The expansion of the Foundation of Individual Rights in Education marks the end of an era, when free speech issues were the sole province of American liberalism
I for one am grateful we have an up and coming organization that believes in the principle of free expression and they are willing to put their money where their mouth is and fight for it.
Amen, Matt. I don't know how we got to a place where freedom of speech went from sacrosanct to mostly unwelcome at America's "educational" institutions, but we're here and it's truly frightening.
Let's all support FIRE before Liberalism, The Enlightenment, and Pluralism all get repealed.
First Amendment absolutist William O. Douglas must be spinning in his grave. Nowadays he couldn't get a second look from a Democratic president for a High Court vacancy.
It's strange. Growing up, the Left believed the First Amendment was sacrosanct. The Right was horrible about speech but they believed in the Second Amendment while the Left was trying to destroy it. In my naïve youth I thought that as long as the two sides fought for their choice Amendments (they both sucked when it came to the 4th and 9th) the Bill of Rights might survive. What I was not expecting was for the traditional liberal left to completely lose it, try to destroy free speech, and call everyone who ties to protect it a "totalitarian fascist". Oh and while we are at it, the modern Left still hates the Second, although the whole Ministry of Truth thing and the abuses of the Fourth (we have entire government agencies dedicated to destroying it) have made a lot of Liberals I know reconsider. We also have to remember much of the Right who spat on the First are still in office and are trying to gaslight everyone even now despite being old and decrepit enough to star as extras in a zombie movie. Remember, phrases like "state secrets" and "extraordinary rendition" help them get it up at their age.
There are still people who were exposed to our founding documents in elementary school, and who grew up in a society that was making steady progress in terms of truly welcoming black and brown and Asian people into the overall culture of our country.
Unfortunately, a large number of citizens have abandoned the wisdom of Dr. Martin Luther King, who always preached inclusion, rather than special treatment based on skin color. Such people want to divide our nation into sub groups that should hate each other.
And yes, Matt330, it is true that back in the 50s and 60s the ACLU was truly a hero among those who believed in freedom of expression. As a young newspaper reporter in Bangor, Maine, our managing editor was a long time member of the ACLU, and the older conservatives in Maine expected the worst but ended up understanding the best.
I was one of those conservatives and remain committed to supporting all of what our founding documents represent in my doddering old age.
You might want to use a narrower brush, Matt330. when you paint a description, however snappy, of old guys and gals 😄
I don't need to use a narrower brush. That flat out was not the case when I was growing up. The whole "I will fight for the right for you to burn the flag" was almost nonexistent at that point in conservative politics and it pissed me off.
It’s obvious some speech is more equal than other speech. What is attractive about FIRE at first look is the lack of “19 different issues in values and defense”, which rationalizes the ACLU’s historical left-leaning bent.
I read a book by a FIRE attorney detailing the organization and their cases, and what was interesting was the multiplicity of political POVs at the organization-Christian conservative, libertarian, Brooklyn vegan lefty-lib-it didn’t matter b/c free speech was the core and uniting value of the organization.
For one thing, a lot of women are also into rape porn, which is part of the issue of the right for people to watch material created by professional actors or legal adults filming a simulation of something that turns them on and sharing it with others. Especially when the Japanese have recently popularized a sub-genre of rape porn where women commit the acts on both men and other women. Whether any material is inherently demeaning to women is very subjective, since people of both genders have a diverse range of tastes and the great majority of people of both genders know the difference between fantasy and reality, and there cannot be laws censoring "dark" fantasy material. Everyone in a democratic society is eventually going to come across material, including popular material (e.g., extreme violence in video games), that they find offensive. Not honoring the request of people to censor material created by legal consenting adults that deeply offends some people is not an indication that women (or any group, for that matter) are being denied a voice. You have the right to openly criticize said material and explain why you do. But designating something as "inherently demeaning" and censoring it as a result creates a very nasty and undemocratic precedent that runs the risk of creating a situation where freedom of speech and expression is defined as *popular* speech and expression.
Btw, I don't like how men are typically depicted in porn. It creates a very unrealistic and negative view of the male gender that can be quite grating and, yes, offensive. But I have to live with that, since it's fantasy, not reality, and many people of both genders disagree with me on this point.
I'm not sure how child porn is inherently demeaning to women, but it's a moot point because it's illegal for people under 18 in any jurisdiction to appear in erotic material, and most claims that said material is "all over the place" generally turns out to be material featuring young legal adults pretending to be underaged people or that "barely legal" material (which features 18-19 year old actresses) and defining that as child porn is a personal definition, not a legal one. Claims to the contrary are never allowed to be properly srutinized by objective journalists, so the public ends up having to rely solely on the claims of others who "know." I understand the very idea is very offensive to many in Western society, but not in Eastern cultures, and arguing whether legal adults pretending to be underaged should be banned or designated "inherently demeaning" (to women?) is a lengthy argument unto itself that only the bravest souls will broach lest they be called all the usual things and shouted down rather than listened to.
I think the bottom line is this, however. Like it or not, you, me, and everyone else here are not going to live in a democratic society where only our tastes and sentiments are allowed to be viewed by others. We are going to come across things we find offensive. Claims that said material is "inherently demeaning" to this or that group of people *will* be challenged by organizations seriously dedicated to protecting free speech regardless of how many people may feel about it. That does not mean that said group is misogynistic, or misandrist, etc. It simply means that free speech is not the same thing as popular speech, and people coming across offensive speech and fantasy material is a fact of life in a democratic society. Anyone is allowed to complain about it and do their best to verbally discourage others from viewing/reading it, but the fact that it doesn't get banished from existence does not mean that a certain demographic in society has no voice.
The left was in favor of free speech when they had sole possession of the microphone via the three networks, publishing houses and the major metropolitan daily newspapers.
The internet (especially when Matt Drudge broke the Monica Lewinsky story) changed all that. This new censorship fetish on the left has been building for quite some time.
I don't think the left can put the genie back into the bottle, but with the backing of Big Tech, they're gonna try.
"The left was in favor of free speech when they had sole possession of the microphone."
This is not entirely correct. True, the now-dominant totalitarian poseur-Left was in favor of free speech from 1950s - roughly 1980s when, in the ashes of Marxist failure to implement governments actually *of the people* by its middle-age in the mid-20th century, a new tack was devised by "Leftist" "leaders" to rally the powerless by ramming a new message through -- one that not only talked about the powerless *as identities*, but now using the strategy of free speech support and promotion to elevate them as well.
But this began prior to the time, roughly the late 60s onward, when the New Left -- the identity-based Left -- eventually became dominant. That is, free speech was an underdog battle they fought in the 50s and early 60s, a battle they eventually won. Hard to believe now, but censorship was still rampant prior to c.1970, done by conservatives.
Now that they're fully on top and have activated their education-system-trained armies, they're slamming the trap door shut on free speech. Because free speech is *not* one of the totalitarian-"Left"s principles -- it was merely a temporary strategy. True Leftists are small-d democrats, as our core principle is fairness (complementing the Right's core principle of freedom). So Leftism is about empowering "the people" -- not totalitarian dictators who keep followers mindless and in chains.
I use the term "the left" and "leftism" more broadly than you do.
Also, I think the classical left struck out with using class as a lever and is now giving identity a go. That is the whole idea behind the whole privileged and oppressed dichotomies.
If success and failure is nothing more than an accident of birth, then you can try and euthanize meritocracy and justify massive government confiscation of wealth and redistribution.
"[T]he older left struck out with using class as a lever for the Revolution and is instead giving identity a go"
Yes, that's what I say happened. But this applies to the "Leftist" leaders, not the followers. Big difference. Leftism is democratic; but from Marx on, there was a bifurcation into an elite vanguard and the unwashed.
Under the Marxist formula and strategy, the revolutions -- all of them -- fairly quickly came about, but also quickly resulted in dictatorships. Not a good look. The poseur-democrats needed to switch gears to retain their armies, and do it fast. So they learned, and now their Totalitarianism 2.0 employs, these things: (1) immutable identities, and (2) perpetual denial of any progress. It's the permanent war they dreamed of, for permanent control of their marks.
Exactly. Fat and flabby ... and still powerless. The result of the con: Where only rights -- a well-justified Leftist principle -- BUT no responsibilities -- an equally well-justified Rightist principle -- leads to.
Glad to, having recently reminded myself via Mike Duncan’s excellent “Revolutions” podcast, which is just winding up (99 episodes!) the Russian Revolution. Highly recommended.
"I never thought I'd live to see the day when the right wing would become the cool ones giving the middle finger to the establishment, and the left wing becoming the sniveling self-righteous twatty ones going around shaming everyone."
MSM may have a "leftist tone" but its primary function is to support the billionaire class, since they own MSM. Identity politics that they promote, can then cover for deindustrialization and globalizing our supply chain (see how well that's currently working out), stagnant and low wages for the majority, the transfer of wealth to the ultra-rich, unsafe jobs, lack of freedom for labor to organize, flooding the real estate market with cheap cash so hedge funds can buy up housing and convert it all into rental properties, flooding the stock market with cheap cash which then allow companies to bid up their stocks for executive and stockholder enrichment but has been shown to do very little to cause companies to invest in new production facilities to help the USA transition into a 21st century economy that is sustainable for all. Check out Mark Blyth's book Angrynomics!
Do you mean the democrat-republican party duopoly? Do you want them to support the Trumpublican party that no longer believes in the electoral process? A certain segment of the billionaire class (Koch, Mercer etc) is willing to go full fascist. Do you want to end the peaceful transfer of power so we don't have to worry about democracy anymore? I do acknowledge there were Hilary supporters in 2016 that were leaning that way. However, I still believe in upholding the rule of law and free and fair elections.
The RW echo chamber doesn't really exist. Leftism is the dominant culture and is inescapable. Its views are broadcast 24/7 from every direction. Sports, movies, commercials, every news channel except 1, social media moderators affirm, validate and proselytize the left's narrative.
Conservatives cannot escape the leftist viewpoint. Progressives can easily escape the conservative viewpoint, and in fact they generally do. That is where the echo chamber exists.
It's more difficult to escape the law, and there, while I'm sure anyone can offer up examples of things that offend their sensibilities, it's solidly rooted in property rights and freedom of contract.
That's completely ridiculous. The main "propaganda organ" for the Iraq war was the New York Times, and the dreadful Judith Miller, who told lie after lie about Saddam Hussein.
Wait, liberals have turned against free speech, free thought and free expression??
Nahh that's just a right-wing conspiracy theory, it's only a few kooky kids on campus, nothing to see here, they'll grow out of it when they graduate.
And despite the fact that this phenomenon in no way exists and is simply a Fox News figment, doesn't Justice demand that if you say something that hurts the feelings of a sexual or ethnic minority you should lose your job, career, family and friends? That's simple democratic accountability!
And if you want to publish a book but don't agree to all the suggestions made by your Sensitivity Reader, isn't it only right that your book gets pulped and you get hounded into submission? Who's the real snowflake, now?
FIRE is great but the most important step in the process of dethroning the Woke Puritans is to hold a mirror to their faces to show them what they've become: all that they claim to hate and oppose.
Here's to FIRE (and to Matt and to the rest of us) for holding up that mirror.
What has happened to Ilya Shapiro at Georgetown Law School, Joshua Katz at Princeton and David Sabatini at MIT makes it clear how badly an organization like FIRE is needed. I intent to donate regularly, because free speech is essential to a robust and successful society, which I fear we’re losing at an exponential rate.
I hope there’s a way to teach the week minded but strongly willed brats at universities and HR departments around the country that their crybully ways are coming to a swift end, but I fear things are going to get a lot worse before they get any better.
"The only reason those other issues can rate is because we have our free speech right to discuss them. So freedom of speech is the first right. It’s the matrix. It’s the indispensable condition of nearly every other form of freedom."
This IS the main point. Free speech needs to be as near absolute as practical.
One bit of analysis about the shift in liberal opinions about free speech that does not get enough attention is the combination of a clear indication that decades of liberal policies in government have made a mess of things... and the fact that the Democrats seem to own the mainstream media and big tech. Add those two things together and it explains a bit of political desperation and strategy to control the political narrative. So I see the liberal shift against free speech more just their political tribe sense of political advantage and disadvantage. When Trump won in 2016 it scared the hell out of them that everything was falling apart. Instead of learning what the voters were pissed about, they dismissed it and just doubled down on the controlling strategy. I think it was a very wrong move... and now the pendulum is swinging what will likely be past what Trump signified to them. FIRE is an example of what we will see more of... and it does not play well for the American Democrat party.
The ACLU op-ed in the NYT advocating for vaccine mandates as the path to freedom, which came out well after it was clear the vaccines had failed spectacularly at reducing transmission and the trials concluding otherwise had been revealed as fraudulent, was the point of no return. I can’t ever again take them seriously as a civil liberties organization after that. They are dead to me. They are nothing more than shills for establishment power. Time to get involved with FIRE (though I’d be interested to see where they come down on the ever-expanding “public health” exception to free speech. Will they push back as aggressively in that area?)
Are you serious? Whoever doesn't follow the dominant narrative WILL be fired. Have you seen or heard mainstream reporters standing up for Julian Assange? Making a case to understand Russia and China? Or Palestine? Criticizing Israel? Attacking the ridiculous "we are exceptional" and "we are the indispensable nation," "the grreatest nation on earth?" ...and crap like that? Now that all things Russian are banned and RT gone, what do we have that's "free speech?" ONLY alternative news, where all the honest reporters reside. O.K. if I say I hate the USA and Israel? Not if I say it on social media...I'd be censored.
It's been "something else" for a long time. The first person I remember getting fired for opposing the Iraq war was Phil Donahue. Will FIRE defend those of us who respect and admire and believe Putin? Dan Cohen says when a reporter is fired and leaves the building, those who haven't been fired know why and thereafter self-censor.
FIRE has a great track record, based on caring only about ones First Amendment rights having been violated. They have been truly non-partisan. I expect this to continue.
According to the media and twitter, any organization that defends liberty, free speech and civil rights are just front organizations of white supremacy. This is nothing but a bulwark to protect the privileges of cis-heteronormative white males.
Yes, I consider Coddling of the American Mind to be the definitive work on the dominant cultural pathologies of our time. It helped me a lot in trying to make sense of the craziness all around without going crazy myself.
This is what I just told someone. This is a great unsensational article about free speech. I don't really think the ACLU was ever totally about free speech even when they defended the KKK, but that is a line they cultivated to get donations. That said, they have become much more political than they were. As a "liberal," one of the biggest things that has driven me away from Democrats/the new left/whatever, is their support of censorship.
“The only reason those other issues can rate is because we have our free speech right to discuss them.” So freedom of speech is the first right. It’s the matrix. It’s the indispensable condition of nearly every other form of freedom. - EXACTLY! And thank you!
Matt does F.I.R.E. take a position on regulation of social media platforms as "common carriers" that would force them apply First Amendment principles when they moderate content?
Yes, good question. I have been put on TO on FB due to comments about trans issues, Russian troops, all kinds of things. Never about attacks on other persons, simply making comments about general issues.
Conservative ideas are considered hate speech in FB and Twitter.
I for one am grateful we have an up and coming organization that believes in the principle of free expression and they are willing to put their money where their mouth is and fight for it.
Amen, Matt. I don't know how we got to a place where freedom of speech went from sacrosanct to mostly unwelcome at America's "educational" institutions, but we're here and it's truly frightening.
Let's all support FIRE before Liberalism, The Enlightenment, and Pluralism all get repealed.
First Amendment absolutist William O. Douglas must be spinning in his grave. Nowadays he couldn't get a second look from a Democratic president for a High Court vacancy.
It's strange. Growing up, the Left believed the First Amendment was sacrosanct. The Right was horrible about speech but they believed in the Second Amendment while the Left was trying to destroy it. In my naïve youth I thought that as long as the two sides fought for their choice Amendments (they both sucked when it came to the 4th and 9th) the Bill of Rights might survive. What I was not expecting was for the traditional liberal left to completely lose it, try to destroy free speech, and call everyone who ties to protect it a "totalitarian fascist". Oh and while we are at it, the modern Left still hates the Second, although the whole Ministry of Truth thing and the abuses of the Fourth (we have entire government agencies dedicated to destroying it) have made a lot of Liberals I know reconsider. We also have to remember much of the Right who spat on the First are still in office and are trying to gaslight everyone even now despite being old and decrepit enough to star as extras in a zombie movie. Remember, phrases like "state secrets" and "extraordinary rendition" help them get it up at their age.
There are still people who were exposed to our founding documents in elementary school, and who grew up in a society that was making steady progress in terms of truly welcoming black and brown and Asian people into the overall culture of our country.
Unfortunately, a large number of citizens have abandoned the wisdom of Dr. Martin Luther King, who always preached inclusion, rather than special treatment based on skin color. Such people want to divide our nation into sub groups that should hate each other.
And yes, Matt330, it is true that back in the 50s and 60s the ACLU was truly a hero among those who believed in freedom of expression. As a young newspaper reporter in Bangor, Maine, our managing editor was a long time member of the ACLU, and the older conservatives in Maine expected the worst but ended up understanding the best.
I was one of those conservatives and remain committed to supporting all of what our founding documents represent in my doddering old age.
You might want to use a narrower brush, Matt330. when you paint a description, however snappy, of old guys and gals 😄
I don't need to use a narrower brush. That flat out was not the case when I was growing up. The whole "I will fight for the right for you to burn the flag" was almost nonexistent at that point in conservative politics and it pissed me off.
As a conservative back when you were pissed off you might consider that I and other conservatives who honored our Bill of Rights were also pissed off.
My ending sentence was intended to be a humorous comment on how quickly we all assign certain attributes to people who are long retired.
It’s obvious some speech is more equal than other speech. What is attractive about FIRE at first look is the lack of “19 different issues in values and defense”, which rationalizes the ACLU’s historical left-leaning bent.
I read a book by a FIRE attorney detailing the organization and their cases, and what was interesting was the multiplicity of political POVs at the organization-Christian conservative, libertarian, Brooklyn vegan lefty-lib-it didn’t matter b/c free speech was the core and uniting value of the organization.
For one thing, a lot of women are also into rape porn, which is part of the issue of the right for people to watch material created by professional actors or legal adults filming a simulation of something that turns them on and sharing it with others. Especially when the Japanese have recently popularized a sub-genre of rape porn where women commit the acts on both men and other women. Whether any material is inherently demeaning to women is very subjective, since people of both genders have a diverse range of tastes and the great majority of people of both genders know the difference between fantasy and reality, and there cannot be laws censoring "dark" fantasy material. Everyone in a democratic society is eventually going to come across material, including popular material (e.g., extreme violence in video games), that they find offensive. Not honoring the request of people to censor material created by legal consenting adults that deeply offends some people is not an indication that women (or any group, for that matter) are being denied a voice. You have the right to openly criticize said material and explain why you do. But designating something as "inherently demeaning" and censoring it as a result creates a very nasty and undemocratic precedent that runs the risk of creating a situation where freedom of speech and expression is defined as *popular* speech and expression.
Btw, I don't like how men are typically depicted in porn. It creates a very unrealistic and negative view of the male gender that can be quite grating and, yes, offensive. But I have to live with that, since it's fantasy, not reality, and many people of both genders disagree with me on this point.
I'm not sure how child porn is inherently demeaning to women, but it's a moot point because it's illegal for people under 18 in any jurisdiction to appear in erotic material, and most claims that said material is "all over the place" generally turns out to be material featuring young legal adults pretending to be underaged people or that "barely legal" material (which features 18-19 year old actresses) and defining that as child porn is a personal definition, not a legal one. Claims to the contrary are never allowed to be properly srutinized by objective journalists, so the public ends up having to rely solely on the claims of others who "know." I understand the very idea is very offensive to many in Western society, but not in Eastern cultures, and arguing whether legal adults pretending to be underaged should be banned or designated "inherently demeaning" (to women?) is a lengthy argument unto itself that only the bravest souls will broach lest they be called all the usual things and shouted down rather than listened to.
I think the bottom line is this, however. Like it or not, you, me, and everyone else here are not going to live in a democratic society where only our tastes and sentiments are allowed to be viewed by others. We are going to come across things we find offensive. Claims that said material is "inherently demeaning" to this or that group of people *will* be challenged by organizations seriously dedicated to protecting free speech regardless of how many people may feel about it. That does not mean that said group is misogynistic, or misandrist, etc. It simply means that free speech is not the same thing as popular speech, and people coming across offensive speech and fantasy material is a fact of life in a democratic society. Anyone is allowed to complain about it and do their best to verbally discourage others from viewing/reading it, but the fact that it doesn't get banished from existence does not mean that a certain demographic in society has no voice.
The left was in favor of free speech when they had sole possession of the microphone via the three networks, publishing houses and the major metropolitan daily newspapers.
The internet (especially when Matt Drudge broke the Monica Lewinsky story) changed all that. This new censorship fetish on the left has been building for quite some time.
I don't think the left can put the genie back into the bottle, but with the backing of Big Tech, they're gonna try.
"The left was in favor of free speech when they had sole possession of the microphone."
This is not entirely correct. True, the now-dominant totalitarian poseur-Left was in favor of free speech from 1950s - roughly 1980s when, in the ashes of Marxist failure to implement governments actually *of the people* by its middle-age in the mid-20th century, a new tack was devised by "Leftist" "leaders" to rally the powerless by ramming a new message through -- one that not only talked about the powerless *as identities*, but now using the strategy of free speech support and promotion to elevate them as well.
But this began prior to the time, roughly the late 60s onward, when the New Left -- the identity-based Left -- eventually became dominant. That is, free speech was an underdog battle they fought in the 50s and early 60s, a battle they eventually won. Hard to believe now, but censorship was still rampant prior to c.1970, done by conservatives.
Now that they're fully on top and have activated their education-system-trained armies, they're slamming the trap door shut on free speech. Because free speech is *not* one of the totalitarian-"Left"s principles -- it was merely a temporary strategy. True Leftists are small-d democrats, as our core principle is fairness (complementing the Right's core principle of freedom). So Leftism is about empowering "the people" -- not totalitarian dictators who keep followers mindless and in chains.
I use the term "the left" and "leftism" more broadly than you do.
Also, I think the classical left struck out with using class as a lever and is now giving identity a go. That is the whole idea behind the whole privileged and oppressed dichotomies.
If success and failure is nothing more than an accident of birth, then you can try and euthanize meritocracy and justify massive government confiscation of wealth and redistribution.
"[T]he older left struck out with using class as a lever for the Revolution and is instead giving identity a go"
Yes, that's what I say happened. But this applies to the "Leftist" leaders, not the followers. Big difference. Leftism is democratic; but from Marx on, there was a bifurcation into an elite vanguard and the unwashed.
Under the Marxist formula and strategy, the revolutions -- all of them -- fairly quickly came about, but also quickly resulted in dictatorships. Not a good look. The poseur-democrats needed to switch gears to retain their armies, and do it fast. So they learned, and now their Totalitarianism 2.0 employs, these things: (1) immutable identities, and (2) perpetual denial of any progress. It's the permanent war they dreamed of, for permanent control of their marks.
And all of these modern leftists think they will get to be GS-15s in the newly created Ministry of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion.
Not gonna happen. They will instead work the fields and factories when production takes a nosedive.
Exactly. Fat and flabby ... and still powerless. The result of the con: Where only rights -- a well-justified Leftist principle -- BUT no responsibilities -- an equally well-justified Rightist principle -- leads to.
Lenin (after Karl Kautsky), not Marx was responsible for vanguardism.
Yup, Bolshevik vs. Menshevik.
I understand Marx implied it before Lenin implemented it. I should dig out the specifics -- thanks for reminding me.
Glad to, having recently reminded myself via Mike Duncan’s excellent “Revolutions” podcast, which is just winding up (99 episodes!) the Russian Revolution. Highly recommended.
“You can’t trust freedom when it’s not in your hand” Guns N’ Roses “Civil War”
"I never thought I'd live to see the day when the right wing would become the cool ones giving the middle finger to the establishment, and the left wing becoming the sniveling self-righteous twatty ones going around shaming everyone."
John Lydon.
Lydon was team MAGA in the 20’ election.
MSM may have a "leftist tone" but its primary function is to support the billionaire class, since they own MSM. Identity politics that they promote, can then cover for deindustrialization and globalizing our supply chain (see how well that's currently working out), stagnant and low wages for the majority, the transfer of wealth to the ultra-rich, unsafe jobs, lack of freedom for labor to organize, flooding the real estate market with cheap cash so hedge funds can buy up housing and convert it all into rental properties, flooding the stock market with cheap cash which then allow companies to bid up their stocks for executive and stockholder enrichment but has been shown to do very little to cause companies to invest in new production facilities to help the USA transition into a 21st century economy that is sustainable for all. Check out Mark Blyth's book Angrynomics!
The main point of the MSM is to support the democrat party. Full stop.
Do you mean the democrat-republican party duopoly? Do you want them to support the Trumpublican party that no longer believes in the electoral process? A certain segment of the billionaire class (Koch, Mercer etc) is willing to go full fascist. Do you want to end the peaceful transfer of power so we don't have to worry about democracy anymore? I do acknowledge there were Hilary supporters in 2016 that were leaning that way. However, I still believe in upholding the rule of law and free and fair elections.
No, I mean the democrats.
The RW echo chamber doesn't really exist. Leftism is the dominant culture and is inescapable. Its views are broadcast 24/7 from every direction. Sports, movies, commercials, every news channel except 1, social media moderators affirm, validate and proselytize the left's narrative.
Conservatives cannot escape the leftist viewpoint. Progressives can easily escape the conservative viewpoint, and in fact they generally do. That is where the echo chamber exists.
Don't you remember? It's a "vast, right-wing conspiracy" ... self-contradictory arguments are part and parcel ...
nobody projects like the modern left. nobody.
….and COVID is the left’s version of WMD
The left's version of WMD was almost certainly the Russian Collusion Hoax. Though 1/6 is a close second.
sir, this is an Arby's
It's easy to ignore popular culture.
It's more difficult to escape the law, and there, while I'm sure anyone can offer up examples of things that offend their sensibilities, it's solidly rooted in property rights and freedom of contract.
Is it, though?
I'm not not even sure the commitment to "equal enforcement" is "solidly rooted" these days.
As practiced no, it's never been, but the statutes and caseload are formally so rooted.
all of that is small beer compared to the Russian Collusion Hoax and the media's behavior over the past 6 years.
Dude - not sure what on earth you're smoking, but in the name of all that is decent and good, please share ...
That's completely ridiculous. The main "propaganda organ" for the Iraq war was the New York Times, and the dreadful Judith Miller, who told lie after lie about Saddam Hussein.
Hey Tyerbyter, are you a spy and a girl delighter?
He walks into a grey sandstone building .... oooofff!!
Nick Danger, third eye!
Firesign Theater, now that’s an example of a brilliant demonstration of free speech!
And now it's time to play "Beat the reaper"!!!
He's very good with the help.
Gene, I Wish I could like and dislike your comment. You have a valid point about the Iraq war but otherwise you’re just whining.
Point taken
If that point is right, can you make any kind of causal link from it?
Or is it something that's gotten worse, as other things have gotten worse?
Wait, liberals have turned against free speech, free thought and free expression??
Nahh that's just a right-wing conspiracy theory, it's only a few kooky kids on campus, nothing to see here, they'll grow out of it when they graduate.
And despite the fact that this phenomenon in no way exists and is simply a Fox News figment, doesn't Justice demand that if you say something that hurts the feelings of a sexual or ethnic minority you should lose your job, career, family and friends? That's simple democratic accountability!
And if you want to publish a book but don't agree to all the suggestions made by your Sensitivity Reader, isn't it only right that your book gets pulped and you get hounded into submission? Who's the real snowflake, now?
FIRE is great but the most important step in the process of dethroning the Woke Puritans is to hold a mirror to their faces to show them what they've become: all that they claim to hate and oppose.
Here's to FIRE (and to Matt and to the rest of us) for holding up that mirror.
Talk about a pendulum. The progs are now the prudes.
What has happened to Ilya Shapiro at Georgetown Law School, Joshua Katz at Princeton and David Sabatini at MIT makes it clear how badly an organization like FIRE is needed. I intent to donate regularly, because free speech is essential to a robust and successful society, which I fear we’re losing at an exponential rate.
I hope there’s a way to teach the week minded but strongly willed brats at universities and HR departments around the country that their crybully ways are coming to a swift end, but I fear things are going to get a lot worse before they get any better.
Crybully, my new fave, thx!
Weak*. Damnit.
We all do it, hon. It's what makes us human.
"The only reason those other issues can rate is because we have our free speech right to discuss them. So freedom of speech is the first right. It’s the matrix. It’s the indispensable condition of nearly every other form of freedom."
This IS the main point. Free speech needs to be as near absolute as practical.
One bit of analysis about the shift in liberal opinions about free speech that does not get enough attention is the combination of a clear indication that decades of liberal policies in government have made a mess of things... and the fact that the Democrats seem to own the mainstream media and big tech. Add those two things together and it explains a bit of political desperation and strategy to control the political narrative. So I see the liberal shift against free speech more just their political tribe sense of political advantage and disadvantage. When Trump won in 2016 it scared the hell out of them that everything was falling apart. Instead of learning what the voters were pissed about, they dismissed it and just doubled down on the controlling strategy. I think it was a very wrong move... and now the pendulum is swinging what will likely be past what Trump signified to them. FIRE is an example of what we will see more of... and it does not play well for the American Democrat party.
The ACLU op-ed in the NYT advocating for vaccine mandates as the path to freedom, which came out well after it was clear the vaccines had failed spectacularly at reducing transmission and the trials concluding otherwise had been revealed as fraudulent, was the point of no return. I can’t ever again take them seriously as a civil liberties organization after that. They are dead to me. They are nothing more than shills for establishment power. Time to get involved with FIRE (though I’d be interested to see where they come down on the ever-expanding “public health” exception to free speech. Will they push back as aggressively in that area?)
Looks like FIRE does have some good Covid-specific material: https://www.thefire.org/resources/high-school-network/high-school-curriculum/coronavirus-lesson/
If America loses free speech, it's no longer America. It's something else.
We are the only Anglosphere nation left that believes in free speech.
It is no longer the case in Britain, Australia or Canada.
Are you serious? Whoever doesn't follow the dominant narrative WILL be fired. Have you seen or heard mainstream reporters standing up for Julian Assange? Making a case to understand Russia and China? Or Palestine? Criticizing Israel? Attacking the ridiculous "we are exceptional" and "we are the indispensable nation," "the grreatest nation on earth?" ...and crap like that? Now that all things Russian are banned and RT gone, what do we have that's "free speech?" ONLY alternative news, where all the honest reporters reside. O.K. if I say I hate the USA and Israel? Not if I say it on social media...I'd be censored.
It's been "something else" for a long time. The first person I remember getting fired for opposing the Iraq war was Phil Donahue. Will FIRE defend those of us who respect and admire and believe Putin? Dan Cohen says when a reporter is fired and leaves the building, those who haven't been fired know why and thereafter self-censor.
FIRE has a great track record, based on caring only about ones First Amendment rights having been violated. They have been truly non-partisan. I expect this to continue.
I've been a supporter of FIRE for a long time. They are the real deal. Look for them to be assaulted from the left.
It is already happening. NPR refers to them as a far right wing organization. On SLPC hate list in 3...2...1...
According to the media and twitter, any organization that defends liberty, free speech and civil rights are just front organizations of white supremacy. This is nothing but a bulwark to protect the privileges of cis-heteronormative white males.
I heard the Kochs are behind it...
Their CEO also wrote a book with Haidt. Very good book
The Coddling of the American Mind.
So that explains why that Atlantic article seemed to be a bit too intelligent to be coming from Haidt alone!
Yes, I consider Coddling of the American Mind to be the definitive work on the dominant cultural pathologies of our time. It helped me a lot in trying to make sense of the craziness all around without going crazy myself.
"So freedom of speech is the first right. It’s the matrix. It’s the indispensable condition of nearly every other form of freedom."
Amazing that Greg Lukianoff had to make that point to a college professor.
Yay! Every once in a while someone writes about something positive. Not sure I can deal with it, but I will try. Many thanks.
FIRE needs to set up shop in Canada. Desperately.
This is what I just told someone. This is a great unsensational article about free speech. I don't really think the ACLU was ever totally about free speech even when they defended the KKK, but that is a line they cultivated to get donations. That said, they have become much more political than they were. As a "liberal," one of the biggest things that has driven me away from Democrats/the new left/whatever, is their support of censorship.
Yes, I have "woke" friends who won't let me oppose the new (illogical) pronouns.
“The only reason those other issues can rate is because we have our free speech right to discuss them.” So freedom of speech is the first right. It’s the matrix. It’s the indispensable condition of nearly every other form of freedom. - EXACTLY! And thank you!
Vibe shift.
Matt does F.I.R.E. take a position on regulation of social media platforms as "common carriers" that would force them apply First Amendment principles when they moderate content?
Yes, good question. I have been put on TO on FB due to comments about trans issues, Russian troops, all kinds of things. Never about attacks on other persons, simply making comments about general issues.
Conservative ideas are considered hate speech in FB and Twitter.
If folks want to understand the general idea & issues behind designating social media platforms "common carriers" should read UCLA law Professor Eugene Volokh's 2021 article on the topic. The article is 86 pages long, but the introduction is 4 pages and fairly straightforward for non lawyers: https://deliverypdf.ssrn.com/delivery.php?ID=377005116116022077072069073108114000010018028080064039094027112077084089110002118121101050022063001111037109016004123070019083005025004048052081081084110000019002064070106031087101022127072122064023111004103104119090065020026004023083080126&EXT=pdf&INDEX=TRUE