AS SEEN ON TWITTER

I was on the radio yesterday and a young woman on the panel said:

"People who are offensive shouldn't have a platform."

I actually felt a chill...

I don't think people fathom just how dangerous that sentence is.

— ZUBY: (@ZubyMusic) July 10, 2020

The First Amendment Is Not the ‘Be Nice to Journalists Act of 1791’

The First Amendment Is Not the 'Be Nice to Journalists Act of 1791' | National Review

Describing Trump as uniquely antagonistic to the First Amendment among presidents is preposterous. Members of the Fourth Estate, especially the TV reporters, have a curious view of the First Amendment.

Freedom of Expression, Without the Expression

A French imam weighs in, unfortunately.

Via-City

THEODORE DALRYMPLE


There can be moderation even in moderation, and in his interview on September 20 with the French newspaper Le Figaro, the president of the association of imams in France, Hassen Chalghoumi, proved himself moderately moderate. Asked about the recent publication of satirical Mohammed cartoons in the French magazine Charlie Hebdo, he rejected the use of violence and argued that the way to defend the prophet was through “sharing, tolerance, forgiveness, faith and love.” He was also against trying to take the magazine to court, maintaining his support for freedom of expression.

This is all welcome, though I note that he said nothing about rational argument as a way to defend the prophet. And he also, less encouragingly, said this: “The attitude of Charlie Hebdo is irresponsible. For days, we have been doing all we can to appeal for calm, to ease tensions, to condemn violence; and this journal, either unwittingly or through a desire to increase its sales, has revived it [the atmosphere of violence that followed the anti-Islamic film in the U.S.] at the worst moment.”

Here one would have been tempted to ask the imam when the right time would have been for Charlie Hebdo to publish its cartoons, but the interviewer did not. “But let them not deceive themselves,” the imam continued. “It is for them now to accept their part in the material damage that will be caused, and in every building burnt, every person attacked or killed, their responsibility will be involved.” This is surely an odd way of looking at the situation, accepting as it does the logic of the blackmailer or the intimidator: either you do as we say, or we will be violent.

Please, No More Apologies For Free Speech

Via-The Corner<

By Victor Davis Hanson

This week amid the theatrics at the United Nations, let us hope that President Obama and his lieutenants do not persist with the ongoing administration de facto apologies for the views of a crude American filmmaker, and instead try to explain to the world the singular American commitment to free expression, which always eventually proves to be a commitment to unpopular and often repelling expression.

What has been especially galling about Secretary of Clinton’s chronic hedging, and the apologies aired on Pakistani television, are—other than the abject fear of Islamists— two salient facts. One, the Middle East — not its individuals, but its official government-sponsored and subsidized television, radio, press, and film — routinely demonizes and defames Christians, Jews, and Americans in the worst sort of way. Let us be spared from the sanctimonious boilerplate, for example, from a Prime Minister Erdogan, who has presided over a surge of Turkish anti-Semitic, anti-Christian, and anti-American television shows and popular films, many of them with the de facto aid of the Turkish government.

In Washington, 'Disclose' Means Stifle

Via-Townhall

Debra J. Saunders

Last week, the U.S. House of Representatives passed HR5175, also known as the Disclose Act, by a 219-206 vote. "Disclose," you see, is an acronym for "Democracy Is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections."

The measure's author, Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., also happens to chair the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee -- so you know that the bill has nothing to do with helping Democrats retain their seats. (Just kidding.)

Two Republicans voted for the measure; 36 Democrats voted against it. The bill now goes to the Senate, where it deserves to molder. This bill may have passed largely unnoticed, but if the Senate passes HR5175 as is, with its provision to activate the law in 30 days -- conveniently in time for November's midterm elections but before the Federal Election Commission would have a chance to draft careful rules -- voters should see this as a blatant attempt to rig the system.

Proponents want you to think that the bill fills in gaps created by the U.S. Supreme Court's recent controversial Citizens United ruling that lifted restrictions on independent political advertising by labor and corporations. They just want special interests to disclose their funding of independent political campaigns. Disclosure, after all, is one of those happy-face ideas in American politics.

But it's not that simple. For one thing, the measure bans independent campaign expenditures by businesses that do more than $10 million in contracts with the federal government. As the Center for Competitive Politics noted, the bill's provision against political expenditures by government contractors "abandons the government's long-standing policy of subjecting unions and corporations to similar restrictions. (The Disclose Act) would impose no similar burden on unions that directly negotiate for salary and benefits with the government or receive government grants, or on nonprofit groups that receive grants or taxpayer funding."

I understand that in liberal San Francisco, many readers bristle at the notion that corporations have free-speech rights. But you can't call a bill that muzzles business -- but not labor -- even-handed. Left or right, you might want to think twice before supporting a measure that allows Washington to choose which groups can and cannot speak out on issues of the day.

Also, disclosure isn't always apple pie. The ACLU opposes the bill because, according to Michael Macleod-Ball, its chief legislative and policy counsel, "the system is not strengthened by chilling free speech and invading the privacy of modest donors to controversial causes."

Then there's the NRA exemption. In order to win passage of the bill with Blue Dog Democrats, Van Hollen agreed to exempt the NRA from disclosure requirements. Then he agreed to expand the exemption to cover other large special interest groups, like the Sierra Club. So it's an anti-special interest bill that exempts powerful special interests.

"We don't really think the intent of the bill is to withstand scrutiny in the courts," said Jeff Patch of the Center for Competitive Politics.

No lie. Here's a more honest acronym for Disclose: Democrats Intend to Stifle Contrary Leanings with Selective Enforcement.