Free Speech

CUNY Law Students Shout ‘F*ck the Law’, Try to Shut Down Conservative Guest Lecturer

Students at the City University of New York School of Law tried to shut down a guest lecture from South Texas College of Law Professor Josh Blackman this week. Professor Blackman, who was named to Forbes‘ “30 under 30” for “Law and Policy,” spoke this week at the CUNY School of Law. Blackman was scheduled to give a lecture entitled “Importance of Free Speech on Campus.” Blackman was met with a horde of protesters shouting “shame on you!” when he went to enter the event room. “You wrote that I supported the president’s decision to rescind DACA. I actually support the DREAM act. I actually think the DREAM act is a good piece of legislation…my position is that the policy itself is not consistent with the rule of law, which teaches a lesson: you can support something as a matter of policy but then find out that the law doesn’t permit it.” “Fuck the law,” one protester shouted. “It’s a bizarre thing to say, ‘Fuck the law,’ when you are in law school,” Blackman responded. Shortly after Blackman began his speech, the protesters dispersed. Many left the room and a few stayed behind and engaged in a back and forth with Blackman. One protester held a sign that read “oppressors are not welcome here,” while he pressed Blackman on his views on various topics. Blackman claimed in his blog post that the student protesters who left the event marched over to the dean’s office to complain that they allowed the event to take place. Only a few students attended the event. In his blog post, Blackman explained that some students were pressured by their peers into skipping the event. “I learned that some students were either ashamed, or intimidated, and did not want to be seen as attending the event,” Blackman wrote. “A number of students thanked me after the event, and explained that conservative speech is stifled on campus not by the faculty, but by the students. The students swarm on anyone who does not toe the progressive line.”

Typical liberal, college “snowflakes..”  They’re all for free speech…until you say something they don’t agree with.  Then, they want to censor you, and intimidate those who might want to espouse, or even listen to, an opposing view.  And God forbid that view be a conservative person/viewpoint!  These protestors actually stood behind Professor Blackman with signs about “Free Speech”…while trying to shout him down and prevent him from, well, exercising HIS right to free speech.  The sad thing is that they’re too stupid to understand the irony and hypocrisy of their actions.  To see a video of this exchange and the way Mr. Blackman was treated by these obnoxious kids, just click on the text above.  Unreal..

Outcry from gun advocates after YouTube blocks videos on firearms assembly, sale

YouTube has announced that it now will be implementing restrictions on certain videos that feature firearms and accessories, sparking backlash from Second Amendment advocates. YouTube recently updated the company’s “policies on content featuring firearms” to prohibit “any video intending to “sell firearms or certain firearm accessories,” either directly or through links to sites that do. According to the website, the prohibited accessories include “but may not be limited to” bump stocks, Gatling triggers, drop-in auto sears, conversion kits or any equipment that might “enable a firearm to simulate automatic fire or convert a firearm to automatic fire.” It also mentioned that content intending to promote the sale of high-capacity magazines no longer will be allowed. In addition to these types of videos, YouTube also will prohibit any video that “provides instructions on manufacturing” the previously mentioned firearms and accessories. Videos explaining how to install those accessories or gun modifications also will be banned. Advocates for gun rights have slammed the media giant’s attempt to restrict content. The National Shooting Sports Foundation, which has more than 200,000 subscribers on its YouTube channel, said the new policy “provides cause for concern.” In a statement on its website, NSSF said that move is “especially worrisome,” because it has the “potential for blocking educational content that serves an instructional and skill-building purpose.” The statement went on to say that such restrictions “impinge on the Second Amendment,” and stifle “commercial free speech,” which is protected under the Constitution. Another popular channel, Spikes Tactical, said in an Instagram post Tuesday that it had its account suspended for “repeated or severe violations” of the community guidelines. The notice of suspension was posted with the caption, “the Liberal Left will slowly chip away at our freedoms and erode our rights, and the first step is to squelch our voice.” Spikes Tactical has a following of more than 200,000 on Instagram as well. A statement from a spokesperson at YouTube said the company “routinely makes updates an adjustments” for all policies, Bloomberg reported. “While we’ve long prohibited the sale of firearms, we recently notified creators of updates we will be making around content promoting the sale or manufacture of firearms and their accessories.”

The pc police and speech Nazis are in full control at YouTube.  This is clearly a First Amendment violation in a brazen way, and Congress should look into YouTube’s censorship because it operates much like a monopoly.  It doesn’t have much in the way of competition.

‘In God We Trust’ sign gets loud support amid outsiders’ opposition

A controversy in a St. Louis suburb over the display of “In God We Trust” as a motto in the City Council chambers prompted hundreds of residents to rally in support of the sign on Wednesday after some residents and anti-religion groups complained. The debate began last month after a woman – who was not from the area – was escorted out of a Wentzville council meeting after she protesting the display and exceeding her speaking-time limit. “It’s offensive to a lot of people, I’m outspoken about it but there are a lot of people like me that are afraid to speak out publicly,” said Sally Hunt, of neighboring Maryland Heights, according to KMOV-TV. “It says ‘In God We Trust’ when it should say ‘in God some of us trust,” she added. The motto has been on display on the council dais since the building’s opening in November last year. It was reportedly paid for with private funds. The city was reportedly contacted by the Freedom From Religion Foundation and the Appignani Humanist Legal Center, which argued the sign should be removed. “Your heavy-handed, dismissive treatment of Ms. Hunt — calling her a liar and then having her embarrassingly removed from the meeting by force — vividly demonstrates Ms. Hunt’s point that your constituents have good reason to be afraid to challenge the Board’s foisting of religion onto the rest of the community,” read the letter sent to the city, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch reported. But the controversy reached its peak Wednesday as hundreds of residents carrying signs reading “In God We Trust” gathered to inside Wentzville’s city hall to rally in favor of the display. “When I heard our national motto was under question or under attack, I wanted to come here. I’m only one person, but I can pray,” local resident Mary Lou Rogers told KMOV-TV. “If you read the history of our country, it was founded on Christian moral values,” Ginger Yoak, a longtime resident of the city, told the Post-Dispatch. “And this motto doesn’t specify one particular religion, it can apply to different religions. This is our motto that represents our country’s values and I want to keep it.” Most people at the gathering supported the display of the motto, but a dozen dissenting voices were heard, although met with loud boos. “Religion is something personal. It should be at home, the people who are representing the people of Wentzville need to represent all of them, not everybody is a Christian,” Angie Molleck said at the gathering. Mayor Nick Guccione said during the meeting that the sign became an issue only after he disclosed that the local Rotary Club and the local Kiwanis Club paid for the sign. He added that he consulted with legal experts about the sign and the board held a vote about the display, which was approved. “The overwhelming majority is in support of what we’ve done,” he said. “I don’t understand why it is offensive, but you can’t please everybody,” he said Wednesday. “I will not take it down. I will stand strong on it. I do believe it’s our national motto and it promotes patriotism.” Some people also criticized those opposing the display but not actually living in the area. “I’m just not interested in some outsider coming in and telling us we can’t have this motto,” said Wayne Stoehner. Hunt, who began the controversy after being escorted out of the hall last month at the mayor’s request, also attended Wednesday’s meeting to voice her opposition, saying some residents of the city do not support the sign and “value a separation of church and state.” “They understand government is not a church,” she said. “Government should not advance religion.” The audience booed Hunt’s remarks and counted down the final seconds of her allocated time limit. The mayor stands behind the sign — and there are no plans to scrap it.

Good!  “In God We Trust” is our national motto, and doesn’t endorse any particular religion or faith.  If Ms. Hunt has such a big problem with it, then she should stand by her convictions and get rid of ALL of her money, which has that motto printed on it.  Kudos to the mayor and good people of Wentzville, Missouri for standing up these anti-America bullies and speech Nazis.  Outstanding!!   🙂

Judge rules California can’t force Christian baker to make same-sex wedding cakes

A California judge refused this week to order a baker to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple, ruling that to do otherwise would be to trample on the baker’s free speech rights. Superior Court Judge David R. Lampe said in his Monday ruling that wedding cakes run to the core of the First Amendment. “It is an artistic expression by the person making it that is to be used traditionally as a centerpiece in the celebration of a marriage. There could not be a greater form of expressive conduct,” the judge wrote. His decision contrasts with a ruling out of Colorado, where a court ruled that a baker could not refuse to bake for a same-sex couple, arguing the state’s public accommodation law trumped that baker’s First Amendment claims. That case is now before the U.S. Supreme Court. David Mullins and Charlie Craig filed a complaint after Colorado baker Jack Phillips told them he wouldn’t create a custom cake for a party celebrating their union in 2012, because it violated his Christian faith. After feeling rejected, the couple filed a complaint with the Civil Rights Commission. As a result of the ruling, Mr. Phillips has not been making wedding cakes at all in order to appease the court’s order and not violate his faith, which has cost him a large portion of his profits. His case is currently before the U.S. Supreme Court.

And, we hope he is successful at the Supreme Court.  Kudos to Judge Lampe in California for his excellent decision!  Freedom of speech and expression go BOTH ways, and these bakers have every right to bake what they want for whom they want (or don’t want) without some fascist governmental body (as in the case of Colorado) telling them to support activities or individuals they don’t want to.  It’s beyond ridiculous…and a clear violation of Constitution.

Kenyon College Cancels Play About Immigration; Starts ‘Whiteness Group’

“Today is the end of [liberal education at Kenyon College],” Fred Baumann, a professor of political science at Kenyon, proclaimed last week to a panel and its audience. The panel had been convened to discuss the retraction of professor and playwright Wendy MacLeod’s latest play, The Good Samaritan. MacLeod’s work had been circulated to the students and community, with the intention of production in early April. The show centers on the experiences of Guatemalan illegal immigrants working only a few dozen miles away from Kenyon on an egg farm. As MacLeod explained in an email to the campus about the play, these characters “had been working without pay and living in dire conditions.” The Good Samaritan is based on a true story and MacLeod attempted to unearth it in her work, to, with humor, in her words, “[bring] the repressed to light.” Her play posits, satirically, what might happen if one of these illegal immigrants escaped from the egg farm and found their way to a school like Kenyon. Following the circulation of the play’s transcript, brigades of students, joined by some professors and campus administrators, pressured for the play to be censored. They justified such censorship on the grounds that it was “harmful on many levels.” One student emailed the administration and faculty complaining about the race of MacLeod, the author: “I personally take issue with The Good Samaritan because it’s yet another narrative written about a person of color from the uninformed perspective of a white academic.” He claimed that the play was “an exercise in cultural hegemony with heavy notes of white savior complex.” In the Kenyon student newspaper one professor claimed that after reading The Good Samaritan “she has identified 40 instances of ethnic insensitivity.” Among the charges of insensitivity might be a character’s name “Juan Deere” and improperly-rendered Spanish, which at times, resembles Italian. A teaching associate went a good deal further, calling the play “unapologetically racist and mocking. . . . It is an act of violence, dehumanizing and degrading the suffering that immigrants endure in coming to this country, and the many acts of racism and violence that members of the Latinx community endure every day, including on this campus.” She declared that “this play has no place on our campus. I call on the college leadership to responsibly answer the concerns of students and faculty, and withdraw it from production.” But the college leadership didn’t have to do anything, because MacLeod decided to censor herself. MacLeod canceled the production, she says, “out of respect for the concerns of students and members of the faculty.” She insisted this move was “solely my decision as the administration has supported the principles of freedom of expression.” Which then led Kenyon’s president, Sean Decatur, to invite students to the panel discussion in order “to participate in the conversation, and to play an active role in shaping the discourse” surrounding the play and its retraction. Evidently discussions are acceptable only after the mob has gotten its witch. The Good Samaritan’s retraction comes serendipitously at the same moment as the creation of a new student group at Kenyon: “the whiteness group.” The group was founded by a student, Juniper Cruz, and is notable not just for its name, but for its rules, which state that “no white person can ask a person of color questions; white people must try to answer their questions for themselves. And no spreading rumors about what people say during the meetings.” If you were going to set out to create a more illiberal student group possible at a college, you would be hard-pressed to do so. And as for Baumann’s suggestion that liberal education was finished at Kenyon, he’s certainly on to something. Following the panel where Baumann made his stand, one student took to Facebook, saying that if liberal education “necessitates the silencing of marginalized communities, the protection of racism, and our complicity with both, then let the damned thing die.”

Psychologist leaves reporter speechless after her ‘right not to be offended’ remark: ‘Gotcha’

Clinical psychologist Dr. Jordan B. Peterson’s online popularity is likely to grow after his recent performance with British journalist Cathy Newman. The University of Toronto professor whose YouTube fame exploded in 2016 for his opposition to Canada’s “C-16 bill” — critics deemed him “transphobic” — is making social media waves again in 2018. A combative Channel 4 interview uploaded Tuesday features Ms. Newman literally stunned into silence during an exchange on freedom of expression. “Why should your right to freedom of speech trump a trans person’s right not to be offended?” the reporter asked at the 22-minute mark of a 30-minute interview. “Because in order to be able to think, you have to risk being offensive. I mean, look at the conversation we’re having right now,” the psychologist answered, The Daily Wire reported Wednesday. “You’re certainly willing to risk offending me in the pursuit of truth. Why should you have the right to do that? It’s been rather uncomfortable. […] You’re doing what you should do, which is digging a bit to see what the hell is going on. And that is what you should do. But you’re exercising your freedom of speech to certainly risk offending me, and that’s fine. More power to you, as far as I’m concerned.” Ms. Newman paused, sighed and struggled to find a response until her guest interjected, “Ha. Gotcha.” “You have got me. You have got me. I’m trying to work that through my head. It took awhile. It took awhile. It took awhile,” she said with a repetitive concession.

Excellent!  Kudos to Dr. Peterson for calling out this liberal reporter’s idiocy.  To see the exchange, click on the text above.

Pennsylvania family ordered to take down Jesus Christmas display after neighbor said it was ‘offensive’

A Pennsylvania family was ordered by their homeowner’s association to take down their Jesus Christmas display after one of the neighbors reported it as offensive. Mark and Lynn Wivell of Adams County, a Gettysburg subdivision, said they put up their Jesus display last Saturday, FOX43 reported. “As part of our Christmas decoration, we would display the name Jesus to point out to everyone that we in this family believe that the reason for the season is to celebrate the birth of Jesus,” said Mark Wivell told FOX43. But the homeowner’s association wasn’t having it. On Sunday, the association told the family to take down the sign after a neighbor complained it was offensive. The homeowner’s association also claimed the display was a sign, not a decoration – which is a violation of the rules, USA Today reported. “After taking a look at it, it isn’t in accordance with normal Christmas decorations,” Bud Vance, the Courtyards president, wrote in a statement to the Gettysburg Times. The Wivells insist they are following the rules. “We have ordinances with regard to Christmas decorations, and my Christmas decorations comply with the HOA ordinances on Christmas decorations,” Wivell said. The Wivells also said many others supported their right to display the sign. “When this happened, we were really shocked,” Lynn Wivell said. “We have gotten tremendous support from our neighbors here at the Links and that just makes us feel so good.” The family said they have no plans to take down the sign until January 15, when the association requires all displays to be taken down. Family members said they are unsure which neighbor was offended. “People get offended by different things, but just because something offends you, doesn’t mean the whole world has to change to accommodate you, so I would say please be more tolerant,” Mark Wivell said. Board members told FOX43 in a statement that it was “unfortunate” they were being portrayed as Scrooge. “It is, indeed, unfortunate that our attention has been unnecessarily redirected in this manner with a suggestion that Scrooge is alive and well in our community,” the statement read. “Many of our families will be in church on Monday with their spirit diminished by this attack.”

Well, then you shouldn’t have told the Wivells to take their “Jesus” sign down.  These spineless borad members are idiots.  And, this is the sorta thing that gives HOAs a bad name.  Having spent some time serving on the Board of Directors (BOD) of my HOA, I’ve seen both sides of such things.  And, I can empathize with those who complain when some neighbors do things that may diminish the value of the homes in the community, and/or do things that can be offensive to the majority of homeowners.  But, you need to use a little common sense.  Christmas is a federal holiday.  No, it’s NOT “Winter Solstice” day, or “Winter Holiday..day.”  It’s Christmas.  Period.  And, Jesus IS “the reason for the season.”  Those who have a problem with it need to get the heck over it…or move to another country.  We’re so very grateful to see President Trump supporting the phrase “Merry Christmas” which the White House is now putting on it’s Christmas Cards.  The last 8 years, Obama’s cards said, “Happy Holidays.”  Glad that politically correct crap is behind us..