Sorry to sound paranoid, but...as we watch our country slip into a fascist state, it's wise to remember the frightening natural tendencies of the Republican Party.
This is just one small example highlighting the attitude of the iron-fisted party in power, threatening to crush free speech for the sake of business, all without blinking an eye.
You would think free speech naturally fits into the whole idea of our free market system, but it doesn't unless you're on that short list of GOP favored industries:
CNET: One of Trump's point people on tech during the 2016 transition, and one of the go-to voices on tech issues, Congressman Darrell Issa, says tech leaders speaking out against President Donald Trump are making a mistake ... criticizing Trump and his administration on both policy and social issues are making a mistake. For example, Apple CEO Tim Cook, who is gay, criticized Trump's ban on transgender people serving in the military in July. "We are indebted to all who serve. Discrimination against anyone holds everyone back." "I stand with the Dreamers," wrote Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, after Trump announced he was rescinding an Obama-era program called DACA, which protected undocumented immigrants brought to the US as children from deportation.
Thanks to Trump, Issa is now free to say what Republicans have been thinking for decades, and that is business and stockholders hold sway over progress and social policies that put Americans first:
"The tech leaders who are officers of public companies are really ill-advised to make those statements because those statements, quite frankly, are required to be in the best interest of their stockholders and often they're not."
Home Depot Co-Founder Bernie Marcus' Criticism of Americans? Now that's Free Speech: It's still open season to criticize large swathes of Americans everywhere if you're an elitist Republican supporting corporate jerk. He's not worried about stockholders...odd isn't it?
Note: Bernie Marcus went overboard bragging about how important the $1000 bonus was to Americans, who can now use that money to "pay their mortgage, a car repair, they could be paying for a past due bill." But these things weren't important enough to raise the minimum wage, or at the least, stop wage stagnation:
Jimmy Carter laid it on the line, as he has been known to do, with Thom Hartmann. Why this doesn't seem to register with conservatives, I'll never know:
HARTMANN: Our Supreme Court has now said, “unlimited money in politics.” It seems like a violation of principles of democracy. … Your thoughts on that? CARTER: It violates the essence of what made America a great country in its political system. Now it’s just an oligarchy, with unlimited political bribery being the essence of getting the nominations for president or to elect the president. And the same thing applies to governors and U.S. senators and congress members. So now we’ve just seen a complete subversion of our political system as a payoff to major contributors, who want and expect and sometimes get favors for themselves after the election’s over. … The incumbents, Democrats and Republicans, look upon this unlimited money as a great benefit to themselves.
Jonathan ("collusion is not a crime") Turley, Professor of law at the George Washington University, has been a big supporter of so-called free speech legislation on public campuses around the country. But even he has some reservations when it comes to the University of Wisconsin's just adopted policy that punishes protesters who may or may not have tried to shut down speakers, guest or otherwise.
Turley: State public schools Superintendent Tony Evers was the only negative vote. In fairness to Evers, I think that the policy could be more specific on key terms when it proscribes conduct that “materially and substantially disrupt the rights of others to engage in or listen to expressive activity.” Vague terms can themselves be inimical to free speech. Clearly students should be able to protest and those protests can be “disruptive” in the sense that their size or volume can impact an event. However, the proscribed conduct should focus on actively barring doors or entering rooms to prevent speakers from being heard. For that reason, I would not favor this draft of the policy ... I am equally concerned by language like the following:
"The freedom to debate and discuss the merits of competing ideas does not mean that members of the university community may say whatever they wish, wherever they wish. Consistent with longstanding practice informed by law, institutions within the System may restrict expression that violates the law, that falsely defames a specific individual, that constitutes a genuine threat or discriminatory harassment, that unjustifiably invades substantial privacy or confidentiality interests, or that is otherwise directly incompatible with the functioning of the university."
Again, it is not clear what is “otherwise directly incompatible with the function of the university” — an expression that could be read quite broadly.
Here's the legislation cooked up by Republicans so far, that forces taxpayers to either pay for right wing security or, believe it or not, throw caution to the wind when it comes to public safety:
The bill also requires administrators to make all reasonable efforts and make available all reasonable resources to ensure the safety of individuals invited to speak on campuses. If they cannot ensure an individual's safety, the bill requires that the individual must be allowed to speak in spite of that determination.
And even though you think you have a right to protest...you don't, considering the broad prohibition below:
The bill also prohibits a person from ... threatening to organize protests or riots or to incite violence with the purpose to dissuade or intimidate an invited speaker from attending a campus event.
Despite Democratic opposition, their opinion is irrelevant until they get a Republicans stamp of approval. That's just the way things are now:
Sen. LaTonya Johnson (D-Milwaukee) said “It’s disappointing that the UW System Board of Regents are willing to consider a policy that will give comfort to people coming to our campuses preaching hate and that we are threatening expulsions for students who stand up to hateful rhetoric and actions." Kat Kerwin, UW-Madison student and Associated Students of Madison representative, said as a campus leader and activist, she was concerned that the vaguely defined definition of punishable protest "may put my education at risk at the expense of my activism."
What the hell is wrong at the University of Wisconsin Madison? The administration has adopted a policy that takes aim at its own students on behalf of the carnival barker crowd of right wing speakers crying alligator tears over not being able to exercise their "right to be heard" on campus. I've always loved that right.
This speech suppression scheme based on the myth conservative have to remain silent and hide on college campuses. This imagined threat is so unfair. Never mind that college educators don't share in that freedom...more on that incredible hypocrisy later.
For Scott Walker, he just thinks it's wrong, so goodbye dissenting free speech:
Walker: "Whether it's against me or somebody else say, "I disagree," but disagreeing and even protesting is one thing ... But the minute you shut down a speaker, no matter whether they're liberal, conservative, or somewhere in between, I just think that's wrong."To me a university...anywhere free speech should be upheld...but disrupting and shutting down as we've seen here in Wisconsin, but elsewhere across the country, shutting down the ability for someone to actually be heard is not free speech."
The UW did nothing to censor or discourage right wing appearance on campus, but they are surrendering their students right to protest, to Republicans who have threatened to cut funding.
Republicans are demanding a conservative agenda on campus, at the same time they're denouncing the supposed liberal agenda on campus. So far, Republicans have boldly stacked the Board of Regents with Scott Walker picks (all but 2), influenced curriculum, require their guest speakers, and soon will have total control over hiring instructors.
Regents President John Robert Behling told the board before Friday’s vote that adopting the policy ahead of the legislation shows “a responsiveness to what’s going on in the Capitol, which helps build relationships.”
Yup, it's that bad here. In fact, Republican Robin Vos' insecurity shows through when he packages the appearance of these bigots, racists, and authoritarians as good solid people who aren't wrong, just someone we would disagree with. Also, the arrogance of professors who think they're smarter than some ideologically drive partisan political hack spouting anecdotal "facts" to his drooling base:
Vos: "Civility begins by appreciating and understanding that the other point of view isn't wrong...it's just...you don't agree with. It's not evil, it's just perhaps somebody you need to inform."
With the Regents adopting this cancerous right wing agenda, I tweeted this....
And the big monied special interests are at the heart of right wing speaker circuit:
Conservative foundations that for years have quietly given money to help student groups bring speakers to college campuses recently have been under scrutiny in the wake of speaker protests, suggesting the push for conservative views is from off-campus. The Milwaukee-based Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation in recent years has given Young America's Foundation tens of thousands of dollars for such activities as increasing the number of conservative-leaning campus events it sponsors, including in Wisconsin."
Expect more of the following previous successful attempts to kill the UW:
Nass #1: …he expressed cutting funding of a UW-Madison center because its studies were "too far to the left." Nass #2: State Sen. Steve Nass blasted a UW-Madison economics professor ... calling the academic's report on right-to-work legislation "partisan, garbage research." "Attached is yet another example of wasted resources at the UW-Madison/UW Extension … Hiding behind academic freedom to issue partisan … I will certainly forward this email on to UW System President Ray Cross … as just one suggestion of a faculty member with time to teach more courses. Or maybe not!" Nass #3: WRN: Republican Rep. Steve Nass has gotten the UW’s School for Workers to cancel an “Art in Protest” exhibit that had been scheduled for next month. “The problem with it is that it would be funded with taxpayer dollars and that’s through the Extension.” Nass charges the exhibit would have provided a one-sided view of last year’s protests at the Capitol, with UW Extension taking the side of protesters. “I did indicate to Extension that … any problems that arise from that, or any misbehavior by the protesters – which I certainly would expect, it would probably be very despicable … and I will be watching.”
And finally, the whole reason I posted this story. This isn't about free speech at all, just the opposite. It's the right wing campaign to suppress free speech on campuses, by going after instructors, anonymously with the power of the entire right wing network of fake news:
Conservatives are the real campus thought police squashing academic freedom: The outrage machine geared up as it often does, with a minor conservative media outlet — in this case, the Daily Caller — chopping my tweets up into a misleading mishmash that transformed a nuanced diagnosis of white male frustration into an attack on white people in general. When the Daily Caller posted the article to Facebook, moreover, the intention was clearly to incite: “Absolutely unforgiveable” (sic) read the post, which by now has been shared nearly 2,000 times and commented upon more than 3,000 times. Hate mail and death threats began to roll in. “I will beat your skull in till there is no tomorrow.” “Soon all you p‑‑‑‑‑s will get exactly what you deserve.” “Do the world a favor, and kill yourself … I’ll help you find death sooner than later.” One called me a “pig f‑‑‑er like Obama,” adding homophobic slurs for good measure. Many called me a “cuck” — a favorite racial and sexual insult of the alt-right — while others urged me to move to North Korea or Venezuela. One “love note from a WHITE American” wrongly identified me as a “greasy South American a‑‑hole.” From there, the contagion was rapid, with Stephen Bannon’s Breitbart News and even Milo Yiannopoulos’s own website running their own cribbed copies of the same story. Then came FrontPage, the Blaze, the College Fix and the campus mercenaries at Turning Point. Soon, the manufactured story had hit the conspiratorial fringes of Infowars and online forums across the right: from “blue lives matter” to those preparing for the inevitable rapture. Finally, the story crossed the mainstream-fringe barrier at its most permeable point: Fox News. Fox claimed that not only do I blame Trump for the Las Vegas massacre, but that I even somehow blame the victims. Threatening emails increased to a flood. An invitation to appear on Tucker Carlson’s show arrived in short order, only confirming the insular nature of the machine, which amplifies to a furious roar the same small group of voices. I declined. I am by no means the first, and will not be the last target of this kind of smear campaign by conservatives aimed at academics. In every case, it is the same right-wing media outlets leading the charge, and campuses are increasingly the target. Universities and colleges have become the perfect target for such crusades: Purportedly hotbeds of multiculturalism, “safe spaces” and political correctness, campuses represent everything the resentful right is afraid of. At the same time that the right-wing media smears professors like myself, decrying our tenure and demanding our heads, they breathlessly chronicle the supposed intolerance of the left when confronted with provocative campus tours by Yiannopoulos, Richard Spencer, Charles Murray, Ann Coulter and others. And things aren’t letting up. While noteworthy cases such as Saida Grundy and Zandria Robinson in 2015 gave a glimpse of what was to come, the months since Trump’s election have seen a generalized assault on anti-racist academics. In May, Tommy Curry at Texas A&M was targeted for a years-old podcast; Princeton’s Keeanga-Yamahtta Taylor was forced to cancel public events after threats following a commencement speech; and Johnny Eric Williams at Trinity College was targeted and suspended reposting someone else’s words on Facebook. Increasingly, leftist professors are being targeted for “things they never really said.” As Princeton’s Eddie Glaude has put it, when the right is so easily triggered by anti-racism and feminism, they make it perfectly clear who the “real snowflakes” are. Caught in this wave of right-wing threats and provocations, many universities are scrambling to keep up with the coordinated onslaught. In the best of cases, university administrations and departments have publicly condemned threats against faculty and made clear that they do not cave to intimidation campaigns. The American Association of University Professors (AAUP) has even responded to our cases with new guidelines urging universities to resist the targeted online harassment of their faculty. In response to such illegal threats of violence, Drexel has chosen to place me on administrative leave. Earlier in the week, I asked my students to explain the relation between white masculinity and mass killings, and they offered in a few short minutes of class discussion far more insight than any mainstream media outlet has offered all week. But now, their own academic freedom has been curtailed by their university, and they are unable to even attend the classes they registered for. By bowing to pressure from racist internet trolls, Drexel has sent the wrong signal: That you can control a university’s curriculum with anonymous threats of violence. Such cowardice notwithstanding, I am prepared to take all necessary legal action to protect my academic freedom, tenure rights and most importantly, the rights of my students to learn in a safe environment where threats don’t hold sway over intellectual debate. Alongside organizations like the Campus Antifascist Network, I will continue to challenge white supremacists in an effort to make Drexel and all universities safe space for an intellectual debate among equals.
Not many Governors have a calm, detached sociopathic speaking style like Scott Walker, thank god. And while he demands that same low key communication style from his most vociferous opponents, there's still no way he's ever going to change his mind.
Walker is the best argument against career politicians, because guys like Walker see only politics and pure ideological policy as the end game, not good public policy.
The Walker Authority Shredded the First Amendment during 2011 Capitol Protests against Union Busting Act 10: How could the nation forget:
The government is forbidden from making a “law abridging the freedom of speech…or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances” … but in 2011 ... Scott Walker, concluded … residents did not warrant 1st Amendment protections ... Walker’s response, typical of a fascist unaccustomed to being challenged, was to have many protesters arrested and fined for exercising their 1st Amendment rights; something Dane County Judge Frank Remington ruled was unconstitutional. The conservative McIver Institute Director of Communications Nick Novak was angry that the six protestors claimed being arrested caused them embarrassment, created difficulties finding a job, and fostered a negative stigma in their personal records that will follow them for the rest of their lives. The real victims who deserved reparations, according to the belief tank … were “multiple Republican legislators that were harassed in the halls of the capitol and the governor who was routinely compared to Adolf Hitler.”
On Upfront with Mike Gousha, Walker provided his most laughably outlandish moment of hypocrisy yet; defending free political speech and their constitutionally protected protesters. Walker finally reached what was once believed to be an unreachable level of bullshitting, but he did it, and with a straight face to boot:
I hope you're sitting down...
Walker: "Whether it's against me or somebody else say, "I disagree," but disagreeing and even protesting is one thing, if you come into an auditorium where they're having a discussion or a conversation on this, and you want to hold signs up, you want to protest that, you want to rally out front, perfectly fine. But the minute you shut down a speaker, no matter whether they're liberal, conservative, or somewhere in between, I just think that's wrong." To me a university...anywhere free speech should be upheld...but disrupting and shutting down as we've seen here in Wisconsin, but elsewhere across the country, shutting down the ability for someone to actually be heard is not free speech."
Here's a short recap of bill Walker is talking about above, and now backs on our UW campuses:
Assembly Speaker Robin Vos, R- Rochester, and Rep. Jesse Kremer, R-Kewaskum, proposed legislation (that) would set new rules for free speech and expression on University of Wisconsin System campuses. That includes penalties for people who disrupt free expression on campus by engaging in "violent, abusive, indecent, profane, boisterous, obscene, unreasonably loud or other disorderly conduct" … Students could be expelled under a bill.
That sharply contrasts with his recent comments at CPAC during his infamously flawed run for president:
“I want a commander in chief who will do everything in their power to ensure that the threat from radical Islamic terrorists does not wash up on American soil. If I can take on 100,000 protesters, I can do the same across the world.”
But his comments weren't the only ones that trashed the peaceful protests directed at what we thought were accountable elected politicians:
Sen. Ron Johnson (R) of Wisconsin denounced what he saw as "mob rule" trying to thwart the electoral will of the people, citing specficially the "amount of thuggery, the threats of execution" against Republican lawmakers. University of Wisconsin law professor Ann Althouse viewed the events in the Capitol as a near-total breakdown of law and order. "How do you like this new democracy, that has a mob storming the Capitol and, with the aid of the minority party, blocking the access of the majority party into their offices and into the legislative chamber?" Professor Althouse wrote on her blog. "It looks more like anarchy to me." To others, this was precisely the sort of situation for which the guarantee clause was created.
"It is hard to recall many moments that more directly echo the concerns of the founders than the situation America faces today, with a mob of protesters, some bused in from out of state by labor unions bent on protecting their financial interests, occupying the state house at Madison and the governor there under heavy guard," states a New York Sun editorial. Cornell University law professor William Jacobson wrote on his blog, Legal Insurrection ... The appearance of a bullhorn-toting protester on Feb. 27 in a "COPS FOR LABOR" T-shirt showed that "the police union members involved have actively advocated and offered to participate in insurrection against the legal authority in Wisconsin."
But the Guarantee Clause obviously doesn't apply:
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence.-ARTICLE IV, SECTION 4
In reality, the Guarantee Clause would protect us from the likes of Scott Walker:
Cornell University law professor Aziz Rana,
author of "The Two Faces of American Freedom," wrote, "the truth
about the guarantee clause is that its initial purpose was less a concern with
popular protest and far more a worry with potential backsliding by state
governments into aristrocratic or monarchical forms of government," says "That
would suggest to me that ... peaceful protest combined with local police
sympathy and the decision by some legislators to flee to Illinois are
not issues that would invoke the guarantee clause."
Wisconsin Republicans kept the fear mongering myth about protester violent alive, and that there was massive destruction of public property by liberal vandals. Nope, never happened:
The protests were peaceful, on the whole – with only 18 arrests during more than three weeks of steady protests in Madison – but critics question whether Dane County Sheriff Dave Mahoney, too, was taking sides. "We are seeing democracy in action, people engaging in their government, making their issues known," Sheriff Mahoney told Time magazine. " I'm very proud that the people of Wisconsin are engaged in their government and shown the rest of the world how democracy works." At one point, he said his deputies "aren't palace guards."
No Vandalism either...according to PolitiFact, the highly publicized cost of repairs, do to protester vandalism, got all the necessary political mileage, despite being a Pants on Fire lie:
By March 7, 2011, the Department of Administration reported that all signs and banners in the Capitol had been removed. Some of the signs are being considered for preservation by the Wisconsin Historical Society or the Smithsonian Institution. The protesters "have adopted an ownership ethic in the building, treating it with the utmost care and respect," wrote Jason Tish, executive director of the Madison Trust for Historic Preservation and a local field representative for the National Trust for Historic Preservation. He called the demonstrators "evangelistic about their respect for the building." "The extent of what I saw today is just chips and nicks -- cosmetic damage," he said in an interview. "I don’t see how they (protesters) could have conducted themselves any better." Tish said the building bore the signs of the "accelerated cumulative effects of lots of people going through the building. I saw no intentional damage." The new estimate: $347,500, some 20 times less than the original one. And there are indications that even that could be high. This smells like an effort to pour gas on the anti-protester fire. The claim was ridiculously high. And that gets a Pants on Fire rating.
The previous blog post introduced us to Ann Coulter's Berkeley University speaking demanded...
Some have criticized Coulter's own approach to the issue: she demanded that the university expel any student who engages "in violence, mayhem or heckling to prevent an invited speaker from speaking."
Ann Coulter's Law introduced by Republican Rep. Robin Vos: Oddly similar, you have to wonder how Republicans do this, making what is normal and a founding principle of our Constitution into something repellent and repressive:
Assembly Speaker Robin Vos, R- Rochester, and Rep. Jesse Kremer, R-Kewaskum, proposed
legislation (that) would set new rules for free speech and expression
on University of Wisconsin System campuses. That includes penalties
for people who disrupt free expression on campus by engaging in "violent,
abusive, indecent, profane, boisterous, obscene, unreasonably loud or other
disorderly conduct" … Students could be expelled under a bill.
The broad categories and up for interpretation expressions listed above wouldn't just chill free speech, it would discourage it under threat of punishment. Vos' fascist idea may play well for Ann Coulter and David Horowitz, who want to energize and play the political victim, but a government official pushing...this is jaw dropping.
"The worst part of it is this incredible litany of categories, most of which, as I say, are clearly unconstitutionally vague or imprecise or undefined," said Robert O'Neil, professor emeritus of law at the University of Virginia, where he specialized in the First Amendment law. O’Neil is also a former University of Wisconsin System president.
A Tangle of Big Government & Big Brother Bureaucracy: Like voting, getting food stamps, receiving unemployment, and applying for BadgerCare, Vos and Kremer have created a maze of hearings, a "jackpot justice" system of costly lawsuits, and disciplinary procedures to endlessly navigate:
Speakers who feel their free speech rights were violated at a UW campus could sue the institution for damages under the bill. And the legislation would create a council of UW officials that would report to lawmakers on the outcomes of discipline proceedings.
It's hard to imagine how Vos and Kremer never seemed to get the First Amendment thing, that this didn't raise any red flags. It did for readers:
This is part 1 of two related stories. Actually, I forgot to post the story below last week, so everything has changed a little; Ann Coulter is not making a speaking appearance, but may just show up anyway to soak in the adoration of drooling fans.
__________________________________________________________________________
Remember the violent student protest when Breitbart News senior editor Milo Yiannopoulos spoke at Berkelely? I personally don't think right wing celebrities should be prevented from making themselves look like the paranoid racist bigots they are.
The thing is, Republicans have made it a badge of honor to be banned, or “dis-invited,”
by university campuses due to “security concerns.” Those poor conservative victims, always under threat by anti-gun, latte drinking environmental peaceniks, cruising around in their Prius'. Sad.
The University of California at Berkeley appears headed for
a showdown with right-wing commentator Ann Coulter after her planned appearance
at the school was canceled over security concerns.
You can thank "Academic Bill of Rights" fanatic David Horowitz for drumming up the fear level for all conservative speakers thinking about risking their lives on our nations college campuses.
The David Horowitz Freedom Center combats the efforts of the radical left and its Islamist allies to destroy American values and disarm this country as it attempts to defend itself in a time of terror. TruthRevolt is (their) newest program, run by Shillman Senior Fellow Ben Shapiro. Its goal is to unmask leftists in the media for who they are, destroy their credibility with the American Public, and devastate their funding bases.
College Republicans apparently think Horowitz bravery and message is reasonable and not the least bit paranoid:
Horowitz said (about the Berkeley protests), "I can't go to campuses without bodyguards. They all need to be prosecuted. Sure, defund them – make them pay," Horowitz said, referring to President Donald Trump's response to the mayhem. "They are fascists. Throw them in jail. That's where they belong. This is an administration under siege." "We have a seditious democratic party that is destroying the American electoral system. We have actresses calling for a military coup, we have Democrats sabotaging an incoming administration, and a State Department leaking presidential conversations. It's a mess."
Poor millionaire and Russian backed illegitimate President Donald Trump.
...right of "access to a broad range of serious scholarly opinion" ... states that institutions should foster a "plurality of serious scholarly methodologies and perspectives." The problem, according to the AAUP Statement, is that "it invites diversity to be measured by political standards that diverge from the academic criteria of the scholarly profession. Measured in this way, diversity can easily become contradictory to academic ends."
In other words, fantasy/myth/fake news/right wing echo chamber politics is the new reality, and more importantly, a debatable equal to actual facts.
Ann Coulter Canceled: Now the sh** hit has the fan again, this time over Ann Coulter's invitation and cancellation:
The University of California-Berkeley cancelled conservative author Ann Coulter's upcoming speech on grounds that the police could not guarantee her safety.
But what is not getting the news coverage was Coulter's own whack-a-doodle dictatorial demand:
Some have criticized Coulter's own approach to the issue: she demanded that the university expel any student who engages "in violence, mayhem or heckling to prevent an invited speaker from speaking."
Coulter would expel students for daring to interrupt her political brilliance? Heckling too?
Oh, and Berkeley wasn't the one who cancelled "Academic Bill of Right's" lunatic David Horowitz from appearing this month either:
College Republicans say they were forced to cancel a conservative speaker (Horowitz) because of too many administration roadblocks.
Trumpian heads are spinning after trying to digest two conflicting party movements. One will vilify liberal free speech on campuses, and the other will arrest protesters and seize their assets if they dare speak out against the government.
This is the wet dream vision Republican have of America. Twisted, ugly and vindictive.
What is happening in Arizona is the start of the U.S. unraveling as a country and the Constitution. But first in a related story.... End of Free Speech # 1: Education Sec. Betsy DeVos sent a chill nationwide with this Bizarro World defense of weak-kneed conservatives "victims" who are too afraid to speak out on campus:
DeVos: “Now let me ask you: How many of you are college students? The fight against the education establishment extends to you too. The faculty, from adjunct professors to deans, tell you what to do, what to say, and more ominously, what to think. They say that if you voted for Donald Trump, you’re a threat to the university community. But the real threat is silencing the First Amendment rights of people with whom you disagree.”
End of Free Speech # 2: This is how liberty dies? What's happening in Arizona is breathtaking and scary, signaling in the beginning of the end of our country or the Republican Party. Treating government protesters like organized crime members...is something I never thought I'd see, and I was there in the 60's:
Arizona Senate votes to seize assets of those who plan, participate in protests that turn violent: Claiming people are being paid to riot, Republican state senators voted to give police new power to arrest anyone who is involved in a peaceful demonstration that may turn bad — even before anything actually happened. SB1142 expands the state’s racketeering laws, now aimed at organized crime, to also include rioting. And it redefines what constitutes rioting to include actions that result in damage to the property of others. But the real heart of the legislation is giving the government the right to criminally prosecute and seize the assets of everyone who planned a protest and everyone who participated. And what’s worse, said Sen. Steve Farley, D-Tucson, is that the person who may have broken a window, triggering the claim there was a riot, might actually not be a member of the group but someone from the other side ... sometimes what’s planned as a peaceful demonstration can go south. But Sen. John Kavanagh (R) said that chilling effect is aimed at a very specific group of protesters.“You now have a situation where you have full-time, almost professional agent-provocateurs that attempt to create public disorder. A lot of them are ideologues, some of them are anarchists. But this stuff is all planned.’’ By including rioting in racketeering laws, it actually permits police to arrest those who are planning events and Kavanagh, a former police officer, said if there are organized groups, “I should certainly hope that our law enforcement people have some undercover people there.’’ “Wouldn’t you rather stop a riot before it starts? Do you really want to wait until people are injuring each other, throwing Molotov cocktails, picking up barricades and smashing them through businesses in downtown Phoenix?’’ Sen. Sylvia Allen, R-Snowflake, said “I have been heartsick with what’s been going on in our country, what young people are being encouraged to do. If they get thrown in jail, somebody pays to get them out. There has to be something to deter them from that.’’
The "unintended consequences?"
The legislation does far more ... such a broad law could end up being used against some of their allies. For example, a “Tea Party’’ group wanting to protest a property tax hike might get permits, publicize the event and have a peaceful demonstration. “And one person, possibly from the other side, starts breaking the windows of a car. And all of a sudden the organizers of that march, the local Tea Party, are going to be under indictment from the county attorney in the county that raised those property taxes. That will have a chilling effect on anybody, right or left, who wants to protest something the government has done.’’ Sen. Katie Hobbs, D-Phoenix, said the whole legislation is based on a false premise of how disturbances happen. “This idea that people are being paid to come out and do that? I’m sorry, but I think that is fake news.’’ Sen. Andrea Dalessandro, D-Green Valley, had her own concerns. “I’m fearful that ‘riot’ is in the eyes of the beholder and that this bill will apply more strictly to minorities and people trying to have their voice heard."
And guess what happened...
The 17-13 party-line vote sends the bill to the House.
The right wing propaganda think tank MacIver Institute is at it again, pushing preposterous and tired ideas that have long been laughed
out-of-the-room. Let’s explore quickly their
nutty conclusions:
“It is a long-established practice of so-called Progressives
to confront speech they do not like by trying to silence the offending voices. Campus
speech codes circumscribe debate while angry leftist mobs shout down public
speakers. They organize boycotts and public ostracizing for anyone daring to
not conform to left wing orthodoxy, no matter how recently it changed.”
Really? The facts offer up a different reality, like when GOP legislators demanded police “crack a few heads” to send a strong message to peaceful Capitol protesters. Sadly for
Republicans that didn’t happen. One of the loudest voices, then Rep. Steve Nass, lead the assault:
Nass #1: In a news release Rep.
Steve Nass stated protesters feel "entitled" to take action without
serious consequences in the capital city. "The risk of a major
incident continues to grow since protesters now feel immune to any real
consequences." The JFC voted
Wednesday to withhold roughly $750,000 from the Madison Police
Department, (because they) believe there were "legitimate concerns about
actions of individual officers." Nass said, "If they were arrested
vigorously, I believe that would slow them [protesters]." Madison
Police Chief Noble Wray (said) questions about his department's conduct during
the protests constitute "almost
a slap in the face." Nass #2: Rep. Steve Nass sent Republican Attorney General
J.B. Van Hollen a letter asking for an investigation into Assistant Attorney
General Thomas Bellavia for emailing the Democrats on Feb. 27 and telling them
he supported their efforts … concerns that Bellavia could attempt to
sabotage the defense of the Wisconsin Legislature. Nass #3: …he expressed cutting funding of a UW-Madison
center because its studies were "too far to the left." Nass #4: State Sen. Steve Nass blasted a UW-Madison
economics professor ... calling the academic's report on right-to-work
legislation "partisan, garbage research." "Attached is yet
another example of wasted resources at the UW-Madison/UW Extension … Hiding
behind academic freedom to issue partisan … I will certainly forward this email
on to UW System President Ray Cross … as just one suggestion of a faculty
member with time to teach more courses. Or maybe not!" Nass #5: WRN: Republican Rep. Steve Nass has gotten the UW’s
School for Workers to cancel an “Art in Protest” exhibit that had been
scheduled for next month. “The problem with it is that it would be funded with
taxpayer dollars and that’s through the Extension.” Nass charges
the exhibit would have provided a one-sided view of last year’s protests at the
Capitol, with UW Extension taking the side of protesters. “I did indicate
to Extension that … any problems that arise from that, or any misbehavior by
the protesters – which I certainly would expect, it would probably be very
despicable … and I will be watching.” Permit to Protest? How about Walker’s attempt to silence free speech by charging
a fee and permit to protest at the Capitol? Republicans desperately
rationalized away free speech to get back at protesters:
McKenna of WIBA participated in the Liberty Singers event,
and tells 27 News, "We just want folks to understand, the permit
is easy to get, it's a way to protect all of us and our ability to come here to
our beautiful capitol and express ourselves."
Sound anything like the state Constitution's Article I,
Section 4: “The right of the people peaceably to assemble, to consult
for the common good, and to petition the government or any department thereof
shall never be abridged.” Didn't think so.
Here's another MacIver nugget:
“Here in Wisconsin the assault on free speech took
a more ominous turn when a rogue partisan prosecutor in Milwaukee, District
Attorney John Chisholm, unleashed the power of the state upon the Progressives'
political enemies.”
They must have missed this historical inconvenient truth; the endless
investigation of Gov. Doyle, and Walker’s demand to “purge” his liberal administrative
staff:
Back in 2006 when Georgia Thompson was charged by then-U.S.
Attorney Steven Biskupic - who now represents Walker's campaign -
Walker went on the attack against Doyle, even though Thompson was a civil
service employee who was hired in 2001 under Gov. Scott McCallum, a
Republican. "Today's indictment provides further confirmation that
the Doyle administration is damaged and must be removed from the Capitol,"
said Walker of his Democratic predecessor. "Governor Doyle needs to purge
his administration of individuals who place politics and special interests
ahead of the people of Wisconsin."
And as we all know, no one in Walker’s administration is
political, or beholden to special interests. But let's cut to the chase. The Wisconsin State Journal reported:
“The controversial case …
was used by Wisconsin Republicans to paint Democratic Gov. Jim Doyle's
administration as corrupt during his 2006 re-election campaign … An appeals
court, though, tossed the conviction, saying the evidence against Thompson was
"beyond thin." State investigators kept open the alleged corruption case
for six months last year after a federal appeals court struck down the only
prosecution in the high-profile case.
SIDE NOTE: I thought the rest of Walker's press release was just as interesting. Double standard maybe?
"I am also calling on the Governor to adopt the reforms I
proposed earlier this month that would prohibit anyone bidding on a state
contract from contributing to his campaign for Governor. I am calling on
Governor Doyle’s campaign to return any contributions from individuals made
while bidding on a state contract. Additionally, I am calling on the Governor
to prohibit his appointees from both giving to his campaign and/or hosting
fundraisers on his behalf. Also, he should return any and all contributions
from administration officials immediately.”
What does free speech have to do with protecting citizens from verbal and physical harm? These zones were established because of past abuses and deaths caused by anti-abortion zealots, not some arbitrary ban.
As Rachel Maddow and others have pointed out, there have
been free speech buffer zones established for other groups too, like the Supreme Court
itself. Conservatives didn't complain, in fact liked it, when "free speech zones" were set up a blocks away from Bush/Cheney events. But Justice Scalia seems to be missing the point:
“Today’s opinion carries forward this Court’s practice
of giving abortion-rights advocates a pass when it comes
to suppressing the free-speech rights of their opponents. There is an
entirely separate, abridged edition of the First Amendment applicable to
speech against abortion. Because, like the rest of our abortion jurisprudence,
today’s decision is in stark contradiction of the constitutional principles we
apply in all other contexts, I dissent.”
Here's Rachel Maddow with examples of other buffer zones:
Here's a nice piece on a new book about Scalia, and just how unacceptably "activist" this guy is, especially about the Second Amendment:
Get this: A right wing conservative group, anti-abortion’s
Susan B. Anthony List, is fighting to keep lying in campaigns a protected free
speech right. In defense of lying, the group said a legal ban “chills core
political speech.”
Republicans think lying is at the core of political speech.
I’m loving this:
Fox News: A national anti-abortion group wants a federal court to
block an Ohio law barring people from recklessly making false statements about
candidates seeking elective office. The Susan B. Anthony List filed a motion
Friday in U.S. District Court in Cincinnati, asking that the law not be
enforced … the motion says the statute violates free speech rights and
"chills core political speech."
Highest Court on Board with Lying:
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously Monday that the
group could challenge the law, raising doubts about whether Ohio's law and
similar ones in other states can survive complaints that they violate free
speech rights. The anti-abortion group challenged Ohio's ban when it …
planned billboards attacking then-U.S. Rep. Steve Driehaus in 2010 … accused
him of supporting taxpayer-funded abortion with his vote for Obama's health
care law … The billboard owner feared threatened legal action by Driehaus and
declined to post the ads.
Truth in Advertising: This law made the system work,
discouraging lies from being used to falsely sell bad products. But smear political candidates? But
that’s the catch; you can lie about who governs our country, but can’t lie
about consumer products.
FTC: When consumers see or hear an advertisement, whether it’s on
the Internet, radio or television, or anywhere else, federal law says that ad
must be truthful, not misleading, and, when appropriate, backed by scientific
evidence. The FTC looks especially closely at advertising claims that can
affect consumers’ health or their pocketbooks.
But shouldn't that include politicians who would directly affect
our health and pocketbooks too? Political ads are made to “sell” the candidate
to the public, just like cereal.
And if lying is determined to be a free speech right in political
advertising, what’s to stop this new "right" from repealing our truth in
advertising laws altogether?
The Lazy Press: Does ObamaCare fund abortions with taxpayer
money? The news article never said. Why?
The anti-abortion group during the 2014 midterm elections
plans to criticize members of Congress who voted for the health care law. The
group maintains that its statement about … abortion is true … The Obama
administration has steadfastly denied that.
A quick Google search: No taxpayer money pays for abortions. A separate fund paid
for by the insured can be provided by insurers on the exchange, depending on state laws.
Americans seem bewildered by the conservative activist
Supreme Court’s decision on Citizen’s United. Few people believe the founding
fathers tried to give corporations the same rights as people.
Just as
outrageous is the idea that corporations would then have free speech rights in
the form of money.
Constitutional Amendment: Wisconsinites overwhelmingly approved county wide
referendums supporting an amendment to the constitution...
“declaring that only
human beings, not corporations, unions, nonprofits or similar associations are
endowed with constitutional rights.”
And that…
“Money is not free speech, and therefore regulating political
contributions and spending is not equivalent to limiting political speech.”
Edgerton, Waunakee, DeForest, Belleville and Windsor all
supported the above constitutional amendment.
But if today is any indication, the Robert’s court and the
conservative majority have a different view of the founding fathers intentions,
and the dystopian future they’re helping to create. The latest case focused on contributions, rather than
spending.
Voting 5-4 along ideological lines, the Supreme Court struck
down decades-old limits on the total money donors can give to federal
candidates and parties, issuing its biggest campaign-finance ruling since the
2010 Citizens United decision … the caps violated the speech rights of
Shaun McCutcheon, an Alabama Republican official seeking to give candidates,
parties and political committees more than the $123,200 maximum.
The court stopped short of undercutting a 1976 ruling that allows caps on
contributions to individual candidates. Justice Thomas (said) in a separate
opinion that he would have gone further and overturned the 1976 ruling.
The overall limits “intrude without justification on a citizen’s
ability to exercise the most fundamental First Amendment activities,” Chief
Justice John Roberts wrote in
the court’s lead opinion … it will give more freedom to wealthy donors looking
to use their money to make a political impact. Taken together with
Citizens United, the decision “eviscerates our nation’s campaign-finance laws,
leaving a remnant incapable of dealing with the grave problems of democratic
legitimacy that those laws were intended to resolve,” Justice Stephen Breyer wrote
in dissent.
Two examples of conservative stupidity in one week!!! What a Christmas gift.
Both Scott Walker and Sarah Palin blew all their credibility (let's pretend they had some) as "constitutional conservatives" over the most pointless issues.
Scott Walker mistakenly believes having racist public school mascots is a free speech issue because..."there's a variety of different opinions out there." You just never know, it could be constitutional.
Walker: "I'm not a lawyer...I don't think you need a lawyer to say that free speech invokes a variety of things..."
So it's okay to deny the truth. This same theme is used to make the comments by the suspended Duck Dynasty star a constitutional violation too. First, here's Walker's embarrassing nod to the tea party, from WISC:
Ed Schultz exposed the right wing stupidity and confusion as well, as they conflated the free market with constitutional rights. Add Bobby Jindal to list of constitutionally clueless governors. Ironically, conservatives are actually railing against their beloved free market:
Howard Kurtz point blank said it wasn't a constitutional issue, but free market decision too. And yet, the Fox News host believed that if enough people are offended, it does become a free speech issue. Breathtaking:
Constitutional conservatives? Again, just the opposite. John Nichols wrote a nice piece on this in the nation.
The ACLU just released this victory in the courts, where everything Scott Walker does ends up:
A federal judge yesterday granted a preliminary injunction
in the Capitol free speech case, allowing groups of up to 20 people to gather
without a permit inside the Capitol. “This is huge victory for free speech,” said Larry Dupuis,
legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Wisconsin. “The court
recognized the Capitol’s unique and historic role as a forum for free speech
and public gatherings.” Michael Kissick, an assistant professor in the UW-Madison
School of Medicine and Public Health, sometimes participated in demonstrations
inside the Rotunda, including the Solitary Singalong group. Kissick ceased exercising
his First Amendment rights in the Capitol in September 2012, when Capitol
police began arresting and citing people who exercised free speech inside the
Capitol without a permit. In his 47-page decision, which includes photos and details
about the Capitol’s history and architecture, Judge William Conley wrote that
the Capitol’s “design was intended to embody… the pursuit of fair and open government
informed by an educated, politically involved citizenry and the ‘Wisconsin
idea.’” “The current permitting requirement sweeps in an enormous
amount of ordinary activities that are unlikely to present any significant
disturbance in the Capitol,” Judge Conley wrote. “The extraordinary chilling
effect of permits explains why courts are careful to require that (permits do
not) burden small gatherings posing no threat to the safety, order, and
accessibility.” A trial for a permanent injunction is scheduled for the week of January 13, 2014.
The judge noted this important consideration in his decision:
Principal architect George B. Post designed the rotunda to
be the center of public interaction among the three branches of state
government, the county and city, the University of Wisconsin and the public by
constructing four massive wings around it, opening onto four major streets of
the City of Madison:
As specified in the original building program, the Capitol
is “in the form a St. Andrew‟s Cross, providing a double axial configuration that
welcomes state citizens to walk beneath the four classical porticos and enter
the halls of government.”
Indeed, the Nomination argues persuasively that the design
was intended to embody Wisconsin’s then-contemporaneous “Progressive” movement,
articulated by the state’s governor, Robert M. La Follette, Sr., as the pursuit
of fair and open government informed by an educated, politically-involved citizenry
and the “Wisconsin idea.”
I just want to start by saying I’m way out of my league when
it comes to legal questions and what is or isn't constitutional, but as always,
I do have an opinion and a lot of questions. I’m also open to suggestions. But here's how I see it.
It’ll be interesting to watch our controlling Republican
state authority suddenly try to make the case political robo-calls aren't protected speech, after gladly approving of the Supreme Courts Citizen’s United decision declaring political money
as free speech.
They’re trying.
Chippewa Herald: Sen. Sheila Harsdorf, R-River Falls, and Rep. Andre Jacque,
R-DePere, are pushing a bipartisan measure that would allow people to remain on
the state’s do-not-call list permanently and ban political robo-calls to people
on the list…
Can Republicans ban political free speech? With word games
and self-deception, they reason it’s not a total ban on political free speech,
just a ban for those on the no-call list. Huh?
(It) would not ban such automatically dialed
election-related calls but would prevent those calls from being made to numbers
on the do-not-call list.
There are groups claiming such bans exist, groups who stand to make a profit:
Shaun Dakin, the CEO and
founder of The National Political Do Not Contact Registry, an online
service that charges voters a small fee to sign up and make clear they do not
want to receive political robo-calls said, “A handful of states including
Indiana, Oregon and Minnesota do have laws on the books that prohibit political
robo-calling, but in the absence of federal legislation, residents in most
states have little protection against these automated calls.”
Harsdorf and Jacque should have done their research. I
looked up the regulation in Minnesota and found they don’t ban political robo-calls.
In Minnesota, there's still plenty of confusion about why
calls from political organizations are still getting through, said Dan
Hendrickson, communications coordinator for the Better Business Bureau of
Minnesota and North Dakota. Certain organizations are exempt from the law:
Nonprofit organizations, political organizations, businesses with a prior
relationship with the customer and some solicitors seeking face-to-face
meetings.
Indiana had a few exemptions but did not come right out and mention a ban on
political robo-calls. Nor did they say that their law requiring a live person (not
a recording) applied to political calls. Nothing!
Exceptions to Do Not Call Under Oregon law: certain
solicitation calls are still allowed … calls from Public agencies, Political
campaigns asking for your opinion or vote.
From where I sit, Wisconsin would be the only one bucking Citizens United. Will another possibly unconstitutional law makes its way
through the courts here? Republican do believe in the constitution, right?
Voter fraud is nonexistent. But strongly paranoid conservative
ideologues still think it worth committing a felony to vote fraudulently or
that it’s happened at all (minus mistaken ex-felons).
While the Citizens United decision talked a lot about the free
speech rights Americans and inanimate government creations known as corporations, my small donation can be tracked and identified, while big time
conservative zealots can hide behind anonymous billboards. That’s fair?:
jsonline-Dan Bice: Stephen Einhorn - a Wisconsin venture capital fund
manager and major GOP donor - acknowledged Monday that he and his wife Nancy
paid for dozens of anonymous billboards in and around Milwaukee and two Ohio
cities warning residents of the penalties for committing voter fraud.
"Stephen and Nancy Einhorn placed these billboards as a
public service because voter fraud - whether by Republicans or Democrats -
undermines our democratic process," said the Einhorns' statement, which
was released by the Chicago public relations firm Culloton Strategies. "By
reminding people of the possible consequences of illegal voting, we hope to
help the upcoming election be decided by legally registered voters."
One Wisconsin Now and the website theGrio exposed the
Einhorn’s who targeted mostly minority voters, all the while covering their
tracks by allowing a few billboards in conservative areas. Even stranger, while it was against company
policy at Clear Channel to accept anonymous political ads, they went ahead with
the ads in a number of states anyway.
Projection much...?
Scot Ross, executive director of One Wisconsin Now, issued a
statement Monday raising several questions for the Einhorn's; "Perhaps their
Chicago public relations firm could answer why the Einhorn's (didn’t) put their
name on it, rather than hiding behind the cowardly veil of anonymity."
The Einhorn's were so frightened and concerned about their anonymity, that
they boldly did an interview with radio host Charlie Sykes. Hey they weren't seeking any attention...right?
But conservatives are paranoid frightened citizens, who know
their odd vision for the country is so unappealing that they have to hide in
the shadows to force change.
Sykes said the foundation chief was given the option of
disclosing his family's identity or taking down the ads. After initially
considering releasing the family's name, Sykes wrote, the foundation's leader
opted to pull the billboards because he was "reluctant to put his children
and grandchildren at any risk."
CNET: One of Trump's point people on tech during the 2016 transition, and one of the go-to voices on tech issues, Congressman Darrell Issa, says tech leaders speaking out against President Donald Trump are making a mistake ... criticizing Trump and his administration on both policy and social issues are making a mistake. For example, Apple CEO Tim Cook, who is gay, criticized Trump's ban on transgender people serving in the military in July. "We are indebted to all who serve. Discrimination against anyone holds everyone back."
