Archive for the ‘#freespeech’ Tag

The Battle of Berkeley 4: Peace and Another Victory for the Deplorables   Leave a comment

By

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2017/05/jack-kerwick/peaceful-victory-deplorables/

Image result for battle of berkeley riotIn February, the terrorist wing of the Democrat Party, the so-called “anti-fa” (“antifascist”), rioted at University of California at Berkeley in order to prevent Milo Yiannopoulos from delivering a speech.  The anti-American leftist thugs randomly assaulted innocents, threw Molotov cocktails, clashed with police, and smashed windows.  By the time it was all said and done, they had caused well over $100,000 worth of property damage.

This is now being regarded as the first Battle for Berkeley.  And the left won.

In March, a pro-Trump rally was held once more at the home of the so-called “free speech movement.”  It was here that the world was introduced to Kyle Chapman, aka, “the Based Stickman.”  The latter, along with several other patriots who were disgusted at the sight of rabid leftists beating up innocents while the police did absolutely nothing, came prepared to do battle. In spite of being outnumbered, Chapman and his brothers-in-arms protected innocents and held their ground.

Current Prices on popular forms of Gold Bullion

Physically speaking, the second Battle for Berkeley was a draw of sorts.  However, the Stickman instantly became an internet sensation, a meme that went viral. Psychologically speaking, this battle was a victory for the right, for the Stickman symbolized for countless numbers that if only American patriots would dare to stand up to leftist thugs, they could and would prevail.

On April 15, the Patriots held one more rally at Berkeley.  The “anti-fa” arrived in large numbers. They were armed with every weapon short of a gun.  The police, under the order of a leftist mayor, again stood down.

Only this time, the Patriots descended upon Berkeley in numbers dwarfing those that had appeared in the past. Though they had been disarmed by police, they had their helmets and shields.

And they were pissed.

When the anti-Americans charged, the Patriots fought back.  They inflicted a humiliating—though richly deserved—beating upon the terrorists before chasing them from their home, the heart of Leftism.

Footage of the Battle of Berkeley 3 is all over the internet.  Even the anti-American leftists had no option but to acknowledge that they lost.  The right achieved a glorious victory, both physically and psychologically.

When Ann Coulter ultimately backed out of the speech that she swore she would deliver at Berkeley on Thursday, April 27, many of those Patriots who traveled from across the country to support her were, at the very least, disappointed.  Coulter gave conflicting reasons for her reversal: (1) The Young Americans for Freedom (YAF), which was supposed to sponsor her, tucked its tail between its legs and ran; and (2) She didn’t trust Berkeley administrators and police to protect her.

Neither of these excuses passes the smell test.

Coulter is a woman of means. She could have easily arranged to speak on her own dime—as did many others, folks with far fewer resources than Ann possesses, who came to Berkeley on the 27th to speak in her place. As far as protection goes, she knew in advance that legions of patriots had planned on being in Berkeley to safeguard her and the right of all Americans to self-expression.

Coulter hinted that she may still swing by Berkeley to say “hello” to her supporters.  She didn’t even do that much.  She should have.

By all accounts, thankfully, no one was harmed.  Remarkably, there was no violence.

The “anti-fa” was present.  So too, though, were the Patriots—the Proud Boys, Bikers for Trump, Civil Defense Action, the Oath Keepers, the Three Percenters. And the latter were ready to defend themselves and innocents if the police had planned on following what had become their standard operating procedure.

Yet—surprise, surprise!—the police were proactive this time around.  They were actually acting like cops!  I think I know why.

While I have no proof of this, it is my suspicion that the mayor of Berkeley, an alleged member of BAMN (“By Any Means Necessary”) and an “anti-fa” sympathizer, had arranged for the police to stand down as long as he was confident that his ideological ilk would run roughshod over his political opponents.  In other words, the left knows and has known that the key to defeating the rest of us—the key to “fundamentally transforming” the culture, to borrow a term that Barack Obama infamously used—is to drive themselves into its collective consciousness.

To put it more exactly, leftists have known that through threats and exhibitions of violence, it can instill fear in the psyches of those who they want to either “transform” or otherwise silence.  So, for example, if enough Trump supporters and/or conservative Americans see their compatriots having the snot beaten out of them, leftists think, then the Deplorables will grow demoralized.

Thus, it is good politics, with all of the psychological warfare that this entails, for the rest of the country to witness Berkeley in flames and folks with MAGA hats and American flags getting battered.

But what happens when those Deplorables fight back?  What happens when those Deplorables not only fight back, but turn the tables on their assailants?  The video of the MAGA-hat and American flag sporting men, dressed as warriors, beating and running the anti-American left out of Berkeley, of all places, is terrible political theater from the militant left’s perspective.

Worse, it is the Deplorables who reaped the psychic gains.

Things being what they are, it is my guess that the mayor and his fellow ideologues decided that they didn’t want to risk another humiliating defeat. After all, they knew that the Deplorables had every intention of fighting back with all of the tenacity that they displayed the last time around—and maybe even more.

The Battle of Berkeley 4, though a cold confrontation, was another victory for patriots.  The Deplorables entered the belly of the beast, said what they came to say, and left unscathed.

To repeat, this was another psychological win.

As most of us learned when we were but children, when bullies are made to swallow a dose of their own medicine, they are more likely to whistle a different tune.

Some of the punks in Berkeley may be learning the hard way.  The terrorist left in general, on the other hand, is far from having learned its lesson.  But they will, for as long as they insist upon attacking innocents, the ranks of right-wingers who are willing and able to fight back will continue to swell.

What the Founders Thought   1 comment

Related image

Wisdom of Originalist Interpretation   Leave a comment

Generally, we learn what is wise by watching what is stupid. This is as true in viewing the Supreme Court’s decisions as in almost everything else. The Supreme Court hardly has a history of making profoundly wise decisions. We all remember Dred Scott v Sanford (1857) and Plessy v Ferguson (1896), but hardly anyone remembers the that Civil War and Reconstruction occurred between and yet different justices ruled very similarly in both cases because they were politically influenced. We now look back on these two decisions and shake our heads, wondering how our constitutional republic could have allowed the practices the Supreme Court said were okay. There are many other SCOTUS cases where the decision was stupidly influenced by politics (or fear of the president) and later had to be reversed.

Image result for image of shouting fire in a crowded theaterIn a case that would define the limits of the 1st Amendment’s protection of the right to free speech, the Supreme Court decided the early 20th-century case of Schenck v. United States.

Shortly after the United States entered World War I, Congress passed the Espionage Act of 1917, meant to prohibit interference with military operations or recruitment, prevent insubordination in the military, and prevent the support of hostile enemies during wartime.

Charles Schenck was an important Philadelphia socialist, general secretary of the Socialist Party of America, and opposed to the United States’ entry into the war. As part of his efforts to counter the war effort, Schenck organized the distribution of 15,000 leaflets to prospective military draftees encouraging them to resist the draft.

The leaflet began with the heading, “Long Live The Constitution Of The United States; Wake Up America! Your Liberties Are in Danger!” It went on to quote Section 1 of the 13th Amendment, which outlaws slavery and involuntary servitude (unless you’re a felon, in which case it doesn’t apply to you). Schenck’s leaflet asserted that the draft amounted to involuntary servitude because “a conscripted citizen is forced to surrender his right as a citizen and become a subject.” The leaflet told conscripts that, “if you do not support you rights, you are helping to ‘deny or disparage rights’ which it is the solemn duty of all citizens and residents of the United States to retain.”

Schenck was arrested, and, among other charges, was indicted for “conspir[ing] to violate the Espionage Act … by causing and attempting to cause insubordination … and to obstruct the recruiting and enlistment service of the United States.” Schenck and fellow socialist Elizabeth Baer were both convicted following a jury trial and sentenced to six months in prison. They appealed appealed their convictions to the Supreme Court where they argued that their convictions—and Section Three of the Espionage Act of 1917, under which they were convicted—violated the 1st Amendment. They claimed that the Act had the effect of dissuading and outlawing protected speech about the war effort, thereby abridging the 1st Amendment’s protection of freedom of speech.

In a unanimous decision written by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, the Supreme Court upheld Schenck’s conviction and found that the Espionage Act did not violate Schenck’s 1st Amendment right to free speech. The Court determined that Schenck had, in fact, intended to undermine the draft, as the leaflets instructed recruits to resist the draft. Additionally, the Court found that attempts made by speech or writing could be punished just like other attempted crimes.

The Court found that context was the most important factor in alleged violation of the 1st Amendment. The Court said that, while “in many places and in ordinary times” the leaflet would have been protected, the circumstances of a nation at war allowed for greater restrictions on free speech.

Justice Holmes wrote, “When a nation is at war, many things that might be said in a time of peace are such a hindrance to its effort that their utterance will not be endured so long as men fight, and that no Court could regard them as protected by any constitutional right.”

Holmes famously analogized the United States’ position in wartime to that of a crowded  theater:

The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic … The question in every case is whether the words are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.

This quote, while famous for its analogy, also gave the Court a pragmatic standard to use when faced with free speech challenges. The “clear and present danger” standard encouraged the use of a balancing test to question the state’s limitations on free speech on a case-by-case basis. If the Court found that there was a “clear and present danger” that the speech would produce a harm that Congress had forbidden, then the state would be justified in limiting that speech.

Only a year later, Holmes attempted to redefine the standard in Abrams v. United States (1919). Justice Holmes reversed his position and dissented, questioning the government’s ability to limit free speech. He didn’t believe the Court was applying the “clear and present danger” standard appropriately in the Abrams case, so he changed its phrasing, writing that a stricter standard should apply, that the state can only restrict and punish “speech that produces or is intended to produce clear and imminent danger that it will bring about forthwith certain substantive evils that the United States constitutionally may seek to prevent.”

The “clear and present danger” standard would last for another 50 years, until the Court finally replaced it with the “imminent lawless action” test inn Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969). This new test stated that the state could only limit speech that incites imminent unlawful action. This standard is still applied by the Court today to free speech cases involving the advocacy of violence.

So what does this hundred year old case have to do with us in 2017? People are still being charged under the Espionage Act of 1917. Since the decision in Schenck v. United States, those who have been charged under the act include Socialist presidential candidate Eugene Debs, executed communists Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, and Pentagon Papers whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg. Most recently, both Bradley Manning and Edward Snowden have also been charged under the Act.

My base point here is that when people insist that the Supreme Court must be free to interpret the Constitution in light of their personal feelings about it rather than the words written in the Constitution, I balk because I know history and I know the Supreme Court justices have been wrong in the past and will be wrong in the future. That’s why I value originalists like Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. They assuage flavor-of-the-decade politics to rule based on what the Constitution says rather than what’s trending on Twitter this week. And, that is what the Supreme Court was supposed to do originally. James Madison, the principle framer of the Constitution, objected strongly to it being subverted to other purposes and we should bear that in mind.

There is an appropriate way to change the rules upon which our nation is based. It’s called “amendment.” It’s not an easy process. It requires agreement by two-thirds of both houses of Congress and three-fourths of both legislative chambers in each state. This assures that there is broad consensus across the entire country that we feel it is time to make a change rather than that a tiny minority has decided to bludgeon everyone else in the direction the minority thinks they know is best.

Free Speech   1 comment

Image result for image of free speechThe true test of your commitment to free speech isn’t when you permit others to say things you agree with. The true test is when you permit others to say things with which you disagree.

Progressive Thinking Errors   Leave a comment

Have you noticed that Democrats … really progressives in both parties … are freaking out lately? In a way, it’s fun to see. The media was so focused on the alleged extremism of the “conservatives” in the Republican Party that the extremism of the progressive Left in the Democratic Party was mostly ignored. Watching them trash cars and smash windows would be entertaining if it weren’t for the fact that people own those cars and windows. The dramatic impact of Democratic extremism on our economy and culture continue. Now that they’re showing themselves as the emotional adolescents some of us suspected they were, hopefully we’ve stopped living in denial, but I doubt it. Denial is so seductive.

Image result for image of speech codesModern progressivism perplexes me, mainly because of adherents’ intolerance to alternative viewpoints. Consider campus speech codes. When I was a student on campus in a pretty conservative/libertarian state, we used to gather around and debate different positions in the student union. Nobody got really mad (well, the huffy ones usually just walked away in a huff), sometimes we learned something, and occasionally we strengthened our own arguments for the next time. There was an unwritten rule that everybody had a right to an opinion and to state it, but everybody also had a right to disagree and to state their case. This wasn’t just a group of my friends. The entire campus understood that University of Alaska Fairbanks was a good place to test your intellectural, moral and philosophical boundaries.

Today, it appears that my children’s generation has adopted the utopian vision of an offenseless society where politically correct speech codes ensure that hypersensitive young people will never be confronted with angst-inducing dissent. Both of my kids, raised in my home, say they were amazed at the uniformity of their friends’ philosophies until they realized that any of them who disagree with the unitary view simply had been driven into silence. Statistics bear out their observations.

By a margin of 51 to 36 percent, students favor their school having speech codes to regulate speech for students and faculty. 63 percent favor requiring professors to employ “trigger warnings” to alert students to material that might upset them.

According to the same Notable and Quotable piece in the Wall Street Journal, one-third of the students polled could not identify the First Amendment as the part of the Constitution that dealt with free speech. Thirty-five percent said the First Amendment does not protect “hate speech,” while 30 percent of self-identified liberal students say the First Amendment is outdated.

Does that scare you? It scares me.

Silly word games are now the object of intense study at many of our leading colleges and universities. As a parent who pays tuition, you pay for this pseudo-intellectualism. It’s time to remind our coddled children that a great big competitive and often nasty world awaits them. We need to expose the intolerance and stop indulging the idiocy. Time to make freedom cool again!

Now that the election is over and the US electorate has shown that the demographic tide theory of recent elections is not as strong as once supposed, there is no better time to start talking about liberty and principles again. Yeah, your kids need to hear you talk about it. Our son, like our daughter before him, doesn’t always agree with us, but he at least gets to hear that there’s more than one side to the discussion. He also gets to disagree and make his case, because that is a part of freedom. And maybe, some day, when he gets a little older, those discussions will bear fruit. The similar discussions I had with my parents eventually did.

Why Even Racists Need the Freedom to Speak | T.J. Brown   Leave a comment

TJ BrownTJ Brown

Found on FEE

Until recently, American political culture settled into a comfortable middle ground on matters of race. People knew what to say and how to say it, more or less. It was all very polite. Everyone obeyed the rules. This way you could stay out of trouble and avoid one of the most devastating accusations that could derail your career: the claim that you said something racist. If the claim sticks, there is no forgiveness; there is only a lifetime of suffering.

Last week, I decided to attend my first ever Black Lives Matter protest.Well, that polite truce was never a consensus; it was a coverup. And it is over. The proof is everywhere in evidence, not just among the Internet trolls who proclaim themselves champions of the white race

Source: Why Even Racists Need the Freedom to Speak | T.J. Brown

Dear Regressives: Crackdown Is Not an Effective Way to Deal with Dissent | T.J. Brown   Leave a comment

While I know private companies have every right to do this, I still propose that they shouldn’t.

Source: Dear Regressives: Crackdown Is Not an Effective Way to Deal with Dissent | T.J. Brown

Image result for image of free speechOver the last several years, the far cultural authoritarian left – termed today as the regressive left – has been launching a militaristic online campaign against free speech; one that aims to make the web into an ideological safe space. And, as with any war, whether physical or digital, the victim count is growing more and more each day.

Today’s headline casualty? Leslie Jones.

What Actually Happened

As any competent social media user under the age of 79 knows, you never feed the trolls.Like most Millennials, I spent about 60% of the day yesterday scrolling through Twitter. Eventually, I saw it: Leslie Jones’ nudes as the number one trending topic in the United States.

Immediately, a single word popped into my head as I contemplated the motivations behind this act: Milo. For those who don’t know, in the month of July, conservative media personality Milo Yiannopoulos became the first person ever to be permanently banned from Twitter. Not “Your account is gone and you have to start all over” banned, but “You as an individual can never use this platform again” banned.

Milo has had run-ins with the Twitter police before, most notably when he had his verification badge removed after jokingly pretending to be a Buzzfeed employee. In this most recent event, Milo exchanged a single tweet with Leslie Jones as she was battling a wave of trolls online after her Ghostbusters release. Granted, his tweet was provoking and catty, per Milo’s reputation, but it was in compliance with Twitter’s terms of service.

But because Leslie continued feeding the trolls (never feed the trolls), she attracted even more harassment which caused even more of a scene for the website. This embarassed Twitter, and led to their need to make an example of this situation to prove to the world they were on the side of safe space advocates. So they banned Milo.

Deleted tweets & temporary suspensions are common, but never banning. It shocked Milo’s 300,000+ fans, including yours truly, that he was indefinitely evicted from his most domineering platform. It also made Milo into a martyr for the libertarian/conservative/classical liberal sphere of the internet. And as with any martyr, some supporters will seek revenge against their martyr’s antagonist. This would unfortunately become to be Leslie Jones.

The Regressive Left’s Role in Endangering Leslie

Remember, the outcome via free markets will always yield better results than that of central planning and authoritarian regulation.Through perhaps her own volition, Leslie made herself into a target for harassment the second she showed emotional vulnerability to her trolls. I don’t intend to victim-blame her for the disgusting, hateful criticism regarding her movie or the recent photo leak, which, again, is indefensible. But as any competent social media user under the age of 79 knows, you never feed the trolls.

That’s why the block button exists. You would think a professional comedian would be more aware of this fact than anyone, but I digress. Whether she bared conscious responsibility or not, her approach to criticism was directly correlated to the harassment she received. And in a way, it’s kind of ironic.

With her calls for rescue and intervention by Twitter, I theorize that the company and her SJW allies actually made her online experience less safe than it otherwise would have been had Twitter simply left its internal marketplace free to take its spontaneous course and allow the situation to resolve itself. Remember, the outcome via free markets will always yield better results than that of central planning and authoritarian regulation.

The regressive left claims to be interested in making the internet a safe space for minorities, but in the end, through their obsession to control speech and interaction, they made the situation ten times worse than before. They’re facilitating the rise of political conflict online. And this isn’t just limited to Milo Yiannopoulos: several additional examples have surfaced both before and after this particular event.

In 2009, Mozilla’s CEO was forced to resign after pressure surfaced from the left to oust him for his political opinions on gay marriage. Granted the CEO is no less culturally authoritarian, seeing as he contributed money to promoting a government act to ban gay marriage in California, but that’s not to say the left is any more libertarian.

Free Speech

In the end, it was a major declaration against free speech. Particularly free right-wing speech. Not the legislative writing backed by the constitution, mind you, but rather the philosophical principle backed by morals and ethics.

Backtrack to 2015, when the war on gamers was at its peak, known as #GamerGate. In the midst of trying to free this entertainment genre of problematic content, the left managed to get video games removed from shelves or outright banned. Notable examples were Dead or Alive xtreme 3 and Grand Theft Auto 5. Oh, and just so progressives can know how much of an influence they had, the misogynistic Islamic theocratic patriarchs of Saudi Arabia agree with you about combatting problematic sexual indecency. Hence their banning of Rise of the Tomb Raider.

Fast forward to “current year” to witness the onslaught of censorship in full swing, which many have had the unfortunate pleasure of experiencing first hand. Multiple individual libertarian-leaning personalities and commentators have been targeted. Reputable names like Lauren Southern, Blaire White, Liberty Memes, Milo Yiannopolus, Gregory Alan Elliott, and not-so-famous names like Peyton Smith,Anarchyball, and so many other individual or collective outlets for what has been deemed “politically incorrect” commentary have been directly influenced by these censorships.

Ignoring the examples of actual physical assault, doxing threats and social media harassment (arguably sometimes more severe than that of Leslie Jones), these people have been on the receiving end of attempted censorship efforts from far-left camps like AntiFa, Intersectional Feminism, BlackLivesMatter, and so on.

This war on ideas is about to boil over.

The Free Market Has Had Enough

With fierce attack comes fierce resistance. A new generation of online pioneers are seeking to remove the monopoly on ideology the left currently holds in mainstream academia, entertainment, news, and social media. Prepared to launch swift defensive strategies when confronted with the threat of censorship. But since many of these organizations are in the ideological pocket of Big Leftism, dissenters can’t rely on conventional methods of fair internal resolutions.

As a result, we’re seeing the creation of voluntary cyber militias, prepared to defend their fellow free speech advocates during this crusade of so-called social justice. News outlets like Breitbart, Drudge, Rubin Report, and Rebel Media, as well as a frontline division of non-media individual parties, are all protecting each other, raising awareness of unfair censorship and redirecting the pressure onto the companies and their bias representatives.

While I know private companies have every right to do this, I still propose that they shouldn’t.But with black market vigilante defense comes more impassioned and negligent defensive actions – including the latest shameful example of Leslie Jones’ private photos being hacked and leaked as a humiliation attack.

None of us who support the free exchange of ideas should support this kind of silencing. But at the same time, it’s time for companies and the greater authoritarian left to realize their ideological Ecclesiocracy is not making the internet a safer place. And by failing to provide users a trustworthy avenue for impartial enforcement of regulations, they have created cells of betrayed consumers who are determined to seek justice through primarily cooperative, though unfortunately sometimes disgraceful, tactics.

Get Authoritarianism out of Social Media

If you’re really interested in making the internet a safer place for users, and a more respectful place of discourse, consider cultural liberty. We’ve seen the effects that ideological authoritarians have had on our governmental system, fighting to arbitrarily enforce what they think is right. Ask yourself, do you honestly want to see that system duplicated in one of the most populated, innovative, and arguably anarchic industries of the Information Age?

While I know private companies have every right to do this, I still propose that they shouldn’t; not only because I’m a genuine free speech absolutist, but also because I care about the safety and comfort of all individuals – even those like Leslie Jones who would be just fine with silencing me.

Posted August 26, 2016 by aurorawatcherak in Liberty

Tagged with , ,

Sue Vincent's Daily Echo

Echoes of Life, Love and Laughter

S.R. Mallery's AND HISTORY FOR ALL

Everything Historical And Much More...

Smorgasbord - Variety is the spice of life

Blog with a view - on books, music, humour and health

The Lil' Mermaid

Dream. Believe. Achieve

susanne matthews

Living the Dream

MomzillaNC

A blog about issues, life in general, and being a mom, and sharing my poetry.

Felix Alexander Writer

Storyteller Philosopher Poet

YOURS IN STORYTELLING...

Steve Vernon - Nova Scotia writer, storyteller and master of the booga-booga

Dreaming In Blushh

You Are In A Beauty Contest Every Day Of Your Life💕 Beautiful.Colorful.You

Breaking the rules

with a smile

Aurora

Where the world begins

Twisted Thoughts

Pardon my Random Thoughts

Missing Happy

My Journey Through Depression

lonelyboy1977

Your Future Favourite Fantasy & Science Fiction Author

Commonplace Fun Facts

a collection of trivia, fun facts, humor, and interesting notions.

Lincoln Life Blog

FOR GREAT CONTENT WITH PASSION

Bittersweet Sensations

Where the aftertaste of your feelings last

Writing With A Side Of Life

Living life and following my passions with humor to get through the day!

%d bloggers like this: