1st Amendment Thread

[Fife]

What a loser K-Sue is. (Although that is a good lawyer name.)

Tell it to Justice Repo Man, K-Sue.

[de officiis]

EFF Getting Nervous

Neo-Nazi website Daily Stormer has been pushed offline or perhaps to the dark web by GoDaddy, Google and Cloudflare, which one by one made it impossible for the news and commentary provider to keep operating after it published an article that slammed the dead victim of the violence in Charlottesville.

But the Electronic Frontier Foundation is warning of the dangers of censoring speech, no matter how horrendous or offensive.

“All fair-minded people must stand against the hateful violence and aggression that seems to be growing across our country,” the San Francisco-based online advocacy group said in a blog post Thursday. “But we must also recognize that on the Internet, any tactic used now to silence neo-Nazis will soon be used against others, including people whose opinions we agree with.”

For example, the EFF mentioned that some people want to label Black Lives Matter as a hate group, and that the NAACP has been a target since the Civil Rights era.

Many of the tech CEOs who have taken action in the wake of the deadly white supremacist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, have explained their moves.

Even as San Francisco-based Cloudflare’s CEO stripped the Daily Stormer of its security services this week, Matthew Prince acknowledged he had made an arbitrary decision and said “no one should have that power.”

In a tweeted statement Thursday, Google CEO Sundar Pichai said “the challenge and best response is to speak out, to give hatred no place to fester.” But he added that “it’s often hard for people to find common ground and to work out the best ways to counter the swelling tide of hatred and terrorism.” (Google booted the Daily Stormer from its domain registry earlier this week. The site had moved to Google after being kicked out by GoDaddy.)

...

PayPal and crowdfunding sites also said this week that they have cut off payment support for white supremacists and hate groups.

...

As free-speech advocates point out the slippery slope that is censorship, the hard questions remain as other tech companies continue to censor and ban.

What’s acceptable censorship, if any? If cutting off certain groups’ money source makes freedom lovers queasy, what about dating site OKCupid’s banning of a white supremacist? Or Spotify’s removal of “hate” songs?

...

Twitter has banned white supremacists from its site. Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg said in a post this week that the social network is taking down posts that promote or celebrate hate crimes, adding that “we won’t always be perfect.”

...
... The EFF warns that censorship at the top level — domains, content delivery systems — are “most sensitive to pervasive censorship.”

“They are free speech’s weakest links,” the EFF writes. “It’s the reason why millions of net neutrality advocates are concerned about ISPs censoring their feeds. Or why, when the handful of global payment processors unite to block certain websites (like Wikileaks) worldwide, we should be concerned.”

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

New York Times Column Calls For End To “Color-Blind Logic” In Defense of Free Speech

A fun piece of related snark from the National Cuckview.

The ACLU insists that “preventing the government from controlling speech is absolutely necessary to the promotion of equality.” But more sensible thinkers grasp that quite the opposite is true. As Park notes, any defense of the status quo “perpetuates a misguided theory that all radical views are equal.” They’re not, and, in consequence, an arbiter is necessary. At first, that should be the ACLU, which should simply let some censorship be – or, even better, start endorsing it. And eventually, having been freed up by the ACLU’s backing away from what Park notes correctly is “only First Amendment case law,” the government itself should assume that role. Then, and only then, will some space have been cleared for the wise.

[Ex-California]

New York Times Column Calls For End To “Color-Blind Logic” In Defense of Free Speech

A fun piece of related snark from the National Cuckview.

The ACLU insists that “preventing the government from controlling speech is absolutely necessary to the promotion of equality.” But more sensible thinkers grasp that quite the opposite is true. As Park notes, any defense of the status quo “perpetuates a misguided theory that all radical views are equal.” They’re not, and, in consequence, an arbiter is necessary. At first, that should be the ACLU, which should simply let some censorship be – or, even better, start endorsing it. And eventually, having been freed up by the ACLU’s backing away from what Park notes correctly is “only First Amendment case law,” the government itself should assume that role. Then, and only then, will some space have been cleared for the wise.

WTF? How can anyone think that is even close to ok?

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

The National Review piece is presented as sarcasm... that might not have been clear. The whole article is good for a cynical chuckle.

K-Sue's piece... well, that is just letting freedom un-ring I guess.

[Ex-California]

Ahhh, now I read the whole article. I get it

[de officiis]

The hypocrisy of antifa

The University of California in Berkeley was again the scene of violence recently, as protesters claimed license to silence those with whom they disagree. Their fight against “fascism” took the form of ... assaulting those who came to hear it.

... these counter-demonstrators, and in particular the masked antifa protesters, are a troubling and growing presence on our campuses. They have been assaulting people and blocking speeches for years with relatively little condemnation. They flourish in an environment where any criticism is denounced as being reflective of racist or fascist sentiments.

... there is no distinction between these protesters and the fascists they claim to be resisting. They are all fascists in their use of fear and violence to silence others. What is particularly chilling is how some academics have given this anti-speech mob legitimacy through pseudo-philosophical rationalizations.

{Anti-fa protestors} seem blissfully ignorant of the contradiction in using fascistic tactics as anti-fascist protesters. After all, a leading definition of fascism is “a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control.”

...
Last week, Clemson University Professor Bart Knijnenburg went on Facebook to call Trump supporters and Republicans “racist scum.” He added, “I admire anyone who stands up against white supremacy, violent or nonviolent. This needs to stop, by any means necessary. #PunchNazis.” He is not alone. Trinity College Professor Johnny Williams, who teaches classes on race, posted attacks on bigots and called on people to “let them f-----g die.”

These voices go beyond the troubling number of academics supporting speech codes and the curtailment of free speech. These are scholars who have embraced the antithesis of the life and values of academia. They justify violence to silence those who are deemed unworthy to be heard. Dartmouth Professor Mark Bray, the author of a book entitled “Antifa: The Anti-Fascist Handbook” is one of the chief enablers of these protesters. Bray defines antifa as “politics or an activity of social revolutionary self defense. It’s a pan-left radical politics uniting communists, socialists, anarchists and various different radical leftists together for the shared purpose of combating the far right.”

Bray speaks positively of the effort to supplant traditional views of free speech: “At the heart of the anti-fascist outlook is a rejection of the classical liberal phrase… that says I disapprove of what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” He defines anti-fascists as “illiberal” who reject the notion that far right views deserve to “coexist” with opposing views.

Bray says that the protesters do not “see fascism or white supremacy as a view with which they disagree as a difference of opinion.” Their goal is not co-existence but “to end their politics.” Bray and other academics are liberating students from the confines of what they deem the false “allegiance to liberal democracy.” Once freed of the values of free speech and democratic values, violence becomes merely politics by other means.

...
... While Bray insists that he is not in favor of violent protests or even free speech, he insists that there is a duty to stop those who threaten the existence of others and the antifa protests are a form of “community self defense.”

Ironically, Bray and others have come to use the intellectual freedom of our universities to advance the most anti-intellectual movement in our history. They are destroying the very academic institutions that have protected their extreme views. ...

These protesters believe that history shows the dangers of free speech and the need to deny it to those who would misuse it. It is a familiar sentiment that “all the experience... accumulated through several decades teaches us... to deprive the reactionaries of the right to speak and let the people alone have that right.” Those were the words of another early anti-fascist, China's Communist Party leader Mao Zedong.

[de officiis]

Some “Forms of Speech . . . Are Not Protected”: Berkeley Professors Call For Boycott Of Free Speech Week

Jonathan Turley

We have been discussing how faculty around the country are supporting the abandonment of free speech principles to bar speakers and speech with which they disagree. . . . The latest example . . . is a letter of over 200 University of California, Berkeley professors and faculty are calling for the shutdown of classes and activities during “free speech week.” To the dismay of these professors, free speech week will include speakers with whom they disagree. Thus, they have posted a letter that not only seeks a boycott of free speech but have proclaimed that certain speech (in this case speech they do not like) is unworthy of free speech protection. Note the faculty and Ph.D students are calling for a boycott of classes and all campus activities, not just the speeches themselves. Turning off the lights and fleeing the campus at the approach of opposing views hardly fits with the school’s motto of “Fiat Lux” (Let There Be Light).

. . .

The letter captures the growing academic movement to curtail free speech on campus, supporting ever expanding notions of microaggressions and prohibited speech. The letter contains the common references to conservative speakers as threatening the physical and mental well-being of faculty, students, and staff.

...
... As I previously discussed, the “anti-fascists” on our campuses seem strangely fascistic in their views in demanding the silencing of opposing views. Here the mere fact that conservatives are speaking on campus is deemed a form of harassment, threats, and intimidation. The telling inclusion of this language highlights the danger of microaggression and speech prohibitions which often use the same subjective and ill-defined terms. Seminars and handouts on campus proscribe such microaggressions as saying “There is only one race, the human race,” “America is the land of opportunity,” or asking “why are you so quiet?” Berkeley also defines hate speech as “any speech, gesture or conduct, writing, or display that may incite violence or prejudicial action against someone based on actual or perceived race, color, ancestry, gender, gender identity, ethnicity …” As for expression of bias to be reported, this can include any “general communication not directed toward a particular individual, which disparages a group of people on the basis of some characteristic ….”

This letter however reveals how anti-free speech views have become mainstream with faculty who want universities to bar speech (particularly conservative speech) as threatening to the university as a whole. What is embarrassing is the low-grade logic of these letters. There is little effort to go beyond the premise of how some-speech-makes-us-ill rationale. The scope of permitted scope simply becomes a majoritarian decision. At the same time, these professor are telling students that they legitimately fail mentally and physically threatened by being exposed to opposing views. If our students are becoming “snowflakes,” the below are the snow makers.

[Hastur]

A different approach to opposing views.

[de officiis]

A different approach to opposing views.

I still think it would be a good idea to have a national databank of shitty cops. They have one for doctors so they can't move from state to state, harming people. Bad cops lose their job in one city or county, they move to another state and start over. It's a huge part of why BLM got stated in the first place.