Free Markets, Free People

free speech

The hypocrisy immune left and free speech

It is interesting to me to examine events and the reaction too them in certain contexts, such as left and right.  Below is a listing I found on Facebook (h/t Christopher Buckley) which succinctly states the left’s reaction to each of the events listed:

Rioters in Baltimore: EXPRESSION OF SPEECH
Stomping on US flag: EXPRESSION OF SPEECH
Crucifix in a jar of urine: EXPRESSION OF SPEECH
Cartoon art display: UNPROTECTED INCENDIARY HATE

In fact, rioting is now being redefined (or at least the attempt is being made) from a criminal enterprise to a “free speech” event if a protected minority is involved.  If it’s a bunch of straight white guys, they’re going to jail.

Stomping the flag and a crucifix in a jar of urine have always been defended by the left as free speech.  Burn the flag – free speech.  Neo-Nazi’s marching in a Jewish neighborhood – free speech.  The list goes on.

However, it appears that there is a line somewhere on the left where that changes.  Outrageous acts focused on offending certain groups are always free speech.  Outrageous acts, of exactly the same nature but against protected groups, yeah, screw free speech, it’s hate speech.  And, of course, the protected group is the “victim”.  On the other side, however, the deeply offended group is told to get over it, free speech is inviolate … well, except … yeah.  I’m not sure how the left keeps it straight in their tiny little heads and don’t keel over from an overdose of hypocrisy.

But then, they seem to have developed some sort of tolerance for hypocrisy over the ages – no pun intended.

~McQ

Calling all Grand Dragons …

Say what you will of Bill Maher (I’m not a fan), his statement about Muslims seems to have some legs:

“In his comments on his HBO show, Maher noted that too many Muslims reject the very notion of free thought and free speech, that the problem is not just ‘a few bad apples.’”

See Europe after the Mohommed cartoons and just about anywhere else concerning a little known video that Muslims found to be sacrilegious (and the US government blamed for the deaths in Benghazi).  Or any of a thousand examples.

It is also something many of us believe about the left, for the most part.  And good old UC Berkley has decided to prove the point.  And Bill Maher is the “problem”:

In response to an announcement last week that comedian Bill Maher would speak at UC Berkeley’s fall commencement, an online petition started circulating Thursday that demanded that the campus rescind its invitation.

The Change.org petition was authored by ASUC Senator Marium Navid, who is backed by the Middle Eastern, Muslim and South Asian Coalition, or MEMSA, and Khwaja Ahmed, an active MEMSA member. The petition, which urges students to boycott the decision and asks the campus to stop him from speaking, has already gathered more than 1,400 signatures as of Sunday.

Maher, a stand-up comedian and host of HBO’s Real Time with Bill Maher, is best known for his often-polarizing political commentary. Recently, Maher faced some backlash after controversial remarks regarding Islam during a segment on his Oct. 6 show.

Navid claims this isn’t about free speech, it’s a matter of “campus climate”:

“The First Amendment gives him the right to speak his mind, but it doesn’t give him the right to speak at such an elevated platform as the commencement. That’s a privilege his racist and bigoted remarks don’t give him.”

For the most part, I agree that freedom of speech doesn’t give one the “right” to speak anywhere – that, in fact, this is an invitation to speak at a “commencement”, and that’s a privilege the university extends.  Okay, got it.

But that’s not what this is about … it’s about shutting Bill Maher and those like him up.  It’s about letting a certain group outside the administration of the university decide who will be awarded the privilege to speak and who won’t.  And in that case, it becomes a matter of free speech, doesn’t it?

Perhaps the most ironic development, though, was on MSNBC (of all places) when an advocate for free speech on campus crossed swords with a spokesman for CAIR:

In a heated debate on MSNBC with free speech advocate Greg Lukianoff, CAIR’s Ibrahim Hooper defended UC Berkeley students’ efforts to uninvite comedian Bill Maher for his comments on Islam, comparing him to the Grand Dragon of the KKK.

[…]

LUKIANOFF: The fact that people so vehemently disagree with him is the more reason to hear him out. It’s an art that I feel is actually being lost on the campuses, where we should be teaching people is to at least hear people out before you to get them kicked off campus.

HOOPER: So if they invited the Grand Dragon of the KKK…

 

CAIR, of all organizations, comparing any other organization to the KKK … well, let’s leave it at “ironic” shall we?

The left’s the “useful idiot” in the attempt of organizations like CAIR to stifle any debate or criticism of Islam.  And, Maher is the Grand Dragon?

~McQ

Observations: The QandO Podcast for 23 Feb 14

This week, Michael, and Dale talk about the Ukraine, Free Speech, and guns.

The podcast can be found on Stitcher here. Please remember the feed may take a couple of hours to update after this is first posted.

As a reminder, if you are an iTunes user, don’t forget to subscribe to the QandO podcast, Observations, through iTunes. For those of you who don’t have iTunes, you can subscribe at Stitcher. And, of course, for you newsreader subscriber types, our podcast RSS Feed is here.

Conservatives ruin things, sometimes

Tonight was the big night for the big Muslim/Diversity seminar where the US Attorney for the Eastern district of Tennessee, Bill Killian, and FBI Knoxville SAC Kenneth Moore were gonna explain to us how we might be prosecuted for saying nasty things about Islam or Muslims on the interwebs.

Taking a play from the book of liberals who shout down speakers like Ann Coulter, however, some conservatives showed up and apparently ruined the event by constant heckling.

So, to all you hecklers who ruined the seminar by being disruptive: Now none of us know what Killian meant when he said Facebook postings might be criminal. We don’t know how he thought he could prosecute such postings. That would’ve been interesting to know. Now we don’t know, because you effed it up. So, the next time Coulter gets shouted down by Lefties, you can have nice big cup of STFU. You’re no better than they are.

Oh, and pro tip: When a US Attorney may be willing to go to a dark place when talking about free speech, the best thing you can do is LET HIM. If he’s gonna just hand you his own head on a plate, don’t stop him. Let him drone on about it as much as he wants, and record it. Now, he can do the whole "more in sadness than anger" shtick and whine about how he’s just a poor misunderstood boy.

Jeebus, some people on the Right are utter dolts.

~
Dale Franks
Google+ Profile
Twitter Feed

Observations: The QandO Podcast for 02 Jun 13

This week, Bruce, Michael, and Dale discuss Seminar a US Attorney is giving about how you might violate someone’s civil rights by posting to Facebook.

The direct link to the podcast can be found here.

Observations

As a reminder, if you are an iTunes user, don’t forget to subscribe to the QandO podcast, Observations, through iTunes. For those of you who don’t have iTunes, you can subscribe at Podcast Alley. And, of course, for you newsreader subscriber types, our podcast RSS Feed is here.

Someone’s in trouble

The Los Angeles Times was there when the LASO came to pick up the "Innocence of Muslims" filmmaker for a "voluntary interview".

arrest

As the Times put it:

Just after midnight Saturday morning, authorities descended on the Cerritos home of the man believed to be the filmmaker behind the anti-Muslim movie that has sparked protests and rioting in the Muslim world.

Sheriff’s officials could not be reached by The Times, but department spokesman Steve Whitmore told KNBC News that deputies assisting the federal probation department took Nakoula to the sheriff’s substation in Cerritos for interviewing.

Apparently, they’re concerned about a possible probation violation, because he wasn’t supposed to access the Internet. But now his horrible movie is on YouTube, so he may in trouble. Hence, brown-shirted men showed up at midnight to "escort" him to a "voluntary interview".

There’s no free speech issue at all to be concerned with here. Move along citizen.

Instapundit has a round-up of reaction.

~
Dale Franks
Google+ Profile
Twitter Feed

Three examples of government intrusion where it has no business

Yes, just three.  You’re right, I could probably make it 30 or 300.  3,000 even!  But for brevity sake, three current examples where government has no business yet feels somehow justified in intruding or regulating in a manner that limits freedom.

First is an example of excessive regulation which in reality is an example of crony capitalism, where a regulation or mandatory licensing creates a state enforced bar to entry into an industry.

Louisiana has a plethora of such laws which regulate or license all sorts of things that few of the other states do.  An example?  The manufacture of caskets is illegal unless, well, you read it:

Brown, a soft-spoken man who is only the fifth leader of a monastery that dates to 1889, said he had not known that in Louisiana only licensed funeral directors are allowed to sell “funeral merchandise.”

That means that St. Joseph Abbey must either give up the casket-selling business or become a licensed funeral establishment, which would require a layout parlor for 30 people, a display area for the coffins, the employment of a licensed funeral director and an embalming room.

“Really,” Brown said. “It’s just a big box.”

Indeed it is.  And buyers should have a choice as to whether to buy it or some other casket.  They likely could pick up the Abbey’s “big box” for much less than it might cost to buy a similar casket in a "licensed funeral director’s” place given the required overhead that the regulatory mandate places on such entities.

In effect, the mandate acts as a high bar to entry.  It is likely the existing funeral industry in LA helped write the law.  That’s called “crony capitalism”.  The Abbey simply provides the illustration of the result.  If freedom equals choice, LA is in the choice limiting business with regulatory and licensing regime like this.

Some good news on that front:

The monks won round one in July, when U.S. District Judge Stanwood R. Duval Jr. ruled Louisiana’s restrictions unconstitutional, saying “the sole reason for these laws is the economic protection of the funeral industry.”

As you might imagine, the other side is not happy.  So is it the state that is appealing?  Well not the state, exactly:

The Louisiana State Board of Embalmers and Funeral Directors, which has argued that the law protects consumers, has appealed, and the circuit court in New Orleans will hear the case in early June.

That’s right … the protected want to continue to have their state protected industry … protected.  Good lord, if consumers have real choice, well, they might not buy the crony capitalist’s overpriced “funeral merchandise”.

And, of course, that state isn’t the only one with choice limiters working to cut down on your freedom.  Our next two examples come from the state of New York.  I know, shocking.

Case one – Mayor Bloomberg of NYC has decided that you fat folks just shouldn’t have the right to decide (there’s that choice thing again) on the size of “sugary drink” you can buy.

New York City plans to enact a far-reaching ban on the sale of large sodas and other sugary drinks at restaurants, movie theaters and street carts, in the most ambitious effort yet by the Bloomberg administration to combat rising obesity.

The proposed ban would affect virtually the entire menu of popular sugary drinks found in delis, fast-food franchises and even sports arenas, from energy drinks to pre-sweetened iced teas. The sale of any cup or bottle of sweetened drink larger than 16 fluid  ounces — about the size of a medium coffee, and smaller than a common soda bottle — would be prohibited under the first-in-the-nation plan, which could take effect as soon as next March.

The measure would not apply to diet sodas, fruit juices, dairy-based drinks like milkshakes, or alcoholic beverages; it would not extend to beverages sold in grocery or convenience stores.

“Obesity is a nationwide problem, and all over the United States, public health officials are wringing their hands saying, ‘Oh, this is terrible,’ ” Mr. Bloomberg said in an interview on Wednesday in City Hall’s sprawling Governor’s Room.

“New York City is not about wringing your hands; it’s about doing something,” he said. “I think that’s what the public wants the mayor to do.”

Nanny Bloomberg assumes New Yorkers need a mommy.  That they’re fat because of their diet of sugary drinks of a certain size. He’s sure if he limits you to 16 fluid ounces of such belly wash they’ll slim right down.   Nanny Bloomberg also assumes that the public wants him to intrude into every deli, fast-food franchise, food cart and sports arena to save them from themselves.

Because that’s a nanny’s job – limit choice.  Limit freedom.  All for the common good, of course.  (added: here’s a distant cousin’s view – “Sixteen Ounces of Bull”.  Amen, cuz).

Case 2?  Well it seems a couple of state legislators in NY want to outlaw anonymous posting on the internet.  A couple of Republicans, by the way.

New York State Senator Thomas O’Mara recently proposed legislation that would ban anonymous postings on websites in his state.  The bill requires citizens posting on any blog, social network, message board or other forum, to turn over their full names, home addresses and IP address to web site administrators for public posting.  Supposedly it is being pushed as an “anti-bullying” step.

His cohort in this nonsense, however, reveals the real purpose.  State Assemblyman Jim Conte released a statement saying:

…the legislation will help cut down on the types of mean-spirited and baseless political attacks that add nothing to the real debate and merely seek to falsely tarnish the opponent’s reputation by using the anonymity of the Web. By removing these posts, this bill will help to ensure that there is more accurate information available to voters on their prospective candidates, giving them a better assessment of the candidates they have to choose from.

Or, the “let’s limit free speech to protect politician’s reputations” bill.

As the Center for Competitive Politics points out:

Anonymous speech has played a part in our political process since the very founding of our nation.  Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison wrote the Federalist Papers, which where primarily targeting voters in New York, under various pseudonyms.  The Supreme Court upheld this precedent in McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission, noting:

“[u]nder our Constitution, anonymous pamphleteering is not a pernicious, fraudulent practice, but an honorable tradition of advocacy and of dissent. Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority.” McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm’n, 514 U.S. 334, 357 (1995)

and:

“But political speech by its nature will sometimes have unpalatable consequences, and, in general, our society accords greater weight to the value of free speech than to the dangers of its misuse.” McIntyre, 514 U.S. 334, 357 (1995)

Everyday in just about every way, our freedoms are under assault at all levels of government in this country.  I spend a lot of time recording those at a federal level.  But just as pernicious and certainly just as dangerous are those at local and state levels. 

The cumulative result is we live in a much less free society than we did 100 years ago.  50 years ago.  in fact, 20 years ago.

These three examples can indeed be multiplied by hundreds if not thousands.  They are fairly common unfortunately.  They cost a lot to enforce.  They’re unnecessary.  Most important though,  in each case they limit choice and thereby freedom.

Frog.  Pot. Rising heat.

Time to start getting serious about turning off the freedom limiting burner.

~McQ

Twitter: @McQandO

Greenpeace’s dumb answer to a good question

Apparently Greenpeace has decided that dissent and disagreement (especially when it is effective) doesn’t warrant protection under the right to free speech.

That’s especially true if you’re a dirty, rotten global warming “denier”.

From a FAQ on the Greenpeace site, this question: “Don’t the deniers have a right to free speech?"

No poisoning of the well with the question, is there?  They couldn’t ask “don’t those who disagree with the theory of man-made global warming have a right to free speech”?

If they’d phrased the question that way it might have been harder to attempt to justify this idiotic answer (not that it can be justified even with their poison question):

"There’s a difference between free speech and a campaign to deny the climate science with the goal of undermining international action on climate change," Greenpeace argues. "However, there’s also responsibility that goes with freedom of speech – which is based around honesty and transparency.  Freedom of speech does not apply to misinformation and propaganda."

Because, you know, there’s consensus and the science is settled and all that.  Nothing like smug but unsubstantiated faith in their crumbling cause, huh?

Given the last sentence, if Greenpeace believes that to be true one has to wonder when they’ll begin to self-censor.

Let freedom, scientific inquiry, honest debate and free speech ring.

Or join Greenpeace.

~McQ

Twitter: @McQandO