Mediaboss Marketing

A Northwestern University professors op-ed in the Los Angeles Times is disturbing - not only in its conclusions, but also its assumptions. Sociologist Laura Beth Nielsen calls for restrictions on hate speech, because she contends that speech is violence.

We are currently seeing the results of confusing speech and political violence. Its not pretty.

As a sociologist and legal scholar, I struggle to explain the boundaries of free speech to undergraduates. Despite the 1st Amendment - I tell my students - local, state, and federal laws limit all kinds of speech, Nielsen writes. We regulate advertising, obscenity, slander, libel, and inciting lawless action to name just a few. My students nod along until we get to racist and sexist speech. Some cant grasp why, if we restrict so many forms of speech, we dont also restrict hate speech.

Shes only partially right there; government doesnt regulate libel, for example, but victims can win compensation from perpetrators in a civil action. Incitement to violence is certainly restricted, but advertisings relationship with the First Amendment is more complicated.

But the real problem with Nielsens piece is her assumptions.

In fact, empirical data suggest that frequent verbal harassment can lead to various negative consequences, she writes. Racist hate speech has been linked to cigarette smoking, high blood pressure, anxiety, depression and post-traumatic stress disorder, and requires complex coping strategies These negative physical and mental health outcomes - which embody the historical roots of race and gender oppression - mean that hate speech is not just speech. Hate speech is doing something.

Certainly, harassment is bad. And in many cases, its already illegal. There are remedies in place. But the fundamental truth here is that words are not actions.

The U.S. Supreme Court has time and again reaffirmed the freedom of speech - and ruled that hate speech is covered.

For the purposes of the First Amendment, there is no difference between free speech and hate speech. Ideas and opinions that progressive students and professors find offensive or hateful are just as protected by the Bill of Rights as anti-Trump slogans chanted at a campus protest, writes John Daniel Danielson for The Federalist.

The reason is simple. Once Congress can start banning hate speech, then unpopular political opinions will become illegal.

As Danielson points out, By hate speech, they mean ideas and opinions that run afoul of progressive pieties. Do you believe abortion is the taking of human life? Thats hate speech Concerned about illegal immigration? Believe in the right to bear arms? Support President Donald Trump? All hate speech.

And of course that could be turned against the left. Their ideas and values easily could be labeled hate speech. Think of black lives matter.

Were in the midst of a great confusion in our society. Political violence - from punching Nazis to attacking protestors to shooting conservative members of Congress - seems to be on the rise.

We must get back to the belief that ideas are to be countered with better ideas, not with violence. Words have consequences, but we cant ban them just because we dont like them.

More:
Editorial: First Amendment affirms that words aren't violence - Tyler Morning Telegraph

The North Carolina legislature is the counter-argument against the story of the mule and the two-by-four. No matter how often you hit them over the head, and various courts have done it 12 times in the past year, you still don't get their attention. Sometimes, the mule is just dumb.

Getty

From there, we skip up to Wisconsin, where the state's university system remains stubbornly unimpressed with the Republican legislature and with the leadership of Scott Walker, the goggle-eyed homunculus hired by Koch Industries to manage this particular Midwest subsidiary. You may have been following the various fights on college campuses regarding "controversial" speakers and the reaction against them. (If you're a regular reader of right-wing media, you believe that mere anarchy has been loosed upon the world. Just lie down with a cold compress for a while.) There are "free speech" advocates on both sides of the big ditch here, exercising their First Amendment rights at the top of their lungs and, occasionally, exercising their First Amendment right of assembly in a fashion thought to be too vigorous.

Luckily, the Wisconsin Republicans have a solution: Throw out the latter group. From The Capital Times:

The controversial legislation has drawn criticism from those who say it would curb free speech rather than expand it and that it would stand in the way of the UW System's authority to manage its own campuses. Its supporters say its goal is to encourage free expression and to ensure all viewpoints can be heard at public universities. "Today we are ensuring that simply because you are a young adult on a college campus, your constitutional rights do not go away," said bill author Rep. Jesse Kremer, R-Kewaskum.

Watch now as Kremer deftly ties his own shoes together.

Under the measure, students who repeatedly engage in "violent or other disorderly conduct that materially and substantially disrupts the free expression of others" would be subjected to discipline that, on a third incident, would result in expulsion. The bill requires UW System campuses to launch investigations and hold hearings the second time a student is alleged to have interfered with the expressive rights of others. The hearings and their outcomes would be reported annually to a newly formed Council on Free Expression.

You see the joker in the deck there, right? "Other disorderly conduct." As defined by what"a Council On Free Expression."

Advertisement - Continue Reading Below

A what? Thought police! Somebody wake up Ben Shapiro. There's work to be done in Madison! Of course, Wisconsin is not the only test case.

Rep. Terese Berceau, D-Madison, said the country has faced free speech struggles throughout its history, but they have been resolved without legislative intervention. "This is really part of a political program," Berceau said. "It's part of the continuing effort to really establish a conservative stronghold in our country on every institution, and now they're going after or universities." The bill is similar to others being considered throughout the country, modeled after sample legislation prepared by the conservative Goldwater Institute, and takes some pieces from a provision members of the Legislature's Joint Finance Committee removed from Gov. Scott Walker's budget proposal.

Of all the techniques of artificial victimization common to modern conservatism, the whole "political correctness" thing is one of the most threadbare, and this attempt at legislating away the parts of the First Amendment you don't like is the best evidence of that we've seen in a while.

And we conclude, as is our custom, in the great state of Oklahoma, where Blog Official Derelict Oil Well Artist Friedman of the Plains brings us the tale of Rogers County Sheriff Scott Walton, who is not working and playing well with others, as the Tulsa World explains.

The telephone exchange stemmed from a May 25 incident in which a deputy with the Rogers County Sheriff's Office drove past Officer Craig Heatherly, who attempted to flag down the deputy for backup in a gun-related traffic stop, according to an internal police email. However, dash cam video allegedly shows the deputy driving past without stopping to help In the cellphone audio, Walton can be heard telling Heatherly that he "handled it wrong" and he "owe(d) the man an apology" in reference to the deputy. Heatherly responded that he and Walton would have to "agree to disagree on that one." "We'll agree to disagree," Walton said, "but I do agree that you're a f---- coward. OK."

I have to agree with FOTP here. What makes it art is "We'll have to agree to disagreeyou fcking coward!" From NPR to Deadwood in one complex sentence. Awesome.

This is your democracy, America. Cherish it.

The Constitution Simply Was Not Built for This

Respond to this post on the Esquire Politics Facebook page.

See the original post:
In Scott Walker's Wisconsin, the First Amendment Only Applies to Certain People - Esquire.com

The Detroit News 11:04 p.m. ET June 22, 2017

The court ruling upholds the principle that the First Amendment protects even hateful speech.(Photo: J. Scott Applewhite / AP)

Americans shouldnt need constant reminding that under the First Amendment, they can say what they want, when they want and to whom they want, no matter how hateful or offensive.

And yet as longstanding as is that principle, the U.S. Supreme Court had to affirm it again this week when it ruled unanimously that an Asian rock band could trademark its name the Slants even though it is a derogatory term sometimes used to demean Asians.

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office had denied the bands request to register and protect its name, deeming it amounted to hate speech. The office similarly stripped the Washington Redskins football team of its trademark because it is offensive to Native Americans.

The courts ruling basically upheld the principle that all speech, including hateful speech, is protected by the First Amendment and should not be restricted.

Thats the right call. The obvious danger of allowing the federal government to be the arbiter of free speech is that restrictions are easily manipulated to suit political agendas.

And offensiveness is very much in the ear they beholder. What shocks one person may not faze another.

The idea that the government may restrict speech expressing ideas that offend strikes at the heart of the First Amendment, Justice Samuel Alito wrote. Speech that demeans on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability, or any other similar ground is hateful; but the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express the thought that we hate.

Alitos opinion provides important clarification for the so-called disparagement clause of federal law, which forbids registration of a trademark that may disparage ... persons, living or dead, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols, or bring them into contempt or disrepute.

Thats an overly broad carve-out that, again, relies on subjective interpretations influenceable by the regulators own experiences and biases.

Its not the appropriate role of the government, according to Justice Anthony Kennedy.

A law that can be directed against speech found offensive to some portion of the public can be turned against minority and dissenting views to the detriment of all, Kennedy wrote in concurrence. The First Amendment does not entrust that power to the governments benevolence. Instead, our reliance must be on the substantial safeguards of free and open discussion in a democratic society.

There are, of course, marketplace consequences when speech oversteps societal norms and broadly offends. Products can be boycotted and individuals shunned. Thats the appropriate regulator.

This court has been a good friend to the First Amendment at a time when there are many who would shred it to stifle dissent and control the national political debate.

That the Slants opinion came on an 8-0 vote is a powerful affirmation of the foundational right of free speech and its sacred role in a democratic society.

Read or Share this story: http://detne.ws/2tUR4iG

Read the rest here:
Editorial: Court shores up First Amendment - The Detroit News

Former secretary of state and Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton at BookExpo 2017 at the Javits Convention Center in New York.(Photo: Andrew Gombert, EPA)

Hillary Clinton had some strong words on Fridayfor Republicans over the Senate health care bill.

In a tweet, Clinton said the GOP would be "the death party" if the bill passes the Senate.

Clinton's post was a retweet of a column from the Center for American Progress, a liberal advocacy group,and Harvard researchers that claims roughly 18,000 to 28,000 people could die in 2026 if they were to lose coverage due to the new policy.

Clinton isn't the only former Democratic presidential candidate criticizing the bill. On Thursday, Barack Obama wrote in a Facebook post, "This bill will do you harm."

Obama and Clinton's words seemed to echo President Trump's initial assessment of the House's own legislation to repeal Obamacare. According to a GOP Senate aide,Trump said the House health care bill was "mean."On Thursday, after the Senate version was released, Trump said it needed "a little negotiation, but it's going to be very good."

As of Friday,five Republican senators have said they oppose the bill. If no Democrats vote in favor of the legislation, only two GOPers would be needed to stop it from passing.

Contributing: Jessica Estepa

Follow Ryan Miller on Twitter: @RyanW_Miller

Read or Share this story: https://usat.ly/2tYEa3g

Continue reading here:
Hillary Clinton calls Republicans 'death party' if health care bill passes - USA TODAY

"Hillary Clinton to me is the Jane Fonda of the Vietnam," Baldasaro said in July. "She is a disgrace for the lies that she told those mothers about their children that got killed over there in Benghazi. She dropped the ball on over 400 emails requesting back up security. Something's wrong there."

"This whole thing disgusts me, Hillary Clinton should be put in the firing line and shot for treason," he added. The US Secret Service then said it was investigating his remarks.

Baldasaro later said that he regretted "saying it the way I did" and blamed the "liberal media" for running with it.

At the time, Trump said he wasn't aware of Baldasaro's comments but told a local channel that he was "a very fine person."

"I will tell you hes a very fine person," Trump told local New Hampshire TV. "Nobody wants to take care of the veterans in this country, who have been treated horribly, more than Al, so that's what I know," Trump said.

Baldasaro told BuzzFeed News later that year that he stood by his comments on Clinton, but contended that they were misunderstood.

In a tweet Friday, Baldasaro responded to the controversy over his attendance at the bill signing, saying, "Fake News, nothing new! Nobody advocated shooting Hillary, just an opinion in accordance with law & CONSTITUTION on treason."

Continue reading here:
Yet Another Person Who Called For Hillary Clinton To Be Shot Was Invited To The White House - BuzzFeed News