Category Archives: Freedom of speech

Marni Soupcoff: Canadians should be envious of the U.S.’ liberal approach to controversial speech

The United States Supreme Court ruled this week that the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects a band’s right to trademark an “offensive” name. It was a victory for Asian-American dance-rockers The Slants, who meant their name to be a progressive provocation rather than a disparaging slur (although the word has been used to negatively stereotype Asians).

But does the group’s intent even matter? The U.S. Supreme Court struck down the entire federal law that prohibited registering trademarks that could be deemed disparaging.


Google’s YouTube – Soap Box for Terrorists

In mid-March this year, major companies began withdrawing or reducing advertising from Google Inc., the owner of YouTube, for allowing their brand names to pop up alongside videos promoting jihad, a new report released on June 15 by the Middle East Research Media Institute (MEMRI) reveals.

According to the report — which documents the failure of Google to remove jihadi content that MEMRI volunteered to assist in flagging — thus far, AT&T, Verizon, Johnson & Johnson, Enterprise Holdings and GSK are among the companies pulling their ads from the platform. Google responded by promising to be more aggressive in ensuring brand safety of ad placements.

Then came the Westminster attack. On March 22, 2017, Khalid Masood rammed his car into pedestrians — killing four people and wounding dozens of others – then stabbed an unarmed police officer to death.

YouTube is a bad joke, I rarely use it any longer.


Germany vs. Twitter

Hamburg, Germany — Heiko Maas may be about to learn where the road being paved with his good intentions will lead. A Social Democrat and the current federal justice minister, he has announced ambitious plans to rid the internet of abusive and offensive language. His plans have incited concern in the German offices of Twitter and Facebook and may ensure that he goes into history books as the politician who brought the curtain down on free speech on social media in Germany.


Watch Out: U.S. Trying to Criminalize Free Speech – Again

On April 4, 2017, the US Senate passed Senate Resolution 118, “Condemning hate crime and any other form of racism, religious or ethnic bias, discrimination, incitement to violence, or animus targeting a minority in the United States”. The resolution was drafted by a Muslim organization, EmgageUSA (formerly EmergeUSA) and the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC). On April 6, 2017, EmgageUSA wrote the following on their Facebook page:

“Thanks to the hard work of Senator Marco Rubio, Senator Dianne Feinstein, Senator Susan Collins and Senator Kamala Harris we have achieved the approval of Senate Resolution 118, an anti-hate crimes bill drafted by Emerge-USA. It is days like this that Americans are reminded of this country’s founding principles: equal opportunity, freedom, justice. We are proud to help support the protection of these rights #amoreperfectunion #theamericandream”.

This is ugly.


Why not just sue Shuddup U?

From Greg Lukianoff at Huffington Post:

The 10 Worst Colleges For Free Speech: 2017

Since FIRE’s first “worst of the worst” list was released in 2011, the number of colleges and universities with the most restrictive speech codes has declined. However, 92 percent of American colleges still maintain speech codes that either clearly restrict—or could too easily be used to restrict—free speech. Students still find themselves corralled into absurdly-named “free speech zones,” taxed when they invite speakers deemed “controversial” by administrators, or even anonymously reported on by their fellow students when their speech is subjectively perceived to be “biased.”

The average person muzzled on a college campus is often an everyday college student or faculty member: someone who wants to chat about politics, a student who confides in a friend about their own mental health concerns, or a group of students that simply want to discuss free speech controversies with their peers.More.

Reality check: But why not initiate lawsuits? Like many Canadians, I am not a fan of lawsuits. I hate hearing people whine, especially for profit. BUT if I were a teacher terrorized by the Evergreen branch of The Dockside Bully, Inc., I might sue on the grounds that the campus administration exposed me to this risk by failure to insist on “scholarly comportment”* among students.

* Or has no one else ever heard the term “scholarly comportment,” as I heard it from my U teachers fifty years ago?

See also: Post-modernism: Smug science prof, you are next What made you think you were immune? Post-modernism is a universal acid.


Aligned with Sarsour, NYC Mayor De Blasio sabotages AFDI CUNY Protest

It’s one thing to side with the enemy, it’s quite another when you employ the full force of government to persecute and silence your enemies. De Blasio stood with the Sandanistas, “Palestinians” and Castro’s Cuba. He’s a corrupt communist, he knows no other way.


But why did anyone think it was about being gay anyway?

From Tom Knighton at PJ Media:

The latest example is a name many of us are unfamiliar with. Chadwick Moore did a profile of Milo for the gay magazine Out, and writes for various other gay-interest publications. This didn’t buy him any credence with the Left, as his speech at Portland State University was just targeted:

The student group that put on the event, Freethinkers of PSU, is reportedly a non-partisan student group. They reported that they attempted to place flyers for the event with PSU’s Queer Resource Center, but were denied.

Meanwhile, flyers described as promoting socialism were permitted.

Get it? If you don’t have the right politics, you’re not really gay. More.

Reality check: No. But so what? It was never about being gay. It was about giving a global elite their chance to remake us all into their utopia. The students, Orwell’s Outer Party, implicitly understand that. The rest  of the job is getting the union stiffs to babble along and, incidentally, suppress dissent.

See, when they shut you up, you think it’s a big deal. But they don’t. It’s just another routine job a union civil service stiff is supposed to do.

See also: Tim Allen hit cancelled: Media today are often not even seeking popularity. They hope to soon be able to enforce it by enlisting government in a war on alternatives.


Don’t expect a quick end to the war on free speech The momentum of the campaign will be hard to stop

From Denyse O’Leary at MercatorNet: Here are four reasons why the war against freedom will not just somehow lose itself, without our taking any action:

2. Progressive academics are training “child soldiers” to carry out their revolution against intellectual freedom. Put simply, they are teaching their rioting students attitudes, values, and beliefs that guarantee failure in work and healthy relationships.

Reader, would you want, as a colleague, someone who put a middle-aged woman professor at Middlebury College in the hospital ? No? Then think what your answer means. In an age when most graduates face job shortages, students who have been encouraged in transgressive behaviour must simply continue their “revolution” off campus. That may be all they know how to do. Hardest hit, incidentally will be the disadvantaged students who lacked social confidence and firm guidance early in life. As so often, social justice gurus do the most harm to the people who are least able to evade them. More.

See also: The war on intellectual freedom: How political correctness morphed into a monster.

The war on freedom is rotting our intellectual life: In a world governed by naturalism, power is its own justification. That is the single hardest thing for opponents of rampant political correctness to grasp.


When professors stifle freedom of thought: These protest movements are not 1960s retro; they are a flat-out war on reality, conducted by seasoned veterans with a lot at stake.


North Carolina high school confiscates every yearbook, claiming white female student’s ‘build that wall’ quote is ‘inappropriate’

Its staff recalled its senior yearbooks this week after a screenshot of one female student’s photograph and quote appeared on social media, sparking accusations from critics that the state is ‘racist’.

Teachers now say that the remark amounted to ‘inappropriate conduct’ which it would not ‘tolerate’.

“Thou shalt not quote the President”