Search
Archives

You are currently browsing the archives for the Censorship category.

Categories

Archive for the ‘Censorship’ Category

This article is proof that Keith Ellison hates the Constitution, especially the First Amendment. It’s also proof that he’s unfit to be Minnesota’s chief law enforcement officer, aka state Attorney General.

The article notes that Ellison is “demanding that Amazon censor books and other materials produced by organizations listed by the Southern Poverty Law Center as hate groups.” That’s a frightening insight into Ellison’s thinking on multiple levels. First, it’s disturbing that the man who wants to be Minnesota’s attorney general thinks that censorship is a foundational constitutional principle. Hate speech is protected by the First Amendment except if it incites violence. It doesn’t make much sense to have an attorney general who hates constitutionally protected civil rights.

Next. it’s disturbing, though not surprising, that Ellison thinks that the SPLC is a reputable arbiter of right and wrong. Here’s a couple snippets from Ellison’s censorship letter:

Click to enlarge.

Later in the letter is something that’s definitely chilling:

As stated earlier, Amazon has a strict policy against hateful and racist products on its platform. The availability of all the material listed in the aforementioned report indicates to me that either Amazon is willfully refusing to enforce its own policies against the sale of racist products or its sheer size make it impossible for the company to police itself. In either event, Amazon must immediately cease doing business with groups that promote racist violence.

It’s apparent that Ellison hasn’t hesitated in using his official capabilities to intimidate companies into outright censorship.

Any legal eagle that’s anti-civil rights is disqualified to be Minnesota’s attorney general.

Last night, the St. Cloud City Council disgraced itself by silencing a citizen. Specifically, Councilman John Libert, who is up for re-election this year, objected to Councilman Jeff Johnson recognizing a speaker. If you read my article last night, you know that the speaker Councilman Johnson wanted to recognize is John Palmer, a retired professor at St. Cloud State. Dr. Palmer holds the title of Professor Emeritus.

Last night, a faithful reader of LFR sent me a copy of the changing rules of order for the City Council. Saying that they reflect an autocratic mindset sounds over-the-top. The history and the detailed rules say something else. For instance, Rule No. 16 of the City Council Rules of Order “through August 2017” said “Recognition of Speakers a) Any member may recognize any person for the purpose of addressing the Council. Said recognition shall terminate upon motion passed by a majority vote of members present.”

By the Dec. 11, 2017 Study Session, Rule 16 had morphed into “Recognition of Speakers: a) Any member, at a regular council meeting, may recognize any person for the purpose of providing testimony or addressing the Council on a specific agenda item being considered by Council. Said recognition shall terminate upon motion passed by a majority vote of members present. Such recognition may also be extended at council study sessions with the consent of the majority of members present.”

Last night, a different rule was in place:

Recognition of Speakers: a) Any member, at a regular council meeting, including study sessions, may recognize any person, without objection, for the purpose of providing testimony or addressing the Council on a specific agenda item being considered by Council. Said recognition shall terminate upon motion passed by a majority vote of members present.

The First Amendment guarantees citizens the right to “peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Dr. Palmer had the right to “petition the Government” and address their grievances. Had this happened in August, Dr. Palmer would have had the right to address the Council, though I suspect that Council President Lewis still would have improperly shut him down. She, along with the other ostriches, haven’t hesitated in restricting citizens’ speech rights if it’s speech they don’t agree with. What’s most infuriating is the fact that the rules that were in place last night weren’t approved by the City Council nor were they voted on in this form.

Think about that. Dr. Palmer was silenced by the city council president after she agreed with one of the city councilmembers who cited a rule that wasn’t voted on and that’s likely unconstitutional. Such reckless regard for the rules lead to anarchy like we saw last night. This is what that looked like last night:

Compare the St. Cloud City Council’s behavior with the behavior in this article:

“I feel like justice was finally served,” said Robin Hensel, whose refusal to move her chair at a 2013 Little Falls City Council meeting was at the heart of the court’s decision. Hensel, a grandmother and peace activist who frequently protests at Camp Ripley, said she never thought she would actually get charged when she moved a folding chair to the open space between the public galley and the City Council’s dais.

This is the major takeaway from that incident:

In its ruling Wednesday, the Supreme Court sided with Hensel, saying: “The statute is broad and ambiguous, prohibiting any conduct or speech that ‘disturbs an assembly or meeting,’ whether expressive or not. An individual could violate the statute by, for example, wearing an offensive t-shirt, using harsh words in addressing another person, or even raising one’s voice in a speech.”

The Founding Fathers, aka the men who wrote the Constitution, wanted more speech, not less. They didn’t want speech being oppressed. They rebelled against that in their Declaration of Independence.

When Carol Lewis and John Libert silenced a retired professor, they trampled on a citizen’s right to free speech. What’s most alarming is that they silenced a man even though they didn’t know what he was about to say. It’s time to fire these autocrats the next time they’re up for re-election. It’s time to fire them because they’re autocrats, not constitutionalists.

Finally, Mayor Kleis bears some responsibility, too. As Dr. Palmer highlighted in the comments last night, Mayor Kleis didn’t fight against the constitutional missteps that happened last night. That can’t happen again. There’s never a time when the Constitution shouldn’t be defended. Last night, Mayor Kleis missed an opportunity to defend the Constitution.

Technorati: , , , , ,

The city of Cambridge, MA, has a fight on its hands, thanks to their attempt to silence one of Elizabeth Warren’s opponents. Shiva Ayyadurai is suing the city because “Ayyadurai called the city’s order to remove the signs ‘a political vendetta by city officials who are supporters of Elizabeth Warren.'”

The lawsuit comes after Cambridge’s building inspector said there were a ‘series of anonymous complaints’ about the signs. Branden Vigneault, the inspector, said the signs were posted without permits and violated a zoning ordinance. Ayyadurai faces $300 for each day the signs don’t come down as well as potential legal action. But Ayyadurai said the signs are not going anywhere and tried to make it a matter of free speech.

First and foremost, the fines are likely unenforceable because they violate the First Amendment. Cities, counties and townships have been attempting to silence political speech through ordinances like this for years. The Supreme Court has consistently ruled these impediments unconstitutional because they’re thinly-veiled attempts at censorship.

What touched off this firestorm is this advertising:

Elizabeth Warren frequently complains about how life is rigged against the common man. How isn’t this rigging the system against her opponent? Then again, doesn’t Warren really mean that life isn’t rigged enough to her preference?

This is an attempt at censorship to save Sen. Warren some embarrassment for making dishonest statements. Pocahontas shouldn’t be protected against prior foolish decisions.

When I read this article, it confirmed that our schools have failed us. Here’s what happened:

New Prague High School senior Andy Dalsin held a poster during the protest which said “Gun Don’t Kill People. People Kill People.” Principal Lonnie Seifert was having none of it, however. Seifert even threatened Dalsin with being hauled away by the police if he didn’t comply.

That’s just the start of it. Things quickly devolved:

Seifert claims he was just going by district policy, according to KSTP-5. In a statement, the district said “such items [as Dalsin’s] must be submitted to and reviewed by school administration at least 24 hours in advance.”

That’s an unenforceable policy because the First Amendment protects such speech. In fact, when the Supreme Court gutted McCain-Feingold, part of the reason for SCOTUS striking it down was because the bill told people when they could and couldn’t run advertising against candidates. This isn’t exactly on point but it’s close.

First, who gave Principal Seifert the constitutional authority to accept or reject communications of any sort? Next, why is expressing a contrarian opinion on another of our civil rights unacceptable? Didn’t the Founding Fathers put the First Amendment into the Bill of Rights to protect contrarian communications? I’ve said this before but I’ll repeat it again — there’s no need to protect non-controversial speech because everyone agrees with it. Finally, the First Amendment implicitly states that nobody in government has the authority to accept or reject student communications.

Further, Dailywire.com added to the story saying:

The video was first posted to Facebook by Kenny MacDonald, a student at New Prague High School in New Prague, Minnesota. The short video does not show what took place before or after the principal singled-out the student. In the post, MacDonald provided the following account of what took place:

Kids at our school today walked out, in honor of the 17 students killed in Florida. Students held signs that said, “Arm our teachers” they had two signs. A student walked out without saying a word peacefully put up his sign which said “guns don’t kill people, people kill people” he was escorted off the property by our principal and threatened to be put into a police car. This violates the first amendment and makes me sick that they can do whatever they want. Please make this go viral

It went viral alright:

Within a few hours, the video had already been viewed nearly 300,000 times, shared over 17,000 times, and received thousands of comments from people who expressed anger and disgust over the suppression of free speech and political indoctrination at public schools.

Then there’s this:

It’s appalling to read that “New Prague Area Schools fully respects and recognizes that students have free speech rights. Those rights, however, are to be balanced against the District’s responsibility to maintain a school environment focused on education.”

New Prague Area Schools obviously doesn’t respect students’ free speech rights because it threatened a student if he didn’t remove his sign. Further, a student’s First Amendment rights aren’t “balanced against the District’s responsibility to maintain a school environment focused on education.” A student’s First Amendment rights are to be balanced against the constitutional tests established by the Supreme Court. In literally hundreds of cases, the Supreme Court (and other appellate courts) have ruled against restrictions placed on people by city governments and school districts.

Finally, it’s frightening that a high school principal has such a flimsy understanding of the First Amendment. The School Board should order him to take an online class on the Constitution and the Bill of Rights from Hillsdale College. Principal Seifert’s understanding of the Constitution is embarrassing.

Technorati: , , , ,

It’s been well-reported that the Edina Public Schools have implemented an indoctrination agenda. This Strib hit piece attempts to discredit those reports.

According to the Strib’s hit piece, “many parents and school board members dismissed the piece for providing little context and cherry-picking data.” That’s nonsense. Dictionary.com’s definition for cherrypicking is “to select with great care.” That isn’t what’s happening. Conservative students have testified in front of legislative committees. One of those students, Tatum Buyse, said during her testimony “The environment at school is so political. Everything is viewed as comparing white versus black when all I want to do is be a high-schooler.”

That’s just the tip of the iceberg. This article tells the story of Edina High School’s hostility towards conservatives:

Last month, some students sat in protest during the playing of taps and the national anthem in a Veterans Day assembly, the lawsuit says. Members of the Young Conservatives Club were outraged and took to Twitter to express that, according to a statement by the students who filed suit.

Members of the club also sent private chat messages among themselves that contained disparaging remarks about other students, including Somali-Americans. Those were made public in a YouTube video from an Edina High “anti-fascist” group, which demanded an apology. Afterward, school leaders revoked the Young Conservatives Club’s status as a school-sponsored organization, said attorney Erick Kaardal, who’s representing the students: Nick Spades, Elizabeth Ebner, Jazmine Edmond, Tatum Buyse and Ana Doval.

I’d argue that it’s difficult to “select with great care” episodes that apparently happen with great frequency. Further, I’d love hearing the Edina Public School’s explanation for revoking the Young Conservatives Club’s status as a school-sponsored organization. BTW, that’s a lawsuit EPS will lose.

Contained in John Hinderaker’s post is this information:

This one is from a student:

The day after the election I was texting my mom to pick me up from school and she almost had to!! Every teacher was crying in class, one even told the whole class “Trump winning is worse than 9/11 and the Columbine shooting.” The amount of liberal propaganda that was pushed every single day in class this year was worse than it’s ever been–and you’re bullied by the teachers and every student if you dare speak against it.
Yeah its horrible, the teachers can absolutely do whatever they want. The administration will do nothing about it!! The day of the election every single student was in the commons chanting “F*** TRUMP” and the teachers never did anything. A LOT of people are starting to complain and my mom has some friends who are leaving the school district.

A parent describes her daughter being abused in class in an email to a school administrator:

In talking with [my daughters], it came out that yesterday in my 10th grader’s AP World class, [the teacher] called out any Trump supporters and asked them to assure the class that they weren’t racist. Both my husband and I were aghast and we felt strongly that we should say something to you. … Yesterday’s incident in her class really surprised us as it is so completely inappropriate and unprofessional. If you talk with [the teacher] about this, please don’t mention my daughter. She doesn’t want to be identified for fear of retribution.

It sounds like this retaliation is pretty widespread. It’s difficult to cherry-pick information when it’s this plentiful. Mr. Hinderaker expresses his thoughts in this presentation:

Almost 10 minutes into his presentation, Mr. Hinderaker listed a series of statements. The anti-conservative hostility was described as “pervasive.” Based on the information in the presentation, I’d consider that description indisputable. FYI- the definition of pervasive is “spread throughout.”

Please take the time to watch Mr. Hinderaker’s entire presentation. I did and I’m glad I did.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , ,

U of M President Eric Kaler is blatantly biased against conservatives. He’s quoted as saying “We are … mindful of the fact that he is a controversial speaker and that at several places where he’s spoken, protests have objected, and we intend to ensure the event is safe for all who attend.” That’s dizzying spin and then some. Ben Shapiro isn’t controversial to anyone that’s mainstream. Period. That President Kaler thinks he’s controversial because a bunch of left wing anarchists say he’s controversial indicates that Kaler is either an intellectual lightweight or that he’s a far left sympathizer.

PS- I’m tired that academicians immediately cave the minute far left anarchists (like Antifa and Black Lives Matter) threaten to protest. The thought that Ben Shapiro is controversial is laughable.

The U of M didn’t move Elizabeth Warren’s speech when she spoke there. She’s significantly more controversial than Shapiro. That’s because conservatives cherish free speech while anarchists don’t. That’s verified in this:

He said that in a harshly critical review in The Washington Post of a new book, “Must We Defend Nazis?: Why the First Amendment Should Not Protect Hate Speech and White Supremacy.” In that book, authors Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic advocate what Dershowitz says amounts to a “free speech for me, but not for thee” credo favoring the left.

Further, that’s a wimp’s excuse. If the U of M won’t stand up to these anarchists/rioters, they’ll continue disrupting events. They’ll keep censoring conservatives with a publicized threat.

What’s required is for the U of M, starting with President Kaler, to grow a pair and stand up to these anarchists. Have lots of security for the event. If the anarchists get out of hand, arrest them and prosecute them to the maximum extent allowed. If some of them get convicted of felonies and it ruins their lives, so be it.

Further, these aren’t kids. They’re adults. If they won’t act like it, put them in prison and teach them that society won’t tolerate their spoiled brat behavior. But I digress.

I couldn’t put it better than this:

Wittingly or unwittingly, university administrators are often complicit in the suppression of conservative speech on campus, cloaking it in a concern for public safety.

The article continues, saying:

The University of Washington sought to charge the College Republicans group a $17,000 security fee, but was blocked from doing so by U.S. District Court Judge Marsha Pechman, who held that such an exorbitant fee would effectively shut down the group’s free speech rights.

Free speech shouldn’t cost $17,000, especially when public safety wouldn’t have been an issue at all were it not for the intolerant, violent left. Pechman, a 1999 judicial appointee of President Bill Clinton, rightly vetoed what effectively would have been a heckler’s veto.

That’s fantastic. It’s time to veto the heckler’s veto. It’s time to tell these punks that they won’t get their way just because they’re threatening conservative events.

I’d love hearing President Kaler’s explanation of whether this is controversial:

The U of M (and other universities) need to grow a pair.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , ,

When I wrote this post, I hadn’t heard of Hannah Scherlacher. When I finish writing this post, Sen. Franken will wish he’d never heard of Hannah. In my post, I wrote about Sen. Franken’s reliance on ratings from the Southern Poverty Law Center, aka the SPLC, during Amy Coney-Barrett’s confirmation hearing. To hear Sen. Franken tell it, SPLC is a neutral arbiter of who is qualified to be a federal judge. The truth is that SPLC is a bunch of bottom-feeding low-lifes who have stockpiled tons of cash in accounts in the Caribbean.

Sen. Franken, what part of that sounds legitimate? But I digress.

Hannah’s op-ed questions SPLC’s integrity from a personal standpoint. In her op-ed, Hannah wrote “It’s an understatement to say that I was dumbfounded as to how I ended up on the Southern Poverty Law Center’s (SPLC) LGBTQ hate-list — I have never said or done anything to indicate hate for the LGBTQ community. When I called to inquire, SPLC informed me that I am guilty because I did a radio interview with Family Research Council Radio (FRC). I am a program coordinator for The Leadership Institute’s Campus Reform. org. The segment was about socialism, but because FRC holds traditional family values, I was labeled an LGBT-hater just for being a guest on the show. No LGBT topics even came-up.”

Sen. Franken, have you no shame?

What US senator would rely on sloppily-gathered information from a bunch of bottom-feeders like the SPLC? Ms. Scherlacher’s sin was to do an interview with the Family Research Council, an organization whose mission statement states that their “mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a Christian worldview” and whose vision “is a culture in which all human life is valued, families flourish, and religious liberty thrives.”

The FRC’s vision and mission earned it a spot on SPLC’s hate map. That’s significant because that map has helped cause physical pain:

Reckless and irresponsible hate-labeling not only stifles free speech and expression, it empowers and emboldens vicious groups and individuals to violently attack people. Consider the 2012 Family Research Council shooting, when a man walked into the organization’s office in Washington, D.C., with 100 rounds of ammunition and 15 Chick-fil-A sandwiches. He planned to kill as many staff members as possible and smear the sandwiches in their faces. He said he chose his target based on SPLC’s Hate Map.

This is more than ironic:

Nowhere is the danger more real than on our college campuses where Antifa, By Any Means Necessary, and other domestic terror groups (which are not found on any SPLC hate list) now feel emboldened to attack conservative students and shut down events under the guise of, ironically, fighting fascism, hate and white supremacism.

Some of the organizations found on the SPLC’s Hate Map are legitimate hate groups. It’s indisputable that the KKK, Holocaust deniers and the Skinheads deserve to be on that map. Being a traditional values Christian shouldn’t land a person on SPLC’s hate map, though.

I’ll close this post with Hannah’s closing argument:

Groups like the SPLC threaten our constitutional rights and the very fabric that makes this nation great. We need to start pushing back. If this trend of bullying and ostracizing anyone with a different opinion continues, we can only expect a chilling, mob-rule effect and the suppression of speech and ideas in this country.

I am calling on SPLC to remove me from this list and stop engaging in the game of identity fear politics. I urge all Americans who have been bullied, silenced, and pushed into a corner by radical groups like the Southern Poverty Law Center to push back too.

Amen, Hannah.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

There isn’t much dispute that Antifa’s tactics are similar to those of a domestic terrorist organization. First Amendment advocates’ arguments just got strengthened thanks to Antifa’s public stalking of the Berkeley College Republicans, aka BCRs.

According to Campus Reform’s article, it’s indisputable that Antifa’s chief tactics are bullying and intimidation. Campus Reform’s article starts with “Conservative students at the University of California, Berkeley have been actively stalked and targeted by a regional Antifa organization known for inciting violence. While the Berkeley College Republicans met at a local restaurant Wednesday evening, Berkeley Antifa took to Twitter to post the exact location of the student group online. “Antifa has taken pictures of me, followed me on the street, and tracked my location using social media. BCR meeting right now inside Eureka at 2068 Center St after drinking with Kyle Chapman and Joey Gibson at Fashy’s, I mean, Pappy’s,’ the Antifa organization tweeted. ‘Inside right now is Troy Worden, Ashton Whitty, Naweed Tahmas, Matt Ronnau, Angelie Castenada, and two others.'”

Lately, the radical Left’s 2 major weapons against free speech are the Southern Poverty Law Center, aka SPLC, and Antifa. Anyone that thinks Antifa isn’t a domestic terrorist organization needs to read this:

In late August, Ashton Whitty, one of the conservative students at the university, was stalked by several Antifa demonstrators who approached her at a gas station and pummeled her vehicle as she fled the scene. “Antifa has taken pictures of me, they’ve followed me on the street, and have tracked my location using social media,” Whitty told Campus Reform. “It’s rather odd why these people would see us as such a priority when we’re just everyday people.”

This video captures what happened to Ms. Whitty:

Antifa’s tactics are different than SPLC’s but their goal is the same: silence conservative voices through any means necessary. This is frightening:

Anyone that thinks the Democratic Party’s hardline lefties are capable of being reasoned with is foolish. Yes, that includes Sen. McCain. He wants to cut deals with people who’ve praised Antifa. Sen. McCain wants to cut deals with senators who’ve relied on the SPLC’s input on judicial nominees.

Anyone that cites the SPLC as a neutral arbiter of judicial nominees is nuttier than a fruit cake. If only I could find someone who’d recently trusted the SPLC:

Sen. Franken actually said that SPLC “tracks hate groups.” Watching the video of the young lady who was labeled by the SPLC as enabling hate for doing an interview with Tony Perkins on the subject of socialism hints that the SPLC doesn’t track hate groups. It is a hate group.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , ,

Rather than being called the University of California-Berkeley, the school should be renamed the University of Censorship-Berkeley. This Campus Reform article highlights just how ridiculous things have gotten.

According to the article, “On Sunday, conservative provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos attempted to follow through on his promise to speak at Berkeley despite the decision of the Berkeley Patriot, a student organization that had agreed to sponsor the Free Speech Week, to pull its support from the 4-day event, citing pressure from the university. In a letter to Berkeley’s Interim Vice Chancellor Stephen Sutton posted online by Yiannopoulos, the attorneys representing the Berkeley Patriot threatened legal action against the university for allegedly failing ‘to protect our students from physical assault and vandalism,’ threatening students with a ‘hate crime’ investigation, and several other grievances. ‘The intent of the threat was clear: Cease speaking out or face criminal investigation,’ the attorneys wrote. ‘Well, our clients’ heard the Chancellor’s threat. They will be quiet, for now.’ You are further notified that our clients are contemplating initiating litigation against the responsible parties and the administration for violation of our clients civil rights,’ the attorneys also warned.”

That’s quite a story. The birthplace of the free speech movement now threatens people it disagrees with criminal investigations. If that doesn’t sound like the tactics of a fascist state to you, it’s time for you to hit the books. That’s definitely one of the tactics a fascist state would employ.

Berkeley isn’t part of the free speech movement. They’re just another mindless liberal institution that’s been infiltrated by anti-American thinking. How the mighty have fallen.

A generation ago, the Democratic Party was a legitimate political party. It isn’t anymore. Today’s Democrats have gone so far around the bend that even lifelong Democrats have started backpedalling … fast. Jim Geraghty’s column illustrates just how foolish the Democratic Party is. What caught my attention is the paragraph that says “The Democratic party’s leaders haven’t changed their methods, either. They denounced Trump and his ‘Deplorables’ and the rest of the Republican party in the most furious terms in 2016, but that didn’t produce the results they wanted. In 2017, Democrats decided to just keep on doing that, but with more profanity.”

Later, Geraghty wrote “After 2016, one might have expected Democrats to reconsider their full embrace of identity politics. Instead they’ve doubled down. Instead of examining why so many voters in so many states rejected their arguments and philosophies, many within the academy and universities greeted 2017 by insisting even more adamantly that freedom of speech is dangerous and that you should be threatened or violently assaulted if you express a view they disagree with. Instead of giving the lecturing speeches at awards shows a break, Hollywood celebrities are becoming even more politically outspoken and strident, and even more openly contemptuous of roughly half their audience.”

Rational people wouldn’t think that Sending rioters to a congressman’s front steps isn’t a way to prove you’re rational, either:

These tactics might help fire up the Democratic Party’s bi-coastal base but they won’t help flip any of the districts or states that they’ll need to retake the House, Senate or the White House. Republicans will increase their margin in the Senate, thereby marginalizing John McCain, Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski and Rand Paul. Republicans will maintain their House majority, too. Most importantly, they’ll have net gains in terms of governorships, state legislators and total control of state governments.

This isn’t because Republicans are doing a great job. I’ve repeatedly said that they aren’t. It’s because Democrats are doing a great job frightening people, either with violence or unaffordable ideas like Medicare for All.

Next November, Democrats will gather somewhere to question what went wrong … again. The Media Wing of the Democratic Party won’t accept the fact that they’re hurting the Democratic Party. The Bernie Sanders/Elizabeth Warren wing of the Democratic Party won’t figure it out that their policies don’t appeal to many people. Instead, they’ll think that the enthusiasm that their supporters show are proof that they’re on the right track. They’ll be wrong … again.