Update: O’Reilly: You know who wouldn’t have held a Mohammed cartoon contest? Jesus, that’s who. Disgusting. Wrong. Self-censoring appeasement is not a wise tactic to defeat Islamic nuts and jihadists. Assassins’ Veto as we wrote below.
Fortunately Megyn Kelly is on the job and she goes directly after Obama softie O’Reilly without specifically naming him:
Kelly did a good job with Eugene Volokh too in defense of free speech (Kelly slaps Chris Cuomo who does not understand free speech applies to hate speech):
There is value in an act of defiance.
Think things are crazy now with the Obama race-baiting? It’s going to get worse as the Obama ballyhooed demographic changes take place or don’t take place in America.
The left is going nuts (nuttier?) on Twitter today because it is “White Appreciation Day”. If you’re white you can get a 10% discount at some BBQ place no one ever heard of before and therefore the left has gone as nutty as a squirrel who munched on a hallucinogenic acorn.
To be accurate, today is not “White Appreciation Day” today is more “Hate White Appreciation Day”. “White Appreciation Day” will be on June 11 at the aforementioned BBQ emporium no one heard of before today. So, as if needed, here is the rationale for “White Appreciation Day”:
White patrons who visit Rubbin Buttz BBQ in Milliken, Colorado, on June 11 will receive a 10 percent discount on their orders as part of “White Appreciation Day.”
While they realize the move might anger some people, the Hispanic owners, Edgar Antillon and Miguel Jimenez, are standing by their decision.
“White Appreciation Day! June 11th. Because All Americans Should Be Celebrated,” the sign posted outside the restaurant reads.
“We have a whole month for Black History Month; we have a whole month for Hispanic heritage month, so we thought the least we could do was offer one day to appreciate white Americans,” Antillon told KUSA-TV.
The restaurant is already experiencing some backlash.
Civil rights activist Ricardo Romero called the discount a “perpetuation of racism,” while a spokeswoman with the Colorado Department of Regulatory Agencies said the decision could result in lawsuits if customers “felt like they were being discriminated against.”
If you celebrate White Appreciation Day you might get a lawsuit as punishment. Even if you live in a predominantly non-white area of the country you can’t celebrate “White Appreciation Day” even though as a white person you might be the minority. And if the ObamaRoid dream of a minority majority country ever comes to pass will White Appreciation Day be a civil right or a civil rights lawsuit waiting to happen?
What about the United Negro College Fund? What about “historically black colleges”? What about “BlackPeopleMeet”?
Is BlackPeopleMeet racist? Is there a WhitePeopleMeet website? Why can you have a BlackPeopleMeet website but not a WhitePeopleMeet?
As the ObamaRoid nightmare of race-baiting becomes an everyday occurrence the full horrors of identity politics become apparent. Can you picture a White Appreciation Day in majority black Baltimore without riots and lawsuits?
Is there institutional racism in the United States? Not against blacks. Any time the “racist!” charge is merely heard the government along with all the institutions of power jumps right in to fight against the accused racist no matter how frivolous the charge or the accuser.
Is there institutional racism in the United States? To an extraordinary extent institutional racism is in favor of blacks. Think we exaggerate? Did you hear the one about the phony black man?:
Mindy Kaling’s Brother Reveals He Pretended to Be Black to Get into Medical School
In a new website-slash-pitch for a memoir, Vijay Chokal-Ingam, the brother of comedian Mindy Kaling, reveals that he gamed the system and managed to get into medical school by claiming he was African-American.
Chokal-Ingam, who graduated from the University of Chicago with a meager 3.1 GPA, says that his ploy began after the self-described party boy saw his fellow Asian Indian-Americans, many of whom had higher grades, fail to get into medical school. “I shaved my head, trimmed my long Indian eyelashes, and applied to medical school as a black man,” he wrote on his website, AlmostBlack.com. [snip]
With this, “Jojo” managed to get into the selective Saint Louis University School of Medicine with the exact same application he used as an Indian man. As a fake black man, he allegedly secured interviews at nine highly selective medical schools, including Harvard, Columbia, and the University of Pennsylvania. As he told The New York Post:
“I disclosed that I grew up in one of the wealthiest towns in Massachusetts, that my mother was a doctor, and that my father was an architect,” he said Saturday, describing his med-school applications.
“I disclosed that I didn’t receive financial aid from the University of Chicago, and that I had a nice car,” he said. “I was the campus rich kid, let’s just put it on the table. And yet they considered me an affirmative-action applicant.”
Well but that is just one weird example right? Certainly no proof of institutional racism on behalf of black people, right? For such an extraordinary claim there must be extraordinary proof. Here is the proof of outrageous institutional racism on behalf of blacks:
In a windowless classroom at an Arcadia tutoring center, parents crammed into child-sized desks and dug through their pockets and purses for pens as Ann Lee launches a PowerPoint presentation.
Her primer on college admissions begins with the basics: application deadlines, the relative virtues of the SAT versus the ACT and how many Advanced Placement tests to take.
Then she eases into a potentially incendiary topic — one that many counselors like her have learned they cannot avoid.
“Let’s talk about Asians,” she says.
Lee’s next slide shows three columns of numbers from a Princeton University study that tried to measure how race and ethnicity affect admissions by using SAT scores as a benchmark. It uses the term “bonus” to describe how many extra SAT points an applicant’s race is worth. She points to the first column.
African Americans received a “bonus” of 230 points, Lee says.
She points to the second column.
“Hispanics received a bonus of 185 points.”
The last column draws gasps.
Asian Americans, Lee says, are penalized by 50 points — in other words, they had to do that much better to win admission.
“Do Asians need higher test scores? Is it harder for Asians to get into college? The answer is yes,” Lee says.
“Zenme keyi,” one mother hisses in Chinese. How can this be possible?
That is racist institutional bias against Asians on behalf of blacks (and Latinos). Yet this racism is institutionally tolerated and encouraged by the institutions of power in the country.
Such is the depravity at the center of power that race-baiting presentations against “white privilege” are now forced indoctrination at the U.S. Army.
None of this vile “identity politics” stink is why the world went to war in the 1940s. Today we celebrate the triumph of the forces of the Western enlightenment against the forces of pagan totalitarianism in Europe. It is 70 years ago that the West celebrated victory after we went to war in defense of Western civilization and values. It was on a day like today 70 years ago that freedom won over the forces of totalitarianism.
Yet now, after that great victory over totalitarianisms of every stripe, after a great triumph for the values of the West, the leader of the West is in Obama led retreat. The values of free speech are the first casualty in the new war against totalitarianism:
There’s a war on free speech — and radical Islam is winning [snip]
Radical Muslims are succeeding in eroding fundamental American values, but the reality is more nuanced. Through a combination of fear, intimidation and exploitation of the liberal reflex to sympathize with supposedly marginalized groups, radicals have been steadily eroding our long-standing conception of free speech.
In the most recent example in Garland, Texas, two men with body armor and assault rifles shot up a community center that was holding a cartoon contest to draw the Muslim Prophet Muhammad. Luckily, they were shot dead by police before they could harm anybody.
Yet, in a horrendous case of mass victim-blaming, media figures across the political spectrum have been pointing fingers at the contest organizers — and worse, suggesting limits on offensive speech.
The New York Times ran an editorial distinguishing between “free speech” and “hate speech” writing that the event “was not really about free speech. It was an exercise in bigotry and hatred posing as a blow for freedom.” CNN’s Chris Cuomo wrote on Twitter that “hate speech is excluded from protection,” later claiming it was a “clumsy tweet.” Fox’s Bill O’Reilly got into the act, saying the organizers of the event “spurred a violent incident.”
Alia Salem, executive director of the Dallas and Fort Worth chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, floated restrictions on the First Amendment freedoms, stating, according to the New York Times, that, “The discussion we have to have is: When does free speech become hate speech, and when does hate speech become incitement to violence?”
Powerlineblog gets it correctly on the question of free speech and “hate speech”:
Free Speech vs. Hate Speech?
I wrote in Blaming Pamela Geller that many liberals are more critical of Ms. Geller than of the Muslim extremists who tried to murder her at the Muhammad Art Exhibit and Contest in Texas. Of course, for over-the-top leftism, you can’t beat the New York Times editorial board. They weighed in on the relative merits of Pamela Geller and the Islamic terrorists yesterday in an editorial titled “Free Speech vs. Hate Speech.”
Which is an error right off the bat. Hate speech is free speech. That is, with narrow exceptions that do not apply to Geller’s art exhibit, hate speech is constitutionally protected. The editorialists start off on the right foot:
There is no question that images ridiculing religion, however offensive they may be to believers, qualify as protected free speech in the United States and most Western democracies. There is also no question that however offensive the images, they do not justify murder, and that it is incumbent on leaders of all religious faiths to make this clear to their followers.
If they had quit there, it would have been their shortest and best editorial in a long time. Unfortunately, they continued:
You want to be disgusted by Pamela Geller, go right ahead, be disgusted all you want – but Geller has a right to be heard without threats against her life. Years ago when so-called Nazis marched through the streets of Skokie, Illinois, many of the Holocaust survivor residents of Skokie as well as many Americans were disgusted. But the Nazis marched – all the while protected by the glorious First Amendment and the values of the West – which defeated the Nazi pagan religion 70 years ago today.
The American left as exemplified by the Obama Dimocrat Party is become the totalitarian left of a bygone era. Even some on the left, Obama acolytes, begin to realize the monster of totalitarianism comes from the left:
Jonathan Chait suddenly realizes that what he calls “political correctness” — i.e., the radical Left’s need to demonize, denounce, ban, shut down, and exile anyone who offends them with a contrary thought, a.k.a., “rage-whiners” — is a threat to good progressives like himself:
But it would be a mistake to categorize today’s p.c. culture as only an academic phenomenon. Political correctness is a style of politics in which the more radical members of the left attempt to regulate political discourse by defining opposing views as bigoted and illegitimate. Two decades ago, the only communities where the left could exert such hegemonic control lay within academia, which gave it an influence on intellectual life far out of proportion to its numeric size. Today’s political correctness flourishes most consequentially on social media, where it enjoys a frisson of cool and vast new cultural reach. And since social media is also now the milieu that hosts most political debate, the new p.c. has attained an influence over mainstream journalism and commentary beyond that of the old.
In a short period of time, the p.c. movement has assumed a towering presence in the psychic space of politically active people in general and the left in particular. “All over social media, there dwell armies of unpaid but widely read commentators, ready to launch hashtag campaigns and circulate Change.org petitions in response to the slightest of identity-politics missteps,” Rebecca Traister wrote recently in The New Republic.
Recently, students from a frat house sang clearly racist songs. Due process and the First Amendment were immediately discarded by the school authorities. Under the guise of fighting racism, the University of Oklahoma became a totalitarian force against free speech rights.
The most offensive speech should be protected by the government. This does not mean that we as a website have to publish pro-Obama propaganda. This does not mean that a Jewish organization must publish good wishes to Hitler on his birthday. This does mean the government and government institutions shall not infringe on the free speech of Americans:
1. First, racist speech is constitutionally protected, just as is expression of other contemptible ideas; and universities may not discipline students based on their speech. That has been the unanimous view of courts that have considered campus speech codes and other campus speech restrictions — see here for some citations. The same, of course, is true for fraternity speech, racist or otherwise; see Iota Xi Chapter of Sigma Chi Fraternity v. George Mason University (4th Cir. 1993). [snip]
UPDATE: The university president wrote that the students are being expelled for “your leadership role in leading a racist and exclusionary chant which has created a hostile educational environment for others.” But there is no First Amendment exception for racist speech, or exclusionary speech, or — as the cases I mentioned above — for speech by university students that “has created a hostile educational environment for others.”
2. Likewise, speech doesn’t lose its constitutional protection just because it refers to violence — “You can hang him from a tree,” “the capitalists will be the first ones up against the wall when the revolution comes,” “by any means necessary” with pictures of guns, “apostates from Islam should be killed.”
3. To be sure, in specific situations, such speech might fall within a First Amendment exception. One example is if it is likely to be perceived as a “true threat” of violence (e.g., saying “apostates from Islam will be killed” or “we’ll hang you from a tree” to a particular person who will likely perceive it as expressing the speaker’s intention to kill him); but that’s not the situation here, where the speech wouldn’t have been taken by any listener as a threat against him or her. Another is if it intended to solicit a criminal act, or to create a conspiracy to commit a criminal act, but, vile as the “hang him from a tree” is, neither of these exceptions are applicable here, either.
4. [UPDATE: Given the president’s letter, it’s clear that the students are being expelled solely for their speech, and not for the reason discussed in the following paragraphs.]
At the leftist The Atlantic instead of a celebration of the First Amendment we read an attack on the First Amendment for tolerating free speech the author does not like. Presumably if the writer was alive at the time of Martin Luther King the fact that King’s speech was reprehensible to the majority would have been sufficient cause to repress the free speech rights of Dr. King.
The enemies of Western civilization and the enlightenment values of the West are everywhere these days. Usually they have great rationalizations to justify their worship of Big Brother.
DEATH TO BIG BROTHER!
The thought police and the enemies of freedom are everywhere and making progress. But they are doomed to failure. Suppression of thought will not work.
In Great Britain suppression of thought attempted to wipe out racism. This attempt at suppression of thought by the leftist totalitarians was a monumental error and a monumental failure. The failure was documented by the former “equality chief”:
We were wrong to try to ban racism out of existence, says former equality chief
Trevor Phillips was head of the Equality and Human Rights Commission
Branded his ten years working to end racial discrimination as ‘wrong’
Anti-racism doctrine has encouraged abuse and endangered lives, he says
A former equality chief has branded his years working to stamp out racial discrimination as ‘utterly wrong’.
Writer and broadcaster Trevor Phillips said efforts made under the Blair government turned anti-racism into an ‘ugly new doctrine’.
Mr Phillips is the former chairman of the Equality and Human Rights Commission and has waged a 30-year campaign to tackle issues around discrimination and equality.
In an upcoming Channel 4 documentary, called Things We Won’t Say About Race That Are True, he says attempts to stop prejudice instead encouraged abuse and endangered lives as well as contributed to the rise of parties like Ukip.
In the 75-minute documentary, he delves into Britain’s racial tensions and stereotypes as well as hostilities towards immigrants.
He explains: ‘It was my job to to make sure that different racial and religious groups got on.
‘Campaigners like me seriously believed that if we could prevent people expressing prejudiced ideas then eventually they would stop thinking them.
‘But now I’m convinced we were utterly wrong.’
Mr Phillips, a Labour party member, says anti-racism began with good intentions but turned into ‘thought control’.
He says the London 2005 bombing by British Muslims, forced him to do rethink his views.
Now, he insists that only a willingness to talk more openly about race, despite risk of causing offence, will help those in need.
After the Charlie Hebbdo assassinations in France there was much nonsense written about theories against free speech that amounted to legitimization of the “assassins veto”:
The Assassin’s Veto
USA Today finds a deadly common ground.
“Common ground” is vastly overrated as a political virtue, and USA Today demonstrates why. In a pair of the paper’s recent op-eds one finds common ground between an Islamic supremacist and the dean of an American journalism school. Both men agree that free speech should be severely curtailed in a way that would empower violent extremists. [snip]
But what can one say about this week’s column by DeWayne Wickham, dean of Morgan State University’s School of Global Journalism and Communication in Baltimore? Choudary and Wickham make nearly identical arguments. Their columns are titled, respectively, “People Know the Consequences” and “ ‘Charlie Hebdo’ Crosses the Line.” Neither man expressly endorses the terrorists’ actions, but both strongly imply the victims had it coming because they offended their killers’ religious sensibilities.
Choudary: “Because the honor of the Prophet is something which all Muslims want to defend, many will take the law into their own hands, as we often see. Within liberal democracies, freedom of expression has curtailments, such as laws against incitement and hatred. . . . So why in this case did the French government allow the magazine Charlie Hebdo to continue to provoke Muslims, thereby placing the sanctity [sic] of its citizens at risk?”
Wickham: “If Charlie Hebdo’s irreverent portrayal of Mohammed before the Jan. 7 attack wasn’t thought to constitute fighting words, or a clear and present danger, there should be no doubt now that the newspaper’s continued mocking of the Islamic prophet incites violence. And it pushes Charlie Hebdo’s free speech claim beyond the limits of the endurable.”
Oddly, Wickham frames his argument in terms of First Amendment law, which, as he acknowledges, doesn’t apply in France. “Given the possible ripple effects of Charlie Hebdo’s mistreatment of Islam’s most sacred religious figure,” he writes, “at least people in this country should understand the limits America’s highest court has placed on free speech.”
To which one might add: especially people in this country who take it upon themselves to educate their fellow citizens, whether on campus or in the pages of a national newspaper. Wickham knows something about First Amendment law—but only enough to make an embarrassing show of how much he doesn’t know.
Wickham’s argument rests on two doctrines from early-20th-century First Amendment law: “clear and present danger” (Schenck v. U.S., 1919) and “fighting words” (Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 1942). It is ludicrous to suggest that either doctrine would justify censoring a magazine’s irreverent depictions of Muhammad.
It is doubtful that Schenck is even good law anymore. “The Supreme Court hasn’t used the ‘clear and present danger’ test for First Amendment cases in decades,” notes HotAir.com blogger “AllahPundit”:
The test now for inflammatory speech is the Brandenburg test, a strciter [sic] standard that allows the state to criminalize incitement only in narrow circumstances—when the speaker intends to incite violence and violence is likely to quickly result. Charlie Hebdo’s Mohammed cartoons may have met the “likely” prong of that test but they sure didn’t meet the “intent” part. [snip]
Brandenburg dealt with speech that advocated violence, something Charlie Hebdo has never to our knowledge done. And the incitement whose prospects the justices weighed and dismissed was of violence by supporters of the speaker—in Brandenburg, a Ku Klux Klan leader—not of an angry or violent reaction from opponents of his viewpoint.
The fighting-words doctrine, which is still good law, would be inapplicable for overlapping reasons. Fighting words have in common with incitement that a necessary element of their definition is the instantaneity of their effect. In Chaplinsky, Justice Frank Murphy defined fighting words as “those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace.” The key words here are “utterance” and “immediate.” To put it in laymen’s terms, if you encounter a stranger on the street and insult him—in Chaplinsky’s case by shouting, “You are a goddamned racketeer!”—you can’t escape prosecution by claiming you were just exercising your right to free speech and he started it by throwing the first punch.
One can imagine a case in which a Charlie Hebdo caricature would constitute fighting words (albeit of a symbolic nature): if, say, a latter-day Chaplinsky taunted a Muslim on the street by waving a copy of the magazine and a fight ensued, both men could be booked for a breach of the peace. But the publication of offensive words or images is not fighting words. [snip]
In this case, if Choudary and Wickham had their way the terrorists really would win—which is to say that they would succeed in their goal of suppressing by force criticism of or irreverence toward Islam.
Call it the assassin’s veto.
That article above is quite comprehensive and well worth the read for those that want to acquaint or refresh their memories of Justice Holmes, the clear-and-present-danger doctrine, and earlier fights over the First Amendment and protected speech.
Yes, there is a “freedom to hate” and a “case against outlawing vile speech” that must be made and deserves to be not only heard but practiced.
So it is Friday, not quite White Appreciation Day and Victory in Europe Day seventy years on. We’ll celebrate Free Speech in our own Friday music spectacular way.
We’ll celebrate free speech and the First Amendment with a “racist” album cover:
We’ll celebrate freedom and free speech via the First Amendment with a song that was ironically banned because of its title even if it was a commentary on George Orwell and his anti-totalitarianism masterpiece 1984:
We’ll celebrate freedom of speech and the First Amendment with a song that was banned – because you are not allowed to be a racist but you can be a misogynist.
We can’t post “Innocence of Muslims” because that is still banned.
We hate “Hate speech” laws.
We are intolerant of those who are “intolerant of intolerance”.
Stop the bullying under the guise of “anti-bully” “campaigns”.
Death to Big Brother!