Amid pressure from a student activist group, the student government of the University of Central Florida, a publicly funded university located in Orlando, recently voted against allowing funds to go to a student event scheduled for March featuring Daily Wire Editor-in-Chief Ben Shapiro. The move, says the group hosting the event, is another example of left-wing activists discouraging intellectual diversity on American campuses.
The event, scheduled for March 23rd, is part of the Young America&#8217;s Foundation&#8217;s Fred Allen Lecture Series, for which Shapiro has appeared on campuses across the country, including <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/watch-shapiro-dismantles-the-alt-right-and-radical-lefts-dangerous-game">Stanford</a> and <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/livestream-ben-shapiro-america-wasnt-built-on-slavery">Boston University</a>. As is the case with most campus events in which Shapiro is featured, protests from left-wing groups have sprung up at UCF ahead of the scheduled appearance, still more than a month away.
As reported by <a href="https://www.yaf.org/news/ucf-student-government-caves-to-protestors-attempts-to-block-funds-for-ben-shapiro-lecture/">Young America&#8217;s Foundation</a>, left-wing student activist groups have mounted a campaign, reportedly spearheaded by the UCF Pride Student Association, which posted a call to action against Shapiro on its <a href="https://www.instagram.com/p/B8H9zieBN0H/">Instagram page</a>.
&#8220;Stop Ben Shapiro from speaking at UCF,&#8221; reads an online flyer posted by the group last week. &#8220;College Republicans is working with Young Americans for Freedom to bring conservative political commentator, Ben Shapiro to UCF on March 23rd.&#8221;
&#8220;He is known for his homophobic, transphobic and racist commentary,&#8221; the flyer alleges, citing no examples of any such supposed rhetoric from the popular mainstream conservative author and podcast host.
&#8220;If you are against $20,000 of OUR student dollars to be used to hold this event, then stand in solidarity with us and other RSO&#8217;s on Thursday February 6 at 7 PM in the Keywest Ballroom to speak out against this at the next SGA Senate meeting.&#8221;
&#8220;The College Republicans have a bill that will be this [T]hursday on the SGA floor at 7:00 in the Key West Ballroom on that would bring white supremacist Ben Shapiro to our campus using the AS&amp;F funds from our tuition,&#8221; the student group added in a comment along with the flyer on Instagram, again citing no evidence of the smear against Shapiro, an Orthodox Jew. &#8220;We encourage you to use your own judgement, research and perspective on this event and for you to voice that opinion at SGA’s meeting!&#8221;
Amid the protest campaign, members of UCF&#8217;s student government gave an &#8220;unfavorable&#8221; vote, 16-17-1, on Thursday, for the proposed funding bill of $17,000 for Shapiro&#8217;s appearance.
&#8220;Although some students said they felt they did not want their money spent on this bill, other students feel that bringing Shapiro here will give students who oppose him a learning experience,&#8221; UCF student paper <a href="https://knightnews.com/2020/02/ucf-students-protest-in-sg-senate-first-reading-of-bill-unfavorable-for-ben-shapiro-funding/">Knight News</a> reported Friday.
The conservative group hosting the event says members of the student government have singled out Shapiro&#8217;s speech. The bill received more scrutiny than similar proposals, said College Republicans Vice Chairman Didi Malka. The &#8220;unfavorable&#8221; vote is an example of those in power allowing their ideological &#8220;biases&#8221; to stand in the way of &#8220;intellectual diversity,&#8221; something universities have traditionally been committed to promoting rather than discouraging.
&#8220;No other funding bill has been treated with the amount of scrutiny ours has received, and our bill has met every threshold Student Government requires for an RSO to receive funding,&#8221; Malka told YAF. &#8220;I am saddened to see that certain senators have put their own biases in front of providing intellectual diversity and we hope to convince them next week to change their minds.&#8221;
The bill will go to the student senate next week, YAF reports. In order for the funding to be granted, a majority of the senate must approve the request.
Shapiro has been the target of left-wing protests repeatedly in the past, including ahead of his speech last fall at Stanford University, where a group of self-described &#8220;concerned&#8221; Stanford students advertised their planned protest against Shapiro&#8217;s supposedly &#8220;dehumanizing&#8221; ideas by <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/see-it-stanford-activists-compare-ben-shapiro-to-insect-while-condemning-dehumanizing-speech">comparing him to an insect in need of extermination</a>.
Related: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/watch-alt-right-hecklers-attempt-to-trap-ben-shapiro-fail-miserably">WATCH: Hecklers Attempt To Trap Ben Shapiro, Fail Miserably</a>

Ben Shapiro

Activists Protest Ben Shapiro Speech At UCF; Student Government Moves To Block Funds

Florida

Free Speech

California state Assemblymember Marc Levine (D-Marin County) wants to make it mandatory for residents to vote in elections and give authority to the secretary of state to impose “civil remedies” to promote compliance. 
If the proposal were passed by the legislature and signed by the governor, California voters would be required to submit a ballot either in person or via mail, beginning in 2022, in order to avoid incurring a civil penalty. According to the <a href="https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/californians-who-register-to-vote-would-be-required-to-cast-ballots-under-new-bill/ar-BBZH8db">LA Times</a>, voters who did not want to vote in an election could adhere to the law by submitting a partially completed, or blank, ballot. 
“Democracy is not a spectator sport – it requires the active participation of all its citizens,” said Assemblymember Levine in a <a href="https://a10.asmdc.org/press-releases/20200205-democracy-line-levine-calls-mandatory-ballot-casting-all-elections">press release</a> Wednesday announcing the proposal. 
“California is a national leader on expanding voting rights to its citizens. Those rights come with a responsibility by registered voters to cast their ballot and make sure that their voice is heard by their government. This is not a time to be complacent at the ballot box,” said Levine. 
However, through his very own words, Levine has seemingly brought forth a contradiction between the First Amendment, which guarantees the people’s freedom of speech, and the phrasing of his statement announcing the proposal: “&#8230;registered voters to cast their ballot and make sure that their voice is heard&#8230;my [bill] will ensure that the voices of all California voters are heard…”
When former President Obama <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2015/03/19/politics/obama-mandatory-voting/index.html">openly considered</a> a similar election reform five years ago, the <a href="https://www.heritage.org/political-process/commentary/compulsory-voting-unconstitutional">Heritage Foundation</a> was quick to point out that compulsory voting laws don’t square with the Constitution because the First Amendment “includes the right not to speak.”
In proposing that the California state government impose civil penalties on citizens who refuse to use “their voice” in a particular way, Levine has exposed the proposal to clear constitutional challenges.  
The Daily Wire contacted Levine&#8217;s office in order to seek clarity on the contradiction between the First Amendment and the assemblymember&#8217;s official statement. His office declined to comment. 
Advocates of mandatory voting argue that compulsory voting has already been passed in other countries, and Levine specifically mentions that Belgium passed a compulsory voting law back in the 19th century. But to say the least, Belgium has a strained relationship with freedom of speech. 
Just last month, Sophie Wilmes, the country’s interim prime minister, announced a crackdown on online comments following a rescue effort for a capsized boat that was carrying migrants. “More than ever, we need to realise that hate has no place in society,” Wilmes said, according to The <a href="https://www.brusselstimes.com/belgium/91442/racism-is-a-crime-belgian-pm-announces-action-plan-to-fight-online-hate-speech-sophie-wilmes-free-spech-online-comments-inciting-hate-xenophobia-racism-laws/">Brussels Times</a>. “Free speech is sacred, but racism is not an opinion — it is a crime.”
The news agency reports that a 1981 Belgian law prohibits people from inciting violence or hatred against others on the basis of racial or xenophobic motivation, and that the online comments that prompted the prime minister’s crackdown included: “let them swim, it’s not far and we’ll get rid of them,” and  “the most important thing is finding the boat.”

Election day in Signal Hill

California Lawmaker Wants To Make It Illegal To Not Vote

califormia

On Friday, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg sat down with Silicon Slopes Executive Director Clint Betts for an interview at the 2020 Silicon Slopes Tech Summit in Salt Lake City, Utah.
The interview was wide-ranging, but at the very beginning, Betts asked Zuckerberg to elaborate on his recent statement that it’s more important to be understood rather than liked.
Zuckerberg replied, first talking about how in Facebook’s nascent stages as a company, he didn’t quite know how to properly communicate, and that despite the poor and vague communication, the company was winning because of the product.
He continued, comparing Facebook’s prior approach to what they’re beginning to do now:
<blockquote>Broadly speaking, for a long time, the basic approach was, “Okay, let&#8217;s try to not, like, do anything that&#8217;s gonna be too offensive &#8230; and we&#8217;ll kind of explain what we&#8217;re doing in broad strokes and talk about the mission of what we&#8217;re doing,” which is something that I really believe in – helping to build community and bring people closer together. But I think we just shied away for a long time talking about &#8230; some of the principles that we believe in that are increasingly controversial in the world, and I just think that we, for one, don&#8217;t have that luxury anymore.</blockquote>
Zuckerberg added that the company’s previous mode of communication allowed people to feel “positive &#8230; but fairly shallow” about Facebook because the company wasn’t “standing for things that people care about.”
He went on to talk directly about freedom of expression and the troubling push for censorship:
<blockquote>In Georgetown last year, I gave this speech around our principles, around free expression, and, you know, that&#8217;s just one of the areas that I really feel like is under attack right now &#8230; increasingly, you know, we&#8217;re getting called to censor a lot of different kinds of content that makes me really uncomfortable. I think that it kind of feels like the list of things that you&#8217;re not allowed to say socially keeps on growing, and I&#8217;m not really okay with that.</blockquote>
Zuckerberg clarified that he isn&#8217;t talking about the necessary removal of things like “terrorism, child exploitation, incitement to violence,” etc, that Facebook has tens of thousands of staff working on around the clock.
<blockquote>At some point I just felt like, alright, we’ve got to stand up and say, “No, we&#8217;re gonna stand for free expression, and yeah, we&#8217;re gonna take down the content that&#8217;s really harmful, but the line needs to be held at some point,” and I think that &#8230; it&#8217;s unfortunate that this is such a controversial thing.</blockquote>
At this, the audience cheered.
The CEO noted that back in 2004, freedom of expression “wasn’t a thing that people were pushing back on that much,” and that he believes “a lot of people” agree with his stand for freedom of expression.
He went on to talk about his thoughts on privacy as well, and how encryption is an important part of that. Some people claim that “tools for privacy are only important to help bad guys,” Zuckerberg stated. “I don&#8217;t believe that.”
<blockquote>I guess &#8230; this is the new approach, and I think it&#8217;s gonna piss off a lot of people, too, but, you know, frankly the old approach was pissing off a lot of people, too, so let&#8217;s try something different.</blockquote>
<iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/d4JUbvzM3sQ?start=172" width="720" height="385" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe>

Mark Zuckerberg.

WATCH: Mark Zuckerberg Stands For ‘Free Expression’ Even As It’s ‘Under Attack’

Censorship

First Amendment

Mark Zuckerberg

Each year, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) releases a list of the worst schools in the country for free speech. These could be schools that have restrictive free speech codes or schools that have made headlines for their violations of rights.
“Some — we’re looking at you Harvard, DePaul, and Syracuse — are regulars and have appeared four or five times. Others have slunk away in embarrassment after being listed. But all have one thing in common: They had the chance to do the right thing when it came to free speech, but chose otherwise,” FIRE wrote in a <a href="https://www.thefire.org/10-worst-colleges-for-free-speech-2020/">post</a> about the list.
FIRE doesn’t list the schools in order of bad to worst. Instead, the schools are listed alphabetically. Below are the 10 worst for 2020:
Babson College (Massachusetts)
Professor Asheen Phansey made a joke on his private Facebook page and was fired. His joke may or may not be funny to you, but it was an obvious joke and not an actual threat. Still, the school conducted a “thorough investigation” – which last about one day – and fired Phansey. Here’s his joke, which was made after President Donald Trump threatened to bomb 52 Iranian sites, including potentially some cultural sites:
In retaliation, Ayatollah Khomeni should tweet a list of 52 sites of beloved American cultural heritage that he would bomb. Um… Mall of America? …Kardashian residence?
Jones College (Mississippi)
Michael Brown, a former student of Jones College, was trying to raise interest in Young Americans for Liberty. His former college twice told him to stop exercising his free speech rights, <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/doj-stands-up-for-campus-free-speech-in-students-federal-lawsuit">so he sued</a>. The lawsuit gained so much attention even the Department of Justice filed a Statement of Interest in the case.
Harvard University (Massachusetts)
Harvard has been cracking down on single-gender clubs and removed law professor and Ronald Sullivan as faculty dean of Winthrop House because he did his job as a defense attorney and agreed to take Hollywood mogul Harvey Weinstein as a client. Weinstein is charged with rape and sexual assault.
Harvard students were upset that a criminal defense attorney was defend someone charged with a crime, and the university obliged.
University of Scranton (Pennsylvania)
Students attempting to register a chapter of the conservative group Turning Point USA were denied by the student government simply for being a right-leaning group. The school stood by the student government’s decision instead of standing up for the students’ First Amendment rights.
Middlebury College (Vermont)
Middlebury was the scene of one of the most <a href="https://thefederalist.com/2017/05/11/middlebury-announces-disciplinary-actions-charles-murray-student-riot/">high-profile instances</a> of student aggression back in 2017. Last year, the school decided it hadn’t proved itself hostile enough to free speech by canceling a lecture by Polish scholar and politician Ryszard Legutko that was organized by faculty, not students.
Long Island University Post (New York)
The school investigated student Jake Gutowitz for possessing “forbidden flyers.”
“These <a href="https://www.thefire.org/example-common-sense-flyer/">flyers</a>, which had been appearing on campus throughout the school year, were labeled ‘Common Sense’ à la Thomas Paine and contained parodies and poems criticizing LIU Post and its administrators, particularly President Kimberly Cline,” FIRE wrote.
Gutowitz denied any involvement in distributing the flyers and was told he would receive a letter resolving the investigation – but he never did, even after he graduated.
University of Connecticut
Irresponsible students playing that game where one person shouts a “taboo” word and the other tries to out-do them were recorded playing the game in a parking lot. Eventually, the students shouted the n-word and campus police were sent to find them. An investigation ensued and they were charged under a century-old statute. They also face disciplinary charges at the university.
Syracuse University (New York)
Syracuse denied recognition to students trying to start a chapter of Young Americans for Freedom because it was a conservative group. The school also suspended all fraternity activities for a semester because of an alleged racial incident at one fraternity that involved someone who wasn’t even a member of that fraternity.
Doane University (Nebraska)
“A faculty librarian displayed the university’s own historical photos — and got suspended,” FIRE reported.
The librarian selected photos that would spark a discussion about offensive Halloween and party costumes. Two of the university-owned photos she selected included students wearing blackface at a masquerade party in 1926. The librarian was suspended and later reinstated, but the school has not adequately responded to that issues of free speech.
Portland State University (Oregon)
Campus police canceled a socialist group’s meeting out of fear that a single “Patriot Prayer” leader might attend. This same campus police organization then stood by while a protester with a cowbell disrupted a College Republican meeting.

Free speech

SILENCED: America’s 10 WORST Colleges For Free Speech

Education

The politically incorrect comedian Dave Chappelle has bucked the liberal trend once again by declaring that Trump supporters are not his enemy.
Speaking to reporters this week in Iowa about why he supports presidential candidate Andrew Yang, Chappelle says that he welcomes people as fans from both sides of the political aisle, while also admitting that he understands why people voted for Trump. Take a look:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Dave Chappelle says why he is supporting <a href="https://twitter.com/AndrewYang?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@AndrewYang</a>. 
“I don’t look at Trump supporters as my enemy at all. I understand why people voted for Trump I understand people are desperate. And I think that Andrew is right you run against the reasons that Trump got elected.” <a href="https://t.co/jcAb1cDfPQ">pic.twitter.com/jcAb1cDfPQ</a>
&mdash; Armando Tonatiuh Torres-García (@GarciaReports) <a href="https://twitter.com/GarciaReports/status/1222358155952381953?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 29, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
&#8220;I don&#8217;t look at Trump supporters as my enemy at all,&#8221; Chappelle told reporters. &#8220;I understand why people voted for Trump, I understand people are desperate. And I think that Andrew is right you run against the reasons that Trump got elected. I got friends on both sides of the political aisle, I got fans on both sides of the political aisle.&#8221;
As to why he supports Andrew Yang, Chappelle said the candidate has brought many &#8220;good ideas&#8221; to the table that nobody has previously addressed.
&#8220;A lot of people say professionally it&#8217;s not wise to support any candidate, but this idea is so good, that I think it should exist,&#8221; said Chappelle. &#8220;And I think the fountainhead of many of the good ideas on the table this year are coming from a single source — Andrew Yang. And for some reason, no one&#8217;s paying attention. This guy is the origin of a platform that really does address where I think the country needs to go.&#8221;
Chappelle announced his support for the &#8220;Yang Gang&#8221; earlier this month, when he pledged to perform several shows for his campaign.
“Thank you [Dave Chappelle] and welcome to the #yanggang,” Yang said in response to his endorsement. “You are the best. Let’s do this for our kids.”
While Dave Chappelle can in no way be classified as a conservative, he certainly has allied with conservatives in their fight against cancel culture. In October, while accepting the Mark Twain Prize for American Humor, he gave a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/watch-video-released-of-dave-chappelles-fierce-hilarious-defense-of-first-amendment">fierce defense</a> of free speech.
“I like not knowin’ what’s going to happen. I like makin’ memories. Sometimes I do all this crazy s*** around my colleagues just so they can tell their friends I did it. Rather than talk about myself, just briefly, I want to just talk about my genre. Stand-up comedy is an incredibly American genre,” he said. “I don’t think any other country can produce this many comedians. Unbeknownst to many people in this audience, I don’t think there’s opinion that exists in this country that is not represented in a comedy club by somebody. Each and every one of you has a chance of bein’ in the room.”
“We watch you guys fight, but when we’re together, we talk it out. I know comics that are very racist, and I watch ‘em on stage, and everyone’s laughin’, I’m like, that motherf***** means it,” Chappelle continued. “Don’t get mad at ‘em, don’t hate ‘em, we go upstairs and have a beer and sometimes I even appreciate the artistry that they paint their racist opinions with.”
<div>
“Man, it’s not that serious. The First Amendment is first for a reason. The Second Amendment is just in case the first one doesn’t work out,” he added.
</div>

US-ENTERTAINMENT-HUMOR-MARK TWAIN AWARD

WATCH: Dave Chappelle Says ‘I Don’t See Trump Supporters As My Enemy’

2020 Election

Andrew Yang

Cancel culture

Dave Chappelle

Iowa

Political Correctness

Trump Supporters

On Tuesday, comedian Dave Chappelle announced his support for 2020 Democratic Party presidential candidate Andrew Yang.
“I’m Yang Gang!” Chappelle said in a press release, according to <a href="https://www.thedailybeast.com/comedian-dave-chapelle-endorses-andrew-yang-im-yang-gang">The Daily Beast</a>.
“Thank you [Dave Chappelle] and welcome to the #yanggang,” Yang captioned a photo of himself standing alongside Chappelle. “You are the best. Let’s do this for our kids.”
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Thank you <a href="https://twitter.com/DaveChappelle?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@DaveChappelle</a> and welcome to the <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/yanggang?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#yanggang</a>. You are the best. Let’s do this for our kids. 🙏👍 <a href="https://t.co/HGznFG00kr">pic.twitter.com/HGznFG00kr</a>
&mdash; Andrew Yang🧢 (@AndrewYang) <a href="https://twitter.com/AndrewYang/status/1217163311579639808?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 14, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Earlier on Tuesday, an excited Yang announced the endorsement to his supporters. &#8220;I&#8217;m going to be endorsed in about two hours by Dave Chappelle!&#8221; he said.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
.<a href="https://twitter.com/AndrewYang?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@AndrewYang</a>: &quot;I’m going to be endorsed in about two hours by Dave Chappelle!&quot; <a href="https://t.co/dBo2RSXYdM">pic.twitter.com/dBo2RSXYdM</a>
&mdash; The Hill (@thehill) <a href="https://twitter.com/thehill/status/1217153364653486088?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 14, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
According to The Hill, the comic will headline upcoming shows in support of the Democratic candidate, set for January 29 and 30 in South Carolina.
“Dave’s team reached out to our team, and they were thrilled to put the two of us together,” Yang told <a href="https://www.necn.com/news/politics/primary-source/yang-on-why-hes-not-worried-about-qualifying-for-next-debate/2216729/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">New England Cable News</a> last week, <a href="https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/478194-dave-chappelle-endorses-andrew-yang-in-democratic-primary">The Hill</a> noted. “We sat down and talked about his concerns for the country and what we need to do to for the next generation. Dave’s a dad like I am. And then after we met, he said, ‘Look, I want to help, and what can I do to help?’&#8221;
The former &#8220;Chappelle Show&#8221; star has been an unapologetic proponent of free speech.
In October, while accepting the Mark Twain Prize for American Humor at the Kennedy Center, Chappelle offered a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/watch-video-released-of-dave-chappelles-fierce-hilarious-defense-of-first-amendment">fierce and hilarious defense of the First Amendment</a>.
“I like not knowin’ what’s going to happen. I like makin’ memories. Sometime I do all this crazy s*** around my colleagues just so they can tell their friends I did it. Rather than talk about myself, just briefly, I want to just talk about my genre. Stand-up comedy is an incredibly American genre,&#8221; he said. &#8220;I don’t think any other country can produce this many comedians. Unbeknownst to many people in this audience, I don’t think there’s opinion that exists in this country that is not represented in a comedy club by somebody. Each and every one of you has a chance of bein’ in the room.”
“We watch you guys fight, but when we’re together, we talk it out. I know comics that are very racist, and I watch ‘em on stage, and everyone’s laughin’, I’m like, that mother f***** means it,&#8221; Chappelle continued. &#8220;Don’t get mad at ‘em, don’t hate ‘em, we go upstairs and have a beer and sometimes I even appreciate the artistry that they paint their racist opinions with.”
<div>
“Man, it’s not that serious. The First Amendment is first for a reason. The Second Amendment is just in case the first one doesn’t work out,&#8221; he added.
The comedian has <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/leftists-enraged-dave-chappelle-telling-jokes-amanda-prestigiacomo">ruffled feathers</a> in the media for making jokes about media-protected groups. For example, Chappelle has been routinely hit by comedy writers for jokes about the LGBT lobby or transgenderism.
Currently, Yang is struggling in the polls. Providing election coverage for <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/who-will-win-democratic-primary-latest-2020-josh-hammer">The Daily Wire</a>, Daily Wire Editor-at-Large Josh Hammer said earlier Tuesday that &#8220;it would be a fool’s errand to predict anyone other than Biden as the likely Democratic presidential nominee — at least until we start getting concrete results from Iowa, New Hampshire, and so forth.&#8221;
</div>
Hammer also highlighted wealthy Michael Bloomberg as &#8220;a candidate to keep a close eye upon.&#8221;
&#8220;Electoral prediction market website <a href="https://www.predictit.org/markets/detail/3633/Who-will-win-the-2020-Democratic-presidential-nomination">PredictIt</a> now has Biden as its frontrunner, although Sanders is in second by a substantial margin. After a large gap, Warren, Bloomberg, and Buttigieg then all distantly follow. The Warren campaign collapse from its erstwhile frontrunner perch is truly something to behold,&#8221; noted Hammer.

Dave Chappelle Backs, Announces Upcoming Shows For Andrew Yang

Democratic Party

Last month, we at The Daily Wire played a leading role in <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/walsh-a-group-of-republicans-want-the-government-to-start-fighting-hardcore-pornography-theyre-right-heres-why">instigating</a> and <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/hammer-at-first-things-porn-is-not-a-blessing-of-liberty">amplifying</a> a national <a href="https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/12/12/21003109/pornography-obscenity-barr-doj-conservatives-libertarians">debate within the conservative movement</a> about the role of government in combating our online pornography <a href="https://apnews.com/9c91cfd28a7b461b87948f36117a432e">public health crisis</a>. We also <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/knowles-the-porn-debate-isnt-really-about-porn">extrapolated</a> that particular debate to a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/shapiro-the-problem-with-common-good-conservatism">broader discussion</a> over the <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/hammer-government-exists-to-establish-justice-not-promote-liberty">fundamental purpose</a> of government.
Now, The Daily Wire has procured an exclusive copy of a letter that is being sent today to Attorney General William Barr from <a href="https://politics.princeton.edu/people/robert-p-george">Robert P. George</a>, the iconic McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence and Director of the <a href="https://jmp.princeton.edu">James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions</a> at Princeton University. George, who has taught at Princeton since 1985 and has mentored countless influential conservatives such as <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/02/us/politics/republican-senate-candidate-in-texas-is-known-as-an-intellectual-force.html">Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX)</a>, has been <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/20/magazine/20george-t.html">described</a> by The New York Times as &#8220;this country’s most influential conservative Christian thinker.&#8221; He is a longtime social conservative luminary who has consistently taken a <a href="https://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2012/07/5815/">leading role</a> in the <a href="https://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2013/09/10850/">fight</a> against the pernicious dissemination and proliferation of pornography. The <a href="https://americanprinciplesproject.org">American Principles Project</a>, a conservative think tank George helped found, has also taken a <a href="https://americanprinciplesproject.org/petitions/tell-doj-protect-our-kids-from-porn/">leading role</a> in this <a href="https://www.firstthings.com/article/2019/11/how-to-regulate-pornography">battle</a>.
&#8220;I am writing to request clarification regarding current DOJ policy for the enforcement of existing obscenity laws — specifically 18 U.S.C. § <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1460">1460</a>&#8211;<a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1470">1470 </a>— and to inquire whether DOJ considers these statutes applicable to online pornography,&#8221; the letter begins.
&#8220;As everyone knows, the online pornography industry has exploded,&#8221; George writes. &#8220;There has been a dramatic rise in illegal pornography production and distribution. Hotels, cable and TV companies, and Internet pornography distributors regularly sell pornography featuring horrific themes such as the rape of teenagers, incest, sexual assault, sex trafficking and slavery, suffocation, bondage, and even cartoon pornography targeted at minor children. &#8230; A 13-year-old with a smartphone now has unlimited access to his own personal theatre of sexual horrors.&#8221;
&#8220;Extensive evidence demonstrates severe harm caused to children and youth exposed to pornography; increasingly, studies find harm is caused to adults as well,&#8221; the letter continues. &#8220;Recent research indicates that pornography is potentially biologically addictive, which means the user requires more novelty, often in the form of more shocking material, in order to be satisfied.&#8221;
The letter concludes by requesting the Department of Justice (DOJ) for clarification on four items: (1) how DOJ defines &#8220;obscenity&#8221;; (2) what categories of online pornography might fit the definition of &#8220;obscenity&#8221;; (3) whether DOJ believes online pornography is subject to regulation under 18 U.S.C. § 1460-1470; and (4) what efforts DOJ has taken, in this administration, to prosecute violators of extant federal obscenity statutes.
George also spoke with The Daily Wire over phone to elaborate upon why such a missive to the attorney general is urgently needed, at the present time. In addition to the obvious moral and public health aspects, George expanded upon how the issue, for him, has always been intertwined with the fight against human trafficking.
&#8220;The rise of online pornography for children — even young children — has made this issue resurgent again,&#8221; George explained. &#8220;Addiction and sexual addiction connected to pornography has contributed to this. People know about it — people who are married to addicts.&#8221;
&#8220;One additional piece of the puzzle: We have become much more cognizant, over the past decade or two decades, with the way the porn industry has become intertwined with sexual enslavement,&#8221; he continued. &#8220;You put those things together and you can see why the issue has come back — and come back with an urgency. The moral issues remain, but the public health dimensions and our sensitivity to sexual exploitation has increased. And the #MeToo movement has helped here.&#8221;&#8216;
&#8220;Pornography has always been there — at Pompeii, it was on the walls,&#8221; George said. &#8220;But it’s the widespread online dissemination of it &#8230; and [Playboy founder] Hugh Hefner’s mainstream-ing of pornography — treating unclothed women as harmless naughtiness as opposed to something that is a genuine moral issue. The harm Hefner did is incalculable.&#8221;
George explained how the political and legal dynamics of this fight evolved following Hefner&#8217;s 1953 launch of Playboy.
&#8220;What we used to call liberals and what we now call progressives bought into Hefner’s &#8216;harmless naughtiness&#8217; ideology within a decade or so — not everyone, but it became the dominant position. To be liberal came to mean to be hip — to understand sex as a form of recreation rather than what it had been understood in Judeo-Christian culture prior to that.&#8221;
&#8220;The Supreme Court rulings of the liberal justices are a mirror of what was going on in the liberal movement, at the time,&#8221; he expounded. &#8220;Justices William Douglas, William Brennan, Thurgood Marshall — their arguments about pornography were an indicator of the direction that the movement was heading in.&#8221;
To be sure, many doctrinaire libertarians <a href="https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2019/12/porn-is-not-a-blessing-of-liberty">tend to oppose pornography regulation</a> on purported &#8220;free speech&#8221; grounds.
&#8220;Social conservatives need to realize that we can handle pornography and other social ills without turning America into a Christian version of Saudi Arabia,&#8221; Casey Given <a href="https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/the-misguided-war-on-pornography-and-the-return-of-right-wing-puritanism">wrote</a> last month at the Washington Examiner. &#8220;Emboldened conservatives are trying to use the Trump moment to steer the GOP firmly away from its commitments to individual liberty,&#8221; Reason&#8217;s Matt Welch recently <a href="https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2020-01-03/conservatives-are-coming-for-your-pof">opined</a> at the Los Angeles Times.
George was having none of it.
&#8220;This is not speech of any type; it’s not expressing a viewpoint,&#8221; the Ivy League professor stated. &#8220;Whatever may be going on there, it’s not speech, much less constitutionally protected free speech. The kind of imagery we’re discussing here is not expressing any kind of viewpoint; it’s a pure appeal to a prurient interest. Additionally, it is simply no longer plausible — in fact, it is risible — to suppose that pornography does not cause public harm. &#8230; It is a public health and a public safety and a public morality issue.&#8221;
&#8220;The <a href="https://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/the-baby-and-the-bathwater">goal of government</a> is to protect health, safety, and morals, along with the common good — certainly in conjunction with protecting individual rights,&#8221; George concluded. &#8220;There are social interests here that need to be balanced and I’m usually happy to err on the side of freedom, but for the vast amount of pornography, we’re just not talking about materials that are legally protected.&#8221;
Attorney General Barr has certainly distinguished himself, already, with a willingness to <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/hammer-america-is-better-off-for-having-bill-barr">call out the profound societal ills</a> of progressive secularism run amok. The ball is now in his court to substantively address one prominent ill via robust enforcement of already on-the-books federal statutes.

Attorney General William Barr And FBI Director Christopher Wray Announce Crime Reduction Initiative In Detroit

EXCLUSIVE: Iconic Conservative Leader Requests AG Barr Address Pornography Epidemic

academia

Conservatism

Constitution

Department of Justice

Law Enforcement

MeToo

pornography

Princeton University

Sexual Abuse

The PC Police have caught up to a motorist in Utah.
In 2015, a Utahan requested &#8212; and received &#8212; a vanity license plate that reads &#8220;DEPORTM,&#8221; presumably in reference to illegal aliens in the United States.
Now, Utah officials are reviewing whether the motorist&#8217;s plate violates state guidelines.
&#8220;We&#8217;re not sure how it got through,&#8221; Tammy Kikuchi, a spokeswoman for the Utah State Tax Commission, which oversees the Utah Division of Motor Vehicles, told The <a href="https://www.sltrib.com/news/2020/01/10/utah-officials-reviewing/">Salt Lake Tribune</a>. &#8220;We&#8217;re really quite surprised.&#8221;
Kukuchi said the license plate was approved in 2015, but added: &#8220;I don&#8217;t know why.&#8221; She said plates are not allowed that “may carry connotations offensive to good taste and decency or that may be misleading” and express “contempt, ridicule or superiority of a race, religion, deity, ethnic heritage or political affiliation.”
According to the state&#8217;s Department of Motor Vehicles <a href="https://dmv.utah.gov/plates/personalized">website</a>, plates are disallowed if they:
<blockquote>Are vulgar, derogatory, profane, or obscene; 
Make reference to drugs or drug paraphernalia; 
Make reference to sexual acts, genitalia, or bodily functions, or 
Express contempt, ridicule or superiority of a race, religion, deity, ethnic heritage, gender, or political affiliation. 
Express or suggest endangerment to the public welfare.</blockquote>
The Tribune said some 1,500 plate requests have fallen into that category/ &#8220;Some — &#8216;MURDA,&#8217; &#8216;PECKER1,&#8217; &#8216;KKKADEN&#8217; — leave little room for nuance within the guidelines. For others, — like &#8216;AUR0RA,&#8217; &#8216;MAGICC,&#8217; &#8216;SIEMPRE&#8217; — it’s not clear what guideline the request violated, though applicants also are denied if the plate duplicates a previously issued plate.&#8221;
Salt Lake City resident Matt Pacenza on Thursday posted an image of the plate on Twitter, which made waves.
&#8220;Hey @utahdld, how does this plate I just saw not violate your guidelines?&#8221; he wrote.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Hey <a href="https://twitter.com/utahdld?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@utahdld</a>, how does this plate I just saw not violate your guidelines? <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/utpol?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#utpol</a><a href="https://t.co/zFDfm8IHxp">https://t.co/zFDfm8IHxp</a> <a href="https://t.co/kt3S2KBh2z">pic.twitter.com/kt3S2KBh2z</a>
&mdash; Matt Pacenza (@mattpacenza) <a href="https://twitter.com/mattpacenza/status/1215408374038163456?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 9, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Utah state Sen. Daniel Thatcher, a Republican, responded, saying: “A private citizen has a first amendment right to say offensive things. The State does not, and has rules about license plates. I believe those rules have been violated here. Hopefully Tax Commission agrees.”
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Tax commission is aware and investigating. 
For clarification; A private citizen has a first amendment right to say offensive things. The State does not, and has rules about license plates. I believe those rules have been violated here.
Hopefully Tax Commission agrees.
&mdash; Daniel W. Thatcher (@SenThatcher) <a href="https://twitter.com/SenThatcher/status/1215700578107416576?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 10, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Some on Twitter took issue to the plate. &#8220;This is just offensive to all of us hard-working immigrants who are a great addition to Utah. Wouldn’t surprise me if this guy simultaneously brags about his European immigrant ancestors. Clueless and classless,&#8221; wrote one user.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
This is just offensive to all of us hard-working immigrants who are a great addition to Utah. Wouldn’t surprise me if this guy simultaneously brags about his European immigrant ancestors. Clueless and classless.
&mdash; Johanna K. (@JoSwedishMamma) <a href="https://twitter.com/JoSwedishMamma/status/1215444871495860224?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 10, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Wrote another: &#8220;Horrific. Utah used to be Mexico, yeah? And native before that? They should just say thank you and live and let live.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Horrific. Utah used to be Mexico, yeah? And native before that? They should just say thank you and live and let live.
&mdash; 𝚆𝚒𝚕𝚕𝚒𝚊𝚖 𝙻. 𝙳𝚘𝚖𝚖𝚎 (@Atypeofwriter) <a href="https://twitter.com/Atypeofwriter/status/1215410470317973507?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 9, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Others defended the plate as protected by the First Amendment.
&#8220;I don’t like the plate but I’m wary of curtailing speech,&#8221; wrote one Twitterer.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
I don’t like the plate but I’m wary of curtailing speech
&mdash; Scott Allen (@docscottallen) <a href="https://twitter.com/docscottallen/status/1215760156983586816?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 10, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Another Utah newspaper, the <a href="https://www.deseret.com/utah/2020/1/10/21060162/dmv-deport-m-license-plate-state-officials-reviewing-issue">D</a><a href="https://www.deseret.com/utah/2020/1/10/21060162/dmv-deport-m-license-plate-state-officials-reviewing-issue">eseret News</a>, interviewed Pacenza.
“I think there’s a wide range of opinions in Utah when it comes to an issue like immigration and that’s a good thing,” Pacenza told the paper. “I think it’s good to live in a place where we can express ourselves freely and have a diverse set of attitudes about complex issues, but it doesn’t feel like to me license plates are the right venue for that. And this particular issue just seemed unusually aggressive and confrontational.”
Sen. Luz Escamilla, a Democrat from Salt Lake City, said the license plate will be discussed at  Administrative Rules Review committee meeting on Wednesday. If the plate is recalled, the motorist will  be notified and must respond within 15 days and can either turn in the plates or file an appeal.
Kikuchi, meanwhile, said the committee will look at how the plate was approved and consider proposed rule changes.

Collection of license plates

State To Decide If THIS Is Allowed On License Plate

Illegal Immigration

Utah

Two men, dressed in black, wearing bandanas over their faces, and carrying duffel bags, interrupted a showing of the new free speech documentary, &#8220;No Safe Spaces,&#8221; Tuesday night, sparking concerns that Antifa or other groups are looking to intimidate moviegoers.
<a href="https://www.foxnews.com/media/no-safe-spaces-masked-men-police">Fox News reports</a> that La Habra, California, police officers responded to a call from a Regal theater showing the documentary film Tuesday afternoon, from moviegoers concerned about two &#8220;maked men&#8221; who entered the theater just as the previews ended. Customers, Fox says, felt that the two men were there to &#8220;intimidate&#8221; viewers, and that the pair had something &#8220;nefarious&#8221; planned.
“After all of the previews and ads were over and the movie was just starting, two thugs sporting hoodies, masks, sunglasses and carrying huge duffel bags ran, not walked, up the aisle and sat at the back of the theater right behind us. They looked like bank robbers, home invasion criminals… they were trying to act scary,” one witness told the network. “As you can imagine, I was nervous that they were planning something even more nefarious than just visual intimidation.&#8221;.
“When the manager went in to check on them they had removed all intimidating items. They knew what they were doing,” she continued. “Potential criminals got to stay while we had to leave because we were afraid they might do something violent. My son did not want to leave because he didn&#8217;t want them to succeed in their plan of intimidation and free speech suppression. But I told him a movie was not worth our lives in case they had weapons or something.”
La Habra police confirmed to Fox News that they were called to handle a situation at the Regal movie theater, but that no charges were filed. It is still unclear what, exactly, the two masked men were doing or whether they were affiliated with Antifa or any other group looking to block theater-goers from seeing &#8220;No Safe Spaces.&#8221;
Regardless of whether Antifa is involved, the documentary is definitely triggering social justice warriors, many of whom are among the villains in &#8220;No Safe Spaces,&#8221; which explores the degredation of free speech on college campuses and in other public forums. The film&#8217;s co-star, Dennis Prager of Prager University, spoke to Fox News on that very subject Wednesday.
&#8220;This story is quite angering, and an example of what is happening increasingly in America. I urge Americans to be courageous. It took courage for us to make this movie and now, apparently, it&#8217;s going to take courage for Americans to watch it,” he said. “America is the safe space in which we are supposed to be free to hear different ideas, including the ideas in this film, without fear of reprisal, and certainly without fear of physical harm.“
Prager hopes the film works as a &#8220;wake up call&#8221; for Americans who haven&#8217;t yet experienced censorship, and if these incidents continue, that they drive home the importance of standing up to intimidation.
“If I know anything about my fellow Americans, it is that we are not easily frightened by thugs. I urge America to reject the fear that these incidents are designed to engender; be courageous, and go see our movie in a theater. This incident is exactly why this movie is so important,&#8221; Prager added.

No Safe Spaces title art

‘Intimidating’ Masked Men Disrupt Showing Of Censorship Documentary ‘No Safe Spaces’

The Department of Justice (DOJ) on Monday filed a Statement of Interest in a federal lawsuit brought by a college student who says his First Amendment rights were denied.
The student, J. Michael Brown, sued his former college for stopping him from trying to spread the word about Young Americans for Liberty (YAL), a student organization with which he was involved. The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) filed <a href="https://www.thefire.org/complaint-brown-v-jones-county-junior-college/">a complaint</a> in U.S. District Court in September on behalf of Brown.
Brown was attending Jones County Junior College (JCJC) at the time of the incident, but has since transferred to the University of Southern Mississippi. The lawsuit says that campus police stopped Brown twice from exercising his free-speech rights. The first incident involved a large inflatable beach ball, which Brown and a former JCJC student who worked for YAL called a “free speech ball.” The two men placed the ball in a large, grassy, central area of campus and encouraged students to write messages of their choosing on the ball. When students wrote on the ball, Brown and the other former student spoke to them about free speech and other civil liberties. Brown and the former student remained with the ball for about an hour and in no way impeded students from moving around the campus. The two men then started moving the ball around campus, always in places that would not impede foot traffic. When the two placed the ball near the Administration Building, a JCJC staff person told them they needed prior approval for their activity.
The second incident involved Brown and another student holding up a sign to poll others on recreational marijuana. Campus police at that time told them they couldn’t do that as they had not sought prior permission for the activity.
“Some people get in trouble for smoking weed, but at Jones College, I got in trouble just for trying to talk about it,” Brown said in a statement at the time. “College is for cultivating thought and learning and encouraging civil discourse with your peers. That’s not what’s happening at Jones College.”
FIRE sent a letter to JCJC offering to help broaden First Amendment protections for students, but the school didn’t respond.
Now, Brown and YAL are getting some help from the DOJ, who filed a Statement of Interest opposing “repressive speech codes” on college campuses.
“The United States of America is not a police state,” said Assistant Attorney General Eric Dreiband for the Civil Rights Division in <a href="https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-files-statement-interest-supporting-campus-free-speech">a statement</a>. “Repressive speech codes are the indecent hallmark of despotic, totalitarian regimes. They have absolutely no place in our country, and the First Amendment outlaws all tyrannical policies, practices, and acts that abridge the freedom of speech.”
U.S. Attorney Mike Hurst for the Southern District of Mississippi and Education Secretary Betsy DeVos also weighed in on Brown’s lawsuit.
“Unconstitutional restrictions on our first freedoms to speak and assemble directly threaten our liberty as Americans,” Hurst said. “While some may disagree with the content of one’s speech, we should all be fighting for everyone’s Constitutional right to speak. I pray JCJC will do the right thing, change its policies to comply with the U.S. Constitution, and encourage its students to speak and assemble throughout our free state.”
DeVos added that Brown’s case was “yet another concerning example of students encountering limits on what, when, where, and how they learn.”
“This is happening far too often on our nation’s campuses. This Administration won’t let students be silenced. We stand with their right to speak and with their right to learn truth through the free exchange of ideas—particularly those with which they might disagree,” she added.

DOJ Stands Up For Campus Free Speech In Student’s Federal Lawsuit

Mississippi

On Wednesday, right-leaning political personality and <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/08/opinion/intellectual-dark-web.html">&#8220;Intellectual Dark Web&#8221;</a> icon Dave Rubin announced the launch of a previously teased venture whose goal is to combat the status quo of rampant Big Tech censorship, de-platforming, and de-monetization practices: <a href="https://locals.com">Locals.com</a>.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
If you’re a creator and you want to own your own community, set your own rules, post video and audio to a curated feed, chat with supporters, sell tickets to events, build your own network with other creators and much more, join us on <a href="https://t.co/WLIO0Cxwe0">https://t.co/WLIO0Cxwe0</a>
The future is now. <a href="https://t.co/JfSRcGbMDq">pic.twitter.com/JfSRcGbMDq</a>
&mdash; Dave Rubin (@RubinReport) <a href="https://twitter.com/RubinReport/status/1202288504006307841?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 4, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
With the tag line of &#8220;Own your community, Own your future,&#8221; Locals pitches itself to content creators as a one-stop &#8220;home for all your content&#8221; through which creators can &#8220;[p]ost videos, photos, podcasts, messages, and polls,&#8221; as well as &#8220;[s]ell tickets to events, and offer exclusive content to your supporters.&#8221; The site advertises that it can strengthen content creators&#8217; relationship with their fans by removing the Big Tech middlemen and serve as a networking/community hub by allowing content creators to easily and freely associate with others. Perhaps most importantly, Locals tells creators to &#8220;[s]et your own rules&#8221; for interaction, in marked distinction with the &#8220;inconsistent and unfair moderation&#8221; of Big Tech.
Rubin, who is currently the only person publicly identified with launching the Locals project, spoke exclusively with The Daily Wire for a wide-ranging interview about the origins and importance of Locals.
&#8220;Everyone knows there is a massive problem with Big Tech,&#8221; Rubin began. &#8220;We have all outsourced all of our ability to communicate with each other to these Big Tech behemoths — no one really owns their content or knows what their terms of service are.&#8221;
Creators have very little access to their own audiences, Rubin continued, because Big Tech companies are clearly manipulating their algorithms and engaging in clandestine shadow-banning-type behavior. With the status quo, content creators have no way of ensuring that they can actually reach all of their followers and subscribers.
&#8220;For someone like me, from a libertarian/classical liberal way of thinking,&#8221; Rubin went on, &#8220;it’s time to reverse this. It’s time for creators, who are the real drivers of social media — the people who are generating clicks and creating podcasts — to be in control. It&#8217;s time for a new model.&#8221;
Locals, Rubin explained, &#8220;is a community-based app and desktop website where you can post audio, post video, communicate with your fans, and so forth. It’s subscription-only, so that takes care of all the bots and trolls and anonymous haters. One of the reasons that everyone hates everything online is that you have smart people arguing with these pink fox anime avatars on Twitter.&#8221;
Rubin&#8217;s signature &#8220;Rubin Report&#8221; program is the very first Local, he said, and he promised that more big-name creators will be rolled out soon. It will be up to each content creator to decide how much to charge for access to his/her Local, beginning with as little as three dollars per month. Each Local not only sets his/her own rules, but also owns his/her users&#8217; data — &#8220;so that, even if you leave Locals,&#8221; Rubin noted, &#8220;you can still communicate directly&#8221; with your fans.
Suffice it to say this is a very different model than the one currently deployed by Big Tech giants like YouTube.
&#8220;There are so many people out there around the world who have all this great stuff to say, but these platforms are controlled by external platforms who manipulate,&#8221; Rubin said, coming to a crescendo. &#8220;I want to give every creator the chance to be truly independent. I created a tech company, not a platform.&#8221;
Combatting Big Tech censorship is an increasingly popular political agenda for the American Right. Freshman Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) has made taking on Big Tech a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/hammer-josh-hawleys-bill-taking-big-tech-josh-hammer">focal point of his first year</a> in office. Earlier this week, furthermore, numerous leading conservative thinkers co-signed an <a href="https://americanmind.org/essays/for-real-american-greatness-a-tech-new-deal/">essay</a> for the Claremont Institute&#8217;s American Mind online journal that called for a &#8220;Tech New Deal&#8221; intended to ultimately &#8220;ensure[] America can extend its greatness well into the digital age.&#8221;

Dave Rubin

Dave Rubin Launches ‘Locals,’ A New Venture To Combat Big Tech Censorship

Facebook

Intellectual Dark Web

Josh Hawley

Technology

Twitter

YouTube

At least 6.4 million students enrolled in America’s colleges and universities have their First Amendment rights restricted.
A new <a href="https://www.thefire.org/resources/spotlight/reports/spotlight-on-speech-codes-2020/?utm_source=FIRE_PRs&amp;utm_medium=email#executiveSummary">report</a> from the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) “surveyed publicly available policies at 366 four-year public institutions and 105 of the nation’s most prestigious private institutions.” The report, based on the policies of these 471 institutions, found that the vast majority of institutes either heavily restricted or marginally restricted students’ free speech rights. 
FIRE uses a three-tier system to indicate how much a college or university respects the First Amendment. A “red light” means the institution has at least one policy that clearly and substantially restricts students’ free speech rights in a way that is a clear threat to personal freedom without any need for interpretation. A “yellow light” means students have some free speech rights but may have vaguely worded policies that could restrict those rights, such as a policy banning “verbal abuse,” because of how subjective “abuse” could be. A “green light” is given to institutions that do not “seriously imperil speech.” It doesn’t mean the school is a beacon of free expression, but just that FIRE has not found any policies that present serious threats to free speech.
As is common in FIRE’s annual reports on free speech, only a small percentage of colleges an universities are given a “green light.” 2019’s report was the first time the organization gave a “green light” to more than 50 schools. Below are FIRE’s major findings:
<ol>
<li>
<blockquote>The percentage of schools earning an overall “<a href="https://www.thefire.org/resources/spotlight/using-the-spotlight-database/#red">red light</a>” rating in FIRE’s Spotlight database has gone down for the twelfth year in a row, this year to 24.2%. This is over a four percentage point drop from <a href="https://www.thefire.org/resources/spotlight/reports/spotlight-on-speech-codes-2019/">last year</a>, and is exactly 50 percentage points lower than the percentage of red light institutions in <a href="https://d28htnjz2elwuj.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/17121617/Spotlight-on-Speech-Codes-2009.pdf">FIRE’s 2009 report</a>.</blockquote>
</li>
<li>
<blockquote>The percentage of private universities earning a red light rating, which stood at 47.1% last year, continued to decrease, coming in at 44.8% this year.</blockquote>
</li>
<li>
<blockquote>63.9% of institutions now earn an overall “<a href="https://www.thefire.org/resources/spotlight/using-the-spotlight-database/#yellow">yellow light</a>” rating. Though less restrictive than red light policies, yellow light policies restrict expression that is protected under First Amendment standards and invite administrative abuse.</blockquote>
</li>
<li>
<blockquote>This is the first year since FIRE began rating speech codes that the list of “<a href="https://www.thefire.org/resources/spotlight/using-the-spotlight-database/#green">green light</a>” institutions reached a total of 50 schools. (Since this year’s report was written, two more universities have earned green light status, bringing the total to 52.) Policies earn a green light rating when they do not seriously threaten protected expression. Only eight institutions earned a green light rating in FIRE’s 2009 report.</blockquote>
</li>
<li>
<blockquote>8.3% of institutions surveyed maintain “free speech zone” policies, which limit student demonstrations and other expressive activities to small and/or out-of-the-way areas on campus. A <a href="https://www.thefire.org/infographic-free-speech-zones-on-americas-campuses-2">2013 FIRE survey</a> of these institutions found roughly double that percentage.</blockquote>
</li>
<li>
<blockquote><a href="https://www.thefire.org/chicago-statement-university-and-faculty-body-support/">Sixty-eight</a> university administrations or faculty bodies have now adopted policy statements in support of free speech <a href="https://www.thefire.org/cases/fire-launches-campaign-in-support-of-university-of-chicago-free-speech-statement/">modeled after</a> the “Report of the Committee on Freedom of Expression” at the University of Chicago (the “Chicago Statement”), released in January 2015. (Since this year’s report was written, two more institutions have adopted a version of the Chicago Statement, bringing the total to 70.)</blockquote>
</li>
</ol>
“Many college administrators are scrubbing the most egregious policies from the books, but they’re increasingly crafting subtler policies that still limit student expression,” FIRE Senior Program Officer Laura Beltz, the lead author of the study, said in a statement about the report. “Yellow light policies aren’t good enough — they still restrict protected speech. Colleges must go green or go back to the drawing board.”

REPORT: More Than Six Million American College Students Denied Free Speech Rights

A high school English teacher in Fort Worth, Texas, who was fired for tweeting President Donald Trump about illegal immigrant students at her school won an appeal last week.
The Texas Education Agency found that the teacher, Georgia Clark, is protected by her right to free speech and was wrongly fired.
According to <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/29/us/teacher-trump-tweets-reinstated.html?smid=fb-nytimes&amp;smtyp=cur&amp;fbclid=IwAR07NOusaiXtaedL5X1ccK0knrRC1lLjwjU6mhHOv7haIvnGrTBNDKC_NKk">The New York Times</a>, the state agency ruled that Clark &#8220;should be reinstated and get back pay and employment benefits, or instead of being allowed to return to her job, she could receive one year&#8217;s salary from the date she would have been reinstated.&#8221;
&#8220;The day the petitioner would have been reinstated is the day respondent tenders petitioner payment in full,&#8221; Texas Education Agency commissioner Mike Morath said in the ruling.
As noted by <a href="https://www.theblaze.com/news/texas-teacher-fired-for-voicing-support-for-trumps-immigration-policies-wins-appeal?utm_content=buffer8ea9b&amp;utm_medium=referral&amp;utm_source=twitter&amp;utm_campaign=tw-theblaze">The Blaz</a>e, the ruling also determined that the English teacher &#8220;&#8216;has been evaluated as an excellent teacher consistently throughout her employment&#8217; and that her tweets “constituted an expression of free speech.&#8221;
&#8220;Clark&#8217;s tweets are statements of a citizen on a matter of public concern protected by the United States Constitution and do not contravene or impair policies or proper performance of the district&#8217;s functions,&#8221; the agency noted.
Clark&#8217;s posted tweets in question, which were addressed to &#8220;Mr. President,&#8221; asked for laws to be enforced concerning illegal immigrants at the high school within the Fort Worth Independent School District.
According to the teacher, however, she was unaware that the posts were public, and she was apparently under the mistaken impression that she was sending a direct message to President Trump.
&#8220;Ms. Clark said that her school district was &#8216;loaded&#8217; with undocumented students from Mexico, that her high school had been &#8216;taken over by them&#8217; and that drug dealers had not been punished,&#8221; the Times reported on the series of tweets Clark sent on May 17. &#8220;She blamed an assistant principal, whom she referred to as a &#8216;Hispanic assistant principal who protects certain students from criminal prosecution.'&#8221;
On May 22, Clark posted to President Trump: “I really do need a contact here in Fort Worth who should be actively investigating and removing the illegals.&#8221;
In an interview with <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ueryO3bC_ZQ">WFAA</a> in September, Clark spoke out for the first time after being fired, and stressed that she wanted her job back for herself and for the students who need her.
&#8220;I want to work with students who truly need my help,&#8221; she told WFAA. &#8220;I need my job back, and those kids need me, too.&#8221;
&#8220;What do you say to Fort Worth&#8217;s Hispanic community?&#8221; Clark was asked, to which she responded: &#8220;If you need someone to help your child graduate, you&#8217;re looking at her right here.&#8221;
Asked if she regretted posting the tweets, Clark bluntly stated, &#8220;No, I don&#8217;t.&#8221;
&#8220;Frankly, God was saying, &#8216;It&#8217;s time, you need to do this now,'&#8221; she added.
As noted by the Times, the Forth Worth Independent School District said they will appeal the agency&#8217;s decision on Clark.
&#8220;We stand by our decision because we firmly believe this is in the best interests of all students,&#8221; said superintendent Kent Scribner in a statement.
WATCH:
<iframe title="Fort Worth ISD teacher fired for tweets to Trump speaks out as board discusses her job status" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/ueryO3bC_ZQ?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Fence with hole

Teacher Fired For Posting Opposition To Illegal Immigrant Students Wins Legal Victory

Chinese technology companies that are either partially owned by communist China or that have strong connections to China&#8217;s communist government are reportedly shaping new surveillance and facial recognition standards at the United Nations. The revelation comes as China announced that starting on Sunday telecom companies must collect facial scans when registering new phone users.
&#8220;Companies such as ZTE, Dahua and China Telecom are among those proposing new international standards — specifications aimed at creating universally consistent technology — in the UN’s International Telecommunication Union (ITU) for facial recognition, video monitoring, city and vehicle surveillance,&#8221; The Financial Times exclusively <a href="https://www.ft.com/content/c3555a3c-0d3e-11ea-b2d6-9bf4d1957a67">reported</a> after obtaining leaked documents.
Mehwish Ansari, who leads work on the issue at a digital human rights non-profit, said, “There are virtually no human rights, consumer protection, or data protection experts present in ITU standards meetings so many of the technologies that threaten privacy and freedom of expression remain unchallenged in these spaces. When it comes to facial recognition [these standards are] extremely dangerous from a human rights perspective.”
The report outlines how China takes advantage of nations, specifically developing nations in Africa, to spread its influence because the developing nations do not have the resources to develop surveillance and facial recognition standards on their own.
&#8220;Standards ratified in the ITU, which comprises nearly 200 member states, are commonly adopted as policy by developing nations in Africa, the Middle East and Asia, where the Chinese government has agreed to supply infrastructure and surveillance tech under its &#8216;Belt and Road Initiative,'&#8221; The Financial Times added.
Chinese communist leader Xi Jinping announced China&#8217;s &#8220;Belt and Road Initiative&#8221; (BRI) in 2013, which experts have said is among the most ambitious infrastructure projects ever attempted.
The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR)<a href="https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/chinas-massive-belt-and-road-initiative">reports</a>:
<blockquote>Xi’s vision included creating a vast network of railways, energy pipelines, highways, and streamlined border crossings, both westward—through the mountainous former Soviet republics—and southward, to Pakistan, India, and the rest of Southeast Asia. Such a network would expand the international use of Chinese currency, the renminbi, while new infrastructure could “break the bottleneck in Asian connectivity,” according to Xi. (The Asian Development Bank estimates that the region faces a yearly infrastructure financing shortfall of nearly $800 billion.) In addition to physical infrastructure, China plans to build fifty special economic zones, modeled after the Shenzhen Special Economic Zone, which China launched in 1980 during its economic reforms under leader Deng Xiaoping. &#8230;
&#8230;To accommodate expanding maritime trade traffic, China would invest in port development along the Indian Ocean, from Southeast Asia all the way to East Africa.</blockquote>
CFR noted that the Trump administration has pursued a more confrontational strategy in Asia to counter an increasingly aggressive communist China.
&#8220;China’s overall ambition for the BRI is staggering. To date, more than sixty countries—accounting for two-thirds of the world’s population—have signed on to projects or indicated an interest in doing so,&#8221; CFR added. &#8220;The United States shares the concern of some in Asia that the BRI could be a Trojan horse for China-led regional development, military expansion, and Beijing-controlled institutions. Under President Donald J. Trump, Washington has raised alarm over Beijing’s actions even as it has abandoned some U.S. efforts to isolate China and deepen its own ties with economic partners in the region.&#8221;
AFP <a href="https://news.yahoo.com/china-introduces-mandatory-face-scans-phone-users-091042257.html">reported</a> on Sunday that starting today, China will require telecom companies to collect face scans when registering new users to phones, which reportedly was met with alarm by Chinese citizens.
&#8220;Though the Chinese government has pushed for real-name registration for phone users since at least 2013 &#8212; meaning ID cards are linked to new phone numbers &#8212; the move to leverage AI comes as facial recognition technology gains traction across China where the tech is used for everything from supermarket checkouts to surveillance,&#8221; AFP reported.

Chinese Facial Recognition

China Spreads Its Surveillance Standards Worldwide, Unveils New Crackdown On Phone Users’ Privacy

China

Surveillance

German Chancellor Angela Merkel spoke out against free speech this week, suggesting the government can and should regulate what people say to keep society free.
Merkel, speaking at an event for the German Chamber of Industry and Commerce in Berlin, stumbled up the stairs before taking the podium and suggesting the government ban speech she considers “extreme” and decrying freedom of expression.
“We have freedom of expression in our country,” Merkel said. “For all those who claim that they can no longer express their opinion, I say this to them: If you express a pronounced opinion, you must live with the fact that you will be contradicted. Expressing an opinion does not come at zero cost.”
“But freedom of expression has its limits,” she continued. “Those limits begin where hatred is spread. They begin where the dignity of other people is violated. The house will and must oppose extreme speech. Otherwise our society will no longer be the free society that it was.”
Of course, determining what speech violates the dignity of other people is not something politicians or anyone else should be deciding, especially in today’s culture where liberals claim speech they disagree with is literally “violence” against them.
As Townhall <a href="https://townhall.com/tipsheet/bronsonstocking/2019/11/29/merkel-gives-speech-attacking-free-speech-n2557247">noted</a>, Germany passed a ban in 2018 that fined websites up to 50 million euros ($55 million) for not removing “hate speech” from their platforms quickly enough. The outlet also suggested Merkel’s attempts to suppress free speech were an effort to silence “<a href="https://townhall.com/columnists/nicholaswaddy/2018/10/01/the-decline-and-fall-of-angela-merkel-is-a-warning-sign-for-immigration-apologists-everywhere-n2524379">critics</a> of Merkel’s open-door immigration <a href="https://townhall.com/tipsheet/leahbarkoukis/2016/01/23/germany-doesnt-know-where-600000-migrants-are-n2108746">policies</a>.&#8221;
Indeed, if one is to talk about violating another person’s “dignity,” then Merkel’s policies toward immigration would be a prime example. Recall that on New Year’s Eve in 2015, upwards of 1,000 men <a href="https://nypost.com/2016/01/10/europe-is-enabling-a-rape-culture/">sexually assaulted women</a> on the streets in Germany. In the aftermath of the mass assaults, one German mayor blamed the women for being sexually assaulted, and the German government pledged to crackdown on those who criticize Muslim immigrants – who were accused of perpetrating the attacks.
The definition of “hate speech” and limitation thereof is not as clear cut as people may believe. This is why America’s First Amendment doesn’t have a “hate speech” exception. What is considered hate speech today may not have been considered so one hundred years ago, and what is acceptable today may not be acceptable in even 10 years, if current social justice trends are any indication.
Yet Europe continues to enact hate-speech laws that rest on the subjective analysis of those in positions of authority (and the most easily offended among us). For example, <a href="https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/county-in-uk-makes-it-a-hate-crime-to-upset-women">one county</a> in the United Kingdom made catcalls and pickup lines illegal by labeling them hate crimes. The definition of hate crime in that county was defined as, “<a href="http://www.newsweek.com/half-misogyny-twitter-comes-women-463691">Incidents against women</a> that are motivated by an attitude of a man towards a woman and includes behavior targeted towards a woman by men simply because they are a woman.&#8221;
These kinds of definitions plague anti-hate speech laws, as they open them up for abuse from those seeking attention and victimhood status.

Angela Merkel

Angela Merkel Says ‘Freedom Of Expression Has Its Limits,’ Must Be Regulated To Keep Society Free

Germany

Daily Wire Editor-at-Large Josh Hammer, who is a constitutional attorney by training, has the following piece today at the <a style="font-style: italic;" href="https://nypost.com/2019/11/26/why-trumps-ukraine-demands-werent-remotely-illegal/">New York Post</a>. It was adapted from an original <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/hammer-there-is-one-terrific-impeachment-defense-that-the-white-house-is-not-making">Daily Wire op-ed</a>.
For months, the White House, congressional Republicans and the conservative punditocracy have rebutted House Democrats’ impeachment efforts by arguing that President Trump’s July 25 phone call with his Ukrainian counterpart, Volodymyr Zelensky, <a href="https://nypost.com/2019/11/22/impeachment-inquiry-may-be-complicating-ukraines-burisma-probe/" data-reader-unique-id="2">didn’t amount to some nefarious “quid pro quo.”</a>
This strategy is mistaken. The “no quid pro quo” clash amounts to a semantic debate over a phone call transcript. And it is largely unpersuasive, on its own terms, and especially to the president’s haters.
Instead, there is a more intellectually compelling and politically potent line of argument that Trump and his defenders ought to adopt — free speech.
In 2014, a Texas grand jury indicted then-Gov. Rick Perry for supposedly abusing his official capacity when he threatened to withhold $7.5 million in funding for the Travis County district attorney’s public-integrity unit unless the troubled DA ­resigned her post.
Let’s call a spade a spade: This was a quid pro quo.
At the time, an illustrious and ideologically diverse group of legal scholars — ranging from former Judge Michael McConnell and former US Attorney General Michael Mukasey on the right to liberal free-speech champions Floyd Abrams and Alan Dershowitz on the left — argued that the First Amendment protects a governmental official’s right to threaten taking a lawful action to attain a preferred political outcome.
In a nutshell, they argued that Perry’s threat amounted to constitutionally protected “core political speech.”
The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, which is the Lone Star State’s highest court for criminal cases, agreed. “Public servants have a First Amendment right to engage in expression, even threats, regarding their official duties,” the court held. “Many threats that … public servants make as part of the normal functioning of government” would be criminalized under the special prosecutor’s legal theory, the court continued.
The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals’ rationale is neither partisan nor political; it is pure logic and common sense. And it was based on the crown jewel of our Constitution’s Bill of Rights: the First Amendment’s free-speech protection.
Fact is, the quid-pro-quo bogeyman is a routine occurrence in our day-to-day politics. The entire legislative premise of logrolling, a practice as old as Congress itself, is premised on quid-pro-quo arrangements.
In more modern times, before issuing his executive amnesty in 2014, President Barack Obama consistently threatened to use his “pen and phone” if Congress didn’t pass the laws he ­desired when it came to immigration policy. Similarly, committee chairmen routinely threaten to take away unruly lawmakers’ committee assignments if they fail to vote in accordance with congressional leadership’s desires.
To treat such cajoling as a high crime — and impeachable if the US president does it — would render governing impossible.
How can the duly elected president of the United States be removed from office for engaging in constitutionally protected speech aimed at getting a foreign leader to investigate corruption and past election meddling?
<a href="https://nypost.com/2019/11/26/why-trumps-ukraine-demands-werent-remotely-illegal/">Read the rest here.</a>

Trump rally Florida

Hammer At The ‘New York Post’: Why Trump’s Ukraine Demands Weren’t Remotely Illegal

Donald Trump

Impeachment

I have been <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/hammer-sondlands-testimony-reveals-the-error-of-the-white-houses-impeachment-defense-strategy">arguing</a> for <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/hammer-stop-calling-everything-impeachable-offense-josh-hammer">awhile</a> now that the White House, congressional Republicans, and Trump-friendly punditocracy alike ought to alter their predominant impeachment defense narrative. The &#8220;no quid pro quo&#8221; narrative amounts to tendentious semantic debate: Its ability to persuade is largely cabined, in Rorschach test-like fashion, to the universe of voters already predisposed toward Trump sympathy. It is preferable to make a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/hammer-sondlands-testimony-reveals-the-error-of-the-white-houses-impeachment-defense-strategy">substantive argument</a> that attaching corruption-related strings to the doling out of <a href="https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/articles-reports/2016/03/11/foreign-aid">politically unpopular</a> U.S. taxpayer-funded foreign aid simply does not rise to an &#8220;abuse or violation of some public trust,&#8221; as Alexander Hamilton&#8217;s defined the Constitution&#8217;s &#8220;high crimes and misdemeanors&#8221; impeachment criterion in <a href="https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed65.asp">The Federalist No. 65</a>.
But it is possible that there is an even more straightforward and politically palatable impeachment defense that does not necessarily entail accepting a certain view of foreign policy or foreign aid. The defense revolves around the nexus of political quid pro quos and constitutionally protected free speech.
As Texans will certainly remember, then-Governor Rick Perry was <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/16/us/gov-rick-perry-of-texas-is-indicted-over-veto-of-funds-for-das-office.html">indicted</a> in 2014 by a grand jury for abusing his official capacity when he threatened to withhold $7.5 million in funding for the Travis County district attorney&#8217;s Public Integrity Unit unless the district attorney, who had previously been convicted of drunk driving and subsequently incarcerated, resigned.
Sounds a lot like a quid pro quo, no?
At the time, the special prosecutor&#8217;s operative legal theory <a href="https://www.statesman.com/NEWS/20141112/Criminal-prosecution-of-Governor-Perry-is-an-outrage">required</a> that the First Amendment not protect a governmental actor&#8217;s right to threaten taking a lawful action in order to attain a preferred political outcome. If the special prosecutor were wrong, then Governor Perry&#8217;s attempted quid pro quo would hardly be illegal at all — it would actually be constitutionally protected speech.
At the time, powerful and ideologically <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp-content/uploads/sites/14/2015/11/amicus1.pdf">diverse group of attorneys argued</a> that the special prosecutor sought to criminalize constitutionally protected speech. The group included right-leaning legal luminaries such as law school professors Eugene Volokh and former Judge Michael McConnell, as well as former U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey. The group also includes historically liberal-leaning First Amendment scholars, such as Floyd Abrams and Alan Dershowitz. The counsel of record on this notable amicus brief was then-private attorney James C. Ho — for whom, in the interest of full disclosure, I served as a law clerk upon his successful nomination as a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
The amicus brief argued that &#8220;[a] political official has the right to threaten to perform an official act in order to persuade another government official to engage in some other official act.&#8221; It continued: &#8220;That is not a crime — it is core political speech.&#8221; Governor Perry&#8217;s quid pro quo with respect to withholding funds from the Travis County district attorney&#8217;s Public Integrity Unit, the brief contended, &#8220;is protected free expression, and the [g]overnor cannot be prosecuted for it.&#8221;
The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, which is the Lone Star State&#8217;s highest court for criminal cases, <a href="http://www.search.txcourts.gov/SearchMedia.aspx?MediaVersionID=68138db0-9e0e-4928-b39d-dd16cb47ddd8&amp;coa=coscca&amp;DT=OPINION&amp;MediaID=457489da-dfc2-4de6-a0b4-723dd35a014a">agreed</a>. &#8220;[P]ublic servants have a First Amendment right to engage in expression, even threats, regarding their official duties,&#8221; the Court held. &#8220;Many threats that &#8230; public servants make as part of the normal functioning of government&#8221; would be criminalized under the special prosecutor&#8217;s legal theory, the Court continued.
The Court&#8217;s rationale is not even remotely partisan or political; it is pure logic and common sense. Quid pro quos routinely happen in politics as a <a href="http://webhome.auburn.edu/~johnspm/gloss/logrolling.phtml">day-to-day reality</a> of politics. Before issuing his DAPA executive amnesty, President Barack Obama consistently threatened to use his &#8220;pen and phone&#8221; if Congress did not take the legislative action he desired. Unruly congressmen often have their committee assignments threatened by committee chairmen if they fail to vote in accordance with congressional leadership&#8217;s desires. Heck, does anyone think that neither House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) nor Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) engages in dozens of quid pro quos on a weekly basis as a rudimentary requirement of executing their chamber-wide leadership jobs?
The Trump impeachment defense should adopt this line of argumentation. How on earth can the president of the United States be impeached for engaging in constitutionally protected speech? How on earth can the president&#8217;s deployment of constitutionally protected speech, in the context of foreign policy, amount to an &#8220;abuse or violation of some public trust&#8221; that merits impeachment less than one year away from a presidential election? Has everyone in our politics who has engaged in a quid pro quo committed an offense that requires removal from office? If so, can we even have a functioning political system in the first instance?
A quid pro quo obviously cannot be conducted for personal pecuniary benefit — that would be bribery. But political exchanges for political value are utterly commonplace in our politics. Indeed, they ought to be uncontroversial. If this conduct is unlawful, then virtually everyone in Washington, D.C. should be in prison. And if this conduct is merely so unethical so as to require removal from office, then every president over at least the past century ought to have been impeached and every congressman in the current Congress ought to be voted out.
The most persuasive, politically wide-ranging, and tenable impeachment defense is therefore one that rests upon the crown jewel of our Bill of Rights: The First Amendment itself.

Trump White House lawn

HAMMER: There Is One Terrific Impeachment Defense That The White House Is Not Making

White House

&#8220;Saturday Night Live&#8221; alumnus Rob Schneider issued another blistering takedown of anti-free speech &#8220;totalitarians&#8221; on his Twitter over the weekend, blasting Big Tech for censoring content.
“Sorry to have to repeat this again: Free Speech is ALL speech. Even the speech that you find repugnant,” <a href="https://twitter.com/RobSchneider/status/1197959053055537153">Schneider tweeted</a>. “You are either for ALL of it or … you are for none of it. We don’t need people deciding FOR us what to think, see or hear. That’s a load of totalitarian crap.”
Schneider took particular issue with banning books that &#8220;question medical orthodoxy,&#8221; which stands in line with his <a href="https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/features/how-vaccines-autism-battle-continues-despite-scientific-consensus-924080">viewpoints critical of vaccinations</a>.
“Amazon is already banning books that dare question medical orthodoxy. Facebook, Google, YouTube bury information as well,&#8221; he continued. &#8220;The push within democratic societies to further restrict their own freedoms is a road we mustn’t take.”
Indeed, the anti-vaxxer movement took a major hit when Amazon Prime <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/amazon-prime-removes-anti-vaxxer-documentaries-paul-bois">removed several</a> documentaries from its platform.
Rob Schneider noted how free speech might seem chaotic, but stressed that a society without it would be monstrous.
“I know free speech and democracy create a mess out of society, people being able to express and spew whatever they want,” said Schneider. “But I can’t think of a better one. And I surely don’t want to live in a society where people decide for me what to think or watch or how I should interpret it.”
&#8220;I worry more that the suppression of free speech will lead to more horrors than the continued free flow of ideas; good AND bad. People can decide for themselves what ideas belong in the dustbin of history,&#8221; he continued.
“Silencing those we disagree with denies us the chance to question our preconceived notions. Either to reaffirm them or reassess them,” <a href="https://twitter.com/RobSchneider/status/1198269659268694018" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">he concluded.</a> “Our ideas need and should always be consistently challenged and reconsidered so we don’t merely end up as consensus group think.&#8221;
Schneider experienced his intellectual departure from the Democratic Party several years ago and has been seemingly waging a war on destructive political correctness ever since. In April of 2018, he took his former stomping grounds of “Saturday Night Live” to task for <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/29957/rob-schneider-leftist-politics-are-ruining-snl-paul-bois">ruining the show with leftist politics</a>.
“The fun of ‘Saturday Night Live’ was always you never knew which way they leaned politically,” Schneider told the New York Daily News at the time. “You kind of assumed they would lean more left and liberal, but now the cat’s out of the bag they are completely against Trump, which I think makes it less interesting because you know the direction the piece is going.”
In May of this year, Schneider <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/rob-schneider-blasts-democrats-pushing-orwellian-paul-bois">similarly blasted Big Tech giants</a> for colluding with Democrats to promote an “Orwellian nightmare of censorship.&#8221;
“We are in a real world Orwellian nightmare of censorship. Be careful who you label and smear today. You will be the smeared tomorrow,” <a href="https://twitter.com/RobSchneider/status/1124562222628237312" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Schneider wrote.</a>
“Free Speech is ALL SPEECH! The UK and Australia don’t have protected speech. And we are not protecting our 1st Amendment. #EternalVigilance,” he continued. &#8220;As America’s greatest linguist Noam Chomsky says, &#8216;Free Speech is ALL SPEECH. You’re either for ALL of it or NONE of it.’ ([Emphasis for] dummies).&#8221;

Ed Asner&#8217;s 90th Birthday Roast

Rob Schneider Blasts Free Speech ‘Totalitarians’

Saturday Night Live

Saturday Night Live (SNL)

The following is satirical.
As many of you may have noticed, the country is divided. For those of you who haven’t noticed: the country is divided. On one side is a revolutionary movement to eradicate the sins of the past by replacing them with slavery, poverty and perpetual rage. On the other side are people wondering why no one will just leave them alone.
To find common ground, we as Americans must learn how to discuss the issues. We must learn to do this as Americans because if we do it as Armenians or Lithuanians, we’ll just look ridiculous and have no idea what we’re saying.
So today, in an attempt to restore that national spirit of bright good will that used to exist in a few random Disney movies, I would like to offer some helpful tips on how to have a political debate.
Tip Number One. Always try to remember that reasonable people will disagree but if they disagree with you, they are hateful bigots who are trying to destroy everything that is good and true about this disgusting, racist country. And that’s not who we are. The best way to get them to see the light is to lean your face very close to theirs and scream accusations at them until someone in authority comes along and fires them. Then everything will be better.
Tip Number Two. Don’t forget, no matter how passionately you may believe in something, there are two sides to every issue: your side and the side that you and a hundred other people wearing masks and armed with batons are chasing across campus so that you can terrorize and beat them in the name of equality. After that, there will only be one side and you can forget tip number two.
And Tip Number Three. When you hear opinions you don’t like, keep repeating to yourself, “It’s a free country,” while you do everything you can to rectify that.
Using these simple tips, you’ll soon be able to end the nation’s division. And the nation.
Related: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/watch-hecklers-disrupt-shapiro-speech-he-points-out-their-terrible-timing">WATCH: Protesters Disrupt Shapiro Speech; He Points Out Their Terrible Timing</a>

Megaphone

How To Have A Civil Debate Until Your Opponent Is Dead [Satire]

Satire

I recognized that look in their eyes. It was the same look I received several times throughout my service with the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) in Judea and Samaria. A look that showed the trauma of years of anti-Semitic indoctrination. When I was a soldier, I understood that look. After all, these Palestinian teens in Judea and Samaria had been, throughout their entire lives, led to believe that Jews were European colonialists who had no connection to the land and had orchestrated the displacement of the Palestinian people in 1948. I could at least understand the logic behind that look.
Receiving it by nearly one hundred students in the University of Florida on <a href="https://www.facebook.com/events/958292104537679/">November 19th</a> completely disoriented me. A similar look, with the only difference being that it was driven by the adoption of false information about the conflict and not necessarily blatant anti-Semitism.
These students did not know me. They did not know my story, and they were definitely not interested in dialogue. Had they been interested in a discussion filled with opportunities to challenge my premises, perhaps they would have stayed and listen to my ultimate message:
We need to humanize Palestinians. The way we will humanize Palestinians is by making a very clear distinction between the people and the leadership. Then we can hold the leadership accountable for repressing its own population for decades and refusing to abandon the rejectionist attitudes towards peace with a Jewish state. An attitude that, if abandoned, could have granted the Palestinian people a state as far back as 1937 with the <a href="https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/the-peel-commission">Peel Commission</a>. That is what my presentation, “Why There is No Palestinian State,” sought to discuss.
As the majority of students participated in the protest and walked out of the room, nearly thirty students stayed behind, eager to find out more. Among the students who stayed were two reporters for the school’s newspaper, The Independent Alligator, and I rejoiced. I thought perhaps those who decided to walk out of the room because the content of the presentation would challenge their preconceived notions would discover that my intentions were to use objective historical truths to engage in meaningful dialogue.
The protestors decided to hold a vigil for Palestinians who had died in Gaza after Israeli air attacks during armed escalation that was recently ended by a temporary ceasefire between Israel and Palestinian Islamic Jihad. Had the protestors stayed for the Q&amp;A session, they would have learned about how civilians in Gaza are used as human shields. They would have learned that Israeli airstrikes only served as a form of retaliation against a terrorist organization that was targeting Israeli civilians indiscriminately with a barrage of over 350 <a href="https://www.timesofisrael.com/idf-hits-islamic-jihad-launchpads-as-over-200-rockets-fired-into-israel/">rockets</a>.
But the role of the Palestinian leadership as an obstacle to peace is an inconvenient truth.
I offered the reporters a full interview after my speaking engagement. I answered all their questions with the outmost transparency; after all, they were professional enough to stay throughout my entire presentation and listen to what I had come to say. I was questioned about my experience in the army and the message I sought to leave the audience with my presentation. After a long night, I returned to my hotel and woke up early the next morning to see the article: “Hundreds protest Israel Defense Forces speaker at Little Hall Tuesday night,” <a href="https://www.alligator.org/news/hundreds-protest-israel-defense-forces-speaker-at-little-hall-tuesday/article_c8698c78-0b4a-11ea-92d7-e7720dcad3b9.html">published</a>. The title, blatantly inaccurate, set the tone for a piece of writing that violated basic journalistic ethical norms. Not only were my quotes largely ignored or cut in half, but the article was dedicated to quoting the students who decided to storm out of the room without hearing a word out of my mouth.
Twelve thousand dollars. That is the average amount paid by students at the University of Florida for <a href="https://www.ufl.edu/">tuition</a> after financial aid is applied. Nearing $50,000 per bachelor’s degree, one has to wonder — what type of education are the students who walked out interested in receiving? Do they want to remain in a social bubble that will continue to serve as an echo chamber for all their preconceived notions — even if they are erroneous?
More importantly, did the newspaper achieve its purpose of shedding light unto a story or did it perpetuate darkness and ignorance by refusing to publish the content of the presentation they had come to hear? The authors of this horrendous article not only failed to uphold journalistic ethics, but they also failed their own student body.
Towards the end of my interview with The Independent Alligator, I was asked:
“What message would you like to give to all those students who walked out in the protest?”
Despite the clear attempts to silence my message, I will answer that question now.
My message to the nearly one hundred students — not hundreds, as it was inaccurately described by the paper — who walked out is simple:
If you are planning to go into debt for at least five to ten years after you complete your undergraduate education, at least have the courage to challenge your own positions. Your conviction was not proven by your decision to preemptively exit the room before I began speaking; rather, it would have been proven if your positions would have remained the same after hearing everything I came to say.
I would hope that the school’s administration might consider the negative implications of this protest and take this as an opportunity to encourage its students to accept the principal factor guiding all of academia: Open-mindedness.
&nbsp;
<a style="font-style: italic;" href="https://yonimichanie.org">Yoni Michanie</a> is a former IDF Paratrooper and has a MA in Diplomacy and International Security from IDC Hertzeliya. He is an Israel advocate, public speaker, Middle East analyst, and is campus advisor and strategic planner for the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting and Analysis (CAMERA).

Menu