Fox News Apologizes After Guest Compares Hillary To Herpes

“She won’t go away. She’s like herpes,” said Anna Paulina, director of Hispanic engagement for right-wing organization Turning Points USA.

Paulina’s comment came during a panel discussion on President Donald Trump’s lawyer Rudy Giuliani’s call for another probe into Clinton’s use of a private email server during her time as secretary of state.

“OK, that’s news that we’re breaking here. Er, not appropriate,” Leventhal responded to Paulina’s dig. He had earlier said he was “amazed” Clinton’s emails were still headline news given “everything going on in the world.”

Paulina was removed from the segment, which also featured political analyst Doug Schoen, per multiple media reports.

“We are going to wrap this segment a little bit early because of the language that was used in the segment, and we apologize to our viewers for that,” Leventhal later told Schoen.

Fellow Fox News anchor Arthel Neville later repeated the conservative network’s apology:

SOURCE 

Feminists Said This Christmas Window Display In Britain Is Sexist



A Christmas display at a Marks & Spencer in Nottingham, Britain has feminists crying sexism for advertising a women's "must-have fancy little knickers" beside a men’s "must-have outfits to impress."

According to The Guardian, the original Christmas display featured the model "David Gandy wearing M&S suits with the tagline 'must-have outfits to impress' adjacent to red and black lingerie behind the tagline 'must-have fancy little knickers.'" Take a look:

Oh. My. Living. God. #MarksAndSpencer pic.twitter.com/f4skxoFc21

— Shelagh Fogarty (@ShelaghFogarty) November 20, 2018
Feminists did not take kindly to the ad, with many blasting it as "grotesque" and "vomit-inducing." After it went viral online, protesters defaced the women's underwear slogan to read "must have full human rights."

The Facebook group Feminist Friends Nottingham received an outpouring of complaints from several women shoppers.

"Ok, M&S Nottingham, have we really not learned anything in the last 35 years? Or am I alone in finding this, their major window display, completely vomit inducing?" said shopper Fran Bailey, who chastised the ad for both "normalization of damaging gender stereotypes through the juxtaposition of images of women apparently obsessed with ‘fancy little knickers’ with images of fully clothed men being ‘dressed to impress’ in suits," and also the slogan "must-have" when "huge numbers of Britons are struggling with poverty."

Mark & Spencer later covered up the ad, asserting in a statement that the Christmas display had been taken out of context.

SOURCE 

Democrats Furious Over Trump’s Turkey Pardon Joke

President Trump didn’t hold anything back during this year’s annual Turkey Pardon. And, as expected, Democrats are absolutely furious about it.

From Washington Free Beacon:

President Donald Trump joked about the midterms, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and Democrats during the annual presidential turkey pardon Tuesday.

Speaking from the Rose Garden, Trump delivered the annual address. “At this time of the year, we reflect on all of the many blessings in our lives,” he said.

Speaking alongside First Lady Melania Trump, the president explained that “the winner of this vote was decided by a fair and open election.” Trump announced that of the two turkeys, Peas and Carrots, Peas had won the popular vote for the pardon. Referencing the contentious midterm elections, Trump joked, “Unfortunately, Carrots refused to concede and demanded a recount, and we’re still fighting with Carrots,”Trump joked.

In the spirit of Thanksgiving, Trump announced he would be pardoning them both. Unfortunately, “even though Peas and Carrots have received a presidential pardon,”Trump said, “I have warned them that House Democrats are likely to issue them both subpoenas.”

The president joked that his decision to pardon them both might not be final. “I can’t guarantee that your pardons won’t be enjoined by the Ninth Circuit. Always happens,” he said.

“All joking aside, this is a time for Americans to unite together in a spirit of love, understanding, unity and joy as one very proud American family. Our nation is doing well,”he said.

SOURCE 

‘Racist’: Backlash After ABC aired ‘A Charlie Brown Thanksgiving’



ABC aired ‘A Charlie Brown Thanksgiving’ Wednesday evening, a classic cartoon many Americans tune into every year, but this year many viewers were triggered by a “racist” scene.

The ‘controversial’ scene shows Charlie Brown hosting a ‘Friendsgiving’ after Peppermint Patty invites herself and the gang over to his house.

The Gateway Pundit Reports:

The Peanuts gang eats their meal in the backyard and the seating arrangement of the characters lit social media ablaze with claims of racism.

Franklin, the only black friend is sitting alone on a folding chair which caused a huge backlash from viewers.

A Charlie Brown Thanksgiving first aired in 1973, nearly a decade after the 1964 civil rights act was signed.

Charlie Schulz added Franklin to the Peanuts gang in 1968 after a teacher wrote to Schulz requesting he add a black character to the comic strip to help ease racial tensions in America.

Reaction from upset viewers:

Damn Charlie Brown, 4 on one side and no one by Franklin. Did give him lotsa desserts for reparations i guess.

SOURCE 

Neo-Nazi Harassment Is Not Free Speech, Judge Rules

Tweets are speech so this is a bit odd. Anglin did encourage tweets but nothing more

A federal judge’s decision to allow a lawsuit to proceed against the publisher of a neo-Nazi website is “dangerous for free speech,” the publisher’s attorney said Thursday.

Attorney Marc Randazza said he believes U.S. District Judge Dana Christensen made a legally flawed decision Wednesday in ruling the First Amendment does not shield Daily Stormer publisher Andrew Anglin from being sued for his followers’ anti-Semitic harassment of a Jewish woman and her family in Montana.

Randazza said he can “see the allure of not wanting to rule in favor of the Nazi,” but expressed concern that the decision could be used to curtail free speech in many other forums.

“The rule needs to be the same no matter what your view is,” he said.

Christensen’s decision allows Tanya Gersh to proceed with her claims that Anglin invaded her privacy, inflicted emotional distress on her and her family and violated Montana’s anti-intimidation law by calling on his followers to unleash a “troll storm” on her, her husband and her 12-year-old son.

SOURCE 

Snowflake students demand university adopts 'trigger warnings' for lectures in case the contents upsets them

Students are demanding the University of Western Australia adopt 'trigger warnings' to prevent students from being upset by challenging topics.

UWA Guild president Conrad Hogg, who is leading the push, said at the September council meeting he wants to introduce alerts before lectures, Perth Now reported.

Trigger warnings, or content warnings, have become common in the United States, but so far, only Monash University has adopted the warning policy to date.

While advocates such as Mr Hogg say the alerts can help students deal with disturbing topics like suicide and sexual assault, critics claim they do the opposite.

The Institute of Public Affairs research fellow Matthew Lesh said the warnings may prevent teachers from tackling difficult concepts, and may cause additional stress.

He said by telling students something is going to be emotionally challenging in an 'over the top' way it may increase the chance of having a strong emotional reaction. 'So it is completely counterproductive for what you’re aiming to do which is help students with their mental health,' Mr Lesh said.

The warnings are already been used at the start of all Guild publications, including Damsel Magazine, which includes alerts for violence, rape, death and abuse topics.

In the latest issue of the magazine, it warns about articles that mention genitals, gendered slurs and 'ablesim' - discrimination in favour of able-bodied people.

Federal Education Minister Dan Tehan has appointed UWA Chancellor Robert French to lead an inquiry at the university to ensure freedom of speech is maintained.

'The French review is looking at ensuring free speech on campus because a university education should involve dealing with ideas and concepts that are challenging,' Mr Tehan said.

'Likewise, the introduction of trigger warnings should not be used as an excuse to avoid difficult topics, only as an aid to resilience.'

SOURCE 

Leeds Trinity University staff told not to use ‘don’t’ or ‘frightening’ capitals

Earlier this year, clapping was banned at one university. Now, capital letters can’t be used to avoid upsetting “snowflake” students.

Journalism professors at Leeds Trinity University in the UK have been instructed not to use certain words — in case they frighten sensitive students.

According to UK media reports, the use of capital letters has been banned as well as the “overuse” of the words “do” and “don’t”.

In an internal staff memo obtained by the Express, staff are told students’ “anxiety” can lead to academic failure.

“Despite our best attempts to explain assessment tasks, any lack of clarity can generate anxiety and even discourage students from attempting the assessment at all,” it reads.

“Generally, avoid using capital letters for emphasis and the overuse of ‘do’, and, especially, ‘DON’T’.

It also urged staff to be “explicit about any inexplicitness” in assignment requirements and to be aware that “misconceptions or misunderstandings quickly spread” among students.

“This can lead to further confusion and students may even then decide that the assessment is too difficult and not attempt it,” the statement reads.

The story quickly spread across the UK media as well as on social media, with many members of the public slamming it as extreme “political correctness” pandering to the “snowflake generation”.

In a bizarre twist, Leeds Trinity University released a statement claiming it had not banned capital letters — but confirmed “it is best practice not to write in all capital letters”.

But many social media users pointed out there was little difference between “banning” words and capital letters and asking staff not to use them.

In a statement, vice-chancellor Margaret House said the university was committed to supporting students to be “the very best they can be”.

The public university is located near Leeds in England’s West Yorkshire.

It has a student population of more than 3625 and offers foundation, undergraduate, and postgraduate degrees in a range of humanities and social sciences.

SOURCE 

In New Zealand "Trivial" is a bad word

Final-year high school students who sat a national history exam in New Zealand have launched a petition asking the exam be marked based on students’ own definition of an “unfamiliar” word.

The year 13 students were worried they might fail their New Zealand Qualifications Authority (NZQA) level 3 history test because they didn’t know what the word “trivial” meant.

According to Stuff.co.nz, the word appeared in the paper on Wednesday in a quote from Julius Caesar: “Events of importance are the result of trivial causes.”

The question asked students to analyse the extent to which they agreed or disagreed with Caesar, with reference to the causes and consequences of a historical event.

According to the Oxford Dictionary trivial means “of little value or importance”.

Students were quick to comment on the petition, which has already been signed more than 2400 times, expressing their frustration with the exam question.

Student Logan Stadnyk of Taieri College in Dunedin is one of those who sat the paper and signed the petition.

He said he was “lucky” to understand the word, but at least half of his class didn’t.

New Zealand History Teachers’ Association chairman Graeme Ball sided with the students, calling the exam a “little bit of a snafu” on the part of NZQA, and said the language used in questions should be “accessible to all”.

SOURCE 

Conservative Entrepreneur Banned from Facebook Launches Competing Social Media Platform

According to a press release through MarketWatch, Addison Riddleberger said his “innovative new social networking platform geared toward conservatives, TrumpTown.com, has officially opened its virtual doors in an attempt to give users an alternative to Facebook.”

“After years of Trump supporters’ right to free speech being silenced by Silicon Valley — and ultimately culminating with my network of conservative followers being purged — I decided the far-left tech industry needed a real competitor. And thus, TrumpTown was born.”

Riddleberger — whose pages included Standing for Americans, Freedom Catalog and Patriotic Folks — says he was sent a vague warning letter by the social media giant saying that he was in violation of one of its terms of service, although the letter didn’t make it clear what term he was violating.

He told The Western Journal that he originally thought it had to do with a new firm they had partnered with to handle their advertisements, so he suspended them — and all advertisements on his websites — going forward. That apparently wasn’t it, however, since the pages were deleted along with Riddleberger’s personal account.

“TrumpTown has actually been in development for several months — once my account and pages were shut down, we went into overdrive getting the site into a position where all the basics were in place,” Riddleberger told The Western Journal. “The timing was pretty incredible the way it all came together.”

The idea of a conservative alternative to traditional social media platforms isn’t a particularly new one, although few examples have met with any sustained success. The most notable has been Gab, a Twitter-like platform that promised a policy of unfettered free speech in response to a spate of high-profile social media bans.

The problem for Gab was that while few mainstream conservatives established a presence there — instead deciding to stay on established platforms — the conversation quickly became dominated by either fringe figures or individuals whose speech had gotten them exiled elsewhere. The network came under the microscope because of the recent Pittsburgh synagogue shooting after it was revealed the alleged killer was a member and often posted his paranoid, anti-Semitic theories there.

“Gab is a great site in theory — and setting up your platform solely on the basis of free speech is fantastic — but the marketing and execution is where we differ,” he told The Western Journal. “We wanted to angle our site as being a conservative social media alternative first, not just a free speech platform. Our platform offers both characteristics, but leads with the healthy passion that 65 million Americans have toward President Trump and his conservative agenda.”

SOURCE 

Malaysian PM Mahathir Mohamad says criticism of Jews is ‘free speech’

The Muslim hatred of Jews never fails

A war of words has intensified between Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad and Australian treasurer Josh Frydenberg, with the 93-year-old Dr Mahathir saying he should be able to criticise Jewish people “when they do something wrong” and defending as “fair comment” his warning that shifting Australia’s Israeli embassy to Jerusalem could encourage terrorism.

Hitting back at the Treasurer, who branded the Malaysian leader “anti-Semitic”, Dr Mahathir said his past comments about Jewish people were a matter of free speech. “People accept that some people, when they do something that is wrong, they need to be criticised and they need to be pointed out that what they do is wrong,” he told The Australian on the sidelines of the APEC summit in Port Moresby.

“But you can’t say anything you want about the Jewish people. Why are they so privileged? They do a lot of wrong things … You call me anti-Semitic. I am also called a dictator. I’m called all kinds of names, but it doesn’t matter.

“I have a right to speak. To say that I can talk about anything else except criticise the Jews is something quite unfair. We are talking about free speech.”

Mr Frydenberg, the deputy Liberal leader and a prominent Jewish MP, lashed Dr Mahathir last week, saying the Malaysian leader had “form” as an anti-Semite, making remarks about Jews being “hook-nosed”, questioning the Holocaust death toll, and ­banning the film Schindler’s List in Malaysia.

SOURCE 

Dutch Leftists enraged by traditional blackface Christmas character

In Nederland, Father Christmas traditionally has black helpers

Protesters across the Netherlands have disrupted Christmas parades put on for young children, claiming the 'black-face' costumes of Santa's helpers are racist.

Children lined the streets to see parades of Saint Nicholas handing out gifts, and Santa's black-faced elves, known as 'Black Petes'.

But the day descended into chaos as the parades were mired by clashes between far-left protesters and far-right hooligans around the country.

Young children in towns and cities can watch the arrival of Saint Nicholas, along with his helpers, in celebrations held every November.

Protesters against Black Petes, known as Zwarte Piets in the Netherlands, have claimed their costumes are racist because the white actors involved 'black up'.

Those portraying Zwarte Piet put on blackface make-up and colourful attire, in addition to curly wigs and light red lipstick to depict African features. 

In the Dutch city of Rotterdam, disappointed revellers went home because of the noisy anti-blackface protesters.

In the city of Maas, the protesters left their designated demonstration boxes and witnesses spoke of 'total choas', De Telegraaf reports.

But some of the violence was also caused by football hooligans. They confronted a Kick Out Black Pete demonstration in the Dutch town of Eindhoven. They threw eggs and cans of beer at the demonstrators, and six people were arrested.

SOURCE 

White magazine shuts down after refusing to feature same-sex weddings

No freedom of religion for Christians

One of Australia's leading wedding magazines, White, is shutting down following its refusal to feature same-sex weddings.

Founders Luke and Carla Burrell, who are Christian, say the magazine became the target of a damaging campaign after Australia voted to legalise same-sex marriage last year, and a number of advertisers withdrew their support.

"White Magazine is no longer economically viable," they said in a blog post. "As much as we love what we do and are inspired by the positive impact it's had, we need to draw the curtain on this part of our lives."

Earlier this year, hundreds of wedding industry professionals boycotted the magazine over its lack of LGBTQI diversity.

Former contributor Lara Hotz, who photographed a number of covers for the magazine, told Hack it made her feel "extremely hurt".

"It appears they are happy to take money, content and photographs from LGBTQI advertisers and contributors, but are yet to support and represent us in the same way as heterosexual couples are represented in the magazine," she said.

SOURCE 

CNN: One Of "Free Speech's Greatest Enemies"

Tucker Carlson delivered commentary on CNN and the news organization's record on free speech and journalism. Carlson called CNN one of "free speech's greatest enemies" and said it only defends the First Amendment when it's "their speech."

"We can’t help but notice that some of free speech’s greatest enemies are now posing as its defenders. Take CNN, for example," Carlson said Wednesday.

"Call CNN what you will, but don’t pretend their defenders of the First Amendment," Carlson added. From 'Tucker Carlson Tonight' on FOX News:

TUCKER CARLSON, FOX NEWS: In the past couple of days you’ve heard a lot of huffing and puffing about free speech and freedom of the press, and how those threats are currently imperiled by the White House. To be clear: we are for free speech. Unfettered, absolute free speech, the kind guaranteed by the First Amendment and ratified consistently by the Supreme Court. We’ve defended that kind of speech almost every night here for the past two years. Many others, mostly on the left, have attacked it. We know who’s for it, and who’s against it. And we can’t help but notice that some of free speech’s greatest enemies are now posing as its defenders. Take CNN, for example.

It was CNN that almost single-handedly led the campaign to have broadcaster Alex Jones banished from the internet, on the grounds that they didn’t like what Jones had to say. CNN ultimately succeeded in that. The network convinced every major tech platform to ban Jones and his outlet, InfoWars. You don’t have to like Alex Jones to see that as a terrifying loss for free speech, because it was. But CNN wasn’t done trying to silence its critics. Last year, the cable network threatened an anonymous Reddit user for creating an anti-CNN meme. They threatened to expose his identity and ruin his life if he ever criticized them again. Now CNN is claiming to defend speech. Only when it’s their speech.

You’ll notice that CNN didn’t object when the government threatened to imprison employees of the cable channel RT if they didn’t register as foreign agents. Yes, RT is owned by a foreign government. So is the BBC. Until last year, much of the New York Times was owned by a foreign national. This is true of other news organizations, none of which have ever registered as a foreign agents. But because RT is owned by Russia, which the left believes got Donald Trump elected, it’s OK with CNN if they’re bullied and silenced.

SOURCE 

Dangerous to joke about ‘Lingerie’

The International Studies Association has rejected the appeal of a professor who was found responsible for violating its code of conduct after he jokingly requested that an elevator in a conference hotel be stopped at the lingerie department.

Richard Ned Lebow, a professor of international political theory at King’s College London, responded by saying he would meet with his lawyer on Thursday and expects to file a defamation lawsuit. Lebow, who had threatened to sue the association unless it found in his favor, did not immediately respond to a question about who exactly he’d sue.

The association’s lawyer, in a letter dated Tuesday, relayed its decision that no steps would be taken against Lebow if he offered an "unequivocal apology" to Simona Sharoni, a professor of women’s and gender studies at Merrimack College who filed a complaint about the incident.

If he does not apologize, the letter said, the association will issue a formal, private letter of reprimand.

In an email to The Chronicle on Wednesday, Lebow made it clear he had no intention of apologizing.

The incident that sparked the uproar happened in April in a crowded elevator during the association’s annual conference at a Hilton in San Francisco. Sharoni said she had offered to press the buttons for the floors where the elevator’s occupants, who she said were mostly male conference attendees, wanted to get off.

Lebow asked for the women’s lingerie department, and others in the elevator laughed, she wrote in her complaint. Lebow has disputed details of her account, but conceded joking about being let off on the lingerie floor.

When he learned she was upset, he said, he tried to resolve the dispute informally, as he believes the association’s conduct code encourages. He wrote Sharoni an email saying he wasn’t trying to make her uncomfortable or to insult women. He suggested that Sharoni, who was born in Romania and raised in Israel, might have misconstrued his remark. And he said that it was a "standard gag line" when he was growing up, in the 1950s, to pretend to be in a department store and ask the elevator operator for the hardware or lingerie department.

In an email after the uproar began, he told The Chronicle that Sharoni was "trying to impose her definition on my words, take needless offense, and use it as an excuse to make a complaint and put a chill on free speech and humor."

SOURCE 

CSU Adds ‘Long Time, No See,’ ‘You Guys,' ‘Freshman’ to Long List of Politically Incorrect Words

Students at Colorado State University (CSU), apparently, should no longer say “long time, no see,” “you guys” or “freshman,” because those terms are not considered “inclusive language.”

In an opinion piece for the Rocky Mountain Collegian, titled “CSU has gone too far with inclusive language,” CSU student Katrina Leibee said she was told to use “y’all” and “first-year” instead, in order to be “inclusive of all genders.”

“A countless amount of words and phrases have been marked with a big, red X and defined as non-inclusive,” Leibee wrote, describing her frustration with the university’s penchant for political correctness.. “It has gotten to the point where students should carry around a dictionary of words they cannot say.”

Inclusive language is language that “is free from words, phrases or tones that reflect prejudiced, stereotyped or discriminatory views of particular people or groups,” as well as language that “doesn’t deliberately or inadvertently exclude people from being seen as part of a group,” according to the U.S. Department of Education.

Leibee said she met with the CSU director of Diversity and Inclusion, Zahra Al-Saloom, who showed her an “entire packet” of words and phrases that are not considered “inclusive” at CSU. The common greeting “long time, no see,” for example, is verboten because it is apparently “derogatory towards those of Asian descent.”

“We have been asked to get rid of the language we have been using for as long as we have known the English language,” Leibee said.

SOURCE 

A rising star in virtual-reality tech was ousted from Facebook because he supported the "wrong" guy  

The Wall Street Journal reports that one of Facebook’s top executives and a rising star in the field of virtual-reality was essentially forced to resign in 2016 over his support of Donald Trump. The issue stemmed from a $10,000 donation Palmer Luckey made to an anti-Hillary Clinton group. While neither Facebook nor Luckey has ever publicly given a reason for why he left the company, CEO Mark Zuckerberg testified before Congress that his departure had nothing to do with politics.

It now appears that Zuckerberg’s testimony was not entirely honest, as a record of internal Facebook emails obtained by WSJ paints a different picture in which politics played a central role in Luckey’s ousting. The Journal notes, “Internal Facebook emails suggest the matter was discussed at the highest levels of the company. In the fall of 2016, as unhappiness over the donation simmered, Facebook executives including Mr. Zuckerberg pressured Mr. Luckey to publicly voice support for libertarian candidate Gary Johnson, despite Mr. Luckey’s yearslong support of Mr. Trump.”

Once again this latest news only goes to further expose the dangerous degree of massive leftist bias within the social media giants of Silicon Valley. Leftist bias is not new news, of course, but this story does undercut Zuckerberg’s claim that the admittedly “extremely left-leaning” environment of Silicon Valley does not impact Facebook’s policing of site content.

The story is a chilling one to those of us who are advocates of free speech. It also provides another example of what actual fascism looks like, similar to Google’s firing of programmer James Damore over his failure to fall in line with the company’s groupthink.

One final question: Did Zuckerberg lie under oath to Congress? It will be interesting to see if there is any congressional follow-up to this story.

SOURCE 

GQ Woman of the Year cover sparks outrage as the magazine is slammed for using quotation marks around the word WOMAN

Serena Williams being named Woman of the Year by GQ should have led to nothing but celebration - but instead the tennis player has found herself at the center of a furious controversy after the publication released her cover with the word "woman" written in quotation marks.

The 37-year-old's cover shot was released on Monday alongside the three images for the Men of the Year - Michael B. Jordan, Henry Golding, and Jonah Hill - none of which featured quotation marks around the word men, a fact that has prompted serious upset online.

'Okay but why is woman in quotation marks?' one woman tweeted at GQ, while another person shared an image of last year's Woman of the Year cover - which featured Gal Gadot, and no quotation marks around the gender - alongside Serena's and simply wrote: 'Hmm.'

Another person blasted the move as 'inappropriate, dangerous, racist, and transphobic', while one person demanded that the publication issue an explanation for the controversial design decision.

Serena herself has not addressed the controversy, but nor has she shared the cover image on any of her social media accounts - which may well speak volumes in and of itself.

Some social media users rushed to defend GQ however, pointing out that the word woman was handwritten for Serena's cover by her close friend, Off-White designer Virgil Abloh, whose signature style is to use double quotation marks around basic words, something that he does on all of his clothing.

The designer was actually responsible for the Nike tutu dresses that Serena wore at this year's US Open - all of which featured the word "LOGO" in quotation marks above the signature Nike swoosh.

SOURCE 

Should social media firms be prevented from censoring speech they dislike?

What makes it acceptable for Twitter to deplatform widely unpopular members, but wrong for the Department of Justice to jail those with dissident views? As it turns out, nothing makes it acceptable. As Princeton students grapple with questions of free speech, they should consider the effects of social media companies on that speech. Anyone who is committed to a substantive right to free speech against government intervention should support a similar principle in the context of corporations policing speech.

Think about why we limit the government’s ability to censor speech in the first place: the government is large, powerful, and has an interest in suppressing dissident opinions. If the government were so discerning and so inclined, it might manage to censor only the bad views. Yet, as much as you might trust an Obama to filter out only the hate speech, you wouldn’t want a Trump to be making the same sort of decision. The fact that we cannot know what political tides loom on the horizon compels us to deny government the power to censor, even if we would be comfortable with the present government having that power. In other words, government’s ability to police speech is limited in the good times to prevent abuse in the bad.

In all respects relevant to policing speech, social media giants are just like governments in that they are large and well-resourced relative to any individual. They have interests in suspending views critical of them. Worse, they are unaccountable, and certainly more so than governments. A government official trying to censor someone will likely be stopped by other members of government vested with the power and incentive to check their abuse. Indeed, this is as true of the President as it is of the lowest civil servant when it comes to free speech, which is codified in our laws and our Constitution. Our government is intentionally organized with a principle of decentralization and mutual checks on power.

When it comes to corporations, circumstances differ. Corporations are highly centralized, and there is no corporate governance principal of respecting free speech. If a handful of board members go rogue and decide they don’t like someone, that person can lose their right to speak on the only platforms that matter for being heard. What does Twitter have to compel your trust that the U.S government does not? A better vibe? A nicer logo?

Of course, corporations are accountable in certain ways: shareholders can relent, and no firm seeks a public relations disaster. But that is exactly the point. To the extent that they are accountable, corporations are accountable in the wrong way. Or, at the very least, they are accountable in a way that would never be accepted as a means of keeping governments in check when it comes to abrogating individual rights. Public relations incentives and shareholder votes are to corporations as voters in elections are to governments. But speech rights aren’t the sort of protection that can be voted away. That is the entire premise of rights. No majority can determine that a minority has ceded their rights. This is a central tenet of constitutional democracy. That a majority of shareholders or Twitter users don’t like someone cannot possibly be justification to strip them of their right to speak.

A right to speak without any chance of being heard renders that right nothing more than an empty promise. Appeals made to the fact that participation in social media is voluntary and that these companies are private hold little sway in light of this. Free speech is an outcome we strive to achieve rather than being regarded as mere adherence to some legal text. Free speech is central to having a free society, useful political discourse, and a feeling of inclusion in the political process. It helps us find truth as a society and participate in civic life as individuals. As a result, when corporations are allowed and encouraged to hollow out that promise, everyone suffers.

I don’t particularly like Alex Jones. But I worry more about what is to come if we rally behind his being banned from YouTube. The moral arc of a decade will often bend the wrong way (consider the 1980s in the U.S., or the 1930s in Germany). If today we allow Twitter to ban those who are despised, we may be building the guillotine for our own heads.

SOURCE 

Photo of more than 60 boys in suits giving Nazi salute posted on social media

Hitler himelf gave a variety of salutes so identifying this one as Nazi may be risky.  They could be just waving someone off

A school district in Wisconsin is investigating a photo of a group of high-school boys giving what appears to be a Nazi salute.

Baraboo’s superintendent, Lori Mueller, said she became aware of the photo on Monday, after it was posted on social media.

Baraboo is a town of about 12,000 residents, about 115 miles north-west of Milwaukee. The photo of more than 60 male students dressed in suits, some wearing boutonnieres, shows many with their right arm extended upward while posed on the steps of the Sauk county courthouse.

Mueller did not say what occasion might have brought the students together, but said the photo appear to have been taken in the spring and was not taken at a school-sponsored event.

“The school district is investigating this situation and is working with parents, staff and local authorities,” Mueller wrote in a letter to parents and guardians. “If the gesture is what it appears to be, the district will pursue any and all available and appropriate actions, including legal, to address the issue.

The photo spread on Twitter with the hashtag #barabooproud, which is often used by the district to promote its activities and athletic programs.

SOURCE 

Gender hate law sparks free speech fear

The Tasmanian Labor party want to make it illegal to say that trannies are not female

There are fears debate on transgender issues may be shut down in Tasmania by a proposed extensi­on of hate speech laws to protect gender identity, including ­“gender expression”.

A legal analysis of Anti-­Discrimination Act amendments proposed by Labor suggests they could prevent some women’s groups continuing to argue that biological males who self-identify as women should be denied ­access to femal­e-only services.

“Presenting the perspective from a women’s rights position, and not acknowledging that trans women are female, could be construed as inciting hatred (under the changes),” said Bronwyn Williams, a lawyer and spokeswoman for Women Speak Tasmania.

“It limits our ability to say: ‘Hang on a minute, you are a biological male, you’re not female.’

“They could say: ‘I am legally female, I have a female name, my personal preference is for a fema­le personal pronoun, you can’t discuss this, and if you do you are inciting hatred and ridicule.’ ”

Labor’s amendments would extend hate speech protections to include “gender identity or variations of sex characteristics”.

The act’s gender identity defin­ition would be expanded to include “gender expression”, describ­ed as “any personal physical expression, appearance, speech, mannerisms, behaviour patterns, names and personal references that manifest or express gender or gender identity”.

Ms Williams said the changes — likely to be supported by the Greens and to swing on the casting vote of the independent-minded Speaker — could see people accused of hate speech for referring to a trans person’s biological sex, former gender or previous honorific or name
.

The ALP, which backed down this week on the compulsory remov­al of sex from birth certificates, is standing firmly by its amendments.

Labor justice spokeswoman Ella Haddad said the changes were long overdue protections for transgender people, with no impact on free speech.

“In no way does the existing act or the changes I’m proposing seek to prevent people speaking about ­issues, debating issues in the public sphere,” Ms Haddad said.

“The gender identity defin­ition … in the act deals with how somebody identifies, as male or female or some other way. The new definition we’re adding … deals with how you display that expression physically.

“They strengthen the act in terms of protecting people from discrimin­ation, but it’s a furphy argument to say that this would stop people talking about those things.”

Liberal Attorney-General Elise Archer called on Labor to refer all its proposed amendments to the Tasmania Law Refor­m Institute for detailed analysis.

SOURCE