Posts tagged ‘political speech’
Friday, September 9, 2022
August 26, 2022
August 19, 2022
Friday, August 15, 2022
August 4, 2022
Ann Coulter | Posted: Aug 03, 2022
The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Townhall.com, WhatDidYouSay.org.
Source: AP Photo/Ben Margot
It’s not every day that I praise a book by the former head of the American Civil Liberties Union, let alone the longest-serving president of that organization.
But I was delighted to have Nadine Strossen on my Substack recently to talk about her book, “HATE: Why We Should Resist It With Free Speech, Not Censorship” — and not just because I am one of America’s leading “hate speakers.” (Oh, settle down, girls. That’s according to woke college liberals, the only humans more infantile and narcissistic than Donald Trump.)
Her book is a thoroughgoing, no-holds-barred defense of free speech. This makes her the rarest of creatures: a principled liberal. We should get her DNA in a lab and study it.
Being a liberal herself, Strossen pitches her argument to the left. That’s fortunate, I’d say: These days, the most enthusiastic advocates for censorship are liberals.
Thus, she repeatedly notes that censorship has historically been used by the powerful to crush the “marginalized.”
I couldn’t agree more! On the other hand, the two of us have very different ideas about who’s “marginalized.” Strossen means feminists, gays, Muslims, blacks, Hispanics, immigrants, transgenders, nonbinaries and so on, whereas I mean everybody else, to wit: “cisgendered” white Americans.
Not a certified victim? Don’t even think of applying to Harvard, Princeton or Yale — unless you’ve made a spectacle of yourself carrying on about gun control. Don’t be funny, use hyperbole or engage in any conversation at all with bratty East Coast private-school kids on a college resume-building trip to Peru. (See Pulitzer Prize-winning science reporter Donald McNeil, fired by The New York Times for this reckless error.)
Every time I’d read a description of this or that “hate speech” ban in Strossen’s book, what leapt to mind wasn’t someone saying only women have two X chromosomes, but the nonstop venom that is directed at white people.
“Hate speech” has been defined as expression that is:
— “persecutorial, hateful and degrading”;
— “insulting [or] holding up to ridicule … specific groups”;
— “likely to expose” people to “hatred or contempt”: “unusually strong and deep-felt emotions of detestation, calumny and vilification” …
Throughout the country, white schoolchildren are being browbeaten about their “white privilege” and instructed to “unpack” their “white privilege knapsack.” Does that count?
How do you think it would go over if I wrote books with titles like: “Black Fragility,” “Dear Black People” and “The White Friend: On Being a Better Black Person.”
My guess is, not very well. And yet the Priests of High Culture at the Times have effusively — and repeatedly — praised books titled “White Fragility,” “Dear White People” and “The Black Friend: On Being a Better White Person.”
These, and dozens more with similar titles — “My Beautiful Black Hair,” “Why I’m No Longer Talking to White People About Race,” “Black Girl Magic” and on and on and on — do not bring their authors into disrepute. To the contrary, they are rewarded with instant fame, unbridled praise and immense wealth. (Naturally, their books are assigned reading in college courses throughout the nation.)
Is all this loathing for white people simply the cry of the powerless against the powerful?
Here’s some power for you: Since at least 1973, when Allan Bakke was rejected from the University of California Medical School at Davis with grades and scores that would have won him a fast-track admission had he been black, white Americans have been openly and aggressively discriminated against by the government — and with even greater zeal by corporate America.
White people, if I may call you that, you suck at oppression.
Making both my point and hers, Strossen says that wherever hate speech laws have been tried, it’s the “marginalized” — not the “oppressors” — who get nailed.
Duh. People who think it’s cool to publish books with titles like “Why I’m No Longer Talking to White People About Race” don’t exactly exude sweetness and light when talking to actual white people.
Thanks to the University of Michigan being forced to release documents in response to an ACLU lawsuit challenging its “hate speech” code in the late 1980s, Strossen reveals that, during the brief time it was in effect, more than 20 cases were brought against black people for racist speech.
The “irony” of hate speech laws being applied to the people who engage in most of the hate speech has led law professor Charles Lawrence to argue for “hate speech” codes that would apply only to those “in dominant majority groups,” i.e., white people.
See? To me, that sounds like the rule of an “oppressor.”
But like Strossen, I believe in free speech. It’s not the “hate speech” that bothers me; it’s the physical violence and intentional race discrimination against white Americans that’s beginning to get on my nerves.
July 29, 2022
Monday, July 18, 2022
Friday, July 15, 2022
July 9, 2022
July 6, 2022
July 1, 2022
June 29, 2022
June 24, 2022
June 20, 2022
Friday, June 17, 2022
June 13, 2022
June 10, 2022
June 7, 2022
June 3, 2022
June 2, 2022
June 1, 2022
May 26, 2022
May 21, 2022
Friday, May 20, 2022
May 17, 2022
May 13, 2022
May 10, 2022
Wednesday May 4, 2022
April 29, 2022
Reported By Michael Gryboski, Mainline Church Editor | Thursday, April 28, 2022
Three Christian college students have sued the University of Idaho for alleged wrongful punishment for expressing traditional views on marriage and sexual ethics on campus. Students Peter Perlot, Mark Miller and Ryan Alexander of the Christian Legal Society sued the university in the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho, Central Division on Monday.
The defendants named in the suit include University President C. Scott Green, Dean of Students Brian Eckles, Office of Civil Rights & Investigations Director Erin Agidius and OCRI Deputy Director Lindsay Ewan. According to the lawsuit, the three students went to an LGBT event on campus seeking to represent a biblical perspective on marriage and sexuality. When a student approached to ask their views, they offered their perspectives and gave the student a note expressing an interest in continuing the dialogue. Soon after, however, the Christian students were given “no-contact orders” from the OCRI, which prohibited them from communicating with the student.
“The CLS members did not receive notice that anyone had complained about them and were not given an opportunity to review the allegations against them or defend themselves,” according to the suit.
“Instead of allowing the students to disagree civilly and respectfully with one another and to discuss these important issues, the University chose instead to censor Plaintiffs.”
The students are being represented by Alliance Defending Freedom, a law firm that has argued religious liberty cases at the U.S. Supreme Court on numerous occasions. ADF Legal Counsel Michael Ross said in a statement released Tuesday that he believed students “must be free to discuss and debate the important issues of our day, especially law students who are preparing for a career that requires civil dialogue among differing viewpoints.”
“Yet the University of Idaho is shutting down Peter, Mark, and Ryan because of their religious beliefs. This is illegal behavior from any government official, and we urge the university officials to right their discriminatory actions immediately,” Ross stated.
Jodi Walker, the university’s senior communication’s director, told The Christian Post that the academic institution “cannot discuss pending litigation or specific student cases.”
Walker explained that the no-contact order was “a supportive measure available to a student under Title IX” and that “these supportive measures must be enacted” when a student requests them.
“When a complaint is made that qualifies under Title IX, the university must make the student aware of the supportive measures available,” noted Walker.
Walker directed CP to a July 2021 guidance document from the U.S. Department of Education titled “Questions and Answers on the Title IX Regulations on Sexual Harassment.”
Under the question on “supportive measures,” the guidance explained that schools have “discretion and flexibility to determine which supportive measures are appropriate.”
“The preamble states that a school must consider ‘each set of unique circumstances’ to determine what individualized services would be appropriate based on the ‘facts and circumstances of that situation,’” stated the guidance.
April 20, 2022
April 13, 2022
Friday April 8, 2022
Tuesday, April 5, 2022
March 14, 2022
March 11, 2022
Monday, February 28, 2022
Friday, February 25, 2022