‘Fascists’: Democrats launch another campaign to silence Rush Limbaugh

http://twitter.com/#!/michellemalkin/status/511994714481262592

Hey look, the Democrats are ginning up a mob trying to silence a private citizen’s free speech … again.

.@IsraelDCCC: Limbaugh "should be taken off the air immediately." Agree? Add your name. http://t.co/o5QHHrHWxQ pic.twitter.com/1V3ZmU7ako

— DCCC (@dccc) September 16, 2014

Limbaugh on sexual assault and consent: “no means yes if you know how to spot it.” Time to show him he's wrong. → http://t.co/uQPGhiA8pX

— DCCC (@dccc) September 16, 2014

We’re sure that the folks at the DCCC also have plans to call for the silencing of CeeLo Green.

‘I’d never condone the harm of any women’: CeeLo Green apologizes for offensive tweets after deleting

CeeLo Green apologizes for rape tweets ‘attributed to him’

Wait, they don’t? That’s odd. They seem so principled about this war on women thing.

This latest “stop Rush” attempt couldn’t just be about harvesting the mob’s email addresses so that Nancy Pelosi can hit them up for money, could it?  Make the laughing stop’: Jonah Goldberg shares another desperate Pelosi fundraising email

Fundraising off the promise of silencing a media figure. Such an open minded lot, these Democrats.

@dccc @IsraelDCCC blatant violation of the 1st Amendment

— C.D. (@WisePolitick) September 16, 2014

War on free speech continues RT @dccc .@IsraelDCCC: Limbaugh "should be taken off the air immediately." Agree? Add your name.

— S.M (@redsteeze) September 16, 2014

.@dccc @IsraelDCCC What other private citizens would you like to silence while you're at it? Fascists

— S.M (@redsteeze) September 16, 2014

Undesirables will be made to agree! RT @dccc: .@IsraelDCCC: Limbaugh "should be taken off the air immediately." Agree? Add your name.

— L (@OrwellForks) September 16, 2014

@michellemalkin It always helps Rush, too. So absurd.

— Melissa Clouthier (@MelissaTweets) September 16, 2014

You @dccc speech-squelchers never learn. Rush Derangement Syndrome always fails. Flashback ==> http://t.co/s88D9Kyjuw

— Michelle Malkin (@michellemalkin) September 16, 2014

@michellemalkin got nothing else. #ForTheBase

— LadyLovesLiberty (@jsmar) September 16, 2014

@michellemalkin That's how Dems are. When they are losing, they do anything the can to distract.

— Kristopher Chavez (@KrisChavez92) September 16, 2014

@michellemalkin if its not Rush its Bush, how about just Shush!

— Yardonna (@yardonna) September 16, 2014

Heh.

***

Related

‘I’d never condone the harm of any women’: CeeLo Green apologizes for offensive tweets after deleting

CeeLo Green apologizes for rape tweets ‘attributed to him’

People who don’t listen to Rush Limbaugh are outraged by something he didn’t say. Again.

Confirmed: Obama still thinks ‘but Rush Limbaugh!’ is a winning strategy

Read more: http://twitchy.com/2014/09/16/fascists-democrats-launch-another-campaign-to-silence-rush-limbaugh/

Professor apologizes for his part in bringing about the ‘very real pain’ caused by Charles Murray visit

It’s been well over a month sinceCharles Murray, the political scientist, author,and Southern Poverty Law Center“extremist file” subject, attempted to speak at Middlebury College and instead was“physically and violently confronted by a group of protestors.” There was real pain felt at the event: as Murray anda Middlebury professor tried to leave campus, demonstrators pulled the professor’shair and twisted her neck, sending her to the hospital.

That’s not the sort of pain that another Middlebury assistant professor was talking about when he posted an apology online last week.

Read more: http://twitchy.com/brettt-3136/2017/04/24/professor-apologizes-for-his-part-in-bringing-about-the-very-real-pain-caused-by-charles-murray-visit/

Joyce Carol Oates suggests Bill Maher look into complexity of free speech issue before slamming Berkeley

Bill Maher exercises his freedom of speech a lot more than we’d like him to, but he’s dead-on in his assessment of the University of California, Berkeley, and its apparent inability to host “controversial” (i.e., conservative) speakers without being shamed into finding aspace safe enough to allow free expression on campus.

Read more: http://twitchy.com/brettt-3136/2017/04/22/joyce-carol-oates-suggests-bill-maher-look-into-complexity-of-free-speech-issue-before-slamming-berkeley/

Adam Carolla, Ben Shapiro tell Congress of ‘dangerous and inane’ anti-free speech efforts on campus

The U.S. House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform on Thursday morning heard from comedian Adam Carolla andDaily Wire editor-in-chief Ben Shapiro on “Challenges to Freedom of Speech on College Campuses.”

Read more: http://twitchy.com/brettt-3136/2017/07/27/adam-carolla-ben-shapiro-tell-congress-of-dangerous-and-inane-anti-free-speech-efforts-on-campus/

Puh-LEEZE! Newsweek hammered for spin on how Berkeley ‘holds the peace’

Ann Coulter’s planned speech at Berkeley was canceled due to “security concerns,” and yesterday the campus protest was mostly nonviolent. Newsweek put it this way:

Read more: http://twitchy.com/dougp-3137/2017/04/28/puh-leeze-newsweek-hammered-for-spin-on-how-berkeley-holds-the-peace/

Dear Millennials, Stop Trying To Control Free Speech

Dear Millennials,

We need to talk.

I’d like to start by saying I’m proud to count myself a member of not only the largest and most diverse generation in US history but also one of the most socially conscious.

We’re an optimistic generation caring deeply about the world and, particularly, equality and justice. It’s inspiring to be a part of such a dynamic and passionate group.

But, sometimes, people take their passions for causes, even good ones, too far. I’m very concerned so many Millennials are seemingly supportive of limiting free speech as this could have immense consequences for public discourse and the education of future generations.

According to Pew Research Center, 40 percent of Millennials believe the government should be allowed to prevent speech offensive to minorities.

Comparatively, only 27 percent of people aged 35 to 50 agree such a policy should be implemented, and support for it diminishes even further with older generations.

On college campuses, these sentiments appear to be even stronger. Catherine Rampell of The Washington Post recently stated,

Todays students are indeed both more left wing and more openly hostile to free speech than earlier generations of collegians.

For 50 years, the Higher Education Research Institute at the University of California, Los Angeles surveyed incoming college freshmen about their majors and political perspectives. The 2015 survey looked at 141,189 full-time first year students at nearly200 public and private baccalaureate institutions around the country.

Of the freshmen surveyed this past fall, around 71 percent expressed support for the notion “colleges should prohibit racist/sexist speech on campus.

Students were asked to give their views on this issue in the past, but this is the highest level of support ever recorded for such a policy.

It seems this generation is more comfortable with policing free speech than any that came before it.

For those of you who might think banning offensive speech would be beneficial, I understand where you’re coming from as I too would like to live in a tolerant and progressive society where people are not oppressed and ostracized via hurtful language.

But, I’m not sure if you’re considering the broader implications of supporting limits on free speech and how treacherous a road it can be.

Protecting free speech is essential to the health of any democracy, and just because we don’t like what someone is saying doesn’t mean we can or should prevent him or her from saying it.

In the late 1970s, the American Civil Liberties Union, among the most respected non-partisan organizations in the US, took one of the most controversial stances in its history.

The ACLU is known for its unwavering defense of individual rights and liberties, particularly those of minorities. In 1977, it shocked the country when it made the bold decision to defendthe rights of a neo-Nazi group that wanted to march through Skokie, Illinois, a Chicago suburb where a large population of Holocaust survivors lived.

Why would the ACLU stand in defense of such an abhorrent cause? It did for one simple yet profound reason: It believed free speech(and the right to assembly) should not be limited under any circumstances.

The residents of Skokie attempted to prevent the march, arguing it would “incite or promote hatred against persons of Jewish faith or ancestry” and could lead to violent backlash.

Ultimately, the ACLU won the case, which went all the way to the US Supreme Court, but the neo-Nazis never marched through Skokie. Regardless, this stands as one of the most powerful defenses of free speech in US history.

The ACLU defended the neo-Nazis by invoking laws it citedduring the Civil Rights era on behalf of protestors when cities in the American South attempted to prevent civil rights marches by arguing these events would instigate violence and public disruption.

In doing so, the ACLU reminded the country if you prevent one group from marching because you don’t like what it stands for, you set a precedent in which all groups are in danger of being silenced and denied fundamental rights.

Geoffrey R. Stone is currently the Edward H. Levi Distinguished Service Professor at the University of Chicago. Back in the late ’70s, when he was a young law professor, he assisted the ACLU with the Skokie case.

In an article forHuffington Post, he explained,

If the village of Skokie had won… then southern communities who wanted to prosecute civil rights marchers in Selma, Montgomery and Birmingham could equally do so, on the plea that such demonstrations would trigger ‘uncontrollable violence.’

Moreover, once government gives in to such threats of violence it effectively invites a ‘heckler’s veto,’ empowering any group of people who want to silence others to do so simply by threatening to violate the law.

What’s deemed appropriate in terms of public expression is often determined by those in power.

Throughout history, those with power oppressed countless groups by contending their languages or forms of expression were dangerous to the public good.

Indeed, limiting free speech has long been a tool of totalitarian regimes, used to quell opposition and dissent. But such actionsonly served to stifle the intellectual development of societies and force people to live in fear of being their truest selves.

Correspondingly, we must note the surest means of preventing recurrences of past atrocities are via education. This inevitably involves discussing hateful words and rhetoric.

Students might find such language offensive, but their personal feelings are ultimately not as important as ensuring we all fully comprehend the horrors of such institutions as enslavement in the US or such abhorrent events as the Holocaust.

The most well-known political phrase surrounding the Holocaust is “never forget” as remembrance (education) is the world’s most powerful weapon against future instances of genocide and other crimes against humanity.

Progress is impossible without bearing a certain level of pain and discomfort — no one ever said it would be easy.

Hate speech is, indeed, despicable, and it would be nice to live in a society in which all people spoke to each other with dignity and respect.

But when you begin banningcertain phrases or words from public discussion, you risk going down a path of alienating and oppressing large segments of society.

Simply put, by attempting to enforceabsolute tolerance, you become a perpetrator of intolerance.

We live in an exceptionally diverse country — not just demographically but also in terms of viewpoints.

A lot of Americans have different values and simply don’t see eye to eye on many issues. But, there’s absolutely nothing wrong with that; it makes us a stronger and more balanced society.

America progresses when people from drastically different backgrounds come together, acknowledge their differences and work toward compromise.

Limiting free speech is the antithesis of compromise and collaboration. It’s based on disagreement and is inherently regressive.

The US Constitutionprotects freedom of speech. It’s perhapsthe most fundamental American right and value. We shouldn’t seek to impose our own convictions upon it as we’re all only human and tremendously flawed.

You might disagree, but your viewpointsaren’t sacrosanct, and there’s nothing more important than open dialogue if we have any hope of establishing a truly free and tolerant society.

Embrace communication. It’s easy to talk to people who agree with you. It’s much more difficult yet far more beneficial to find a way to talk to those with whom you disagree.

Sincerely,

A concerned (but hopeful) fellow member of your generation



Subscribe to Elite Dailys official newsletter,The Edge, for more stories you don’t want to miss.

Read more: http://elitedaily.com/news/politics/millennials-stop-control-free-speech/1383987/

Free speech? Cal Berkeley petitioning to ban Bill Maher from graduation

http://twitter.com/#!/samwisejams/status/527083584856010754

As Twitchy has been reporting, libs are quite angry at HBO host Bill Maher for his recent comments on Islamic extremism, but this controversy just ratcheted up a notch with students at the University of California, Berkeley now petitioning the university to withdraw its invitation for Maher to speak at the its fall commencement ceremony:

More details on the petition from the Daily Californian:

Students spring into opposition after Bill Maher announced as keynote speaker

In response to an announcement last week that comedian Bill Maher would speak at UC Berkeley’s fall commencement, an online petition started circulating Thursday that demanded that the campus rescind its invitation.

The Change.org petition was authored by ASUC Senator Marium Navid, who is backed by the Middle Eastern, Muslim and South Asian Coalition, or MEMSA, and Khwaja Ahmed, an active MEMSA member. The petition, which urges students to boycott the decision and asks the campus to stop him from speaking, has already gathered more than 1,400 signatures as of Sunday.

Ban Bill!!! And if you think it’s hypocritical for a liberal university to to censor Maher’s speech, you’re wrong, at least according to the petition’s author,  Marium Navid:

“It’s not an issue of freedom of speech, it’s a matter of campus climate,” Navid said. “The First Amendment gives him the right to speak his mind, but it doesn’t give him the right to speak at such an elevated platform as the commencement. That’s a privilege his racist and bigoted remarks don’t give him.”

Not free speech? Unbelievable:

Nah. Banning free speech is more “liberal” we guess.

More reaction:

Let’s end it with this:

Well said, and nor should anyone.

Related:

‘I want to set so many things on fire right now’: Bill Maher calls Michael Brown no ‘gentle giant’

Max Fisher, Vox slammed for their ‘straw man’ attack on Bill Maher

Bill Maher ‘nails’ it on liberal Western culture vs. Islamic extremism

Can Bill Maher mock President Obama for saying the Islamic State isn’t Islamic? Yes he can!

Read more: http://twitchy.com/2014/10/28/bastion-of-free-speech-cal-berkeley-petitioning-to-ban-bill-maher-from-speaking-at-graduation/