Tag: freedom of speech

bookmark_borderDemocratic senators demand flag discrimination

Posted on by Marissa

A group of 34 Democratic Congressmen and Congresswomen are demanding that Defense Secretary Mark Esper explicitly ban the Confederate flag while allowing other flags, such as the Pride flag and Native Nation flags. Earlier this month, in response to intolerant bullies’ demands, Esper issued a policy banning the Confederate flag from being displayed on property controlled by the Department of Defense, including ships, aircraft, office buildings, porches of military housing, and common areas of barracks. But instead of singling out that flag, the language of the policy simply lists which flags are allowed, a category that includes state flags, the POW/MIA flag, military flags, and the flags of allied countries, effectively banning all other flags. Left off the list were not only the Confederate flag but also the Pride flag, Native Nation flags, the Jolly Roger, and sports teams’ flags.

“While we applaud the department for taking steps to remove the Confederate battle flag from our military bases, the action unnecessarily avoids a clear rebuke of this oppressive symbol while simultaneously limiting how service members can freely express themselves in line with our values,” the Representatives wrote. “We ask that you immediately revise the new policy on flag display, explicitly ban the Confederate battle flag, and ensure that service members can express support for diversity and inclusion through the display of sovereign Native Nations and LGBTQ Pride flags… The department must have the strength and courage to be able to simultaneously stand against a symbol of hate and oppression in the Confederate battle flag while allowing the display of support for civil rights, equity and justice. We do not honor or display the Parteiflagge of Nazi Germany on our military bases, and any decision on the Confederate battle flag must likewise be unequivocal: it must be banned outright.”

Contrary to what is claimed in the letter, the Confederate flag is not a symbol of hate or oppression. It is simply a symbol of the Confederate States of America. Some people fly it as an expression of Southern heritage and some people fly it as a symbol of individuality, freedom, and resistance to government authority. There’s nothing hateful or oppressive about that.

Ironically, banning the Confederate flag is hateful and oppressive. The letter expresses support for diversity and inclusion, but banning one flag while allowing others is the exact opposite of diversity and inclusion. It is particularly disturbing that the Representatives want soldiers to be able to “freely express themselves in line with our values.” The letter appears to be stating that soldiers should only be able to express themselves if their values are the same as those of the letter’s authors. That is not freedom of expression. True freedom of expression means having the right to express one’s views regardless of whether those who hold political power approve of them. Truly supporting diversity and inclusion means not only embracing differences in sexual orientation, gender identity, and race; it also means embracing differences in culture as well as in ideology. We cannot have an inclusive society when Native Americans are able to honor their heritage with flags while Southerners are not. We cannot have diversity without the Confederate flag.

These Democratic Representatives are demanding that only flags that are in line with their values should be allowed. This is the epitome of intolerance and bigotry, and to use the language of diversity and inclusion in the service of such a non-inclusive cause is a perversion of these words. To unequivocally condemn the flag of a small, agricultural nation that existed for four years in the 19th century and happens to be frowned upon by today’s political establishment, as the letter demands of Secretary Esper, is the exact opposite of “strength and courage.” It is bullying.

I believe that soldiers should be able to display any flag that they want, including the U.S. flag, the Confederate flag, the Gadsden flag, the flag of any nation, state, or city, the Pride flag, the pirate flag, or the flag of any sports team. But if the Confederate flag is going to be banned, it is only fair to ban flags favored by those on the left-hand side of the political spectrum as well. Let’s hope that Esper displays true strength and courage by standing up to the Democrats’ intolerant demands.

bookmark_borderPolitical correctness: where some people’s feelings matter more than others

Posted on by Marissa

A stereotype that one hears a lot when reading about and discussing political issues is that liberals and the politically correct crowd tend to place too much value on “feelings.” Those on the right-hand side of the political spectrum frequently accuse those on the left of being too quick to take offense, too obsessed with psychological comfort, and too concerned with making sure no one’s feelings get hurt. 

But I don’t really agree with this. In a way, feelings are the most important thing in the world. It makes sense to place great value on them. Whether a person’s life is happy or miserable is a function of what types of feelings he or she has the majority of the time. Every event or life circumstance is judged as good or bad based on what type of feelings it causes in the people affected. I’m opposed to the politically correct attitudes of what has been termed “cancel culture,” but not because this movement is too concerned with feelings. Rather, this movement is concerned with the feelings of some people, but not others.

When banning the Confederate flag, NASCAR stated that it wanted racetracks to be more welcoming and comfortable places for fans. But no regard was shown for those fans who cherish the Confederate flag as a symbol of Southern heritage, and whose experience at the track will now be diminished. The same goes for changing the names of military bases and streets that are named for Confederate generals, for banning controversial books, movies, and TV shows, for changing the logos of Aunt Jemima syrup and Uncle Ben rice, and for something as seemingly trivial as Disney World’s decision to change the Splash Mountain ride to something more politically correct. What about the feelings and preferences of those who like the Confederate names, who like the books, movies, and shows, who like the old logos, and who like the Splash Mountain ride as it is? Numerous cities and towns, when announcing their decisions to remove controversial statues, have cited the pain that the statues allegedly cause. But what about the pain that the removal causes for people who love those statues?

For example, after a despicable excuse for a human being decapitated the Christopher Columbus statue in Boston’s Christopher Columbus Park earlier this month, leaders of various left-leaning groups held a press conference in which they verbally bashed the statue, saying that they find it insulting and that it makes them feel unwelcome in the park. When I was working in my office downtown, I walked through that park nearly every day at lunch time. I chose this park as my walking destination not just because of its beautiful views and convenient location, but because I like Christopher Columbus and think it’s cool that the park is named for him. Seeing the statue brightened my day. Did the person who so cruelly vandalized him, or the leaders urging him to be removed permanently, ever take this into account? Does anyone care that I will likely not visit this park anymore if the statue is removed permanently? Or that my life will be made worse by the removal of the statue? Obviously not. Because to the devotees of the political correctness movement, my feelings do not matter, only theirs.

On a similar note, when San Francisco removed its Christopher Columbus statue, Catherine Stefani of the Board of Supervisors explained that the decision was “about showing love to our friends and neighbors who are hurting in this moment, to communities that have been hurting for centuries. It is about giving all of us the opportunity to heal.” Did she stop to consider the fact that removing the statue would cause hurt for those who appreciate the work of art and admire its subject, Christopher Columbus? Removing the statue shows “love” to some people while showing contempt and hatred for others. It might give some people the opportunity to heal but actively inflicts pain on other people. Why do those people, and their pain, not matter?

In an excellent article, Robby Soave of Reason Magazine calls this phenomenon “the 1793 project,” after the year when the Committee on Public Safety took over the French Revolution. He explains that many people on the left are so obsessed with emotional safety that they demand the firing of anyone who expresses an opinion with which they disagree. “Ironically, the same subset of people ostensibly exercised about emotional safety – the woke left – seem frequently inclined to level unsubstantiated accusations that inflict emotional harm,” he writes. “That makes it difficult to believe that these Twitter warriors’ true aim is the promotion of psychological comfort.”  

Indeed, the politically correct crowd has inflicted tremendous amounts of psychological distress on people who express views of which they disapprove, of which Soave gives several examples: They have caused a political scientist to be fired for suggesting that nonviolent protests are more likely to succeed than violent protests, the editor of the New York Times editorial page to lose his job because he allowed the publication of an op-ed by Sen. Tom Cotton, a lecturer to be suspended for not making a final exam “no harm” for students of color, and a journalist to be forced to apologize for interviewing a protester who criticized violent tactics. As Soave points out, “losing employment and social standing is no small matter… and being shamed online by thousands of people over a trivial offense is an unpleasant and exhausting experience, even if it doesn’t permanently impact your employment.”

Exactly. There’s nothing wrong with placing importance on people’s feelings. What is so objectionable about the cult of political correctness is that its followers only care about the feelings of themselves and those who are similar to them. Whether through online harassment, demanding that people be fired, banning flags, or tearing down statues, cancel culture sets out to make some people more comfortable while actively inflicting pain on other people. That is not fair, and it is not inclusive. People with dissenting views have feelings, too.

bookmark_borderRebels at Talladega standing up for Confederate flag

Posted on by Marissa

At yesterday’s race at Talladega Superspeedway, some brave, rebellious souls stood up to NASCAR’s decision to ban the Confederate flag.

A parade of vehicles proudly displaying Confederate flags of all shapes and sizes drove by the track. A plane towed a huge banner of a Confederate flag with the words “DEFUND NASCAR” overhead. And Confederate flags were flying off the shelves at retailers’ stands outside the track.

Pictures can be seen here and here.

If anyone is interested in donating to the organization behind the Confederate flag flyover, they are called the Southern Legal Resource Center, and their website is here: http://slrc-csa.org/

They also released the following statement on their Facebook page:

SONS OF CONFEDERATE VETERANS
Press release: Defund NASCAR

NASCAR’s banning the display of the Confederate Battle Flag by its fans is nothing less than trampling upon Southerners’ First Amendment Right of free expression. This un-American act shall not go unchallenged. Today members of the Sons of Confederate Veterans’ Confederate Air Force displayed its disapproval of NASCAR’s trampling upon the First Amendment Rights of Southerners. During and before the start of the NASCAR race in Talladega, Alabama race our plane flew a banner announcing a drive to “defund NASCAR.” It is the hope of the Sons of Confederate Veterans that NASCAR fans will be allowed the fundamental American right of displaying pride in their family and heritage. The Sons of Confederate Veterans is proud of the diversity of the Confederate military and our modern Southland. We believe NASCAR’s slandering of our Southern heritage only further divides our nation. The Sons of Confederate Veterans will continue to defend not only our Right but the Right of all Americans to celebrate their heritage. We trust NASCAR will do the same.

Paul C. Gramling, Jr.,
Commander-in-Chief Sons of Confederate Veterans

I salute these patriots for standing up for their flag and their heritage against the politically correct mob.

bookmark_borderBully attacks free speech in Watertown

Posted on by Marissa

This week, in one of the latest examples of Black Lives Matter supporters taking things too far, a woman named Mary Burns decided to bully and insult an innocent person who was cleaning up the sidewalk. 

On Tuesday, Burns was riding her bike through Watertown, MA and saw a man mopping away messages that had been written in chalk on the sidewalk. The messages expressed support for the Black Lives Matter movement. The man mopped away some of the messages and erased the word “black” from the phrase “black lives matter” so that it simply read “lives matter.”

Burns decided to accost the man and pick a fight with him, and then tweeted about the interaction:

Continue reading “Bully attacks free speech in Watertown”

bookmark_borderUCF Professor Charles Negy deserves to be promoted, not fired

Posted on by Marissa

An uproar is taking place at the University of Central Florida because a professor had the audacity to disagree with the prevailing, politically correct narrative on racism.

Psychology Professor Charles Negy, author of “White Shaming: Bullying Based on Prejudice, Virtue-Signaling, and Ignorance,” has been active on Twitter since the death of George Floyd and the resulting protests. A sampling of his tweets is as follows:

Continue reading “UCF Professor Charles Negy deserves to be promoted, not fired”

bookmark_borderFacebook employees stage walkout over lack of discrimination

Posted on by Marissa

Dozens of employees at Facebook refused to work on Monday in protest of CEO Mark Zuckerberg’s decision not to censor posts by President Trump. Employees have circulated petitions, threatened to quit, and publicly criticized the company, all because of the company’s decision to…allow freedom of expression and not discriminate against people based on their political views.

The offending post by President Trump is as follows:

“The hateful rhetoric advocating violence against black demonstrators by the US President does not warrant defense under the guise of freedom of expression,” wrote one employee on an internal message board. “Along with Black employees in the company, and all persons with a moral conscience, I am calling for Mark to immediately take down the President’s post advocating violence, murder and imminent threat against Black people.”

Twitter added a warning label to the equivalent Trump tweet and a fact-check label to a different Trump tweet, but Facebook opted to leave the post alone, stating that it does not violate Facebook’s rules prohibiting incitement of violence.

In my opinion, Zuckerberg was completely correct not to censor the post, because it does not incite or advocate violence. It simply states that if protests become violent, and people loot businesses, law enforcement will respond with lethal force. In other words, Trump is not advocating for initiating violence against anyone; he is advocating responding in kind to those who initiate violence. What is wrong with that? Does advocating enforcement of very reasonable laws protecting private property now constitute a threat of violence? Is the president required to allow people to engage in rioting and looting without doing anything about it? As for the employee who posted on the message board, how can Trump’s post be interpreted as “advocating violence, murder and imminent threat against Black people” if it does not even mention race?

Venture capitalist Roger McNamee criticized Facebook, saying: “In the U.S., Facebook has consistently ignored or altered its terms of service to the benefit of Trump. Until last week, Twitter did the same thing.”

According to the New York Times article, Zuckerberg is planning to hold a call with civil rights leaders who have criticized “Facebook’s protection of Mr. Trump’s posts.”

But there has been no protection of Trump’s posts. Facebook has not ignored or altered its terms of service to the benefit of Trump. It has simply enforced its terms of service consistently, treating Trump the same as it treats everyone else. Twitter, on the other hand, went out of its way to censor Trump, and the employees staging the walkout are demanding that Facebook do the same. They are demanding that their company take down posts that do not violate its rules, merely because they dislike the individual who made the posts and disagree with his political views. In other words, they are demanding that Facebook discriminate against Trump and treat his posts more harshly than the posts of someone on the opposite side of the political spectrum would be treated.

Now that is something that any person with a moral conscience should be against.

bookmark_borderIn defense of Patriots kicker Justin Rohrwasser’s tattoos and political views

Posted on by Marissa

With almost no sports happening at the moment, the NFL draft last month was a huge story. In New England, a large amount of attention has focused on kicker Justin Rohrwasser from Marshall University, who was drafted by the Pats in the fifth round.

According to a profile in the Boston Globe, Rohrwasser has numerous tattoos, including an American flag, one that reads “don’t tread on me,” another that reads “liberty or death,” and another that resembles the logo of a group called the Three Percenters. This group advocates for small government, freedom of speech, and gun rights. According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, the Three Percenters are an “anti-government group,” meaning that they “advocate or adhere to extreme anti-government doctrines.” The Three Percenters, however, have characterized themselves as “very pro-government, so long as the government abides by the Constitution.”

Additionally, on Twitter, Rohrwasser has expressed support for President Trump, Ayn Rand, and psychologist Jordan Peterson. According to one of his college coaches, Jim Fleming, Rohrwasser wore a red “MAGA” hat at school and expressed conservative beliefs, particularly about economic policies, in conversations.

What is wrong with this, you may ask? In my opinion… absolutely nothing!

Yet because of his political beliefs, Rohrwasser has been inundated with criticism online, accused of being a racist and a bigot. This is an example of self-proclaimed “liberals” displaying qualities that are the very opposite of the tolerance they pretend to espouse. Rohrwasser has done nothing wrong by having, and expressing, conservative (or libertarian, or however one wishes to characterize them) beliefs. He has every right to get a Three Percenters tattoo. He has every right to “like” and retweet whatever tweets he wants to. There is no rule that every person must have moderate, mainstream, middle-of-the-road, politically correct views. To condemn someone for having non-traditional views is the true bigotry here. This is bullying, plain and simple.

As Rohrwasser’s high school coach, John Barber, put it: “For him to be called a racist thug and a Nazi and Hitler, it just turns my stomach, because that’s not who he is. They don’t understand the full story of who he is, just want to take something out of context and destroy a kid, which wasn’t called for.”

Continue reading “In defense of Patriots kicker Justin Rohrwasser’s tattoos and political views”

bookmark_borderNo need for journalists to apologize for being journalists

Posted on by Marissa

I began this post a while ago and did not have a chance to finish it until now, so it’s a bit out of date. Despite this, I am still going to weigh in with my thoughts on a controversy in which student journalists at Northwestern University apologized for… practicing journalism.

This situation arose when former Attorney General Jeff Sessions visited campus, and many students decided to protest. Some of the protesters voiced their opinions peacefully, while others decided to climb through the windows of the lecture hall and forcibly push their way inside to disrupt Sessions’ speech. Two student reporters with the Daily Northwestern had the audacity to interview people in the crowd outside. Afterwards they also used a school directory to look up phone numbers of students involved in the protest and ask them if they would be willing to be interviewed. Additionally, during the protest, a student photographer took pictures of the clash between protesters and police and posted these to Twitter.

“I snapped into the journalistic response of making images,” the photographer, Colin Boyle, explained. “I was just trying to tell the story of what was going on… If something happened, God forbid, I was the only camera that was non-police-owned in that area, to my knowledge.”

Sounds reasonable to me.

However, student activists quickly began making a brouhaha, complaining that the publication of their names and identities might enable the university to punish them for their actions. As a result, the paper redacted a protester’s name from their story and Boyle deleted any tweets with photos showing protesters’ faces.

The Daily Northwestern‘s editorial board apologized in an editorial, which read,

We recognize that we contributed to the harm students experienced, and we wanted to apologize for and address the mistakes that we made that night. Some protesters found photos posted to reporters’ Twitter accounts retraumatizing and invasive. Those photos have since been taken down.

In my opinion, the newspaper has absolutely nothing to apologize for. They made no mistakes by covering the protest; the true mistake was to take down the content and to apologize.

When someone chooses to participate in a public protest, they are protesting, well, publicly. And integral part of participating in a protest is the fact that you are in public, and therefore will be seen and potentially photographed by people. It makes no sense for a protester to object to being photographed. If anything, protesters should want as much media coverage as possible, since drawing attention to one’s message and cause is the main purpose of a protest.

Additionally, the students who disrupted Sessions’ speech deserve to be punished, and anything that makes it easier for them to be identified and held accountable for their actions is a good thing, not a bad thing. Disrupting a speech is not OK. It is not fair to the speaker or to the people who have come to hear the speech. For a mob of people to drown out the views of a person with whom they disagree is bullying.

Contrary to the words used in the Daily‘s editorial, the anti-Sessions protesters did not experience any harm as far as I can tell, nor were they traumatized. How is it traumatizing that a person with whom you disagree is giving a speech? How does it cause harm? Anyone who did not wish to hear Sessions’ words could simply have chosen not to attend his speech. If anyone was harmed or traumatized, it would be Sessions and the people who went to the lecture hall hoping to hear him speak. The protesters went out of their way to cause a conflict. They are the aggressors in this situation, not the ones traumatized or harmed. They do not have a right to avoid punishment for their actions, and the newspaper and its reporters should not have modified, redacted, or taken down any of their reporting to accommodate them.

bookmark_borderMore anti-lockdown protests around the country and world

Posted on by Marissa

ABC News has more coverage on the protests – now happening across the country and world – against governments’ coronavirus-related restrictions on people’s freedoms.

On Monday, rallies took place in Augusta, Maine and Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.

“My constitutional rights are essential,” read one sign in Augusta.

“My rights don’t end where your fear starts,” read another in Harrisburg.

“Government mandating sick people to stay home is called quarantine. However, the government mandating healthy citizens to stay home, forcing businesses and churches to close is called tyranny,” read a statement by Pennsylvanians Against Excessive Quarantine, one of the organizations behind that state’s protest.

To all of these sentiments, I say… right on!

In a disturbing act of censorship, Facebook deleted events planned for California, Nebraska, and New Jersey after state governments complained.

According to the ABC News article, similar pro-freedom protests have taken place in Baghdad, Beirut, Israel, Mumbai, and Paris.

It’s great to see people around the world standing up to the fear-based, authoritarian views of the majority and fighting for freedom.

bookmark_borderPelosi calls anti-lockdown protests “unfortunate”

Posted on by Marissa

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi called the recent protests against authoritarian, coronavirus-related government policies “unfortunate.”

Speaking on Fox News, she said: “That is really the answer. Testing. Tracing. Treatment. Shelter in place… But, you know, people will do what they do.” She added, “The fact is, we’re all impatient. We all want out. But what they’re doing is really unfortunate.”

I could not disagree more strongly. There is nothing “unfortunate” about people bravely fighting back against tyrannical governments. That is especially true when the government policies being protested against are endorsed as necessary and appropriate by the majority of people.

The anti-lockdown protests do not have to do with people being “impatient.” They have to do with people believing (correctly, in my opinion) that the government’s lockdown orders are morally wrong and violate people’s rights.

It may well be true that the measures Pelosi lists – shelter in place orders, testing, contact tracing, and treatment – are the best ways to reduce the risk posed by the coronavirus. But what she does not take into account is that reducing risk is not necessarily the most important value, to be maximized at all costs. Individual rights and liberty matter as well. It is OK for the government to take away people’s freedom of movement in order to slow the spread of the virus? How about to ban people from transacting business, thereby destroying their ability to make a living? And to what extent is it OK to take away people’s privacy through attempts to trace and monitor who they come in contact with?

People can legitimately come up with differing answers to these questions. Those with minority views on how best to deal with the coronavirus pandemic deserve to be heard. Their opinions are just as valid and important as those of the majority. Pelosi is wrong to presume that her opinions are automatically correct and that her values are the only ones that matter.

The fact the America has such a small-minded, unimaginative, and intolerant Speaker of the House is truly unfortunate.