Former Covington Catholic student Nick Sandmann fired back Thursday at an ACLU associate and a college professor who warned that he was &#8220;dangerous&#8221; and a &#8220;provocateur&#8221; and should be watched closely when he begins his freshman year at Kentucky&#8217;s Transylvania University, telling the pair that he is a &#8220;pro-life conservative Republican college student who won’t let cancel culture silence me&#8221; in a <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/covington-catholic-cancel-culture-nick-sandman">Fox News op-ed</a>.
On Wednesday, The Daily Wire reported that Sandmann was the target of a two-pronged attack that began when a graduate of Transylvania University, who became an associate attorney for the ACLU, warned that Sandmann&#8217;s presence at the school was a &#8220;bit of a stain&#8221; on its reputation and called Sandmann &#8220;a provocateur in training with no intention of learning&#8221; who &#8220;exists only to troll, intimidate and play victim.&#8221;
A Transylvania University professor, Dr. Avery Tompkins, initially defended Sandmann&#8217;s presence, telling the writer that “While I certainly don’t support or agree with his views, and find his public behavior and rhetoric atrocious and uninformed, we can’t not admit academically qualified students due to their political and personal views.&#8221;
Then, though, she pledged to keep the ACLU and others appraised of Sandmann&#8217;s activities.
&#8220;If he ends up in my intro class, fine. He might learn something that is actually based on research and evidence. I’m well aware of the anti-intellectual views tied to the organizations he’s part of,&#8221; she said. &#8220;If he were to cause problems by being disruptive, trolling, or engaging in unethical behavior of any kind, I would immediately document it (just like I would for any student doing the same thing) and he would just be putting himself in a position for me to file a conduct report.&#8221;
She then suggested that &#8220;Transy&#8221; wouldn&#8217;t be an appropriate home for Sandmann because he might not fit in with the school&#8217;s &#8220;mission&#8221; &#8212; a mission which, it seems, is not academic excellence.
Sandmann fired back Thursday, torching the ACLU associate for attempting to derail his college experience simply because he is &#8220;outraged that my conservative values don’t align with his left-wing ideology.&#8221;
&#8220;So should only liberals and those on the far-left be able to get a college education?&#8221; Sandmann asks in his op-ed. &#8220;Should there be an ideological purity test required that bars conservatives and Republicans? That’s a pretty frightening idea and sounds like something you would expect in a totalitarian state, not a democracy where we are all guaranteed free speech by the First Amendment to the Constitution.&#8221;
&#8220;Colleges have a reputation of being toxic places for conservative, pro-life ideas like the ones I hold. But an alumni assuming I’ll act in a certain way before even meeting me? Well, that’s a new low,&#8221; he continues. &#8220;To those who are inclined to write my future for me, I say let me define myself. I will not be canceled.&#8221;
Sandmann is currently working for Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell&#8217;s re-election campaign. He is starting college this fall.
The Daily Wire is one of America’s fastest-growing conservative media companies and counter-cultural outlets for news, opinion, and entertainment. Get inside access to The Daily Wire by becoming a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/subscribe">member</a>.

Nick Sandmann

Nick Sandmann Torches ACLU Associate, Professor Who Called Him ‘Dangerous’: ‘I Will Not Be Canceled’

ACLU

Cancel culture

colleges

Free Speech

Former Covington Catholic student Nick Sandmann fired back Thursday at an ACLU associate and a college professor who warned that he was &quot;dangerous&quot; and a

description

robots

index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1

googlebot

bingbot

Nick Sandmann Torches ACLU Associate, Professor Who Called Him &#039;Dangerous&#039;: &#039;I Will Not Be Canceled&#039; | The Daily Wire

https://www.dailywire.com/news/nick-sandmann-torches-aclu-associate-professor-who-called-him-dangerous-i-will-not-be-canceled/

twitter:card

https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2020/08/GettyImages-1268598519.jpg

twitter:image

On Thursday, U.S. Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos <a href="https://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/us-secretary-education-betsy-devos-delivers-promise-protect-free-inquiry-and-religious-liberty">kept her promise</a> to protect free speech on college campuses, issuing the Improving Free Inquiry, Transparency, and Accountability at Colleges and Universities <a href="https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ope/freeinquiryfinalruleunofficialversion09092020.pdf">final rule</a>.
The rule states:
<blockquote>Under the Supreme Court’s First Amendment jurisprudence protecting the individual’s right to his own ideas and beliefs, “no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein.” As a result, officials at public institutions may not abridge their students’ or employees’ expressions, ideas, or thoughts.</blockquote>
It continues:
<blockquote>Academic freedom’s noble premise is that the vigilant protection of free speech unshackled from the demands and constraints of censorship will help generate new thoughts, ideas, knowledge, and even questions and doubts about previously undisputed ideas. Although academic freedom’s value derives itself from the fact that its “results . . . are to the general benefit in the long run,” academic freedom is also inherently important in a free society.</blockquote>
The rule addresses free speech at religious institutions: &#8220;Religiously affiliated institutions, in freely exercising their faith, may define their free speech policies as they choose in a manner consistent with their mission. The final regulations do not mandate that religiously affiliated institutions adopt any particular policies in order to participate in the Department’s grants and programs. In other words, the final regulations do not require any private institution to adopt a campus free speech policy that complies with the First Amendment, and the Department cannot force any religiously affiliated school to compromise the free exercise of its religion.”
“No religious student organization should be forced to choose between their religion and receiving the benefits, rights, and privileges that other student organizations receive from a public institution,” the rule states. “Religious student organizations should be able to enjoy the benefits, rights, and privileges afforded to other student organizations at a public institution.”
&#8220;This administration is committed to protecting the First Amendment rights of students, teachers, and faith-based institutions. Students should not be forced to choose between their faith and their education, and an institution controlled by a religious organization should not have to sacrifice its religious beliefs to participate in Department grants and programs,” said DeVos. &#8220;These regulations hold public institutions accountable for protecting the First Amendment rights of students and student organizations, and they require private colleges and universities that promise their students and faculty free expression, free inquiry, and diversity of thought to live up to those ideals.”
Some of the aspects delineated in the final rule as noted by the Department of Education include: public colleges and universities must comply with the First Amendment as a requirement to receive Department grants; the Department will rely upon a final, non-default judgment by a state or federal court to determine whether a public or private institution has violated these material grant conditions.
The Daily Wire is one of America’s fastest-growing conservative media companies and counter-cultural outlets for news, opinion, and entertainment. Get inside access to The Daily Wire by becoming a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/subscribe">member</a>.

Education Secretary Betsy DeVos Testifies To Senate Committee On Department&#8217;s Budget

Betsy DeVos, Education Department Issue Final Rule Protecting Free Speech On College Campuses

Betsy DeVos

College campuses

Department of Education

On Thursday, U.S. Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos kept her promise to protect free speech on college campuses, issuing the Improving Free Inquiry,

Betsy DeVos, Education Department Issue Final Rule Protecting Free Speech On College Campuses | The Daily Wire

https://www.dailywire.com/news/betsy-devos-education-department-issue-final-rule-protecting-free-speech-on-college-campuses/

https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2020/09/GettyImages-1133269468.jpg

Andrew Koppelman, a Northwestern University law professor, recently published two articles, each one about a professor under fire for his classroom speech. But he treats the two professors vastly different, illustrating the double standard that is far too prevalent in today’s free speech debates. He, like too many, says: I support free speech, unless I disagree with you.
Koppelman’s Aug. 12 blog post defended Stanford Law Professor Michael McConnell, who read a historical quotation to his constitutional law class that included the “n” word. Numerous faculty and students condemned him, and some called for him to be punished.
Why does Koppelman vigorously <a href="https://balkin.blogspot.com/2020/08/michael-mcconnell-and-n-word.html">defend</a> McConnell? Because he employs a similar teaching methodology. Like McConnell, he also delves into America’s history of slavery and racism in his constitutional law class. He requires his students to read decisions like Plessy v. Ferguson, which defended racial segregation, and other “awful, racist stuff, blandly clothed in the dry language of legal argumentation.” He then invites them to attack the courts’ reasoning. He believes that every lawyer must develop the ability to anticipate the arguments of the other side and respond to them. His philosophy is: “If you can’t read or hear stuff that enrages you, don’t be a lawyer.”
Koppelman acknowledges some faculty and students disagree with his philosophy. He admits he could be the next victim of an outrage campaign. He understands how easily students could accuse him of being “insensitive,” “showing a lack of respect,” and being “complicit in systemic racism.” They could insist he “need[s] to be held accountable” because his “lack of sensitivity has needlessly harmed [his] students.”
But Koppelman rightly rejects these risks because “this informal norm-setting, enforced by ad hoc groups of students, creates massive uncertainty about where the line is drawn.” This “ethic can and sometimes does degenerate into crude virtue signaling and mob justice,” which is “in some ways worse than administrative censorship, because it is decentralized and unpredictable, the censorship of all against all.” This thinking “damages education whenever it happens” because it “creates an atmosphere of intimidation in which the free exchange of ideas is impossible.”
But when assessing speech he dislikes, a very different and dismissive Koppelman emerges. Five days after defending McConnell, he derided Dr. Nicholas Meriwether, a long-time philosophy professor at Shawnee State University who is involved in a free-speech <a href="https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/512306-free-speech-gone-wild-the-meriwether-case" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/512306-free-speech-gone-wild-the-meriwether-case&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1598573322095000&amp;usg=AFQjCNGidjRg8gZbVtB-vcoSv1U10C_6BQ">lawsuit</a>.
In 2018, a male student in Meriwether’s class demanded to be referred to as a woman. Meriwether politely declined but sought to accommodate the student by simply using the student’s last name and avoiding pronouns for this student. The university and student rejected this reasonable compromise. Instead, the university demanded that Meriwether either refer to this student as female, or refer to every student solely by name and stop using any pronouns at all — for every student, both on and off campus. Meriwether respectfully declined because both options required him to endorse philosophies he believes are false, and the latter is impossible and every slip would lead to more punishment.
Meanwhile, the student remained in Meriwether’s class and earned a high grade. Ignoring this, university officials formally reprimanded him. To them, by using standard English, Meriwether discriminated and created a hostile environment. They warned him that if he continued, he would face more punishment. After they denied his grievance, Meriwether filed suit to protect his rights and prevent further punishment.
Unlike his robust defense of McConnell, Koppelman blithely dismisses Meriwether’s free speech rights as “silly stuff.” He ignores that, as with issues of race, there is a debate raging in academia and society about sex and gender identity. Gone are his (rightful) concerns that censoring one side of the debate will result in “informal norm-setting, enforced by ad hoc groups of students, creat[ing] massive uncertainty about where the line is drawn,” even though this is exactly what happens when universities allow students to force professors either to use certain terms or to purge certain terms from their vocabulary based on each student’s subjective offense.
By advocating for censoring Meriwether, Koppelman seeks to deny Meriwether’s students the opportunity to learn about and respond to philosophical ideas they disagree with. This would disserve these students and deprive them of one of the hallmarks of higher education.
Don’t just take my word for it. Listen to Meriwether’s former students. One wrote:
“I’m a queer person. Your personal convictions could not be any further from mine. It doesn’t matter, though. I respect you, and I respect the ideas that you bring to the table of the marketplace of ideas. You made me think. That’s hard to come by these days.”
Another, a self-described atheist, wrote:
“Insulating students from intellectual scrutiny in the name of avoiding offense would be doing them a disservice. You and I saw eye-to-eye on very little and that made those arguments all the more valuable to me. . . . I hope that more people can [rein] in their emotions and see the benefit in having their ideas stress-tested by an earnest lover of wisdom.”
These students powerfully express why I and my colleagues at Alliance Defending Freedom are representing Meriwether and why everyone should cheer him on as <a href="https://adflegal.org/case/meriwether-v-trustees-shawnee-state-university" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://adflegal.org/case/meriwether-v-trustees-shawnee-state-university&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1598573322096000&amp;usg=AFQjCNESOjG-k1TDnf5m6sRtP25Sdey3xQ">he defends free speech</a>: to ensure that public universities remain a marketplace of ideas, not an assembly line for one type of thought.
Tyson Langhofer is senior counsel for <a href="https://adflegal.org/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://adflegal.org/&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1598573322096000&amp;usg=AFQjCNH-pyBFz6qVMaLgle6hmrgM4qdxCA">Alliance Defending Freedom</a> (<a href="https://twitter.com/AllianceDefends" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://twitter.com/AllianceDefends&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1598573322096000&amp;usg=AFQjCNElfPBNhTHsUUWnwLfDe-xFA1XkJw">@AllianceDefends</a>) and director of its Center for Academic Freedom, which represents Dr. Nicholas Meriwether.
The Daily Wire is one of America’s fastest-growing conservative media companies and counter-cultural outlets for news, opinion, and entertainment. Get inside access to The Daily Wire by becoming a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/subscribe">member</a>.

Protest art

LANGHOFER: Free Speech On Campus: A Tale of Two Professors

Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF)

Education

Andrew Koppelman, a Northwestern University law professor, recently published two articles, each one about a professor under fire for his classroom

LANGHOFER: Free Speech On Campus: A Tale of Two Professors | The Daily Wire

https://www.dailywire.com/news/langhofer-free-speech-on-campus-a-tale-of-two-professors/

https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2020/08/Protest.jpg

Cancel culture is all around us. We witness it daily on social media, watch it unfold nightly on cable news shows, and even encounter it in our personal relationships. A society that has always embraced freedom and protected dissent is quickly becoming a nation that eschews freedom and not only silences dissent, but aims to ruin the life and livelihood of those who hold different views.
Research backs up the notion that people across our nation are concerned about polarization, worried by cancel culture, and afraid of being cancelled themselves.
In March, the Pew Research Center <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/03/04/far-more-americans-see-very-strong-partisan-conflicts-now-than-in-the-last-two-presidential-election-years/">found</a> that more than 90% of Americans believe partisan political conflicts in the country are strong or very strong. Just a few months later, Pew found that the <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2020/06/25/republicans-democrats-move-even-further-apart-in-coronavirus-concerns/">coronavirus</a> crisis has widened the already yawning gap between Democrats and Republicans. Most recently, the Cato Institute <a href="https://www.cato.org/publications/survey-reports/poll-62-americans-say-they-have-political-views-theyre-afraid-share">reported</a> that 62% of Americans are afraid to share their political views. And researchers have only begun studying the effect on national polarization of the protests and unrest surrounding the death of George Floyd in May 2020.
During times of social unrest like these, we must seek common ground — something that binds us together despite our differences…something that can heal our hurting society rather than drive us further apart…something greater than our current cultural upheaval that we can all strive for together.
That something is freedom of speech. And there are encouraging signs that this is a genuine area of shared concern for the left and the right.
The first indication was when, just a few weeks ago, Harper’s Magazine <a href="https://harpers.org/a-letter-on-justice-and-open-debate/">published</a> “A Letter on Justice and Open Debate.” Signed by many mostly left-of-center writers, historians, and scholars troubled by the growing intolerance, the letter affirms the importance of the “free exchange of information and ideas” and denounces “a vogue for public shaming and ostracism” of those who do not share certain viewpoints.
As if to prove the very point of the letter, its publication touched off its own round of denunciations and cancellations, with two signatories <a href="https://thehill.com/changing-america/enrichment/arts-culture/506458-what-the-harpers-letter-says-about-cancel-culture">revoking</a> their <a href="https://www.thedailybeast.com/harpers-magazines-cancel-culture-letter-kicks-off-circular-firing-squad-in-media">signatures</a> and <a href="https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/07/its-come-to-this-we-must-defend-matt-yglesias/">another</a> in danger of losing his job after a fellow staffer said that his signature created an “unsafe” atmosphere at work.
Now, a mostly right-of-center group of writers, scholars, and practitioners have launched The Philadelphia Statement on Civil Discourse and the Strengthening of Liberal Democracy. Released <a href="http://www.thephillystatement.org/">Aug. 11</a>, the statement’s signatories are “calling for a renewed commitment to civil discourse and free speech” that is built upon the free speech tradition at the heart of the American experiment.
It’s “the American tradition of freedom of expression,” the statement lays out, that “trains us to think critically, to defend our ideas, and, at the same time, to be considerate of others whose creeds and convictions differ from our own…. And it admonishes us that if we value the freedom of expression, we must extend the same measure of freedom to others, even to those whom we believe have gone very wrong in their thinking.”
The Philadelphia Statement and the Harper’s letter reveal that there are often unexpected points of agreement between even the most divided people. Finding that common ground and cultivating mutual respect despite our differences in political or social beliefs is the only way to work through calamitous cultural moments like our present one.
We will never arrive at the right solutions concerning COVID-19, racial justice, police reform, and myriad other vexing public issues if people are afraid to express their views on those topics. Becoming more tribal, more polarized, more intent on cancelling those with whom we disagree is a recipe for deeper division and greater strife.
It is also the stuff of tyrants and failed nations, not Americans.
Cancel culture, performative wokeness, social media mobs, and public shaming are all not just real phenomena, they are deeply to corrosive to democracy. They are teaching a new generation to countenance but one orthodoxy and to shut down all dissent. They are planting the seeds of totalitarianism. And history has taught us that totalitarian regimes often arise from such toxic social milieus.
What we need is what existed in American life until very recently: a broad understanding of the good that comes from civic discourse unregulated by government strictures and unafraid of social mores or majoritarian “consensus.” We can have it through a renewed commitment to free speech that crosses ideological lines. The Philadelphia Statement and the Harper’s letter, and the principles that unite both, are crucial first steps in the right direction.
But if we want to protect free speech — and indeed, freedom itself — for our children, we’ll need to do more than sign our names to statements. We must live out those statements’ principles in our daily lives, especially when we encounter someone with whom we disagree.
Jeremy Tedesco is senior counsel and senior vice president of communications for <a href="http://www.iamadf.org/">Alliance Defending Freedom</a> (<a href="https://twitter.com/AllianceDefends">@AllianceDefends</a>).

cancel.jpg

TEDESCO: Cancel Culture Is Killing America. Here’s How We Crush It.

Political Correctness

Cancel culture is all around us. We witness it daily on social media, watch it unfold nightly on cable news shows, and even encounter it in our personal

TEDESCO: Cancel Culture Is Killing America. Here’s How We Crush It. | The Daily Wire

https://www.dailywire.com/news/tedesco-cancel-culture-is-killing-america-heres-how-we-stop-it/

https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2019/09/cancel.jpg

A University of Central Florida professor is the latest to face political and work-related backlash over comments he made on social media. Unable to fire the professor for his tweet, the university opened a massive investigation into his decades-long career to find something it could use to terminate him.
Professor Charles Negy has been an associate professor of psychology since 1998. He teaches controversial subjects, such as Cross-Cultural Psychology and Sexual Behavior, and can often be blunt. His personality has caused some strife among the UCF community, but he has received routinely positive evaluations.
This June, however, Negy’s eccentric personality and non-mainstream thoughts got him into trouble with today’s woke crowds. Negy commented on <a href="https://www.takimag.com/article/the-bonfire-of-the-insanities/">an article</a> written by Steve Sailer for Taki’s Magazine, which concluded:
<blockquote>What America needs to do is treat blacks as human beings with free will who when they make good choices should enjoy the benefits and when they make bad choices should experience the consequences. Instead, The Establishment views blacks as our Sacred Cows, above criticism, but beneath agency.</blockquote>
Negy responded to the article by saying it was “spot on (will infuriate folks).”
“Black privilege is real: Besides [affirmative] action, special scholarships and other set asides, being shielded from legitimate criticism is a privilege. But as a group, they’re missing out on much needed feedback.”
The article is much more controversial, and though many may disagree with Negy’s choice to share it and his comments regarding it, he didn’t do anything to warrant an investigation by UCF. His tweets are protected by the First Amendment, and he had no previous complaints lodged against him by anyone suggesting he was discriminatory against black students.
After his tweets, people on Twitter started the hashtag #UCFfirehim, but UCF president Alexander Cartwright bemoaned the fact that he couldn’t fire Negy for the tweet.
“The Constitution restricts our ability to fire him or any other University employee for expressing personal opinions about matters of public concern. This is the law,” Cartwright <a href="https://quillette.com/2020/08/13/the-floridian-inquisition/">told</a> the Orlando Sentinel.
Negy’s attorney, Samantha Harris, wrote about his case at Quillette, arguing that since Cartwright couldn’t just fire Negy for the tweet, he asked students and faculty to come forward with accusations of discrimination. Cartwright first addressed Negy’s tweets and then said: “If any student, current or former, believes they may have experienced abusive or discriminatory behavior by any faculty or staff member, we want to know about it. UCF takes every report seriously. Concerns can be reported to UCF’s IntegrityLine, which also takes anonymous complaints.” (Emphasis added.)
As Harris wrote, the “witch hunt” worked:
<blockquote>Since June 4th, a litany (we don’t know the exact number, because they won’t say) of complaints has been lodged against Negy for his classroom pedagogy, for speech that allegedly occurred over a 15-year period from 2005 to 2020. The university charged Negy with discriminatory harassment on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, sexual orientation, religion, sex, gender identity/expression, and disability—it is worth noting here that Negy himself is both an ethnic and sexual minority—while providing him with only a handful of “examples” of his alleged wrongdoing. Negy begged for more information prior to his investigative interview so that he might prepare to defend himself, but UCF refused.</blockquote>
Negy on Friday attended an “investigative interview,” at which Harris was present, which lasted four hours and consisted of a UCF investigator continuously grilling Negy “about accusations stemming directly from his classroom pedagogy, having made no effort to weed out the countless accusations that were obviously just critiques of his choice of teaching material.”
“UCF also made no effort to consolidate allegations, repeatedly asking Negy variations of the same question, ad infinitum. And again, virtually all of these questions related directly to Negy’s pedagogy, which deals with unavoidably controversial subjects,” Harris continued. “When Negy, physically and emotionally exhausted after four hours of interrogation, asked if the interview was almost over, we learned that the investigator had not even gotten halfway through her list of accusations. Since he could take no more, another five-hour inquisition was scheduled for the following week.”
Negy, it should be noted, is an “ethnic and sexual minority,” as described by his attorney.
The Daily Wire is one of America’s fastest-growing conservative media companies and counter-cultural outlets for news, opinion, and entertainment. Get inside access to The Daily Wire by becoming a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/subscribe">member</a>.

Charles Negy

Professor Faces ‘Inquisition’ Over Controversial Tweet About Race

First Amendment

Florida

Race

A University of Central Florida professor is the latest to face political and work-related backlash over comments he made on social media. Unable to fire

Professor Faces ‘Inquisition’ Over Controversial Tweet About Race | The Daily Wire

https://www.dailywire.com/news/professor-faces-inquisition-over-controversial-tweet-about-race/

https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2020/08/GettyImages-151251192.jpg

Jonathan Turley, Constitutional Law Professor at George Washington University, issued a dire warning at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Tuesday: &#8220;Antifa is winning.&#8221;
&#8220;If you go through the antifa handbook and look at their literature, it&#8217;s quite express, as stated in the handbook, they reject the premise of what they call a classical liberal view of free speech,&#8221; Turley said. &#8220;Specifically they object to statements like, &#8216;I may disagree with what you have to say, but I would give my life to defend it.&#8217; They reject that. They believe that free speech itself is a tool of oppression.&#8221;
&#8220;And that has been the message on campuses. What I thought was disturbing about these statements that antifa is a myth is that many of us on campus have been dealing with antifa for years. And antifa is winning,&#8221; Turley continued. &#8220;I’ve been teaching for 30 years. I have never seen the level of fear and intimidation on campuses that we see today. Faculty are afraid to speak out about issues. We can’t have a dialogue about the important issues occurring today because there’s a fear that you might be accused of being reactionary or racist.&#8221;
&#8220;We’ve had law professors who have been physically attacked, have required police protection. That’s the environment that we’re developing,&#8221; Turley continued. &#8220;And for people that think that antifa and groups like it can be allies, they don’t know antifa. Those of us who have been teaching on campuses can tell you about these groups. And the alarm that I have is because I’m watching my profession, the teaching profession, die, with free speech. &#8230; We’re seeing, many of these speakers are being prevented from speaking on campus under various theories. And the message is clear to faculty; it’s clear to students – there’s a new orthodoxy that you should not confront and you certainly shouldn’t disagree with.&#8221;
&#8220;There are some Democratic politicians that have not only failed to denounce antifa, but have actually, in that case, seemed to give it a shout out,&#8221; Turley concluded. &#8220;If you go to campuses today, you will find more advocates for limiting speech than protecting it. They’re winning &#8230; it’s very disturbing because antifa’s not coming after &#8230; Democrats, they’re coming after Republicans, conservatives, and those of us in the free speech community. They’re coming after us. But don’t think we’ll be the last ones. That’s not how this works.&#8221;
WATCH:
<iframe title="Andy Ngo Speaks at Congress About Antifa" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/0tNXomjObIA?start=1126&#038;feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>
TRANSCRIPT:
<blockquote>SEN. TED CRUZ (R-TX): Professor Turley, you testified that antifa is profoundly anti-speech and violent. Can you elaborate on that, please?
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW PROFESSOR JONATHAN TURLEY: Yes. If you go through the antifa handbook and look at their literature, it&#8217;s quite express, as stated in the handbook, they reject the premise of what they call a classical liberal view of free speech. Specifically they object to statements like, &#8216;I may disagree with what you have to say, but I would give my life to defend it.&#8217; They reject that. They believe that free speech itself is a tool of oppression.
And that has been the message on campuses. What I thought was disturbing about these statements that antifa is a myth is that many of us on campus have been dealing with antifa for years. And antifa is winning. There is a tremendous movement, an anti-free speech movement in the United States. My testimony doesn’t really go to these protests. I think that both the far-right and far-left are doing bad things in these protests. Antifa members have been arrested in these protests. Antifa groups like Rose City Antifa have been leading some of these efforts.
But my greater concern, and the one that I would hope that members would look at, is this anti-free speech movement that antifa is part of. I’ve been teaching for 30 years. I have never seen the level of fear and intimidation on campuses that we see today. Faculty are afraid to speak out about issues. We can’t have a dialogue about the important issues occurring today because there’s a fear that you might be accused of being reactionary or racist.
We’ve had law professors who have been physically attacked, have required police protection. That’s the environment that we’re developing. And for people that think that antifa and groups like it can be allies, they don’t know antifa. Those of us who have been teaching on campuses can tell you about these groups. And the alarm that I have is because I’m watching my profession, the teaching profession, die, with free speech. Administrators are not protecting academic freedom; why should they protect free speech?
We’re seeing, many of these speakers are being prevented from speaking on campus under various theories. And the message is clear to faculty; it’s clear to students – there’s a new orthodoxy that you should not confront and you certainly shouldn’t disagree with. And I go through those details in my testimony.
CRUZ: So professor Turley, I very much agree with you that we ought to be united in condemning violence from whatever ideological origin it comes from – whether right-wing, left-wing, or no wing at all. If you’re committing violence against fellow Americans, that ought to be condemned, you ought to be arrested, you ought to be prosecuted; you ought to go to jail. I do think it is striking that in the entire course of this hearing, seven Democratic senators spoke in this hearing. Not a single Democratic senator condemned antifa. Not a one of them condemned antifa’s violence and terrorism. Do you think it is harmful that — the sitting attorney general of Minnesota, a Democrat, posed with the book you just held up in your testimony, the antifa handbook, gleefully modeling it? Do you think it is helpful for elected Democrats to be holding out a violent, anti-speech organization like antifa, and acting essentially as apologists for it? Is that good for our democracy?
TURLEY: I criticized Mr. Ellison for that tweet. There are some Democratic politicians that have not only failed to denounce antifa, but have actually, in that case, seemed to give it a shout out. In that case, Mr. Ellison said that they would put the fear in the heart of Donald Trump. But what he doesn’t see is that antifa is putting fear in the hearts of many people other than Donald Trump. If you go to campuses today, you will find more advocates for limiting speech than protecting it. They’re winning. When you see pictures like Mr. Ellison’s picture with antifa, it’s very disturbing because antifa’s not coming after him, they’re not even coming after Democrats, they’re coming after Republicans, conservatives, and those of us in the free speech community. They’re coming after us. But don’t think we’ll be the last ones. That’s not how this works.</blockquote>
The Daily Wire is one of America’s fastest-growing conservative media companies and counter-cultural outlets for news, opinion, and entertainment. Get inside access to The Daily Wire by becoming a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/subscribe">member</a>.

Senate Judiciary Committee Holds Hearing On Protecting Speech By Stopping Anarchist Violence

Law Professor Testifies: Antifa Targets ‘Republicans,’ ‘Fear And Intimidation’ Worst Ever On Campuses

Antifa

Jonathan Turley

Jonathan Turley, Constitutional Law Professor at George Washington University, issued a dire warning at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Tuesday:

Law Professor Testifies: Antifa Targets ‘Republicans,’ ‘Fear And Intimidation’ Worst Ever On Campuses | The Daily Wire

https://www.dailywire.com/news/law-professor-testifies-antifa-targets-republicans-fear-and-intimidation-worst-ever-on-campuses/

https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2020/08/Turley-scaled.jpg

In our politically obsessed society, references to George Orwell&#8217;s “1984” are so common that they are at risk of becoming cliché. Terms like “thoughtcrime” and “doublespeak” are effective retorts to the reliable buffet of political lies told every day. The American Left have made <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2016/11/teaching-1984-in-2016/508226/">repeated</a> attempts to claim that the United States under the Trump administration is <a href="https://www.huffpost.com/entry/teens-1984-george-orwell-trump_n_5892445ce4b070cf8b8060a7">synonymous</a> with the “dystopian world in which war is peace, freedom is slavery, and ignorance is strength” described in 1984. However, when we analyze the themes explored in George Orwell’s famous dystopian novel, we increasingly feel that we are reading what appears to be the American Left’s playbook.
1. History
“Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.”
On multiple occasions, the Left have demonstrated a desire to rewrite history with two primary objectives. The first is to escape their own history, and the second is to reshape history to enable their future. After all, the Democratic Party is forever tarnished by the legacy of slavery, the KKK, and Jim Crow. Even after the controversial and refuted “switch,” Democratic President Lyndon B. Johnson’s repeated use of the phrase “n***er bill” during the Civil Rights era exemplifies the fact that the American Left never truly banished racism from its platform. Instead, they embraced a paternalistic bigotry of low expectations which exists to this day.
While this strategy is applied to American history through absurdities like the <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/historians-shred-nyt-1619-project-claiming-slavery-defines-america">intellectually fraudulent</a> “1619 Project,” the same effort has been exerted against inconvenient elements of world history. The fact that fascism is <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/haworth-the-deadly-double-standard-of-communism-vs-fascism">rejected</a>while communism, socialism, and Marxism are accepted is testament to the success of the American Left in purposefully failing to educate younger generations on the inevitable failure of Leftist regimes.
Because of this erasure of history, <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/22/politics/biden-charlamagne-tha-god-you-aint-black/index.html">comments</a> from Joe Biden like “if you have a problem figuring out whether you’re for me or Trump, then you ain’t black” or that Mitt Romney would put African Americans “<a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/biden-tells-african-american-audience-gop-ticket-would-put-them-back-in-chains/">back in chains</a>” are ignored. It is why those who openly describe themselves as communists, socialists, or Marxists are embraced and celebrated. It is why we seem to be repeating the mistakes of the past.
“Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And the process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right.”
2. Language
“Don’t you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it.”
After history is reformatted to be politically convenient, the next component of the Left’s Orwellian strategy is to gain control of our language in order to achieve ideological ends. There are countless <a href="https://americanmind.org/essays/the-terms-of-our-defeat/">examples</a> of this tactic, including the redefinition of racism to align with the flawed notion of intersectionality, the demand that you prove fealty by chanting “Black Lives Matter” with no regard for its underlying premises or the radical organization it supports, or the assertion that we must “Believe Women” despite the obvious fact that men and women are equally capable of duplicity.
The Left understands that achieving full control of language will open the gateway to their subsequent goal of controlling our culture. The generational removal of methods of dissent or disagreement, alongside the subjective redefinition of words for political gain, will be difficult, if not impossible, to undo. For this reason, and this reason alone, the Left focuses on speech more than anything else. “Speech is violence” justifies a violent reaction to speech, until the only speech that remains is deemed politically acceptable.
“It&#8217;s a beautiful thing, the destruction of words.”
3. Truth
“Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one&#8217;s mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them.”
As the Left’s grip on our language grows tighter, and historical excerpts which debunk their radical principles and positions are intentionally wiped away, they are finally equipped to target and redefine the ultimate and central metric of ideological debate: truth and logic.
While the notion that politicians have a habit of being deceptive shouldn’t be a shocking revelation, the Left’s modern approach to the definition of truth goes far beyond the intentional use of simple falsehoods. To put things bluntly, we have left the realm of “I did not have sexual relations with that woman” and have instead entered an illogical universe where sex and gender simultaneously have no meaning while also being characteristics of upmost importance.
Just like Orwell in 1984, we use the mathematical certainty that “2 + 2 = 4” as an example of concrete truth. However, even such binary notions have been slowly eradicated, with the culturally dominant Left demanding that we accept a fluid version of truth which disregards fundamental logic. For example, if men are women and women are men, how can the Left concurrently posit that our society is dominated by a systemic scourge of malicious misogynistic males who forcefully hold females in positions of subjugation and servitude?
“In philosophy, or religion, or ethics, or politics, two and two might make five, but when one was designing a gun or an aeroplane they had to make four.”
4. Freedom
“Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.”
As truth becomes subjective, the unfortunate outcome is that freedom is diminished. The very notion of freedom has been subtly redefined to remove its original connection to individual liberty with the necessary partner of personal responsibility. Instead, freedom has become tainted by notions of selfishness and entitlement, with no regard for the individual freedom of others. In short, the negative rights of all have been replaced by the positive rights of some.
While this problem also exists on the American Right, the American Left approaches freedom in the same manner as George Orwell, with a distinct focus on the restriction of thought and speech.
Those who speak objective truths —  such as referencing <a href="https://www.manhattan-institute.org/the-myth-of-systemic-police-racism">statistical evidence</a> which counters the claim that police brutality is both racist and systemic, or that life cannot be measured as valid or invalid along a scale of convenience, or even that men and women are different — are castigated as bigots, societally “cancelled,” or even punished.
The fact that the Left attempts to justify such attacks on free speech — whether truthful or not — under the guise of achieving some notion of equality or tolerance is irrelevant when we consider that, without freedom of speech, we can never be free.
“The choice for mankind lies between freedom and happiness and for the great bulk of mankind, happiness is better.”
5. Propaganda
“The Ministry of Peace concerns itself with war, the Ministry of Truth with lies, the Ministry of Love with torture and the Ministry of Plenty with starvation. These contradictions are not accidental, nor do they result from ordinary hypocrisy: they are deliberate exercises in doublethink.”
No oppressive regime can exist in a vacuum, and all require a method of enforcing their demands. While the (remaining) pages of history are riddled with stories of power achieved through violence alone, the mainstream Left is potentially more dangerous because they exercise control and power not through the violence of groups like Antifa — whom they are happy to passively support — but through the control of truth through curated propaganda in the form of “objective journalism.”
The term “fake news” is so overused (and often misused) that it has lost all meaning. Unfortunately, this has allowed the dishonesty of the mainstream media to hide in plain sight. Instead of performing their assumed “duty” as objective journalists, they have morphed into an elitist gaggle of activists. Instead of screaming their demands in the streets, they shape their reality in our collective psyche through their words and voices.
Ultimately, the blame for this prevalence of shameless lies falls not just on the declining fraternity of journalists, but on society as their audience and consumers. However, it is arguably impossible for a society to question the given narrative when its freedom has been diluted, its ability to question stunted, and its understanding of contextual history rewritten. The nail in this particular coffin is the despicable compulsion of the political and journalistic classes to present adherence to subjective policy as proof of one’s virtue. By doing so, they bypass the need for debate or justification, instead providing people with a lazy method of proving virtue and ideological purity.
The mainstream media have abandoned any hint of objectivity, but continue to benefit from the generational levels of trust and respect earned by their predecessors. Until that changes, their deceitful words will remain powerful, and as a result they will continue to be convenient mouthpieces for the Left.
“Orthodoxy means not thinking&#8211;not needing to think. Orthodoxy is unconsciousness.”
****
George Orwell’s marvelous yet terrifying novel is a hauntingly appropriate novel to reference when criticizing the actions of any political movement. However, in recent years it appears as if the American Left have started to treat it not as a work of fiction, but as a guidebook for power.
Their objective is made simple if our children don’t read — and more crucially understand — profound political works like 1984. Why do you think the Left wants to control our education, our history, and our words?
More from Ian Haworth: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/haworth-the-difference-between-cancel-culture-and-free-speech">The Difference Between Cancel Culture And Free Speech</a>
Ian G. Haworth is a conservative commentator who provides an honest, principled, and hard-hitting insight into our politics and culture from his unique perspective as a British immigrant to the United States. Ian hosts “The Ian Haworth Show” and “The Truth in 60 Seconds.” He is a regular columnist for Townhall.com, and his work has appeared in other outlets including The American Mind, The Washington Examiner, and The Federalist. Ian graduated from Oxford University, and now lives in California. Follow him on Twitter <a href="https://twitter.com/ighaworth">@ighaworth</a>
The Daily Wire is one of America’s fastest-growing conservative media companies and counter-cultural outlets for news, opinion, and entertainment. Get inside access to The Daily Wire by becoming a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/subscribe">member</a>.

Lorne Greene In &#8216;1984&#8217;

HAWORTH: 5 Ways Orwell’s ‘1984’ Perfectly Describes The American Left’s Quest For Power

Democratic Party

Hate Speech

Leftism

Media Bias

In our politically obsessed society, references to George Orwell&#039;s “1984” are so common that they are at risk of becoming cliché. Terms like

HAWORTH: 5 Ways Orwell’s ‘1984’ Perfectly Describes The American Left’s Quest For Power | The Daily Wire

https://www.dailywire.com/news/haworth-5-ways-orwells-1984-perfectly-describes-the-american-lefts-quest-for-power/

https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2020/08/1984.jpg

twitter:creator

The term “cancel culture” is one that has started to dominate our political discourse in recent years, growing from an irritating but innocuous freckle into an ideological tumor on the back of society. Despite the clear prevalence of its use, there is an ongoing debate regarding its fundamental meaning.
For some, cancel culture is the <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/14/opinion/cancel-culture-.html">weaponization of the masses</a> — often in the form of virtual mobs on social media — to punish thoughtcrimes or the expression of “problematic” opinions in a bid to eradicate certain viewpoints. For others, cancel culture is an imaginary term <a href="https://time.com/5735403/cancel-culture-is-not-real/">used</a> as “a catch-all for when people in power face consequences for their actions or receive any type of criticism, something that they’re not used to.”
To some extent, both positions are correct. It’s obvious to any objective onlooker that cancel culture is real. Just last year, celebrities including R. Kelly, Kanye West, Scarlett Johansson, Gina Rodriguez, Kevin Hart, and Shane Gillis all faced “cancellation” for reasons spanning from criminal acts to the utterance of subjectively offensive jokes. However, cancel culture is an equal opportunity assassin, and comes for the famous and unknown alike. For example, a teacher in Michigan was recently <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/michigan-teacher-fired-after-tweeting-trump-is-our-president">fired</a> after tweeting that Donald Trump is president of the United States — a simple statement of fact.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
I’m done being silent. <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@realDonaldTrump</a> is our president ❌🧢 
Don’t @ me
&mdash; Coach Kucera (@CoachKWLW) <a href="https://twitter.com/CoachKWLW/status/1280312826796675074?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 7, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
In addition, the crosshairs of cancellation often fall on non-human elements of our culture. In the aftermath of George Floyd’s death and the riots that ensued, criticism of &#8220;glorifying police&#8221; <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/celebrities-who-have-been-canceled-over-scandals-stances-on-protests">resulted</a> in the literal cancellation of “Cops” and “Live P.D.”
In similar fashion, HBO Max reacted to increased racial tensions by temporarily removing the classic movie “Gone With The Wind” from its streaming library and only reinstating it after providing a pedantic &#8220;trigger warning.&#8221; The fact that Hattie McDaniel was the first African American to be awarded an Academy Award for her role as “Mammy” is, unfortunately, irrelevant in the eyes of those who wield the sword of cancel culture in the battle for “progress.”
It’s also important to recognize that there is some truth to the argument that cancel culture has always existed, and is sometimes the necessary reaction to certain deplorable actions. While figures like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez are wrong in their claim that “cancel culture comes from entitlement,” it’s difficult to argue that legitimate criminals such as Bill Cosby should be viewed with the same level of societal respect after their appalling actions are uncovered.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
The term “cancel culture” comes from entitlement &#8211; as though the person complaining has the right to a large, captive audience,&amp; one is a victim if people choose to tune them out.
Odds are you’re not actually cancelled, you’re just being challenged, held accountable, or unliked.
&mdash; Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC) <a href="https://twitter.com/AOC/status/1281392795748569089?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 10, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
The issue is not whether or not cancel culture exists, but what “cancellation” should be and when it is appropriate. Earlier this month, an <a href="https://harpers.org/a-letter-on-justice-and-open-debate/">open letter</a> titled “A Letter on Justice and Open Debate” was published by Harper’s Magazine. The letter was signed by dozens of “<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/jk-rowling-over-100-others-sign-letter-condemning-cancel-culture-one-caves-apologizes-rowling-responds">academics, writers, and artists</a>,” and aimed to defend free speech and condemn cancel culture.
&#8220;We need to preserve the possibility of good-faith disagreement without dire professional consequences,&#8221; the letter reads &#8220;If we won’t defend the very thing on which our work depends, we shouldn’t expect the public or the state to defend it for us.&#8221;
This letter touched on the central issue underpinning the uncontrolled application of cancel culture: “where does the line between cancel culture and free speech exist?” We have already shown that some instances of cancel culture are absurd — such as firing teachers for stating literal facts — while some instances are understandable and, arguably, completely valid. The “<a href="https://www.mackinac.org/OvertonWindow">Overton Window</a>” is supposed to be the lens through which we can make the distinction between the protection of free speech and the rejection of fundamentally bad ideas:
“The Overton Window is a model for understanding how ideas in society change over time and influence politics. The core concept is that politicians are limited in what policy ideas they can support — they generally only pursue policies that are widely accepted throughout society as legitimate policy options. These policies lie inside the Overton Window. Other policy ideas exist, but politicians risk losing popular support if they champion these ideas. These policies lie outside the Overton Window.”
Unfortunately, the Overton Window has been largely hijacked. Instead of expanding or contracting, it is being shifted to the Left by the collective efforts of the establishment media, academia and progressive politicians. There still remains a significant element of the political spectrum, particularly on the Right, unrepresented by the “Harper letter.” If the ideological diversity permitted by the Overton Window is only defended by those who seek to shift it by just enough to recover their own personal respectability, then they are promoting merely a temporary stop-gap until the pressure of radical Leftism becomes too great to resist.
For now, it is clear that the Overton Window is not the answer to the question of defining the line between free speech and cancel culture. Instead, we must first agree that the misuse of cancel culture exists, and reject and debunk the flawed arguments of those who scoff at this assertion. When Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is applauded for stating that “People who are actually &#8216;cancelled&#8217; don’t get their thoughts published and amplified in major outlets,” they must be immediately presented with a <a href="https://www.nas.org/blogs/article/tracking-cancel-culture-in-higher-education">list</a> of those who have been cancelled and, as a result, have no ability to protest.
Currently, cancel culture is either condemned, condoned, or dismissed, but usually from within ideological silos. These bubbles of thought are usually maintained through the desire to promulgate certain political positions. If cancel culture is an effective tool, then it is either celebrated or ignored. If cancel culture is a dangerous opponent, then it is adamantly denounced.
Rather than this binary approach, we need to acknowledge that the notion of “cancellation” is simply a societal tool and, like all tools, has the potential to be used in a wide array of positive and negative ways. We should also acknowledge that the act of criticism is not necessarily motivated by the desire to cancel its target. If we hope to hamper the malicious use of cancel culture while also protecting the ability to disagree, the intent behind the criticism must be our primary focus.
With this in mind, let&#8217;s reframe the discussion with intent in the equation. Here&#8217;s an analogy: Imagine that “respectable” ideological society is a single room, with a single door to an inescapable void that exists outside. Built into this door is a single mail slot. Occupants of the room carry a set of papers which contain their thoughts and ideas which they present to others in the room. Arguments are not only expected, but inevitable. Ideas which are directly opposed commonly clash, with tribes forming around common principles. As a result, it&#8217;s decided that some views are better than others, and so it&#8217;s time for this society to determine what is acceptable and may therefore remain. Ideas deemed unacceptable will be cast out into the abyss through the mail slot. Everyone is within their right to share their papers with others, and criticism of its contents is permitted, even encouraged.
The problem with our society is that we fail to notice that our “door” has a mail slot. Instead of rejecting ideas, we reject people. Those whose ideas are deemed unacceptable by an inconsistent metric of morality are cast out of the door, never to return.
This represents the fundamental difference between cancel culture and the valid use of free speech. People are separated from their ideas as those in our “room” are separated from their “papers.” If someone seeks to cast out an individual because of their ideas, then they are engaging in cancel culture. Similarly, the threat of eviction being used to silence those who wish to remain is also an example of cancel culture. The act of criticism itself is not, as long as the criticism is motivated by the desire to demonstrate the invalidity of an idea. In our analogy, this is the difference between attempting to dispose of their papers and disposing of the person themselves. If the goal is to hurl the person — along with their ideas — into the abyss, then a line has been crossed.
Of course, this analogy assumes good intent. In reality, there will be some who hope to use their ideas to enable and justify the destruction of the rights of others. There are also, of course, actual criminals, whose actions are the reason they should be rightly &#8220;cancelled.&#8221; However, permanently consigning someone to the societal void must be viewed as an absolute last resort rather than the default position, as it has increasingly become.
Until we separate the bodies, lives, and careers of those with whom we disagree from their ideas, we don’t have free speech. Until we accept that criticism is a necessary requirement for debate, we don’t have free speech.
More from Ian Haworth: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/haworth-how-we-can-push-back-on-the-lefts-virtue-of-american-self-hatred">How We Can Push Back On The Left’s ‘Virtue’ Of American Self-Hatred</a>
The Daily Wire is one of America’s fastest-growing conservative media companies and counter-cultural outlets for news, opinion, and entertainment. Get inside access to The Daily Wire by becoming a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/subscribe">member</a>.

A front door with mail slot, doorknob and deadbolt lock

HAWORTH: The Difference Between Cancel Culture And Free Speech

The term “cancel culture” is one that has started to dominate our political discourse in recent years, growing from an irritating but innocuous freckle

HAWORTH: The Difference Between Cancel Culture And Free Speech | The Daily Wire

https://www.dailywire.com/news/haworth-the-difference-between-cancel-culture-and-free-speech/

https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2020/07/Mail-Slot.jpg

On Thursday, law enforcement officials in New Hanover County, North Carolina, confirmed that they found the body of Mike S. Adams, a criminology professor at the University of North Carolina Wilmington, conservative columnist and Daily Wire contributor, in his Windsong Road home after receiving a wellness check call. No cause of death has been given and an investigation is underway.
Adams&#8217; tragic death at 55 years old was first reported by Wilmington&#8217;s <a href="https://www.wect.com/2020/07/23/details-scarce-body-removed-new-hanover-co-home-surrounded-by-crime-scene-tape/">WECT</a>, which notes that it occurred just a month after Adams reached an agreement with UNCW to retire in August for a settlement of $504,702.76 for lost salary and lost retirement benefits. The settlement was reached amid an activist campaign to get the professor fired sparked by a tweet in which he compared the North Carolina governor&#8217;s handling of the COVID-19 pandemic to slavery.
The university issued a statement Thursday night responding to the tragic news. “It is with sadness that we share the news that the New Hanover County Sheriff’s Office is conducting a death investigation involving Dr. Mike Adams, professor of criminology. Please keep his friends and loved ones in your thoughts,&#8221; UNCW&#8217;s Office of University Relations said in a statement on behalf of the Division of Academic Affairs, as reported by WECT.
The settlement between Adams and the university followed a meeting between Chancellor Jose Sartarelli and Adams over response to some of his recent social media comments, which including a petition to &#8220;<a href="https://www.change.org/p/uncw-remove-mike-adams-from-uncw-pledge-not-to-financially-support-apply-to-or-fund-uncw?recruiter=1107745180&amp;utm_source=share_petition&amp;utm_medium=facebook&amp;utm_campaign=psf_combo_share_abi&amp;recruited_by_id=91a532b0-a662-11ea-b0a1-87847cfc3ae9&amp;utm_content=fht-22591234-en-us%3Av10">remove Mike Adams from UNCW</a>&#8221; that garnered over 27,000 signatures.
<div class="card collection-item " data-type="text">
<div class="card-content card-article">
Adams, who is openly pro-life and pro-free speech, has come under fire from the Left in the past. The most recent campaign against Adams was sparked by his May 29 tweet comparing lockdown measures to slavery. &#8220;This evening, I ate pizza and drank beer with six guys at a six seat table top. I almost felt like a free man who was not living in the slave state of North Carolina. Massa Cooper, let my people go!&#8221; he wrote. Critics claimed the post was racially insensitive. Adams <a href="https://www.wect.com/2020/06/04/former-trustee-threatens-withdraw-funding-over-professors-controversial-statements-professor-defends-comments/">defended</a> the post, however, stressing that it was not about race but about the overreach of the state.
Adams&#8217; last piece contributed to The Daily Wire highlighted one of his primary focuses as a columnist: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/adams-a-wake-for-civil-liberties">civil liberties</a>. In the opinion piece, published April 9, Adams condemned what he described as the &#8220;blatant viewpoint discrimination&#8221; by some state and local officials, particularly in the apparent targeting of churches, and North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper&#8217;s &#8220;stringent overreach&#8221; in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Adams earned both fans and enemies over his unflinching, openly conservative perspectives, particularly on the issues of abortion and free speech. As detailed in his biography on <a href="https://townhall.com/columnists/mikeadams/">Townhall.com</a>, where Adams published opinion pieces for years, Adams and Alliance Defending Freedom won a landmark First Amendment case in 2011 against UNCW that &#8220;held that professors publishing columns and giving speeches have the full protection of the First Amendment when discussing matters of public concern.&#8221; The ruling allows for professors to include such activities in their official review, tenure, or promotion materials and forbids the university from viewpoint discrimination.
Adams says that when he was first hired by UNCW in 1993, he was an atheist and a Democrat. &#8220;A few years later, Adams abandoned his atheism and also became a Republican,&#8221; his bio reads. In his first decade at UNCW, Adams won the university&#8217;s Faculty Member of the Year award twice. Over the course of his career, Adams published three books addressing academia&#8217;s ideological biases and political activism: <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Welcome-Ivory-Tower-Babel-Conservative/dp/1891799177/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&amp;keywords=Welcome+to+the+Ivory+Tower+of+Babel&amp;qid=1595600447&amp;s=books&amp;sr=1-1">Welcome to the Ivory Tower of Babel: Confessions of a Conservative College Professor</a> (2004), <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Feminists-Say-Darndest-Things-Politically/dp/B001BSQNCE">Feminists Say the Darndest Things: A Politically Incorrect Professor Confronts &#8220;Womyn&#8221; On Campus</a> (2008), and <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Letters-Young-Progressive-Protesting-Understand/dp/1621570312">Letters to a Young Progressive: How to Avoid Wasting Your Life Protesting Things You Don&#8217;t Understand</a> (2013). 
</div>
</div>

Mike Adams

Outspoken Conservative Professor, Columnist Mike Adams Dies At 55

Abortion

Conservatism

North Carolina

On Thursday, law enforcement officials in New Hanover County, North Carolina, confirmed that they found the body of Mike S. Adams, a criminology professor

Outspoken Conservative Professor, Columnist Mike Adams Dies At 55 | The Daily Wire

https://www.dailywire.com/news/outspoken-conservative-professor-columnist-mike-adams-dies-at-55/

https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2020/07/Mike-Adams.jpg

Entertainers bow in near-unison to Cancel Culture dictates. We see it everywhere, from white actresses quitting voice roles for biracial characters to celebrities denouncing their white privilege in cringe-worthy videos.
When the most popular movie of all time, “Gone with the Wind,” got temporarily pulled from HBO Max, no prominent star spoke in its defense.
No Spielberg, Coppola or Tarantino rose up to say, “enough is enough.”
The atmosphere in La La Land couldn’t be more tense following the rise of Black Lives Matter and the fallout from George Floyd’s death at the hands of a white police officer. Stars probably fear a “problematic” tweet from their past, one long since forgotten, could resurface to wreck both their present and future.
Their concern is justified given the ferocity of the speech police, but it’s hardly the portrait of bravery we often hear from the glitterati, like when Charlize Theron <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2018/may/07/charlize-theron-is-being-called-brave-for-gaining-weight-for-a-role-heres-why-thats-a-problem">“bravely” gained weight</a> for a film role.
The following figures deserve to be called “brave” … and then some.
Terry Crews
The muscle-bound star of “Brooklyn Nine-Nine” and “Idiocracy” is no culture warrior. Or, at least he didn’t start out that way.
Crews simply got dragged into current events – twice. Following Harvey Weinstein’s precipitous downfall, Crews revealed a man had <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/watch-terry-crews-details-sickening-incident-when-paul-bois">sexually groped him</a> years earlier, and he finally felt comfortable speaking about it.
More recently, Crews dared to suggest BLM’s rhetoric may not be as unassailable as the press insists. The far-left group, he suggested, “<a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/pop-culture/celebrity/terry-crews-slammed-suggesting-black-lives-matter-could-morph-black-n1232549">must ensure #blacklivesmatter doesn’t morph into #blacklivesbetter</a>.”
That caused a media firestorm, with most outlets presuming Crews had uttered classic “wrongthink.”
The former football star could have apologized and/or cut a large check to BLM to atone for his sins.
He did neither.
Instead, he correctly noted a frightening number of <a href="https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/jul/6/terry-crews-declares-all-black-lives-matter-after-/">black children have died</a> in the wake of BLM’s ascendance. He also acknowledged the cultural forces lined up against him, and gently told them <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/terry-crews-doubles-down-on-desire-to-unite-people-despite-leftist-outrage-i-decide-to-die-on-this-hill">to pound sand</a>.
“Are all white people bad? No. Are all black people good? No. Knowing this reality – I stand on my decision to unite with good people, no matter the race, creed or ideology. Given the number of threats against this decision – I also decide to die on this hill.”
He offered nuance, positive thoughts and, most of all, didn’t immediately beg for forgiveness like 99 percent of his peers might have done.
<div id="attachment_125956" style="width: 810px" class="wp-caption alignnone"><img aria-describedby="caption-attachment-125956" class="wp-image-125956" src="https://www.dailywire.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Terry-Crews-1024x576.jpg" alt="Terry Crews arrives for the 72nd Annual Directors Guild Of America Awards at The Ritz Carlton on January 25, 2020 in Los Angeles, California." width="800" height="450" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2020/07/Terry-Crews-1024x576.jpg 1024w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2020/07/Terry-Crews-300x169.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2020/07/Terry-Crews-768x432.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2020/07/Terry-Crews-1536x864.jpg 1536w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2020/07/Terry-Crews-2048x1152.jpg 2048w" sizes="(max-width: 800px) 100vw, 800px" />Frazer Harrison/Getty Images</div>
J.K. Rowling
The mind behind the Harry Potter realm may be the toughest person on this list. Why? Cancel Culture, and the media, have done everything they can to punish her for speaking her mind.
Rowling is both an ardent liberal and full-throated supporter of trans individuals. Still, she stepped off the LGBTQ reservation when she spoke against <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/threats-to-cancel-j-k-rowling-grow-amid-transgender-controversy">erasing the concept of sex</a> and questioned elements of the far-left’s platform on trans issues.
For that she was assaulted in the press, mocked by peers like <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/stephen-king-swipes-jk-rowling-trans-women-are-women">Stephen King</a> and denounced by the very stars she made famous, including Harry Potter himself, Daniel Radcliffe.
This week she doubled down on her views via a lengthy series of Tweets. She’s not backing down, even after news outlets reach out to her publisher and film studio contacts to see if they’ll be canceling her officially next.
It’s a not too subtle pressure campaign, but so far it’s not working.
<div id="attachment_122840" style="width: 810px" class="wp-caption alignnone"><img aria-describedby="caption-attachment-122840" class="wp-image-122840" src="https://www.dailywire.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/GettyImages-1061228896-818x576.jpg" alt="J.K Rowling attends the UK Premiere of &quot;Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes Of Grindelwald&quot; at Cineworld Leicester Square on November 13, 2018 in London, England." width="800" height="563" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2020/06/GettyImages-1061228896-818x576.jpg 818w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2020/06/GettyImages-1061228896-300x211.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2020/06/GettyImages-1061228896-768x541.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2020/06/GettyImages-1061228896.jpg 1024w" sizes="(max-width: 800px) 100vw, 800px" />Samir Hussein/WireImage/Getty Images</div>
Adam Carolla
Carolla and Jimmy Kimmel bonded years ago and, by all accounts, remain the best of chums. Kimmel followed a more traditional path and found fame via “Jimmy Kimmel Live.” Carolla, in turn, failed to duplicate Howard Stern’s radio fame and found himself out of a terrestrial radio gig in 2009 following a format flip.
Then Carolla channeled his inner entrepreneur.
He created “The Adam Carolla Show” podcast and blazed his own trail. In the process he created what he calls his “pirate ship,” a company immune to the PC Police or, later, Cancel Culture.
Only Carolla can fire himself.
The Libertarian-leaning comic essentially gave that crowd the finger via this summer’s “I’m Your Emotional Support Animal: Navigating Our All Woke, No Joke” culture. The hilarious book starts with a disclaimer-slash-promise. No apologizing for jokes. Ever.
Cancel Culture knows not to knock on his door.
<div id="attachment_118942" style="width: 810px" class="wp-caption alignnone"><img aria-describedby="caption-attachment-118942" class="wp-image-118942" src="https://www.dailywire.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Adam-Carolla-959x576.jpg" alt="Adam Carolla performs onstage at the International Myeloma Foundation 13th Annual Comedy Celebration at The Beverly Hilton Hotel on October 17, 2019 in Beverly Hills, California. (Photo by Araya Diaz/Getty Images for International Myeloma Foundation)" width="800" height="480" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2020/06/Adam-Carolla-959x576.jpg 959w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2020/06/Adam-Carolla-300x180.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2020/06/Adam-Carolla-768x461.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2020/06/Adam-Carolla.jpg 1024w" sizes="(max-width: 800px) 100vw, 800px" />Araya Diaz/Getty Images</div>
Ricky Gervais
The British comic’s take-no-prisoners approach isn’t new. He’s been slaying and flaying his targets for some time, but he’s grown bolder in recent years.
We all know why. He takes extra pleasure angering the PC scolds, and it’s infectious.
Earlier this year he torched woke Hollywood at the Golden Globes, and he’s regularly rejecting calls to censor his stand-up. He broke down why Cancel Culture exists and <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/gervais-says-the-woke-mob-wants-to-shut-you-up">its true purpose.</a> during an illuminating podcast chat.
He also refused to budge during a woke Hollywood Reporter roundtable most recently, when far-left comic Kumail Nunjani worried his comedy would <a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv/news/kumail-nanjiani-ricky-gervais-comedy-harmful-actor-roundtable-a9599156.html">embolden hate</a>.
<div id="attachment_77481" style="width: 810px" class="wp-caption alignnone"><img aria-describedby="caption-attachment-77481" class="wp-image-77481" src="https://www.dailywire.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Screen-Shot-2020-01-08-at-6.31.52-PM-917x576.png" alt="n this handout photo provided by NBCUniversal Media, LLC, host Ricky Gervais speaks onstage during the 77th Annual Golden Globe Awards at The Beverly Hilton Hotel on January 5, 2020 in Beverly Hills, California." width="800" height="503" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2020/01/Screen-Shot-2020-01-08-at-6.31.52-PM-917x576.png 917w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2020/01/Screen-Shot-2020-01-08-at-6.31.52-PM-300x189.png 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2020/01/Screen-Shot-2020-01-08-at-6.31.52-PM-768x483.png 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2020/01/Screen-Shot-2020-01-08-at-6.31.52-PM.png 942w" sizes="(max-width: 800px) 100vw, 800px" />Paul Drinkwater/NBCUniversal Media, LLC via Getty Images</div>
Anthony Cumia/Dave Landau 
The duo’s very existence on a platform Cumia created warrants their inclusion on this list. It doesn’t end there, though.
Cumia, repeatedly fired from terrestrial and satellite radio for his brash antics, finally had enough in 2014. He created his own “pirate ship,” to paraphrase Carolla, letting his fans directly access his material sans middle men on what he later dubbed Compound Media.
The result? The kind of unexpurgated comedy that once was the norm. Anything goes, with Cumia and Landau embracing the notion that jokes are just that – jokes. The duo treats “The Anthony Cumia Show” like a comedy workshop, riffing through ideas that are often as funny as they are tasteless.
Don’t like that brand of humor? No one is forcing you to sign up. Ain’t that America?
Their uncensored commentary on the relentless riots, in particularly, offer a tonic to those aghast at the corporate media’s gaslighting on the matter.
<div id="attachment_126589" style="width: 810px" class="wp-caption alignnone"><img aria-describedby="caption-attachment-126589" class="wp-image-126589" src="https://www.dailywire.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Anthony-Cumia.jpg" alt="Anthony Cumia at Carolines On Broadway on April 17, 2014 in New York City." width="800" height="495" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2020/07/Anthony-Cumia.jpg 926w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2020/07/Anthony-Cumia-300x186.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2020/07/Anthony-Cumia-768x475.jpg 768w" sizes="(max-width: 800px) 100vw, 800px" />Cindy Ord/Stringer/Getty Images</div>
Dean Cain
The erstwhile Superman uses social media to share uplifting messages, chat with fans and, occasionally, share his right-of-center views.
He did more than that recently. During a Fox News appearance Cain slammed Cancel Culture and worried he wouldn’t be able to say, “Truth, justice and the American way” if he played the Man of Steel now.
He’s right, of course. The 2006 film “Superman Returns” <a href="https://www.hollywoodintoto.com/dean-cain-superman-american-way/">stripped “American way” out of that iconic phrase 14 years ago.</a>
Honorable Mention: Actors Nick Searcy and James Woods routinely stand up to the PC police no matter the cultural conditions.
More from Christian Toto: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/toto-shouldnt-hamilton-get-canceled-next">Shouldn’t ‘Hamilton’ Get Canceled Next?</a>
<div id="attachment_126591" style="width: 810px" class="wp-caption alignnone"><img aria-describedby="caption-attachment-126591" class="wp-image-126591" src="https://www.dailywire.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Dean-Cain-965x576.jpg" alt="Executive producer Dean Cain attends the premiere of 'Architects Of Denial' at Taglyan Complex on October 3, 2017 in Los Angeles, California. (Photo by Tara Ziemba/Getty Images)" width="800" height="477" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2020/07/Dean-Cain-965x576.jpg 965w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2020/07/Dean-Cain-300x179.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2020/07/Dean-Cain-768x458.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2020/07/Dean-Cain.jpg 1002w" sizes="(max-width: 800px) 100vw, 800px" />Tara Ziemba/Getty Images</div>

Terry Crews

Meet The Few, The Proud, The Free Speech Heroes of Hollywood

Adam Carolla

Hollywood

JK Rowling

Ricky Gervais

Entertainers bow in near-unison to Cancel Culture dictates. We see it everywhere, from white actresses quitting voice roles for biracial characters to

Meet The Few, The Proud, The Free Speech Heroes of Hollywood | The Daily Wire

https://editorial.dailywire.com/news/meet-the-few-the-proud-the-free-speech-heroes-of-hollywood/

https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2020/07/Terry-Crews-1.jpg

Numerous books have been pulled from the shelves of libraries in Hong Kong after the Chinese Communist Party&#8217;s (CCP) new Hong Kong security law went into effect last week.
&#8220;Books written by prominent Hong Kong democracy activists have started to disappear from the city&#8217;s libraries, online records show, days after Beijing imposed a draconian national security law on the finance hub,&#8221; Voice of America <a href="https://www.voanews.com/east-asia-pacific/voa-news-china/democracy-books-disappear-hong-kong-libraries">reported</a>. &#8220;Among the authors whose titles are no longer available are Joshua Wong, one of the city&#8217;s most prominent young activists, and Tanya Chan, a well-known pro-democracy lawmaker.&#8221;
Experts and activists say that the removal of the books increases concerns that the Chinese Communist Party will use the new law to censor political statements that dissent from the oppressive political party, which has been responsible for the deaths of <a href="https://www.heritage.org/asia/commentary/the-legacy-mao-zedong-mass-murder">tens of millions</a> of its own citizens since its inception.
The new security law &#8220;criminalizes four categories of crimes, including secession, subversion, terrorism and collusion with foreign or external forces to endanger national security,&#8221; The Wall Street Journal <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/hong-kong-libraries-pull-books-for-review-under-chinas-security-law-11593963424">reported</a>. &#8220;In contrast to mainland China, Hong Kong historically has had robust protections on free speech, and the city has been a haven for publishers and journalists. However, episodes such as the disappearance of several booksellers who sold titles in Hong Kong critical of China’s leaders have heightened anxieties that China is trying to import its style of social control into the city.&#8221;
Two of the books that were removed were written by activist Josh Wong, who responded by writing on Twitter: &#8220;Less than a week after #NationalSecurityLaw has been put in place, #Hongkong&#8217;s public libraries started to put books under review and suspend them from lending, including two of mine published in 2013 and 2015.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Less than a week after <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/NationalSecurityLaw?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#NationalSecurityLaw</a> has been put in place, <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Hongkong?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Hongkong</a>&#39;s public libraries started to put books under review and suspend them from lending, including two of mine published in 2013 and 2015. <a href="https://t.co/Dbuj62rEfj">pic.twitter.com/Dbuj62rEfj</a>
&mdash; Joshua Wong 黃之鋒 😷 (@joshuawongcf) <a href="https://twitter.com/joshuawongcf/status/1279309613431762944?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 4, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo responded to the new moves by Beijing, writing on Twitter: &#8220;With the ink barely dry on the draconian National Security Law, HK authorities are now removing books from libraries, banning political slogans, and requiring censorship in schools. The U.S. condemns these Orwellian assaults on the rights and freedoms of the Hong Kong people.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
With the ink barely dry on the draconian National Security Law, HK authorities are now removing books from libraries, banning political slogans, and requiring censorship in schools. The U.S. condemns these Orwellian assaults on the rights and freedoms of the Hong Kong people.
&mdash; Secretary Pompeo (@SecPompeo) <a href="https://twitter.com/SecPompeo/status/1280310515915513866?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 7, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
China expert Gordon Chang told Fox News on Sunday that China&#8217;s new security law appeared to give &#8220;China the ability to imprison anybody that it wants.&#8221;
&#8220;And, indeed, you don&#8217;t even have to go to Hong Kong to be at risk, because Hong Kong and China have extradition treaties with other countries,&#8221; Gordon said. &#8220;And Article 38 of this law says that any comment, any statement on foreign soil by a foreigner is a violation of the national security law if it advocates succession, terrorism, collusion, sedition, all the rest of it. &#8221;
&#8220;China is saying that it not only demands the total obedience of people in China. It demands the total obedience of people in Hong Kong,&#8221; Chang added. &#8220;China demands total obedience from everybody else in the world. It can&#8217;t enforce that right now, but that really is the message.&#8221;
The Daily Wire is one of America’s fastest-growing conservative media companies and counter-cultural outlets for news, opinion, and entertainment. Get inside access to The Daily Wire by becoming a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/subscribe">member</a>.

Demonstrations Continue In Hong Kong Against China&#8217;s National Security Law

China Begins Repressive Crackdown On Hong Kong, Removes Books From Libraries That Promote Democracy

China

Hong Kong

Numerous books have been pulled from the shelves of libraries in Hong Kong after the Chinese Communist Party&#039;s (CCP) new Hong Kong security law went into

China Begins Repressive Crackdown On Hong Kong, Removes Books From Libraries That Promote Democracy | The Daily Wire

https://www.dailywire.com/news/china-begins-repressive-crackdown-on-hong-kong-removes-books-from-libraries-that-promote-democracy/

https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2020/07/Hong-Kong-scaled.jpg

San Francisco’s District 6 supervisor is pushing to remove Mark Zuckerberg’s name from a public hospital.
The Priscilla Chan and Mark Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital and Trauma Center received its name in 2015 after the Facebook founder and his wife donated $75 million to the hospital’s foundation. San Francisco District 6 Supervisor Matt Haney says the tech CEO’s name is “unseemly” on the public hospital.
In a tweet <a href="https://twitter.com/MattHaneySF/status/1277309042390523904">thread</a> posted on Sunday, Haney said that Zuckerberg’s name should be taken off the hospital because of his refusal to &#8220;regulate hate speech&#8221; and &#8220;disinformation&#8221; on his social media platform, and because large donations should not “purchase permanent advertising on public buildings.”
“Massive advertising boycott of Facebook for failing to regulate hate speech &amp; disinformation Huge staff walk outs &amp; protests. Cozy relationship w Trump, $ to Republicans. Much of it seems directly tied to Mark Zuckerberg. Why is his name still on our SF public general hospital?” Haney began.
Zuckerberg has repeatedly defended his platform&#8217;s commitment to empowering free expression. In a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/mark-zuckerberg-defends-free-speech-amid-political-blowback-i-believe-in-people">speech</a> at Georgetown University last year, Zuckerberg spoke out strongly in defense of freedom of expression. &#8220;We can continue to stand for free expression, understanding its messiness, but believing that the long journey towards greater progress requires confronting ideas that challenge us or we can decide the cost is simply too great,” he said. “I’m here today because I believe we must continue to stand for free expression.”
More recently, amid pressure to follow the lead of Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey in censoring more posts, particularly President Trump&#8217;s, Zuckerberg renewed his defense of free speech, <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/facebook-employees-stage-virtual-walkout-to-protest-ceo-zuckerbergs-stance-on-trump-posts">writing</a> in a May 29 post, &#8220;I know many people are upset that we’ve left the President’s posts up, but our position is that we should enable as much expression as possible unless it will cause imminent risk of specific harms or dangers spelled out in clear policies.&#8221;
Removing the CEO&#8217;s name may have consequences for the San Francisco hospital. Zuckerberg and Chan reached an agreement with the city’s Board of Supervisors to donate the money to the hospital in exchange for their names to remain on the care center for 50 years.
Haney contends that if enough people call for the name to be changed, Zuckerberg may not sue to enforce the agreement.
“There are options to still remove it, and nurses who have been working on a strategy that wouldn’t lose us millions,” Haney said. The hospital nurses’ union has been pushing for the hospital to be renamed for several years.
“The option the nurses prefer — a ballot measure calling for it to be changed, put up for a public vote. Their view is that if it passed, Zuckerberg wouldn’t sue to stop the name from being removed,” Haney continued. “The name on the PUBLIC hospital is unseemly, even regardless of his recent inactions.”
“$75 million is a big donation, and it’s welcomed and appreciated. It shouldn’t require permanent naming rights, advertising, on our public hospital. SF taxpayers have given billions to the hospital, it’s their building,” Haney said.
In 2018, San Francisco District 3 Supervisor Aaron Peskin campaigned to have Zuckerberg’s name removed from the hospital over the <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/mark-zuckerberg-heres-what-really-happened-james-barrett">Cambridge Analytica</a> scandal in which a British consulting firm was reportedly given access to data on millions of Facebook users without their consent, according to the <a href="https://www.sfchronicle.com/business/article/SF-politician-wants-to-remove-Mark-Zuckerberg-s-13429100.php">San Francisco Chronicle</a>.
At the time, hospital CEO Susan Ehrlich asserted that Zuckerberg and Chan’s gift had purchased the hospital life-saving equipment and supplies, while noting that memorializing people who give large donations encourages more giving.
“In acknowledgment and appreciation of that gift, our hospital now carries their names,” Ehrlich said. “Naming is an important convention in philanthropy that encourages additional donors. &#8230; We are honored that Dr. Chan and Mr. Zuckerberg thought highly enough of our hospital and staff, and the health of San Franciscans, to donate their resources to our mission.”
The Daily Wire, headed by bestselling author and popular podcast host Ben Shapiro, is a leading provider of conservative news, cutting through the mainstream media’s rhetoric to provide readers the most important, relevant, and engaging stories of the day. Get inside access to The Daily Wire by becoming a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/subscribe">member</a>.

Mark Zuckerberg

San Francisco Supervisor Wants Zuckerberg’s Name Scrubbed From Hospital After $75M Donation

Facebook

San Francisco’s District 6 supervisor is pushing to remove Mark Zuckerberg’s name from a public hospital. The Priscilla Chan and Mark Zuckerberg San

San Francisco Supervisor Wants Zuckerberg’s Name Scrubbed From Hospital After $75M Donation | The Daily Wire

https://www.dailywire.com/news/san-francisco-supervisor-wants-zuckerbergs-name-scrubbed-from-hospital-after-75m-donation/

https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2020/06/Mark-Zuckerberg-1.jpg

China has passed a sweeping national security law that human rights activists are describing as a &#8220;weapon of repression to be used against government critics&#8221; in Hong Kong, as the Chinese Communist Party continues to tighten its grip on the region.
Chinese President Xi Jinping signed into a law on Tuesday a bill banning acts of sedition, subversion, and terrorism, according to the <a href="https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/politics/article/3091241/national-security-law-chinese-president-xi-jinping-signs">South China Morning Post</a>. The National People’s Congress Standing Committee (NPCSC), China’s top legislative body, reportedly passed the legislation in a 162-0 vote on Tuesday morning.
Violation of the law carries a maximum sentence of life in prison. NPCSC Chairman Li Zhanshu said the law’s unanimous passage is a “reflection of the will of comrades in the whole of the nation including Hong Kong.”
Joshua Rosenzweig, who heads the China team of the international human rights group Amnesty International, said the bill’s passage has sparked fear that “Beijing has calculatingly created a weapon of repression to be used against government critics, including people who are merely expressing their views or protesting peacefully,” according to <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/29/china/hong-kong-national-security-law-passed-intl-hnk/index.html">CNN</a>.
The law, consisting of six articles and 66 clauses, has not been made public, and a draft copy has yet to be provided to officials in Hong Kong. The legislation is set to take effect July 1 without Hong Kongers knowing much of anything about what it says. The passage of the bill is another extensive erosion of the civil and political liberties of Hong Kong’s citizens.
Hong Kong&#8217;s Chief Executive Carrie Lam, widely viewed as a mouthpiece for the Chinese Communist Party, defended the bill in remarks to the United Nations Human Rights Council
“The legislation will not undermine ‘One Country, Two Systems’ and Hong Kong’s high-degree of autonomy,” Lam <a href="https://www.scmp.com/video/china/3091249/carrie-lam-defends-national-security-law-speech-united-nations">said</a>. “Hong Kong is a free and diversified society. We respect differences of opinion and thrive on reaching consensus, but the One Country principle is non-negotiable and could not be compromised as without one country, two systems will stand on shifty ground and Hong Kong’s stability and prosperity will be at risk.”
Joshua Wong, who led pro-democracy protests against China in Hong Kong six years ago, said the new law is the beginning of Beijing’s “reign of terror” over the region.
“It marks the end of Hong Kong that the world knew before,” Wong said on Twitter. “From now on, #Hongkong enters a new era of reign of terror, just like #Taiwan’s White Terror period in history, with arbitrary prosecutions, black jails, secret trials, forced confessions, media clampdowns and political censorship.”
“With sweeping powers and ill-defined law, the city will turn into a #secretpolicestate. #HongKongProtesters now face high possibilities of being extradited to China’s courts for trials and life sentences,” Wong continued. “However, even under the ill wind of #China’s direct authoritarian rule, #Hongkongers will continue to fight for our freedoms and democracy for the city’s next generations. When justice fails, our fight goes on.”
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
2. From now on, <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Hongkong?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Hongkong</a> enters a new era of reign of terror, just like <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Taiwan?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Taiwan</a>’s White Terror period in history, with arbitrary prosecutions, black jails, secret trials, forced confessions, media clampdowns and political censorship.
&mdash; Joshua Wong 黃之鋒 😷 (@joshuawongcf) <a href="https://twitter.com/joshuawongcf/status/1277794270393643008?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 30, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
4. However, even under the ill wind of <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/China?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#China</a>’s direct authoritarian rule, <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Hongkongers?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Hongkongers</a> will continue to fight for our freedoms and democracy for the city’s next generations. When justice fails, our fight goes on.
Photo: Lam Yik Fei
&mdash; Joshua Wong 黃之鋒 😷 (@joshuawongcf) <a href="https://twitter.com/joshuawongcf/status/1277794273174474759?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 30, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
The Daily Wire, headed by bestselling author and popular podcast host Ben Shapiro, is a leading provider of conservative news, cutting through the mainstream media’s rhetoric to provide readers the most important, relevant, and engaging stories of the day. Get inside access to The Daily Wire by becoming a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/subscribe">member</a>.

Xi Jinping

‘Weapon Of Repression’: China Passes Hong Kong National Security Law Cracking Down On Dissent

Chinese Communist Party

China has passed a sweeping national security law that human rights activists are describing as a &quot;weapon of repression to be used against government

‘Weapon Of Repression’: China Passes Hong Kong National Security Law Cracking Down On Dissent | The Daily Wire

https://www.dailywire.com/news/weapon-of-repression-china-passes-hong-kong-national-security-law-cracking-down-on-dissent/

https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2020/06/Xi-Jinping-1.jpg

If you are a Jew or Christian in America, the seriousness of your Judaism or Christianity is now being tested.
People look back in time and wonder how religious people, especially religious leaders — specifically, the clergy — could have failed in times of moral crisis. The failure of most rabbis, priests and pastors to speak out today — when the risk to personal safety is so much less than it was in communist and fascist countries — should provide the answer: Religion doesn&#8217;t have all that much impact on most religious people. During comfortable times, it provides two essentials to a happy and fulfilled life — community and meaning — but when tested, it often fails like an umbrella that fails to expand just as it starts to rain.
America is being taken over by violent mobs; a vast amount of destruction and stealing has taken place (with little police intervention and the apathy of our political leaders). Why aren&#8217;t all clergy delivering thundering sermons about the Seventh Commandment, &#8220;Thou shalt not steal&#8221;? Does it now come with an asterisk?
A central part of a major American city has been seized and occupied by people who hate America and its values, including its Judeo-Christian values. Heard any clergy (aside from some evangelical Christians) speaking out against it?
And most ominous by far, for the first time in American history, free speech — the mother of all freedoms — is being widely suppressed, not by the government but by the press, the universities, the high schools, the elementary schools, all the giant internet media, Hollywood and virtually every major business in America. Christians and Jews place repentance at the center of their theologies, yet there is no place for repentance if you did or said one insensitive thing — real or alleged — even if it was 20 or more years ago. Yet all we get from American religious leaders on this matter is &#8230; silence.
The freest, least racist, most opportunity-providing country in history — &#8220;the last best hope of earth,&#8221; in Abraham Lincoln&#8217;s words — is smeared as &#8220;systemically racist&#8221;; all white people are declared &#8220;racist&#8221;; and the statues of the greatest Americans, including George Washington and even Abraham Lincoln, are toppled and/or defaced. And all we get from most American religious leaders is either agreement or silence.
It leads this religious American to ask the question the anti-religious ask: Of what use is religion?
Take the claim that being &#8220;colorblind&#8221; is racist.
If you are a religious Jew or Christian — let alone a rabbi, priest or minister — do you believe that? Do you believe that the human ideal is not to be colorblind? Do you believe that the ideal is to see every person, first and foremost, as a member of a race? Is that what you learned at seminary? Is that what you have taught from your pulpit all of your life?
I doubt it. I assume that, until as recently as a year or even six months ago, you have always believed and preached that we are, in Martin Luther King Jr.&#8217;s words, to measure people not by &#8220;the color of their skin but by the content of their character.&#8221;
Isn&#8217;t it fundamental to all Bible-based religions that we are all created in God&#8217;s image, that God has no race and that Adam and Eve, from whom we all descend, had no race? If you are a Christian, do you see Christians of other races first as fellow Christians or first as members of their race? If you are a Jew, do you see Jews of other races as anything other than fellow Jews? Does God?
So, why the silence? Why aren&#8217;t all rabbis, priests and pastors telling their congregations and telling America — in tweets, on Facebook, in letters to the editor, on television and radio, in opinion pieces — that there is one race, the human race, and that the only antidote to racism is to deny that race determines our worth, not to affirm its significance?
Does an ideology that affirms the significance of race have an honorable pedigree? Has it ever led to anything good? Isn&#8217;t that exactly what Nazis and the Ku Klux Klan advocated?
So, how are we to explain this tragic failure of religious Jews and Christians — and their clergy — to speak up against looting (aka stealing) and for freedom, for America, for Western civilization and for being colorblind?
The answer to this question also goes to the core of what it means to be religious. At the center of our two religions is the notion of fear of God: &#8220;Fear God, and keep his commandments, for this is the whole duty of man&#8221; (Ecclesiastes 12:13). But what is now apparent is that most Jews and Christians fear the left, fear The New York Times, fear being shunned by &#8220;friends&#8221; on Facebook and mobbed on Twitter more than they fear God.
That&#8217;s what this moment comes down to. Jews and Christians who fail this test will not only lose their freedom, lose the great American hope for mankind and lose the West; they will have also lost their souls.
Dennis Prager is a nationally syndicated radio talk-show host and columnist. His latest book, published by Regnery in May 2019, is &#8220;The Rational Bible,&#8221; a commentary on the book of Genesis. His film, &#8220;No Safe Spaces,&#8221; came to theaters fall 2019. He is the founder of Prager University and may be contacted at dennisprager.com.

Prayer

PRAGER: America’s Jews And Christians Are Failing The Test Of Their Lives

Christianity

Judaism

Judeo-Christian Values

If you are a Jew or Christian in America, the seriousness of your Judaism or Christianity is now being tested. People look back in time and wonder how

PRAGER: America&#039;s Jews And Christians Are Failing The Test Of Their Lives | The Daily Wire

https://www.dailywire.com/news/prager-americas-jews-and-christians-are-failing-the-test-of-their-lives/

https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2020/06/30CC096D-7C97-41B6-996D-242C34825BDD-scaled.jpeg

The first responsibility of government is to protect its citizens and their inalienable rights. As the Declaration of Independence puts it, “to secure these rights [of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness], Governments are instituted among Men.” But what happens when the government officials whose first job is protecting your rights are the ones who are violating them? If government officials can violate your constitutional rights and not be held accountable, your rights aren’t worth the parchment they’re written on. Qualified immunity is the judge-made law that allows government officials to fail their first responsibility and avoid accountability. Conservatives, as much as anyone, should oppose it.
The 1871 Civil Rights Act, passed in the aftermath of the Civil War, authorizes lawsuits against state and local government officials who violate your constitutional rights. But the Supreme Court has judicially amended the law to completely protect police, university, or other officials who violated your rights if the law was not already “clearly established.” In practice, this is an extraordinarily high bar that shields “all but <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/475/335/">the</a> plainly incompetent” government officials. Another court must have already said that another official violated the Constitution when he did the exact same thing to someone else that an official did to you. That’s why police officers have recently been deemed immune from civil liability <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/nicksibilla/2020/05/13/should-cops-accused-of-stealing-over-225000-have-legal-immunity-supreme-court-urged-to-hear-case/#70872ed02877">for stealing money</a> from people whose homes they searched or ordering <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/baxter-v-bracey/">police dogs to attack suspects</a> sitting on the ground and giving themselves up.
As Justice Clarence Thomas has <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/18-1287_09m1.pdf">recently written</a>, there is “no basis [in the Civil Rights Act] for the objective inquiry into clearly established law” that the Supreme Court has imposed to protect government officials from accountability. This is not an approach to your constitutional rights that conservatives or anyone else should support. And that’s why many civil liberties organizations <a href="https://www.law.uchicago.edu/news/william-baude-new-calls-supreme-court-reconsider-qualified-immunity">across the ideological spectrum</a> are urging the Supreme Court – and Congress and even state legislators – to end qualified immunity.
Qualified immunity is getting enhanced scrutiny because of the impact it may have on justice for the family of George Floyd, killed by a Minneapolis police officer. And conservatives should lead the charge to see government respect constitutional rights, opposing qualified immunity because it turns communities against good police officers because it prevents true accountability for the worst ones. But free speech advocates have an additional reason to oppose qualified immunity — it’s a primary reason why university administrators keep getting it wrong when it comes to student and faculty expression rights. There is obviously no parity between the victims of police abusing their power and the frequent fights over campus speech policies. But the same judge-made legal rule stops those in power from feeling the consequences of violating any number of rights. Advocates of free speech and open inquiry on campus, like everyone else, should join this fight to hold the government accountable.
Instinctively, conservatives know that incentives matter here. I’ve sued dozens of public universities for violating the First Amendment rights of students. Every time I sued a university that told a Christian student group they couldn’t share their faith without advance permission from the Office of Student Affairs or literally arrested students for handing out the Constitution on their campus on Constitution Day, concerned conservatives told me: “Make the universities pay! That will stop this!”
That’s a truth that’s universal — people change their behavior when they’re accountable for bad outcomes. If we want government at any level to prioritize protecting constitutional rights, officials must be motivated to prioritize it.
Our country’s free speech challenges extend well beyond campuses and cut across ideology and other demographics.  <a href="https://www.freedomforuminstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/SOFAreport2019.pdf">Almost 30 percent</a> of adults say the First Amendment “goes too far” in its protections, 25 percent would give the president power to shutter news media “engaged in bad behavior,” and 50 percent say that <a href="https://www.freedomforuminstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/SOFAreport2019.pdf">universities should disinvite speakers</a> who will offend some part of a campus’ population.
But in few places in American life is it so common for government to write down anti-speech policies in ink. <a href="https://www.thefire.org/report-9-in-10-american-colleges-restrict-free-speech/">Roughly 90 percent of public universities</a> maintain speech zones, speech codes, and other formal written policies that, however well-meaning their intent, violate the First Amendment. This is after years of groups like Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, Alliance Defending Freedom, and others working with universities to correct unconstitutional policies and challenging them in court when those rights are violated.
After decades of work, there has been considerable progress — that just 10 percent of colleges now have “green light” policies with no free speech problems is significant, and many of the worst “red light” schools have at least become “yellow light” schools. That’s something. But if 90 percent of municipalities passed laws unconstitutionally restricting what people can say, where they can say it, or with whom they can associate, we would undoubtedly deem that a free speech crisis.
But the reason speech advocates can’t  “make the universities pay” for these violations — and thus encourage them to prioritize getting these policies right — is qualified immunity.
The Supreme Court has interpreted the Constitution to prohibit you from filing suit against the University of California, Berkeley, an arm of the state, in federal court for damages when it violates your First Amendment rights. So your only option is to sue the individuals responsible for the decision. But qualified immunity makes that unlikely to succeed.
Your rights are violated, no one pays, and the officials who continue to draft and enforce those unconstitutional policies are not incentivized to spend the time and effort to get it right.
What happens if we eliminate qualified immunity? Then not only police officers, but all state government officials, including those who run your university, know they are accountable for constitutional violations. The city, university, or insurer will still cover employees’ liability, but by allowing more cases for constitutional violations to go forward, more rights will be vindicated and government will prioritize getting their written policies into compliance with the Constitution and training employees on what it requires of them. Whether police or universities, when government must weigh the cost of getting the Constitution wrong it will be more focused on getting it right.
In other words, we incentivize doing what government is created to do, protect your rights.
Eliminating disincentives to free expression such as qualified immunity would also reduce counterproductive attacks on higher education. <a href="https://www.charleskochfoundation.org/news/ckf-raises-concern-call-intimidate-scholars-courses-online-covid-pandemic/">Some groups</a> have responded to censorial speech policies with efforts to intimidate and antagonize university leaders and faculty. Fighting fire with fire backfires and ultimately chills the environment that allows for diverse speech on campus. It also assumes that the university officials on the other side are trying to silence your views. The reality is that most are simply trying to weigh competing priorities.
Qualified immunity invites them to err too often on the side of restricting protected speech. Change the incentives and you get better results, without attacking the very principles of free expression that you otherwise defend.
When students graduate from universities where free speech and open inquiry is valued, not just in rhetoric but in lived reality, the next generation of teachers and judges and policymakers and community leaders will leave equipped to be the antidote to the broader attacks on civil liberties coming from all directions.
Government’s primary job is to protect your individual rights. Qualified immunity is a made-up judicial doctrine that absolves government of that responsibility on campus as well as in your police force. It’s time we end it. And campus speech advocates, especially the conservatives and libertarians who most often take on these unconstitutional campus speech policies, should welcome the opportunity to partner with anyone to hold government accountable.
Casey Mattox is vice president for legal and judicial strategy at Americans for Prosperity. On Twitter: <a href="http://twitter.com/caseymattox_">@CaseyMattox_</a>
The Daily Wire, headed by bestselling author and popular podcast host Ben Shapiro, is a leading provider of conservative news, cutting through the mainstream media’s rhetoric to provide readers the most important, relevant, and engaging stories of the day. Get inside access to The Daily Wire by becoming a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/subscribe">member</a>.

Freedom fighter

MATTOX: Want To Protect Free Speech On Your Campus? End Qualified Immunity

Diversity

Universities

The first responsibility of government is to protect its citizens and their inalienable rights. As the Declaration of Independence puts it, “to secure

MATTOX: Want To Protect Free Speech On Your Campus? End Qualified Immunity | The Daily Wire

https://www.dailywire.com/news/mattox-want-to-protect-free-speech-on-your-campus-end-qualified-immunity/

https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2020/06/GettyImages-1137608601-scaled.jpg

The same Cornell student groups that sought to get a law professor fired for criticizing the tactics of the Black Lives Matter movement are now seeking to boycott his course.
William Jacobson wrote two articles on his personal website, Legal Insurrection, about the current protests and riots in the wake of the police-involved death of Minneapolis man George Floyd before the calls for this termination began. Having failed to get him fired, the outrage mob is now organizing a boycott of his course.
“Earlier this week, the Black Law Students Association circulated an email statement to the Cornell Law School community repeating many of the false and misleading accusations against me that I have covered in earlier posts,” Jacobson <a href="https://legalinsurrection.com/2020/06/anti-intellectualism-at-cornell-law-school-student-groups-organize-boycott-of-my-course/">wrote</a>. “But it went beyond that. They refused my offer to debate their representative and a faculty member of their choice, issued a call to boycott my course, and demand the law school screen faculty hires for ideological purity.”
Jacobson quoted from the email:
<blockquote>Although the law school recently released a statement regarding Professor Jacobson and his blog, we further urge the administration to critically examine the views of the individuals they intend to employ. Faculty members who challenge students to debate them on the motives of those fighting to preserve Black life are clearly more interested in amplifying their own agendas than engaging in thoughtful and reflective discourse. Professor Jacobson has claimed no expertise nor any specialized training on matters of race and racial justice, rendering any future discussions on the matter entirely unproductive. We are not interested in subjecting ourselves and our community members to dialogue that reinforces the false dichotomy of “right” versus “left” when it comes to our humanity.
By mentioning BLSA by name on his blog and suggesting that we are somehow the cause of some unwarranted vitriol he is receiving, Professor Jacobson invites a hostility that we cannot ignore. Accordingly, the BLSA Executive Board will refrain from participating in the Securities Law Clinic that Professor Jacobson supervises. As the course selection period approaches, we encourage our membership and our allies to reconsider studying under an individual whose views perpetuate hatred towards their fellow students. Thinly veiled racism under the guise of “intellectual diversity” has no place in our law school.</blockquote>
Jacobson said the student effort is now “being amplified by the Cornell Law School chapter of the National Lawyers Guild (a <a href="https://www.nlg.org/guild-notes/article/nlg-national-office-releases-new-radical-law-student-manual/">left-wing</a> national legal group).” He then quoted an email reportedly being circulated to organize the boycott.
“I am reaching out on behalf of the National Lawyers Guild regarding a letter we would like to send to the student body concerning Professor William Jacobson,” the email said. “We hope that everyone has had a chance to read the powerful statement the BLSA executive board sent on Monday regarding Prof. Jacobson. We support their statement, and hope to amplify it in one, unified campaign.”
Jacobson came under fire earlier this month after writing two articles critical of the riots that have broken out across the country, leading to deaths, looting, and destroyed businesses and property. One of those articles was a reminder that the “hands up, don’t shoot” narrative was false; the other was about the riots tearing down the country.
Alumni then began demanding Jacobson be punished, possibly terminated, The Daily Wire previously <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/cornell-mob-comes-for-law-professor-who-criticized-black-lives-matter-movement">reported</a>. Cornell’s law school dean defended Jacobson’s right to free speech while saying he personally disagreed with what Jacobson said.
Jacobson wrote that the effort to boycott his class is “not about my writing on the issues, which they misrepresent and distort in the statement they plan on circulating.” He says it is “an attempt not just to scare students away from my course, but to scare students away from speaking their minds, and to create a faculty and student purity test.”
“This toxic atmosphere didn’t need to take place. At a time when the law school desperately needs an adult in the room, so to speak, we have faculty and a Dean who denounce me,” Jacobson wrote. “This isn’t activism, it’s anti-intellectualism.”
The Daily Wire, headed by bestselling author and popular podcast host Ben Shapiro, is a leading provider of conservative news, cutting through the mainstream media’s rhetoric to provide readers the most important, relevant, and engaging stories of the day. Get inside access to The Daily Wire by becoming a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/subscribe">member</a>.

Angry crowd

Cornell Students Now Boycotting Course Taught By Law Professor Critical Of Black Lives Matter Tactics

Cornell University

Riots

The same Cornell student groups that sought to get a law professor fired for criticizing the tactics of the Black Lives Matter movement are now seeking to

Cornell Students Now Boycotting Course Taught By Law Professor Critical Of Black Lives Matter Tactics | The Daily Wire

https://www.dailywire.com/news/cornell-students-now-boycotting-course-taught-by-law-professor-critical-of-black-lives-matter-tactics/

https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2020/06/GettyImages-135539332.jpg

Last week, Facebook announced plans for a new “independent” Oversight Board. It seems Mark Zuckerberg has formed the board in the sincere hope that Facebook protect free expression, preserve user experience, and avoid accusations of tilting the scales of public discourse in one partisan direction. Unfortunately, the Board as it currently stands will only exacerbate the problems Zuckerberg hopes to solve.
While the censors may be independent of corporate control, they appear nearly uniform in their hostility to conservative views. Conservatives would more likely get a fair shake if Zuckerberg sat at a desk and censored our content himself, which while time-consuming might be a wiser course for the Facebook boss than outsourcing the curation of his platform to a group of unaccountable, likeminded, conspicuously non-American ideologues. Beyond the board’s composition, the sheer timing of this announcement just six months from a presidential election will confirm for many conservatives that Facebook intends to shut us up in 2020.
The board’s most glaring problem is ideological imbalance. The very first board member listed on the website works for George Soros, the most influential and radical leftist funder in the world. Next comes Evelyn Aswad, who ran a State Department office for Hillary Clinton. Third on the list is Endy Bayuni, the Indonesian senior editor of the Jakarta Post who in 2016 lamented, “Authoritarian regimes and dictators around the world must feel vindicated by the just-concluded presidential race in the United States, the one-time champion of liberal democracy.” Bayuni insists on calling himself “nonpartisan,” but that claim flops when one recalls his enthusiasm for the election of Barack Obama and the nomination for president of Hillary Clinton.
Not all of the picks lean left. One notable exception is Michael McConnell, a jurist who can boast both conservative bona fides on issues such as abortion and religious liberty and liberal goodwill stemming from his criticism of the Supreme Court in Bush v. Gore as well as his role in launching Barack Obama’s career. McConnell’s legal colleagues on the board seem less fair-minded. Jamal Greene, a liberal law professor who advised Kamala Harris during the vicious Kavanaugh confirmation hearings, once described Trump’s election as “a failure of American politics” and his lack of a primary challenger in 2020 as a “straightforward failure of democratic political technology.” Greene will serve as co-chairman of the board, where he will be joined by fellow law professor Pamela Karlan, who testified before the House Judiciary Committee in favor of impeaching President Trump.
The board’s overwhelmingly foreign composition has expressed similar antipathy to the President, which one might well accept in the spirit of free expression. Unfortunately many of those members have followed their criticism with calls for outright censorship. Pakistani non-profit leader Nighat Dad called Trump “evil” and suggested we “build a wall around him” to “#BanTrump.” Australian professor Nicolas Suzor once “loved” a comparison of Trump to Hitler and suggested Twitter ban the President. Alan Rusbridger, the editor-in-chief of the UK’s most prominent left-wing newspaper encouraged news networks to black out Trump’s press briefings on coronavirus.
Even somewhat right-leaning board members seem shaky. John Samples, a vice president at the libertarian Cato Institute, has publicly bemoaned President Trump’s “assault on American institutions” and accused him of opposing “basic ideals underpinning liberal democracy.” Opposition to “basic ideals underpinning liberal democracy” sounds like prime grounds for censorship, wouldn’t you say? And board member Damian Green, though technically a conservative member of the British parliament, would fall squarely on the Left by American standards.
Speaking of American standards, one can’t help but notice how few Americans will oversee one of the most successful American companies in history. Just five of the twenty people who “will make final and binding decisions on whether specific content should be allowed or removed from Facebook and Instagram&#8221; hail from the United States, where freedom of speech means something rather different than it does in Denmark or Pakistan. Even relatively tolerant countries fine and jail people for expressing heterodox views. America uniquely protects speech. Perhaps Facebook has selected so disproportionately international a group because the majority of Facebook users live outside the United States. But Facebook would not exist—it would be unthinkable—outside the particularly robust American conception and defense of free expression. Americans should constitute a far greater percentage of the next twenty Oversight Board members.
The board chairmen promise, “We are all committed to freedom of expression within the framework of international norms of human rights.” But “international norms” regarding free expression pale in comparison to our own. What a sad irony for a great American company. Facebook began as a platform that promised the expansion of free expression—that is, a uniquely American tradition of free expression—around the world. Now that platform promises to constrict at home the good it seeks to expand abroad. In attempting to please everyone, the Oversight Board as currently constituted will appease no one and heap ever more blame on its founder, to whom it can never again be held accountable. Call it mission drift, call it madness. In any case, Mark Zuckerberg should call for a new plan before it’s too late.
The Daily Wire, headed by bestselling author and popular podcast host Ben Shapiro, is a leading provider of conservative news, cutting through the mainstream media’s rhetoric to provide readers the most important, relevant, and engaging stories of the day. Get inside access to The Daily Wire by becoming a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/subscribe">member</a>.

KNOWLES: Facebook Risks Constricting At Home What It Seeks To Expand Abroad: Free Expression

Constitution

Donald Trump

Last week, Facebook announced plans for a new “independent” Oversight Board. It seems Mark Zuckerberg has formed the board in the sincere hope that

KNOWLES: Facebook Risks Constricting At Home What It Seeks To Expand Abroad: Free Expression | The Daily Wire

https://www.dailywire.com/news/knowles-facebook-risks-constricting-at-home-what-it-seeks-to-expand-abroad-free-expression/

https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2020/05/Facebook.jpg

In a perfect world Dave Rubin wouldn’t have to write “<a href="https://www.amazon.com/Dont-Burn-this-Book-Thinking/dp/B07W8H9WX7/ref=sr_1_1?crid=P7VE3SUAPN3L&amp;dchild=1&amp;keywords=don%27t+burn+this+book+dave+rubin&amp;qid=1588614905&amp;sprefix=don%27t+burn+this+book%2Caps%2C195&amp;sr=8-1">Don’t Burn This Book</a>.”
The “<a href="https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCJdKr0Bgd_5saZYqLCa9mng">Rubin Report</a>” host wants his fellow Americans to agree to disagree and maybe share a craft beer later. Sounds like ye olde American experiment, right?
Not the 2020 version, sadly.
Rubin accidentally joined the Intellectual Dark Web by chatting with folks from both sides of the aisle. Now, he’s using free speech’s decline as a tool to share his life story, and more, in his easily digested memoir.
“Don’t Burn This Book: Thinking for Yourself in an Age of Unreason” wants to open our minds while sharing his right-leaning take on the culture at large.
Rubin shows a flair for self-awareness while trashing what passes for journalism today.
“If it weren’t for [the mainstream media’s] abject failure to do their jobs, you’d have no idea who I was,” he writes.
“Don’t Burn This Book” offers a primer on Fake News as well as Rubin revealing what happened when he shamed a journalist for trafficking in it.
If you follow any of the biggest names in news the answer won’t surprise you.
Rubin, who is gay, defends straight white men mid-book, a section sure to trigger the usual suspects. It’s more about the Left’s sense of “self-loathing” as much as how Leftists clash with a certain civil rights leader’s <a href="https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/martin_luther_king_jr_115056">famous line.</a>
Part of the book finds Rubin weighing in on a series of hot button issues &#8212; the Second Amendment, abortion and more. He peels off a few nuggets about each, taking firm but reasonable stances along the way.
It still feels like a detour, and an unnecessary one. His whole thesis revolves around thinking for yourself. Perhaps he could break down in depth how he came to a few of these conclusions, a primer for processing facts en route to a bedrock principle. As is, the chapter marks the book’s weakest point.
“Book” also isn’t as riotous as one might expect given Rubin’s stand-up chops. A few laugh lines prove ineffective, though others more than live up to his background.
Far better is watching Dave Rubin, the media personality, spring to life. The author shares some personal struggles, both mental and physical, that led to his unexpected fame.
Rubin remains kindred spirits with Jordan Peterson, the Canadian intellectual who enraged the Left for telling people to clean their rooms and smiting government speech codes. They make an odd pair, but the chapter dedicated to their tour offers some humble life lessons.
Dress for success may sound obvious, but Rubin frames the old saw in a way that could make a difference. Even better is sharing Peterson’s knack for knowing his own limitations.
In today’s age of scorching hot takes, it’s more than acceptable to say, “I don’t know.” In fact, it’s refreshing and raw. Rubin’s thoughts on how we “catastrophize” everything in our First World lives is equally valuable, although it, too, could be better fleshed out.
The author burns plenty of calories repudiating the woke mob, giving specific techniques to keep the pitchforks at bay. He’s right, of course, but for many people the short-term costs will be considerable.
Rubin famously left the Left, which he says fueled the book’s initial premise. That transformation’s fallout, including hateful messages from former “allies” who now see him as Public Enemy Nos. 1-5, must be read to be believed.
Here’s a sample:
<blockquote>“Suddenly longtime friends are leaving venomous voice mails, calling me racist and misogynistic, while others send emails denouncing me as a hateful bigot who deserves to die.”</blockquote>
The scariest part of Rubin’s book is how he describes cultural forces aligning to silence dissent. He name checks an Economist story that dubbed The Daily Wire’s Ben Shapiro “a pop idol of the alt-right” as Exhibit A.
Yes, those eager to squelch free expression are on the march, but Rubin and “Don’t Burn This Book” have our backs.
“You’re not a Nazi, you’re just somebody who thinks for themselves,” he writes about Americans who don’t tow the progressive line. That sentence alone justifies Rubin’s cultural ascension. It’s also why “Don’t Burn This Book” should be read by every torch-wielding member of the social media mob.
A version of this review was also published at HollywoodInToto.com.
The Daily Wire, headed by bestselling author and popular podcast host Ben Shapiro, is a leading provider of conservative news, cutting through the mainstream media’s rhetoric to provide readers the most important, relevant, and engaging stories of the day. Get inside access to The Daily Wire by becoming a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/subscribe">member</a>.

Dave Rubin

TOTO: Read Dave Rubin’s ‘Don’t Burn This Book’ Before It’s Too Late

Ben Shapiro

Jordan Peterson

Social Media

In a perfect world Dave Rubin wouldn’t have to write “Don’t Burn This Book.” The “Rubin Report” host wants his fellow Americans to agree to disagree and

TOTO: Read Dave Rubin’s ‘Don’t Burn This Book’ Before It’s Too Late | The Daily Wire

https://www.dailywire.com/news/toto-read-dave-rubins-dont-burn-this-book-before-its-too-late/

https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2020/05/Dave-Rubin.jpg

Late-night television might get a jolt if Dave Rubin has anything to say about it.
The host of “The Rubin Report” tells The Daily Wire he’s exploring a late-night show of his own. And, given his unofficial membership in the <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/dave-rubin-will-smith-welcome-intellectual-dark-alexander-ruiz">Intellectual Dark Web,</a> he might just revolutionize the format.
For now, Rubin is sharing his anti-P.C. sentiments in “<a href="https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/609625/dont-burn-this-book-by-dave-rubin/">Don’t Burn This Book: Thinking for Yourself in an Age of Unreason</a>.” Part memoir, part teaching guide, the book asks readers to make up their own minds on hot button issues without fearing the woke mob.
“I’m not saying everyone should agree with me … [the book is] a framework for people to think about the issues of the day,” Rubin says.
“Don’t Burn This Book” excoriates the mainstream media, which he calls “deeply corrupt” and social justice scolds who eschew nuance and context.
That common-sense philosophy comes with a price in today’s culture. It’s something he explores in great depth in the book, but it’s also happening now. He cites a “massive coordinated campaign” on sites like Reddit to sink the book’s Amazon.com reviews.
“That is a modern book burning … It’s not actually tossing books into a bonfire. You burn a book because you don’t want its ideas to get out,” he says, noting his tome cracked the New York Times’ bestseller list despite the protests.
“Don’t Burn This Book” lets Rubin share how his shift from progressive to classic liberal cost him plenty of friends and even his mental and physical health.
He’s now a target due to his right-leaning ways, but liberals can’t escape the mob, either. He recalls a <a href="https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/461264-marianne-williamson-clarifies-hot-mic-moment">frank moment</a> from former presidential candidate Marianne Williamson about the Left/Right divide.
&#8220;What does it say that Fox News is nicer to me than the lefties are? What does it say that the conservatives are nicer to me,&#8221; she asked.
The far left “has become this giant movement of destruction, not a movement of creation,” Rubin says, something even select left-leaning guests share off-camera with him.
Rubin’s show hails from California, home for some of Hollywood’s biggest stars. Yet those same celebrities rarely have his, or our, backs on free speech matters.
“They’re a bunch of cowards,” he says flatly. “Hollywood is filled with more cowards than most industries… they’re not providing anything that’s unique. Even the greatest actor could be replaced by a marginal actor tomorrow and we’d still go see movies.
“I have actor friends who agree with me on some [free speech views],” he adds, but they won’t say so publicly.
Rubin’s mission on and off the page is to bring back lively, vigorous debate. He thinks he knows partly why it’s suddenly gone out of vogue. For too many people, the political fight is front and center in our lives.
And that’s only hurting us.
“If politics, the day to day … if that thing is you guiding philosophy every day you’ll wake up to be miserable,” he says, adding it’s why Leftists get so emotional when anyone critiques their world view.
The latter plays out on college campuses nationwide.
“This has become a condition of the Left. We must silence everyone we disagree with,” he says.
If a radical like the far-left activist Linda Sarsour attempts to speak at a university, conservatives will either not show up or assemble a small, peaceful protest against her ideas. Rubin notes. That’s hardly the case when a Ben Shapiro or Dennis Prager touches down on those same universities. Instead of protecting their right to be heard, campuses often kowtow to the woke mob.
“They’ll also tell you words are violent … and the same people say it’s OK to ‘<a href="https://reason.com/video/ok-punch-nazi-berkeley-students-campus/">punch a Nazi</a>,’” he notes of those far-left voices.
He playfully compares the treatment of conservatives to how the Jedis were eliminated by “Order 66” in “Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith.”
Yes, Rubin is a “Star Wars” enthusiast in between book deals and streaming interviews.
Not every liberal thinks this way, of course. Rubin cites <a href="https://www.hollywoodintoto.com/maher-save-democrats-trump/">HBO host Bill Maher</a>, who he calls the “last liberal fighting” for free speech.
“Most of them are completely cowed into silence,” he says.
Should Rubin join the late-night TV fray he doesn’t sound afraid of the competition. That’s particularly true during the current pandemic.
“We’re seeing how irrelevant these quote-unquote comedians are … they’re barely funnier than your neighbor, and they’re all ideologically the same, all Leftists,” Rubin says.
The Daily Wire, headed by bestselling author and popular podcast host Ben Shapiro, is a leading provider of conservative news, cutting through the mainstream media’s rhetoric to provide readers the most important, relevant, and engaging stories of the day. Get inside access to The Daily Wire by becoming a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/subscribe">member</a>.

EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW: Dave Rubin Explains What Drove Him To Write ‘Don’t Burn This Book’

Dennis Prager

Late-night television might get a jolt if Dave Rubin has anything to say about it. The host of “The Rubin Report” tells The Daily Wire he’s exploring a

EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW: Dave Rubin Explains What Drove Him To Write ‘Don’t Burn This Book’ | The Daily Wire

https://www.dailywire.com/news/exclusive-interview-dave-rubin-explains-what-drove-him-to-write-dont-burn-this-book/

https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2020/05/Dave-Rubin-1.jpg

A woman previously convicted for her role in an infamous racial hoax has had one of her convictions overturned.
Four years ago, Asha Burwell and two other African-American women made national headlines when they claimed they were attacked by a dozen white people on a bus heading back to the State University of New York at Albany. The trio said the attackers hurled racial slurs at them during the encounter as well.
As is always the case with these allegations, students protested on campus before any evidence emerged to back up the women’s claims. The women also received support from across the country.
Police stunned the women’s supporters when <a href="https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/more-damaging-evidence-in-the-suny-albany-racial-hoax">they arrested</a> the three women and charged them with assault, criminal mischief, and filing a false police report. Burwell was convicted of filing a false police report and an additional charge of “falsely reporting an incident in the third-degree and causing a public alarm through her tweets,” <a href="https://www.timesunion.com/news/amp/Partial-reversal-in-CDTA-bus-case-cites-free-15189756.php">reported</a> the Times Union, Albany’s local newspaper.
The conviction was overturned by a 5-0 ruling by the Appellate Division of the state Supreme Court’s Third Department. Burwell’s attorney, Frederick Brewington, cited President Donald Trump earlier this year while arguing for the conviction to be overturned. Brewington argued that it was a slippery slope to criminalize Burwell’s tweets, which repeated her false hate crime claims about the bus attack. He said criminalizing such false tweets would have wide-ranging consequences for people “from the top to the bottom,” including the president.
“If, indeed, we put this standard in place, someone would have to arrest our president immediately,” Brewington told the Times Union earlier this year.
On April 9, the justices of the appellate court found Burwell’s tweets to be protected by the First Amendment even though they were false and caused protests and a national outcry.
“Neither general concern nor the Twitter storm that ensued following defendant posting the false tweets are the type of ‘public alarm or inconvenience’ that permits defendant’s tweets to escape protection under the First Amendment and, therefore, the speech at issue here may not be criminalized,” wrote Justice Stanley Pritzker in the court’s decision.
The remaining four justices concurred.
“To that end, although it was not unlikely that defendant’s false tweets about a racial assault at a state university would cause public alarm, what level of public alarm rises to the level of criminal liability?” the decision added. “By the very nature of social media, falsehoods can quickly and effectively be countered by truth, making the criminalizing of flase speech on social media not actually necessary to prevent alarm and inconvenience. This could not be more apparent here, where defendant’s false tweets were largely debunked through counter speech; thus, criminalizing her speech… was not actually necessary to prevent public alarm and inconvenience.”
Even though Burwell lied, the decision is a win for the First Amendment.
Burwells conviction on falsely reporting the crime in the first place was upheld.
In February 2016, audio from two 911 calls and video footage from the bus revealed the women had lied. Footage showed one of the accusers threw the first punch and that it was one of the alleged victims who used a racial slur – toward a white passenger. Further, the 911 calls showed the women laughing about the incident. One said “I think it’s so funny” and “I beat up a boy” before getting connected to a dispatcher. Once connected, the accuser changed her tune and claimed she was the victim of a hate crime.
The Daily Wire, headed by bestselling author and popular podcast host Ben Shapiro, is a leading provider of conservative news, cutting through the mainstream media’s rhetoric to provide readers the most important, relevant, and engaging stories of the day. Get inside access to The Daily Wire by becoming a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/subscribe">member</a>.

NY bus

She Was Convicted Of Falsely Claiming A Racial Attack On A Bus. One Of Her Convictions Was Just Overturned.

Hate Crime

Hoax

New York

A woman previously convicted for her role in an infamous racial hoax has had one of her convictions overturned. Four years ago, Asha Burwell and two other

She Was Convicted Of Falsely Claiming A Racial Attack On A Bus. One Of Her Convictions Was Just Overturned. | The Daily Wire

https://www.dailywire.com/news/she-was-convicted-of-falsely-claiming-a-racial-attack-on-a-bus-one-of-her-convictions-was-just-overturned/

https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2020/04/GettyImages-928084990.jpg

Menu