t support the notion that rapists are guilty until proven innocent, or who suggests that stories like Jackie’s should be subject to scrupulous fact-checking… is that right-wingers want to deny that rape exists.
mindset emerging on the right that because rolling stone royally effed up, all rape allegations can be ignored is super dangerous
Who on the right is saying this? Nobody, that’s who, but there is no one left but Straw men to defend the Progressive argument. When defending a lie, it’s always easiest to recruit volunteers from the voices-in-your-head.
One should very properly be skeptical when a story in the MFM fits into a left-wing narrative like the costume of a comic-book superhero.
A few days old but, lest we forget: Ezra Levant was fined $80,000 by a Canadian court:
Levant’s posts centred on Awan’s testimony at a British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal case…Awan was a law student when the article was published and was among a group of students who alleged the article was Islamophobic…Some of blog posts are titled “Awan the liar,” “Awan the liar part two” and so forth…Levant’s lawyer had said his defence was primarily one of fair comment. He had said the blog posts were based upon what Levant observed over two days of Awan’s testimony at the human rights tribunal and were comments on a matter of public interest.
Via HotAir, where Jazz Shaw explains that Levant was fined for expression of *opinion*:
When you get to subjects such as social evolution, religion and prognostication about the future (which was the subject of the original article) it’s fairly obvious that you are talking about matters of opinion. Even here in the United States, you can’t go around writing, for example, that Bob is a drug dealer unless you can come up with some proof to support the allegation. That veers off from the arena of opinion and into the land of slander and libel. But Ezra Levant was disagreeing with Awan – albeit somewhat strenuously – on more subjective matters. For this exchange of ideas a Canadian judge has fined him $80K.
I’m sure this is just what the Left would love to see in America. Levant plans to appeal; feel free to help him pay for it.
UPDATE: Not that I’m sure the U.S. is that much better. Of his order on deportations, President Obama has now boasted, “I just took an action to change the law” – thus ignoring the U.S. constitution, which assigns that power to Congress.
Something in Bruce’s Twitter stream got me to notice this petition on Daily Kos, which is
…calling on Congress and the States [to] Act now to do whatever is within your power to pass a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United.
I don’t know when DK started the petition; probably a few years ago. But it’s still active. Now, in terms of the U.S. constitution, what caused the Citizens United decision? As Justice Kennedy wrote in 2010 for the majority:
If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech.
So, the principle of Free Speech caused the decision. The First Amendment right of citizens, or associations of citizens, to engage in political speech – is what the decision expresses and defends.
If we do the math, the Daily Kos petition is effectively:
…calling on Congress and the States [to] Act now to do whatever is within your power to pass a constitutional amendment to overturn free speech.
…calling on Congress and the States [to] Act now to do whatever is within your power to pass a constitutional amendment to overturn the First Amendment right of citizens, or associations of citizens, to engage in political speech.
Example #12,770 of leftism actually being fascism and vice versa.
UPDATE: Something more current…With approval from the National Science Foundation, Indiana University researchers spent $1 million of taxpayer money on activities to silence non-leftie voices on Twitter. Here’s another link.
The lesbian mayor of Houston is backing down from her demand that churches in her city turn over all of their sermons, emails, and other communications so her lawyers could examine them for any criticism of her.
Mayor Parker admitted that the subpoenas were too broad, and that the pastors’ sermons should not have been included. “It’s not about what did you preach on last Sunday,” she said. “It should have been clarified, it will be clarified.”
However, she still maintains that the Government has the right to monitor the content of religious speech; because that’s who the Democrats are these days.
The same regime that destroyed Lois Lerner’s emails and then lied about it to cover up its persecution of conservative political groups is looking for ways to censor internet speech so as to “assist in the preservation of open debate.”
Through a National Science Foundation grant, the U.S. government is paying for the creation of a database of “suspicious memes” and other “false and misleading” political ideas posted on social media.
“[The proposed technology] could mitigate the diffusion of false and misleading ideas, detect hate speech and subversive propaganda, and assist in the preservation of open debate,” the grant states.
Those sentences should be horrifying to anyone who wants to continue to live in a free society, but unfortunately, a lot of people don’t. They want their feelings protected from being hurt by being exposed to ideas that challenge their prejudices. e.g. Criticism of Obama’s policies, opposition to gay marriage, skepticism of human-caused global warming and anything else the left defines as “subversive” “misleading” or “hate speech.”
They want to silence the opposition, and they are working on the tools to do that.
Hat Tip: Sondra K
Captain Picard delivers a message to all of those who cheer when someone loses their job because they oppose gay marriage, or a business is forced by the
heavy crushing hand of the state to participate in a gay wedding or provide abortion-inducing birth control against the will of its owners.
[Not sure Sir Patrick Stewart would agree with Captain Picard; Stewart's kind of a moonbat.]
Leftist union thugs are demanding that two managers be sacked for sporting stickers on their personal vehicles that hurt the feelers of a neurotic, hypersensitive gay person.
A union representing federal employees at Eglin Air Force base in Florida is demanding that two senior management officials be removed from their posts because they put decals on their personal trucks supporting Duck Dynasty star Phil Robertson.
Alan Cooper, the executive vice president of the local chapter of the American Federation of Government Employees, said one of the officials also displayed the “I Support Phil” decals in his office last month and offered them to subordinates.
“The BUE (bargaining union employee) was clearly offended and disgusted that a senior management official would display the decal on their pod,” read an email Cooper wrote.
“We took offense,” Cooper told me in a telephone interview. “These two particular individuals have a great amount of influence over individuals who may be gay, who may be African-American – and we have a concern they should not be in a position to exert that influence when it comes to promotions.”
Unlike some of the people who comment here, Andrew Klavan finds the heavy-handed fascism of the gay left somewhat distasteful.
I think Homofascism — this current movement to regulate and restrict opinions and outlooks toward homosexuality — indeed, toward anything — should be crushed. Lawsuits against photographers who won’t shoot gay weddings. Television show cancellations because the hosts oppose gay marriage. Attempts to silence anti-gay preaching or force churches to recognize gay marriages. Crushed, all of it. Crushed by the united voice of the people, crushed in courts of law, in legislatures, in businesses and in conversation. When someone is sued, attacked, shamed, boycotted or fired for opposing gay marriage or just opposing gayness in general, straight and gay people alike should protest. No one should lose his television show, no one should be dragged before a judge, no one should have his business threatened. Don’t tell me about a company’s right to fire its employees. It has the right, but it isn’t right. It’s unAmerican and it’s despicable.
Gay rights, like all rights, do not in any way supersede the rights of others. A free person may have any opinion about homosexuality he chooses — or about blackness or about Judaism or any other damned thing — and he should be able to speak that opinion out loud and act on that opinion if he does no immediate harm.
I guess Klavan is one of those crazy radical extremists who thinks the Constitution even protects the free speech of those who hurt gay people’s feelers.
Update: The Gay Left cannot be shamed by calling out their behavior as ‘fascist.’ They know they’re being fascists. They’re enjoying it, they’re getting off on it. All bullies get off on the power they wield over the less powerful.