Speech, Part IV (No, Florida's Parental Rights in Education Is Not Anti-Speech)

Let me be clear.  There is a huge difference between censoring speech that adults may hear, and protecting children, especially the youngest children, from speech that is entirely inappropriate.  The Florida Parental Rights in Education law has been dubbed the "Don't Say Gay" law by the Left, even though the word "gay" is not in the law.  But nothing stops the Left from advancing their agenda, no matter the number of lies needed.

Florida's law says this:  "Classroom instruction by school personnel or third parties on sexual orientation or gender identity may not occur in kindergarten through grade 3 or in a manner that is not age appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students in accordance with state standards."  Protecting children from being sexualized is not anti-speech.  It is protecting children.  

But here is a proposed New Jersey Gender Identity lesson plan.  "You might feel like you're a girl even if you have body parts that some people might tell you are 'boy' parts."  What?  I assume the reference is to a penis.  Now, only "some people" believe that a penis is a boy part.  This is the insanity of the Left.  You can forget about "following the science."  No, for the Left we now have "birthing people," because everyone knows both men and women are capable of getting pregnant and giving birth.  

And, of course, the proposed NJ lesson plan tells girls:  "You might feel like you're a boy even if you have body parts that some people might tell you are 'girl' parts."  Because a vagina is no more a girl's part than a penis is a boy's part.  These are very sick people - and Florida is trying to protect children from them.

Of course, the California Governor, Gavin Newsom, disagrees with Florida's Governor DeSantis.  Here's Newsom:  "Hurting children isn't just un-American, it's monstrous."  I agree.  Sadly, however, Newsom and the rest of the Left do not understand what truly is monstrous.  Here's President Biden:  "Our LGBTQI+ youth deserve to be affirmed and accepted just as they are."  I agree with Biden also - but again, not the way he might think.  I'm not sure what all the latest add-ons are.  

Nevertheless, every right thinking person would agree that all people should be treated with respect.  And that kids, and adults, should not be bullied.  The question is - what is appropriate to teach the youngest children.  I prefer to stick with reading, writing and arithmetic.  And, if it is determined that it is the teacher's role to discuss sexual orientation to the youngest children (why?) then there are multiple other ways that the teachers can make themselves available, besides making the subject matter part of classroom instruction.  

Here is a description of another bill signed into law by Governor DeSantis, per CNN.  "Students and employees can't be told they must feel guilt, anguish, or other forms of psychological distress because of actions, in which the individual played no part, committed in the past by other members of the same race, color, sex, or national origin."  Imagine that.

If I had school age children there is no way I would send them to today's public schools - unless we lived in Florida.  

   

Speech, Part III (I Am Not Making This Up)

First, we had former President Obama's speech at Stanford on "disinformation."  Obama:  "I'm pretty close to a First Amendment absolutist...that said, the First Amendment is a check on the powers of the state."  Obama then explained how the First Amendment does not apply to private companies, such as Facebook, Twitter, the New York Times and Fox.  

Then, Obama said this:  "...tech companies need to be more transparent about how they operate.  So much of the conversation around disinformation is focused on what people post.  The bigger issue is what content these platforms promote."  And this:  "In a democracy, we can rightly expect companies to subject the design of their products and services to some level of scrutiny."  

I have my own issues with these social media tech companies frequently suspending or banning conservative speech.  But, Obama should not be claiming to be "pretty close to a First Amendment absolutist," when he asserts a need for "scrutiny," and apparently for regulation.  I also have an issue with the content promoted by the platforms of the New York Times, the Washington Post and the rest of the mainstream media.    

Although, I am curious about Obama claiming in 2013, "if you like your health plan, you can keep it."  Politifact called that the "lie of the year."  And that was just one of many lies told by Obama.  Yet, I do not recall Obama facing any consequences for his spreading disinformation. 

But now that Elon Musk has purchased Twitter, the Biden Administration, and the Department of Homeland Security, have announced the creation of the "Disinformation Governance Board."  If you think that sounds like something out of a George Orwell novel, you are not alone.  But, as I said, I am not making this up.  Although I wish I was.  The person heading up this Ministry of Truth will be Nina Jankowicz, described as a "Russian disinformation specialist."

After NPR asserted that "women face disproportionate attacks online," Ms. Jankowicz Tweeted:  "I shudder to think about if free speech absolutists were taking over more platforms, what that would look like for the marginalized communities...which are already shouldering...disproportionate amounts of this abuse."  Ms. Jankowicz also referred to the Hunter Biden laptop as a "Trump campaign product."  Wait...did the head of the Disinformation Governance Board spread disinformation?  Hmmm.  

The Daily Mail reported that the Board would fight disinformation before the November midterms, especially in Hispanic communities.  Not to be suspicious, or anything, but I wonder if the focus on Hispanic communities might be because, thanks to Trump, Hispanics have been increasingly gravitating towards the Republican party and away from the Democrats.  But no fear, the Biden Administration will be spending money to combat that disinformation.  

I cannot help but wonder if the money will be spent on "public service announcements" that, coincidentally, mimic Democrat talking points.

  

  

Speech, Part II (Medical "Disinformation")

At least some lawmakers in California want to dictate what your doctor is allowed to tell you.  With proposed legislation, doctors could be disciplined for spreading "misinformation" about Covid, the effectiveness of vaccines and other treatments.  What would constitute "misinformation?"  Apparently, opinions that veer from the "standard of care," and do not comport with "contemporary scientific consensus."  

Before you suggest that medical science has evolved countless times over the decades and centuries, allow me to assure you that openness to new ideas is not a value that is shared by the Left.  As a reminder, Leftists run the state of California.  And, as noted in the preceding post, only certain speech is favored by Left.  Contrary voices are not welcome.

Here is one doctor's letter in the Wall Street Journal:  "Medical science is ever changing.  Today's contrarian concepts often are tomorrow's standards of care."  

Here is another doctor's letter:  "Every innovation in medicine goes against existing standards of care.  Today's standard becomes substandard as new treatments develop.  Medicine progresses when doctors have the freedom to practice their profession without interference from political agendas."

The Left has infected medical schools as well.  Writes one doctor in an Op-Ed in the 4/19/22 WSJ:  "Medical schools increasingly are preparing physicians for social activism at the expense of medical science.  Such student groups as White Coats for Black Lives demand that administrators reframe curriculum around reparations for slavery, decarceration of prisoners, and other topics with no bearing on training doctors to care for individual patients."   

Maybe one day soon you can walk into your doctor's office in California, be taken to an examination room, and be told "your state legislator will be in to see you shortly."

Speech, Part I (Twitter)

I am not on Twitter.  However, I find it comical that the hypocrites and liars of the Left are acting as twits (pun intended) over the purchase of Twitter by Elon Musk.  Musk says he wants to open up Twitter to more speech, not ban speech.  Elizabeth Warren was quite troubled by the deal.  Warren:  "This deal is dangerous for democracy."  Honestly, it is difficult to tolerate such blatant lying by those who do not favor democracy.

Here are some questions for Warren:  were you outraged when Twitter suspended the account of the New York Post, after that media outlet broke the Hunter Biden laptop story?  Were you outraged that most of the mainstream media referred to the story as "Russian disinformation?"  Did you say anything after the New York Times confirmed that the story about the laptop was legitimate, and not Russian disinformation?  How concerned were you when the effort to delegitimize the Post story about the laptop - before the 2020 election - may have actually thrown that election to Biden?    

Here was part of one letter to the editor in the New York Times:  "But what we have not heard from him (Musk), so far, is whether he will adhere to ethical standards embraced by mainstream newspapers and, to a lesser extent, social media (Facebook et al.)."  That one sentence tells us just how brainwashed those who rely upon the mainstream media are.  Ethical standards?  This blog has recounted dozens of times just some of the many lies told by the mainstream media.  By what ethical standards was the mainstream media operating under when it engaged in non-stop fabrications about the "Russian collusion" story?

Here is part of another letter to the New York Times:  "What Mr. Musk, a politically naive libertarian, apparently does not understand is that a platform that allows big lies to propagate may be supporting 'free speech' in the short term, but will end it - along with our democracy - in the long term."  What can we learn from this brainwashed individual?  Like so many on the left, it is taken for granted that any conservative speech, any speech that does not track with the Democratic Party line, is a threat to democracy.  Those on the Left actually believe that.   

That attitude about speech - the less speech, the better - is strictly a left-wing attitude.  Classical liberals, of which there are few currently, always believed in more speech.  They believed in debate.  (Classical liberals actually share many values with conservatives.  Leftists do not share the values of either liberals or conservatives.)  But we have seen time after time after time how often the Left seeks to shut down speech that is "offensive" to their worldview.  We have seen it happen on college campuses, on social media, on TV and in the mainstream media.  And, the Left always categorizes speech to which they object in some negative fashion - a threat to democracy, racist, sexist, Islamophobic, xenophobic etc., etc.  Delegitimizing the speech in that fashion makes it inherently objectionable.  

It is worth repeating here a quote from the 7/17/16 post (Classical Liberalism) by John Stuart Mill, a 19th century classical liberal:  "If all of mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind." 

But one letter to the New York Times had it right:  "I never cease to be stunned by those in the journalism business who feel threatened by the prospect of...freer speech."  And this:  "How is it remotely better with 'experts' determining community standards, how to protect those who get offended, what is appropriate speech, who should be heard, who should be banned, etc."  The very notion of having "experts" dictating what we should hear or read, is completely contrary to our notion of free speech and liberty.     

A New Wave of Terrorism Strikes Israel

In the last three weeks Israel has been suffering from another wave of terrorist attacks.  The attacks have occurred in various cities throughout the country - Beersheba, Hadera, Bnei Brak and Tel Aviv.  Fourteen have been killed.  The Sunday New York Times had a half page article discussing the recent terror attacks.  In the first paragraph of that lengthy article we learn that the Palestinians view the attacks as "a logical consequence of the entrenchment of Israel's 55-year occupation of the West Bank, of Israel's control over sensitive religious sites in Jerusalem, and of the dwindling commitment from some key Arab leaders to the creation of a Palestinian state."

For those familiar with the left-wing slant of the Times, it should be no surprise that the article starts out with false justifications for the latest terror attacks.  The "dwindling commitment" from key Arab leaders is because they are tired of the Palestinians having rejected offer after offer to have their own state.  These Arab leaders have greater concerns, such as the rise of the Iranian hegemony over the Middle East - a concern that they share with Israel.  They now see Israel as an ally against Iran, and also want to benefit both from trade with Israel and from Israeli technology.

"Israel's control over sensitive religious sites in Jerusalem?"  Is the Times ignoring the fact that, under Israeli control, all religions have access to their holy sites in Jerusalem?  Which is unlike the period of time when Jordan controlled Jerusalem from 1949 to 1967, with Jews being denied access, and Jewish sites being destroyed and desecrated.  This year, with the holidays of Passover, Easter and Ramadan falling contemporaneously, all religions will have access to their holy sites. 

What about the "entrenchment of Israel's 55-year occupation of the West Bank?"  I could argue that the land was promised by G-d to the Jewish people.  But, I'll simply point out that the land was won in the 1967 "Six Day War," when Israel defeated multiple Arab countries that tried to destroy it.  I'll point out that, after withdrawing from Gaza, Hamas and Islamic Jihad have used that territory to launch countless missiles and rockets against Israel.  Should Israelis now give up the West Bank, in order to assist in their own annihilation?  If the dispute was simply one over land, the Palestinians would have had their own state long ago - as early as 1947.  But it has never been about land.  It has been about the refusal to accept a Jewish state in the historic homeland of the Jewish people.

I noticed something else very interesting in the Times article.  Although I should say, something that was absent from the article.  In discussing "the deadliest wave of violence since 2016," the Times says that there were "five Arab assailants who have killed 14 people, including two Arab police officers and two Ukrainians."  Yet, in this half page article, the Times did not mention the name of a single Israeli who was murdered.  But I recall very well during Israel's last war with Hamas, the Times had no problem dedicating a two page spread with the photos and short bios of dozens of Palestinians who were killed during the fighting.  But, as I have come to expect from the mainstream media, Jewish lives do not mean much.  Also not surprising was that the Times failed to mention the celebrations in Gaza and the West Bank by Palestinians, upon hearing of the deaths of these innocent Israeli civilians.

I am not on Facebook or Instagram or other social media, with the exception of LinkedIn.  Following the latest terrorist attack, in the heart of Jerusalem, I saw a post on LinkedIn by someone from WiX.  The post described Eytan Magini as a "beloved member" of the WiX family, who was killed by the Tel Aviv terrorist.  The post offered condolences to Eytan's family and to his fiancee.  They had been engaged for only one month.  Of course, there were many "likes," and also many comments.

What I found to be particularly disturbing was the Jew hatred and hatred of Israel expressed by many with Arab and/or Muslim names.  Here is part of one comment, by a writer who accused falsely accused Israel of killing tens of thousands of Palestinians:  "Crocodile tears won't serve you as long as you treat Palestinians in a filthy racist manner.  You are colonialists who came from Europe and have no right in the land of Palestine.  Palestinians are the original inhabitants and the ones who are entitled to the land."

I am confident that whoever posted that comment would deny the existence of the ancient Kingdoms of Israel, of King David, of King Solomon, and of the two Holy Temples.  I suspect that their false beliefs are learned in their schools and in the media they are exposed to throughout much of the Arab and Islamic world.  If the writers at the Times, and other like-minded people, want to know why there is no peace between Israel and the Palestinians, one need only read some of the comments I saw on LinkedIn.      

        

When Are Guns Good?

A week ago, there was a shooting in Sacramento, leaving 6 people dead and 12 injured.  Here was President Biden:  "Today, America once again mourns for another community devastated by gun violence...But we must do more than mourn; we must act.  That is why my Administration has taken historic executive action to implement my comprehensive gun crime reduction strategy..."  His strategy includes banning ghost guns (made from a kit or parts), banning "assault" weapons, requiring background checks on all gun sales, and repealing gun manufacturers' immunity from liability.

I wish that Biden was mourning the existence of bad guys, people who all too easily are willing to murder other people.  And it seems to me that removing manufacturers' protections from liability is simply a backdoor way to put manufacturers out of business.  Banning "assault" weapons is another way to ban all guns, because any gun can be considered an "assault" weapon.  As for the AR-15, the AR does not mean "assault rifle."  Rather, it is the manufacturer's name, Armalite, and then the word "rifle."  Furthermore, almost all gun killings are done with a pistol.  Will all pistols be banned?  

I have no objection to background checks, if handled expeditiously.  But, California for example, already requires background checks, with a few exceptions such as private sales and antique guns.  Then there is the concern of what the government will do in terms of having a database of all gun owners.  The biggest concern, it seems to me, are the 3-D printed guns.  While they might be good for only a few firings, anyone with access to such a printer might be able to produce such a gun.  "Ghost" guns may be more problematic to ban, because then the issue becomes one of banning the sale of all gun parts, arguably another way to limit gun ownership.  

Here was California Governor Gavin Newsom:  "Sadly, we once again mourn the lives lost and for those injured in yet another horrendous act of gun violence."  Of course we mourn for the victims and their families and friends.  Newsom:  "The scourge of gun violence continues to be a crisis in our country, and we must resolve to bring an end to this carnage."  Of course I would like to see an end to all murders and senseless killings.  But the left always blames the instrument rather than the perpetrator.  Is mental illness part of the problem?  No doubt.  But what about the scourge of criminality?  What about the lack of decent values instilled in young people?

But here is a different take than that of our left-wing politicians.  Recently, Israel has suffered a series of terrorist attacks.  (See the companion post.)  Fourteen people were killed in four different cities.  Here was the Israeli Prime Minister, Naftali Bennett:  "Citizens of Israel, we are currently experiencing a wave of murderous terrorism...What is expected of you, citizens of Israel?  Alertness and responsibility.  Open your eyes.  Whoever has a license to carry a weapon, this is the time to carry it."  

This is the time to carry your weapon.  With good reason.  It is not just the police or members of the IDF (Israeli Defense Forces) who are able to kill murderers before even more people are shot dead by the perpetrators.  Civilians have also been able to prevent more deaths by shooting and killing the perpetrator.  Like here, police in Israel will confiscate a gun used by a civilian, for forensic purposes.  Unlike here, there is apparently an expedited procedure to have a new handgun issued to that person.  Also unlike here, there is little chance of a civilian being prosecuted for taking down a terrorist bad guy.

So, which approach is preferable?  Try to eliminate guns, even though we know criminals will always find a way to get a gun.  Use a gun in the US, even in self-defense or the defense of others, and there are any number of left-wing prosecutors who would prosecute the good guy.  Or Israel's approach, all those licensed should carry their guns.  Of course, the politicians and the elite here often have their armed security.  But what about everyone else?              

The Future Lawyers of America?

Lawyers are trained to be able to argue both sides of an issue.  But today's law students cannot tolerate hearing a viewpoint that is contrary to their own.  Having gone from college to law school, it appears that they still need their safe spaces.

On March 10, at Yale University Law School, there was a debate, almost, over civil liberties.  On the conservative side was someone from the Alliance Defending Freedom, and on the liberal side was someone from the American Humanist Association.  However, a mob of about 100 students not only refused to listen, they also did not want anyone interested to be able to listen.  One protester allegedly said to the conservative speaker that she would "literally fight you, bitch."  Ultimately, both speakers had to be escorted out by the police for safety reasons.

Lawyers are sworn to defend the Constitution.  The last time I looked, the First Amendment right to speech is still in there.  Judge Laurence Silberman, of the D.C. Court of Appeals, suggested that all federal judges should take note of who those protesters were and then consider if they should be disqualified for a clerkship.  

One letter to the editor in the Wall Street Journal asked:  "Who is teaching these students, and what are they teaching them?"  But the best letter was as follows:  "As a second-generation alumnus of the Berkeley free-speech movement (after my sister, who was present when Mario Savio gave his famous extemporaneous speech), I never thought I'd be to the right of a Journal editorial....The disruptive students should be expelled."  I dare say little chance of that, with the weak and woke administrators at so many colleges and universities.  

On the opposite end of the country was a March 1 scheduled event at the UC Hastings College of Law in San Francisco.  Lawyer and author Ilya Shapiro was scheduled to speak about his recent book, "Supreme Disorder: Judicial Nominations and the Politics of America's Highest Court."  Before his scheduled talk, Mr. Shapiro had Tweeted in opposition to President Biden's approach to replacing Justice Breyer - it has to be a black woman.  (Which, as an aside, look how well that approach has worked with our VP.)  

In any event, Mr. Shapiro opined that Judge Sri Srinivasan would be the best candidate, with the best qualifications.  Judge Srinivasan sits on the D.C. Court of Appeals.  Shapiro did not think Biden should limit his choices to "black women."  Judge Srinivasan is male, and was born in India.  Shapiro Tweeted that Biden should not pick a "lesser black woman."  Could Shapiro have expressed himself better?  Sure.  And he deleted his Tweet and apologized for his "inartful choice of words."  But he stands by his opinion as to who the best nominee would be.  

But it was too late.  Of course.  Dozens of students at the school "canceled" his speech.  Shapiro:  "They screamed obscenities and physically confronted me, several times getting in my face or blocking my access to the lectern, and they shouted down a dean."  Mr. Shapiro was due to start a new position at Georgetown Law School's Center for the Constitution.  Not surprisingly, Georgetown placed him on a paid leave pending an "investigation."  

There was a letter to the editor by a professor who said he was the only professor in the room where Mr. Shapiro was scheduled to speak.  He described Shapiro's Tweet as "plainly racist in effect, regardless of intent."  Not at all, if by "lesser" Shapiro meant less qualified.  And, of course, he referenced "black woman" because Biden did!  Sounds to me like the professor is saying there was no reason to allow Shapiro an opportunity to explain himself.  And this professor made multiple excuses for the disruptive behavior of some of the students.  "The message of the protesters has finally been heard."  Finally?  Were they prevented from speaking beforehand?

And:  "I support my students, from all perspectives in engaged student activism."  Really?  I bet he would not support students shouting him down in each of his classes.  Would he walk out?  Fail everyone if he was unable to teach?  Then this professor adds this incredibly insulting and ridiculous comment:  "Constitutional law is murky, inconsistent, and unsettled as to what messages and techniques of expression have priority when two conflict."  It's a law school!  Do you want students to learn, or scream at one another and at speakers with whom they disagree?  Just incredibly stupid.

But in case you are wondering how these law school students at Yale and UC Hastings got the idea that it is okay to shout down viewpoints that upset them, pay attention to this professor, and the woke/weak administrators at Georgetown.