Category Archives: Freedom of speech

Words are not violence

From the James G. Martin Center for Academic Renewal,

In her recent New York Times article entitled “When Is Speech Violence?” Barrett contends that speech that “bullies and torments” ought to be prevented because “from the perspective of our brain cells,” it is “literally a form of violence.” She points to scientific findings showing that “Words can have a powerful effect on your nervous system. Certain types of adversity, even those involving no physical contact, can make you sick, alter your brain—even kill neurons—and shorten your life.”

Professor Barrett is a respected psychologist and she cites studies in neuroscience that support her statement that verbal abuse can bring on stress that causes physical damage. Let’s not question the science she cites. Let’s agree that she is correct in saying that chronic stress is bad for an individual, perhaps even life-shortening.

The problem is that there is no apparent connection between chronic stress and merely listening to someone speak, for a while, no matter how provocative his words may be. More.

Reality check: How did today’s pensioners get through all these years reading letters to the editor in a free press?

People who think words are violence tend to think that violence is words. Hence the SJW swinging the bicycle chain.

See also: Campus starts shovelling snowflakes off sidewalk


Trump condemns ‘anti-police agitators’ as clashes break out after FIFTEEN THOUSAND anti-fascist protesters gather in Boston to completely outnumber a handful of ‘free speech’ activists at rally

The city mayor had pleaded for counter-protesters to stay away, saying their presence would draw more attention to the far-right activists and could result in violence.

However, opponents of the right-wing took over the event, chanting anti-Nazi slogans and waving signs condemning white nationalism, in order to stand against what they thought could have turned into a platform for racist propaganda.


Tech companies continue efforts to banish extremist accounts

Apple is giving $1 million apiece to Southern Poverty Law Center and the Anti-Defamation League. The iPhone maker also will match employee donations to those two groups and other human rights organizations on a two-for-one basis.

Tech companies’ efforts to banish extremist groups and individuals are continuing as a social network popular with extremists disappeared from Google’s Android app store.

Gab had already been unavailable in Apple’s store, though it remains accessible on the web.

That sounds like a threat, or at the very least a call for action. Step 1 accomplished: Identify the enemy, and we can thank Trump for flushing them out.


It’s not just Google

From Ben Shapiro at Townhall:

Unfortunately, this philosophy of diversity before freedom or merit has run amok at many of America’s major companies. And it has an impact on product. YouTube has reportedly been restricting videos it deems controversial or inappropriate, and disproportionately targeting comics like Steven Crowder and educators like Dennis Prager. Facebook has taken steps in recent months to curb its own biases, but only after a blowup with conservatives who were angry at its apparent attempts to crack down on non-leftists. Twitter has banned or suspended conservatives for mysterious reasons that it has never applied to members of the left. More.

Reality check: Social media platforms other than Big Progressive are not yet illegal.

See also: Why left-wing Salon cannot pay its rent


Campus starts shovelling snowflakes off sidewalk

Marchers carrying Free Speech sign at UC Berkeley in 1964. This should provide 100% of the government recommended daily dose of irony.

From Rachelle Peterson at Campus Reform:

Claremont McKenna College has punished students who sought to prevent free speech; but what about the other schools in the Claremont Colleges?

Hold the beer though.

We should now turn our attention to the other six institutions that, along with Claremont McKenna College, make up the Claremont University Consortium: Pitzer College, Pomona College, Claremont Graduate University, Keck Graduate Institute, Harvey Mudd College, and Scripps College.

One hundred seventy students participated in the protest against Mac Donald. Claremont McKenna identified twelve of the 170 as its own students, of which it punished seven. The remainder 158 either could not be identified, or were not Claremont McKenna students.

Where did these other speech obstructors come from? According to CMC, some are students at the other Claremont consortium colleges. It claims to have sent the deans at these colleges “evidence of policy violations” by their students, and asked them “to review this evidence under their own conduct processes.” More.

Reality check: Deans? Review evidence? Haw. Haw. Haw.  Post-modernism is a war on evidence. Still, it’s important to honour those who fight back against the post-modern war on reality, however feebly, before it sinks the life of the mind. Without forgetting to drive the post-moderns from positions of power.

Malcolm Muggeridge used to say that fascism is a war on civilization and communism is a war on life. Post-modernism is a war on reality. Post-modern positions on various topics need not be in accord with logic, evidence, or even self-interest. You could say of the fascist or the communist that he is an amoral brute. But he tends to know his own interests. So his false statements can be read for their actual purpose.

Post-moderns want power for the sake of power – power that can be expressed without restraint or reserve in a world without intrinsic meaning where values change constantly and evidence is the enemy.

See also: Students think their loans are free The loans WILL be free, once Jackboot U graduates infiltrate the system and barter your right and mine to live in peace in exchange for loan forgiveness and cushy crat jobs. On the other hand, what if progressives never hold power again?


Adam Carolla and Ben Shapiro Testify Before Congress on Campus Free Speech

“Children are the future but we are the present” Carolla said. “We’re the adults.”

“We’re talking a lot about kids, and I think they’re just that—kids,” Carolla said. “We are the adults and we need to act like it.”

“These are 18- and 19-year-old kids that grew up dipped in Purell playing soccer games where they never kept score and watching Wow! Wow! Wubbzy!, and we’re asking them to be mature,” he said. “We need the adults to start being the adults.”


Canada’s Free-Speech Phobia

Islam-critic charged with “willful promotion of hatred.”

Ontario Attorney General Yasir Naqvi is charging blogger Kevin J. Johnston with one count of “willful promotion of hatred.” According to a Globe and Mail report, Johnston’s arrest followed a lengthy investigation of his online activism but news reports played up a recent story by the blogger, who operates the website.

In late April, after a head-on crash on Highway 3 near Windsor, police searched the Lexus in which Tariq Elamin and Satvir Singh were riding and found a sawed-off shotgun and .22 rifles. Police arrested the pair, now facing firearms charges, including possession of an illegal weapon and carrying a concealed weapon.

Johnston claimed the pair were Muslim “maniacs” and “on their way to kill people — shoot up St. Clair College,” in Windsor. Johnston cited “city staff” as his source but police and college officials deny any threat. A lawyer for Singh said Johnston’s video was “entirely fabricated” and “obviously racist.”


Silicon Valley Censorship

Only 12 %! I gotta try harder!

Google’s latest project is an application called Perspective, which, as Wired reports, brings the tech company “a step closer to its goal of helping to foster troll-free discussion online, and filtering out the abusive comments that silence vulnerable voices.” In other words, Google is teaching computers how to censor.

If Google’s plans are not quite Orwellian enough for you, the practical results are rather more frightening. Released in February, Perspective’s partners include the New York Times, the GuardianWikipedia and the Economist. Google, whose motto is “Do the Right Thing,” is aiming its bowdlerism at public comment sections on newspaper websites, but the potential is far broader.

Perspective works by identifying the “toxicity level” of comments published online. Google states that Perspective will enable companies to “sort comments more effectively, or allow readers to more easily find relevant information.” Perspective’s demonstration website currently allows anyone to measure the “toxicity” of a word or phrase, according to its algorithm. What, then, constitutes a “toxic” comment?

The organization with which I work, the Middle East Forum, studies Islamism. We work to tackle the threat posed by both violent and non-violent Islamism, assisted by our Muslim allies. We believe that radical Islam is the problem and moderate Islam is the solution.

Perspective does not look fondly at our work…


Video: Kevin Johnston arrested for “hate crime” under Section 319 (2)

He is unable, by court order, to relate specifics of the charge or to name his accuser. Nice country we live in huh?

Based on the following explanation of 319(2) I suspect the charges relate to Johnston’s “Reward Offer” to anyone filming a Muslim student spewing Koranic hate in a Mississauga school.

Section 319 (2)

Public incitement of hatred

319 (1) Every one who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Marginal note:Wilful promotion of hatred

(2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Marginal note:Defences

(3) No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2)

(a) if he establishes that the statements communicated were true;

(b) if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text;

(c) if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be true; or

(d) if, in good faith, he intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada.