Categories
DOJ FBI FREEDOM OF SPEECH Freedom of speech threatened Intelwars

Horowitz: FBI comes dangerously close to criminalizing free speech by indicting man for tweeting election memes

We have all shared this unsettling premonition that the attack on free speech is not just coming from Big Tech with the threat of censorship, but from the government backed by criminal prosecution. We are watching the government arrest hundreds of people not just for violence but for trespassing and negligible crimes at the Capitol when many of them were let into the building by the police. We are seeing the billboards and technology being used to hunt people down, as the most violent Antifa rioters are never arrested. No, this crackdown is not being driven by a concern for security and a sense of justice.

Well, now it’s confirmed that the government itself is rapidly headed toward criminalizing the speech of Trump supporters. The government is treating Antifa’s violence like speech and our speech like violence. What starts with bad behavior by Trump supporters (while ignoring what the other side does) will not end there.

Yesterday, a bizarre headline from the Justice Department’s Office of Public affairs caught my attention and raised the ire of many conservatives. “Social Media Influencer Charged with Election Interference Stemming from Voter Disinformation Campaign,” read the headline of a press release from the DOJ’s Eastern District of New York. That seemed odd to me because I’ve never seen such a vague and intangible charge after years of sifting through daily press releases from U.S. attorneys about espionage, trade theft, and gang activity. As I read further, my worst suspicions were confirmed.

“A Florida man was arrested this morning on charges of conspiring with others in advance of the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election to use various social media platforms to disseminate misinformation designed to deprive individuals of their constitutional right to vote.”

Wow, that sounds interesting. So the DOJ is finally going after election fraud? Did this guy throw out ballots or engage in mail-in fraud like endless witnesses said in sworn affidavits and in testimony before legislatures? No, the DOJ is not interested in tangible fraud that involves an action; in fact, it is investigating any DOJ official who might have sought to investigate such fraud. It only prosecutes speech.

Douglass Mackey, aka Ricky Vaughn, 31, of West Palm Beach was taken into custody and charged with having “exploited a social media platform to infringe one the of most basic and sacred rights guaranteed by the Constitution: the right to vote,” according to Nicholas L. McQuaid, Acting Assistant Attorney General of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division.

Again, I was confused how someone can use their own speech to infringe upon the right of a voter and actually succeed in stealing a vote.

After several paragraphs of DOJ officials bloviating about constitutional rights to vote, they finally announced his crime.

As alleged in the complaint, between September 2016 and November 2016, in the lead up to the Nov. 8, 2016, U.S. Presidential Election, Mackey conspired with others to use social media platforms, including Twitter, to disseminate fraudulent messages designed to encourage supporters of one of the presidential candidates (the “Candidate”) to “vote” via text message or social media, a legally invalid method of voting.

Boy, is that a mouthful! This standard would basically rope in half the country. The other half of the country always believes everything the other side is putting out is false information that is extremely dangerous. We’d all be in jail.

How exactly did the person engage in fraud?

For example, on Nov. 1, 2016, Mackey allegedly tweeted an image that featured an African American woman standing in front of an “African Americans for [the Candidate]” sign. The image included the following text: “Avoid the Line. Vote from Home. Text ‘[Candidate’s first name]’ to 59925[.] Vote for [the Candidate] and be a part of history.” The fine print at the bottom of the image stated: “Must be 18 or older to vote. One vote per person. Must be a legal citizen of the United States. Voting by text not available in Guam, Puerto Rico, Alaska or Hawaii. Paid for by [Candidate] for President 2016.”

The tweet included the typed hashtags “#Go [Candidate]” and another slogan frequently used by the Candidate. On or about and before Election Day 2016, at least 4,900 unique telephone numbers texted “[Candidate’s first name]” or some derivative to the 59925 text number, which was used in multiple deceptive campaign images tweeted by the defendant and his co-conspirators.

Folks, this is very scary. No, not the alleged crime, but that the feds are going after such behavior while ignoring sworn allegations of mass fraud. While what is alleged appears to be mean and spiteful, at the end of the day, there is no way to actually steal a vote with this subterfuge. Not unless someone thought that, based on a random internet tweet, they could vote via text, and without verifying anything thereafter, would have sent their text and then stayed home. By this standard, every governor who violated election law and actually facilitated the casting of ballots not pursuant to law should be in jail.

There are some really distasteful ways people use their freedom of speech – sometimes in a serious way or sometimes in a joking way – but the First Amendment was not written to protect benign speech. To arrest only one side of the divide for social media memes at a time when officials are letting cities burn is very concerning. And it opens a very slippery slope for the government to prosecute people for saying anything that the government believes is harmful.

Is it that hard to envision an FBI agent knocking on your door and saying, “You just wrote information telling people masks don’t work and to stop wearing them. You are engaging in fraud and are an accessory to murder!”

If you don’t believe me that this could happen, take a look at yesterday’s “National Terrorism Advisory System Bulletin,” published by the Department of Homeland Security. The bulletin warns about threats from “Domestic Violent Extremists (DVEs) targeted individuals with opposing views engaged in First Amendment-protected, non-violent protest activity,” which include those “motivated by a range of issues, including anger over COVID-19 restrictions, the 2020 election results …”

Thus, they now consider opposing views and First Amendment-protected speech highlighting governmental actions taken against other rights under the guise of COVID as a national security threat on par with ISIS or Hezbollah.

“Threats of violence against critical infrastructure, including the electric, telecommunications and healthcare sectors, increased in 2020 with violent extremists citing misinformation and conspiracy theories about COVID-19 for their actions,” warns the bulletin. “DHS, as well as other Federal agencies and law enforcement partners will continue to take precautions to protect people and infrastructure across the United States.”

Mind you, as they treat our speech as terrorism, they fail to mention a word about Antifa seeking to overthrow the government and attacking government buildings, even Democrat Party offices.

Some might automatically object to this concern by saying that the individual in question used the speech to attempt to defraud people with a specific scheme. Thus, this would be speech that is buttressed by an action; namely, setting up a fraudulent voting number. Yes, tyranny will always begin with the veneer of justice and under the color of law. I am certainly not defending someone for doing this if he indeed is guilty of it. But what does it tell you that this is the one voter fraud indictment the DOJ will make while refusing to even look into any of the evidence of pro-Biden fraud presented in the state legislatures? What does it say that Antifa can destroy our streets every night and attack ICE buildings, yet the FBI is focused on Trump supporters?

In this case, the DOJ is not even charging the man with voter fraud, because indeed his alleged actions don’t fit the definition of any of those statutes. Instead, they bizarrely chose to focus on the fact that he worked with other people and therefore might have violated the generic “conspiracy against rights,” under 18 U.S. Code § 241. That title makes it a federal crime for “two or more persons” to “conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution …”

By that definition, every single governor and mayor should be arrested for conspiring to violate life, liberty, and property under lockdown policies. Voting is very important, but it is ultimately the result of law and can be taken away under some circumstances, unlike property rights and certainly freedom of speech.

The Department of Justice might have a legal case here from an extremely vague statute (to the extent it’s constitutional), but the asymmetry in its prosecutorial discretion is bordering on a sadistic two-tiered justice system. If this were Singapore and the government evenly and scrupulously prosecuted every minor offense to the letter of the law, I’d be less concerned about this. It would be one thing if the FBI had evidence of a number of people who used this text hotline and declined to actually vote, believing they had already voted. But there was no evidence of such a thing in the indictment, which makes it peculiar that they are focusing on this, even if they can find a crime to charge him with. This indictment, mixed with the other martial-law-like actions and the indefinite deployment of troops, is not coming from a good place and is headed to a good destination.

A friend of mine from Michigan, Garrett Soldano, got a call from the FBI last week because someone told them he is “an extremist.” If you are reading this and thinking you can still rigorously fight for conservative policies and not have to worry about the “law” coming after you as long as you act in accordance with the law, then you need to wake up before it’s too late. And don’t expect the “paragons of free speech” at the ACLU to be there for you in your time of need.

Share
Categories
constitutional republic First Amendment free speech Free speech threat FREEDOM OF SPEECH Intelwars

Horowitz: For the first time in our lives, free speech is about to be criminalized

Our First Amendment freedoms give us the right to think what we like and say what we please. And if we the people are to govern ourselves, we must have these rights, even if they are misused by a minority.” ~James Madison

We never thought this day would arrive in America. Last year, we learned that they can shout “COVID” as an emergency, and our life, liberty, and property disappear. They can shout “racism,” and our inalienable right to self-defense disappears. The last thing we had was the freedom to criticize what is happening, even if there was nothing we can do about it. Now they can shout “right-wing terrorism” or “right-wing conspiracy” and say that freedom of speech no longer applies.

Leftists in this country claim that their violence is speech and our speech is violence. That is why they glorified riots last year that burned down numerous cities, caused thousands of injuries, cost billions of dollars, and elevated their cause as the most urgent grievance in need of redress. At the same time, they are pushing to criminalize not just the violent acts and actors at the Capitol on January 6, but any view or speech or assembly predicated on views that are held by those people. This is why they seem to be taking direct shots at the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of speech for Americans, even as they plan to grant amnesty to those whose entire presence in this country is illegal.

As everyone focuses on the corporate world violating the spirit of the First Amendment by excommunicating anyone with conservative views, watch carefully how the governmental actors are coming very close to violating the letter of the First Amendment with the force of the “law” behind it. Big tech might have a monopoly on the internet and communications, but government has a monopoly on violence, law, and the ability to restrain our liberty. If we don’t wake up immediately, our speech and freedom to assemble will be not only censored, but criminalized.

It started on January 6, when Tom Edsall published a column in the New York Times noting, “A debate has broken out over whether the once-sacrosanct constitutional protection of the First Amendment has become a threat to democracy.” This is a tried and tested tactic of the Left – to have their columnists float a radical idea as a “debate,” while their governmental actors begin working on it in earnest.

Just take stock of what we are seeing out in the open. They are now arresting people all over the country for merely being in the Capitol, even if they didn’t engage in violence, vandalism, or theft. Had this standard been applied to Black Lives Matter, there would literally have been millions of arrests. So no, this is not just about punishing those who acted violently. The FBI is placing signs all over the country asking people to report those who were at the Capitol, something that never happened even in the most deadly BLM/Antifa riots last year, or at Trump’s inauguration four years ago in D.C.

They are militarizing D.C. with 20,000 troops, when the threat of violence against Trump’s inaugural guests four years ago was exponentially greater. They are declaring emergencies in states as remote as New Mexico with no evidence of violence present. Garrett Soldano, a leader in the anti-lockdown movement in Michigan, claims the FBI paid him a two-hour visit because a local called the FBI and claimed he is a violent extremist.

If the FBI had done this when hundreds of cities were on fire for days on end with no control among local police departments, I would just feel they are being overly cautious. Given that BLM was promoted as the leader of our civic discourse and we are all being treated like terrorists, however, we should be very scared they are coming for the First Amendment, not for national security. Remember, the Justice Department seems to believe this was a planned attack. So the hundreds of thousands of Trump supporters who just came there to express their views had no idea that a few bad actors were planning this. The fact that they are hunting down anyone and everyone should scare us all.

Last week, Pennsylvania Lt. Gov. John Fetterman said emphatically that the First Amendment doesn’t apply to sentiments he disagrees with. “This idea that saying that Pennsylvania was ‘rigged’ or that we were ‘trying to steal the election’ — that’s a lie. And you do not have the right, that is not protected speech.”

Thus, from now on, Democrats can unilaterally change election law in middle of an election – up until and including abolishing Election Day in favor of mail-in ballots – and anyone who criticizes it or organizes a rally against it is subject to prosecution? These comments would be comical if they didn’t coincide with actions taken by his party coming into power in Washington that look a lot like martial law.

In other words, if you watch the language the Left is using about our speech and the actions the Biden administration and the governors are taking, it’s quite evident that Big Tech is not the only thing we have to worry about. If nothing changes, I predict that even if Parler is able to become completely independent in the private market, the government, which has the ultimate monopoly on power, will shut it down.

Last week, Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison, the same man who is prosecuting business owners and threatening them with labor camps for earning a living, said on a conference call with prosecutors that he is investigating those from his state who merely attended the rally.

Already in 2019, Richard Stengel, the Biden transition “team lead” for the U.S. Agency for Global Media, wrote in a Washington Post op-ed that the First Amendment needs curtailment. “All speech is not equal. And where truth cannot drive out lies, we must add new guardrails. I’m all for protecting ‘thought that we hate,’ but not speech that incites hate,” wrote Stengal.

This is pretty bizarre coming from a side of politics that already controls 99% of all speech and big business that controls speech. What exactly are they afraid of? If anything, we are the ones who should be scared of their speech, given the monopoly they hold.

Well, George Washington already warned us about the motivations of those who clamp down on speech. “For if Men are to be precluded from offering their Sentiments on a matter, which may involve the most serious and alarming consequences, that can invite the consideration of Mankind, reason is of no use to us; the freedom of Speech may be taken away, and, dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep, to the Slaughter,” said Washington in an address to the Continental Army on March 15, 1783.

The question facing patriots in the coming days is quite simply this: Will we allow that final domino to fall?

Share
Categories
behavior modification Censorship central control Coronavirus COVID-19 enabling governments free speech FREEDOM OF SPEECH Headline News human rights Intelwars Internet freedom less free mass surveillance power silenced Social Control social enineerin Society the masses

Human Rights Watchdog Says Governments Using Pandemic To Crack Down On Online Dissent

This article was originally published by Aaron Kessel at Activist Post.

Governments around the world are using the ongoing pandemic to crack down on online dissent according to a human rights watchdog.

Washington-based Freedom House said dozens of countries have cited CV as a means “to justify expanded surveillance powers and the deployment of new technologies that were once seen as too intrusive.” They added that it marks the 10th consecutive annual decline in internet freedom, Barron’s reported.

The expansion of technological systems is enabling governments’ social control, according to the report.

“The pandemic is accelerating society’s reliance on digital technologies at a time when the internet is becoming less and less free,” said Michael Abramowitz, president of the nonprofit group.

“Without adequate safeguards for privacy and the rule of law, these technologies can be easily repurposed for political repression.”

China was singled out in the report noting, Chinese authorities “combined low- and high-tech tools not only to manage the outbreak of the coronavirus but also to deter internet users from sharing information from independent sources and challenging the official narrative.”

The report stated this shows a growing trend toward Chinese-style “digital authoritarianism” globally and a “splintering” of the internet as each government imposes its own regulations for citizens.

Freedom House said that of the estimated 3.8 billion people using the internet, just 20 percent live in countries with free internet, 32 percent in countries “partly free,” while 35 percent were in places where online activities are not free. The remainder live in countries that weren’t among the 65 assessed.

The report cited declines in countries where authorities have imposed internet shutdowns including Myanmar, Kyrgyzstan, and India, and in Rwanda for its use of “sophisticated spyware to monitor and intimidate exiled dissidents.”

Activist Post has previously reported that countries were using the pandemic to shutdown online dissent back in May of this year. Expressing that governments around the world were using fake news to hide behind their online censorship efforts. Hungary is one of the countries that began arresting citizens for allegedly spreading fake news related to the CV pandemic as ordered by Prime Minister Viktor Orban.

Hungary isn’t the only country that is using the CV crisis to push draconian laws on its citizens.  Activist Post previously reported early on during the CV outbreak that two individuals were arrested under Thailand’s new “Anti-Fake News Center” for spreading false information about the coronavirus. Malaysia also issued four arrests of its citizens for spreading rumors and “disinformation,” according to a report by Hong Kong’s South China Morning Post. Those “suspects” included a tutor, two pharmacy assistants, and a university student whom if found guilty will face upwards to a $12,000 fine and up to 1 year in prison if convicted.

Then there is China, which arrested 8 people who were charged with spreading rumors about a virus before the coronavirus was publicly known. Beyond that, China recently highlighted what can be done with such a law by censoring a media outlet Caijing, which is one of the most reputable outlets in the country. In that article, the authors claimed that China significantly underreported both cases and deaths, especially among the elderly. (archive) (translation)

Another country, Singapore, on April 1st proposed a law to combat online fake news. Under the draft law, those who spread online falsehoods with a malicious intent to harm public interest could face jail terms of up to 10 years, Reuters reported.

Activist Post previously highlighted that the CV pandemic would be used as a Trojan horse to take away our rights and be used to push increased digital surveillance via our smartphones. But that’s not all, it also serves a means for other facial recognition technology to be more frequently used. Top10VPN continues to monitor the increase of the police state and decrease of our digital and physical rights noting the following figures.

  • 120 contact tracing apps are available in 71 countries
  • 45 apps now use Google and Apple’s API
  • The U.S. has 23 apps, more than any other country in the world
  • 19 apps, with 4 million downloads combined, have no privacy policy

Digital Tracking Measures:

  • 60 digital tracking measures have been introduced in 38 countries
  • Telecom providers have shared user data in 20 countries

Physical Surveillance Initiatives:

  • 43 physical surveillance measures have been adopted in 27 countries
  • Drones have been used in 22 countries to help enforce lockdowns
  • Europe introduced more surveillance measures than any other region

As Activist Post previously wrote while discussing the increase of a police surveillance state, these measures being put into place now will likely remain long after the pandemic has stopped and the virus has run its course. That’s the everlasting effect that COVID-19 will have on our society.  The coronavirus may very well be a legitimate health concern for all of us around the world. But it’s the government’s response that should worry us all more in the long run.

The post Human Rights Watchdog Says Governments Using Pandemic To Crack Down On Online Dissent first appeared on SHTF Plan – When It Hits The Fan, Don't Say We Didn't Warn You.

Share
Categories
behavior modification Censorship central control Coronavirus COVID-19 enabling governments free speech FREEDOM OF SPEECH Headline News human rights Intelwars Internet freedom less free mass surveillance power silenced Social Control social enineerin Society the masses

Human Rights Watchdog Says Governments Using Pandemic To Crack Down On Online Dissent

This article was originally published by Aaron Kessel at Activist Post.

Governments around the world are using the ongoing pandemic to crack down on online dissent according to a human rights watchdog.

Washington-based Freedom House said dozens of countries have cited CV as a means “to justify expanded surveillance powers and the deployment of new technologies that were once seen as too intrusive.” They added that it marks the 10th consecutive annual decline in internet freedom, Barron’s reported.

The expansion of technological systems is enabling governments’ social control, according to the report.

“The pandemic is accelerating society’s reliance on digital technologies at a time when the internet is becoming less and less free,” said Michael Abramowitz, president of the nonprofit group.

“Without adequate safeguards for privacy and the rule of law, these technologies can be easily repurposed for political repression.”

China was singled out in the report noting, Chinese authorities “combined low- and high-tech tools not only to manage the outbreak of the coronavirus but also to deter internet users from sharing information from independent sources and challenging the official narrative.”

The report stated this shows a growing trend toward Chinese-style “digital authoritarianism” globally and a “splintering” of the internet as each government imposes its own regulations for citizens.

Freedom House said that of the estimated 3.8 billion people using the internet, just 20 percent live in countries with free internet, 32 percent in countries “partly free,” while 35 percent were in places where online activities are not free. The remainder live in countries that weren’t among the 65 assessed.

The report cited declines in countries where authorities have imposed internet shutdowns including Myanmar, Kyrgyzstan, and India, and in Rwanda for its use of “sophisticated spyware to monitor and intimidate exiled dissidents.”

Activist Post has previously reported that countries were using the pandemic to shutdown online dissent back in May of this year. Expressing that governments around the world were using fake news to hide behind their online censorship efforts. Hungary is one of the countries that began arresting citizens for allegedly spreading fake news related to the CV pandemic as ordered by Prime Minister Viktor Orban.

Hungary isn’t the only country that is using the CV crisis to push draconian laws on its citizens.  Activist Post previously reported early on during the CV outbreak that two individuals were arrested under Thailand’s new “Anti-Fake News Center” for spreading false information about the coronavirus. Malaysia also issued four arrests of its citizens for spreading rumors and “disinformation,” according to a report by Hong Kong’s South China Morning Post. Those “suspects” included a tutor, two pharmacy assistants, and a university student whom if found guilty will face upwards to a $12,000 fine and up to 1 year in prison if convicted.

Then there is China, which arrested 8 people who were charged with spreading rumors about a virus before the coronavirus was publicly known. Beyond that, China recently highlighted what can be done with such a law by censoring a media outlet Caijing, which is one of the most reputable outlets in the country. In that article, the authors claimed that China significantly underreported both cases and deaths, especially among the elderly. (archive) (translation)

Another country, Singapore, on April 1st proposed a law to combat online fake news. Under the draft law, those who spread online falsehoods with a malicious intent to harm public interest could face jail terms of up to 10 years, Reuters reported.

Activist Post previously highlighted that the CV pandemic would be used as a Trojan horse to take away our rights and be used to push increased digital surveillance via our smartphones. But that’s not all, it also serves a means for other facial recognition technology to be more frequently used. Top10VPN continues to monitor the increase of the police state and decrease of our digital and physical rights noting the following figures.

  • 120 contact tracing apps are available in 71 countries
  • 45 apps now use Google and Apple’s API
  • The U.S. has 23 apps, more than any other country in the world
  • 19 apps, with 4 million downloads combined, have no privacy policy

Digital Tracking Measures:

  • 60 digital tracking measures have been introduced in 38 countries
  • Telecom providers have shared user data in 20 countries

Physical Surveillance Initiatives:

  • 43 physical surveillance measures have been adopted in 27 countries
  • Drones have been used in 22 countries to help enforce lockdowns
  • Europe introduced more surveillance measures than any other region

As Activist Post previously wrote while discussing the increase of a police surveillance state, these measures being put into place now will likely remain long after the pandemic has stopped and the virus has run its course. That’s the everlasting effect that COVID-19 will have on our society.  The coronavirus may very well be a legitimate health concern for all of us around the world. But it’s the government’s response that should worry us all more in the long run.

The post Human Rights Watchdog Says Governments Using Pandemic To Crack Down On Online Dissent first appeared on SHTF Plan – When It Hits The Fan, Don't Say We Didn't Warn You.

Share
Categories
2020 civil unrest Depression earth changes Earthquakes economic collapse Fires FREEDOM OF SPEECH globe Headline News History Humanity Intelwars Joe Biden looting major crisis Police State president Presidential Election Prosperity Rioting Society the big one United States

20 Things That You Must Believe In Order To Convince Yourself That Everything Is Going To Turn Out Okay Somehow

This article was originally published by Michael Snyder at The Economic Collapse Blog.

Despite everything that we have already been through in 2020, the dominant narrative in our society right now is that everything is going to be just fine once we get past our temporary problems.  So many people that I hear from can’t understand why I am so “negative” about the future because they are completely convinced that really great days are just around the corner.

As odd as this may sound, we are seeing this sort of wild optimism among both Democrats and Republicans, Christians and atheists, capitalists and communists.  Of course, about half the country will have their optimistic hopes for the future brutally crushed by the results of the upcoming election, but we aren’t there yet.  For now, both sides are absolutely convinced that they are going to win, and both sides are envisioning a wonderful new era for our nation in which their values reign triumphant.

If only things were that easy.

The truth is that many of our largest problems have been steadily growing for decades, and they aren’t going to magically disappear just because a particular candidate wins an election.  Our debt levels are absolutely exploding, our economy has plunged into a depression, there is widespread civil unrest in our streets, our nation is more divided than it has ever been in my entire lifetime, and our society is literally coming apart at the seams as just about every form of evil that you can possibly imagine is growing rapidly all around us.

But there are a whole lot of people out there that want to stick their heads in the sand and pretend that everything is going to be just fine.

If you would like to be just like them, the following are 20 things that you must believe in order to convince yourself that everything is going to turn out okay somehow…

#1 “Being 27 trillion dollars in debt is not a problem.  We can go into as much debt as we want, and future generations of Americans won’t mind at all that we are dumping all of our bills on them.”

#2 “The fact that the Federal Reserve creates trillions of dollars out of thin air whenever a major crisis erupts doesn’t really matter.  We can debase the reserve currency of the world as much as we want and the rest of the globe will continue to use it and the inflation rate in this country will never get out of control.”

#3 “Antifa is just an idea, and all of the rioting, looting, and violence will somehow magically come to an end after the upcoming election.”

#4 “When I see people smashing windows, setting buildings on fire and shooting at police officers, I just remember to remind myself that those are really just peaceful protesters.”

#5 “It is perfectly okay that a former intern for Joe Biden will moderate the next presidential debate.  He has promised that he will be perfectly neutral, and I believe him.”

#6 “Kamala Harris will never become president if Joe Biden wins the election because Joe Biden is so strong and vigorous that he could easily make it through two terms.”

#7 “The Democrats would never pack the Supreme Court because Joe Biden and Kamala Harris are way too decent to ever allow that to happen.”

#8 “Once the election is over, the big social media companies will give us our freedom of speech back because that is the right thing to do.”

#9 “It makes perfect sense that the stock market has soared to record highs while the real economy has plunged into a horrifying depression.  This isn’t a bubble, and stock prices will just keep going up indefinitely.”

#10 “It is perfectly okay that 40 percent of U.S. children are being born outside of marriage.  America can certainly prosper without strong marriages and strong families because so many other great civilizations have shown that it can be done.”

#11 “Even though study after study has shown that antibodies fade very rapidly and that any immunity is very short-lived, a vaccine will save us from this pandemic.”

#12 “Once this virus has been eradicated, they won’t make us wear masks anymore, and they certainly wouldn’t try to force people to take vaccines if they don’t want them.”

#13 “Now that everyone has seen how much chaos this pandemic has caused, evil people would never purposely release more deadly viruses because they wouldn’t want to kick us while we are down.”

#14 “There is no need to worry that our relationships with Russia and China have gone down the tubes because our military is so strong that nobody would ever dare getting into a military conflict with us.”

#15 “Even though the head of the UN World Food Program is warning that there will be famines of ‘biblical proportions’, I am sure that any food shortages are just temporary and everyone in the world will have plenty of food to eat in 2021 and beyond.”

#16 “More than 60 million Americans have filed new claims for unemployment benefits this year, but most of those jobs will quickly come back, and we are on the verge of the greatest era of economic prosperity in U.S. history.”

#17 “The rapid rise in crime rates in cities all over the nation is just temporary.  I am sure that things will go back to normal in 2021.”

#18 “We can ignore the hundreds of earthquakes that are shaking the west coast, because ‘the Big One’ probably won’t happen for thousands of years.”

#19 “The fact that tens of millions of Americans will be mailing in their ballots won’t cause any issues at all.  All of the ballots will be counted quickly, efficiently, and accurately, and the American people will remain perfectly calm while we wait for days or even weeks to find out the winner of the presidential election.”

#20 “Even though more than 60 million children have already been aborted, and even though every form of evil that you can possibly imagine is exploding all around us, there will never be any serious consequences for our actions and the greatest days for America are still ahead of us even though we completely refuse to change our ways.”

***Michael’s new book entitled “Lost Prophecies Of The Future Of America” is now available in paperback and for the Kindle on Amazon.***

About the Author: My name is Michael Snyder and my brand new book entitled “Lost Prophecies Of The Future Of America” is now available on Amazon.com.  In addition to my new book, I have written four others that are available on Amazon.com including The Beginning Of The EndGet Prepared Now, and Living A Life That Really Matters. (#CommissionsEarned)  By purchasing the books you help to support the work that my wife and I are doing, and by giving it to others you help to multiply the impact that we are having on people all over the globe.  I have published thousands of articles on The Economic Collapse BlogEnd Of The American Dream, and The Most Important News, and the articles that I publish on those sites are republished on dozens of other prominent websites all over the globe.  I always freely and happily allow others to republish my articles on their own websites, but I also ask that they include this “About the Author” section with each article.  The material contained in this article is for general information purposes only, and readers should consult licensed professionals before making any legal, business, financial, or health decisions.  I encourage you to follow me on social media on Facebook and Twitter, and anyway that you can share these articles with others is a great help.  During these very challenging times, people will need hope more than ever before, and it is our goal to share the gospel of Jesus Christ with as many people as we possibly can.

The post 20 Things That You Must Believe In Order To Convince Yourself That Everything Is Going To Turn Out Okay Somehow first appeared on SHTF Plan – When It Hits The Fan, Don't Say We Didn't Warn You.

Share
Categories
Cancel culture First Amendment FREEDOM OF SPEECH Greg Gutfeld Intelwars Oppress your speech

‘We don’t have freedom of speech anymore’: Greg Gutfeld on how INSANE cancel culture has become

Fox News host Greg Gutfeld joined Glenn on “The Glenn Beck Podcast” this week to talk about his new book, “The Plus: Self-Help for People Who Hate Self-Help.”

Greg admits he is probably the last person who should write a self-help book. Nevertheless, he offers his offbeat advice on how to save America during what has become one of the most tumultuous times in history, as well as drinking while tweeting (spoiler: don’t do it).

He also shares his “evolution” on President Donald Trump, his prediction for the election, and what it means to be an agnostic-athiest.

In this clip, Greg shares what he calls his “first great epiphany” on how dangerous cancel culture has become.

“I believe that cancel culture is the first successful work-around of the First Amendment,” he said. “Because freedom of speech doesn’t protect me from my career being ruined, my livelihood being destroyed, or me getting so depressed I commit suicide. Cancel culture is the first successful work-around of freedom of speech. It can oppress your speech with the scepter of destruction. We don’t have freedom of speech anymore.”

Watch the video clip below or find the full Glenn Beck Podcast with Greg Gutfeld here.

Want to listen to more Glenn Beck podcasts?

Subscribe to Glenn Beck’s channel on YouTube for FREE access to more of his masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, or subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.

Use code UNMASKED to save $20 on one year of BlazeTV.

Share
Categories
1st Amendment FREEDOM OF SPEECH History Intelwars

A Brief History of the Freedom of Speech in America

When Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence, he included in it a list of the colonists’ grievances with the British government. Notably absent were any complaints that the British government infringed upon the freedom of speech.

In those days, speech was as acerbic as it is today. If words were aimed at Parliament, all words were lawful. If they were aimed directly and personally at the king — as Jefferson’s were in the Declaration — they constituted treason.

Needless to say, Jefferson and the 55 others who signed the Declaration would all have been hanged for treasonous speech had the British prevailed.

Of course, the colonists won the war, and, six years afterward, the 13 states ratified the Constitution. Two years after ratification, the Constitution was amended by adding the Bill of Rights. The first ratified amendment prohibited Congress from doing what the colonists never seriously complained about the British government doing — infringing upon the freedom of speech.

James Madison, who drafted the Bill of Rights, insisted upon referring to speech as “the” freedom of speech, so as to emphasize that it preexisted the government. If you could have asked Madison where he believed the freedom of speech came from, he’d have said it was one of the inalienable rights Jefferson wrote about in the Declaration.

Stated differently, each of the signatories of the Declaration and ratifiers of the Bill of Rights manifested in writing their unambiguous belief that the freedom of speech is a natural right — personal to every human. It does not come from the government. It comes from within us. It cannot be taken away by legislation or executive command.

Yet, a mere seven years later, during the presidency of John Adams, Congress enacted the Alien and Sedition Acts, which punished speech critical of the government.

So, how could the same generation — in some cases the same human beings — that prohibited congressional infringement upon speech have enacted a statute that punished speech?

To the some of the framers — the Federalists who wanted a big government as we have today — infringing upon the freedom of speech meant silencing it before it was uttered. Today, this is called prior restraint, and the Supreme Court has essentially outlawed it.

To the antifederalists — or Democratic-Republicans, as they called themselves — the First Amendment prohibited Congress from interfering with or punishing any speech.

Adams’ Department of Justice indicted and prosecuted and convicted antifederalists — among them a congressman — for their critical speech.

When Jefferson won the presidency and the antifederalists won control of Congress, the Federalists repealed the speech suppression parts of the Alien and Sedition Acts on the eve of their departure from congressional control, lest it be used against them.

During the Civil War, President Abraham Lincoln locked up hundreds of journalists in the North who were critical of his war efforts. During World War I, President Woodrow Wilson — whom my alma mater Princeton University is trying to erase from its memory — arrested folks for reading the Declaration of Independence aloud or singing German beer hall songs.

Lincoln argued that preserving the Union was more important than preserving the First Amendment, and Wilson argued that the First Amendment only restrained Congress, not the president. Both arguments have since been rejected by the courts.

In the 1950s, the feds successfully prosecuted Cold War dissenters on the theory that their speech was dangerous and might have a tendency to violence. Some of the victims of this torturous rationale died in prison.

The government’s respect for speech has waxed and waned. It is at its lowest ebb during wartime. Of course, dissent during wartime — which challenges the government’s use of force to kill — is often the most important and timely speech.

It was not until 1969, in a case called Brandenburg v. Ohio, that the Supreme Court gave us a modern definition of the freedom of speech. Brandenburg harangued a crowd in Hamilton County, Ohio and urged them to march to Washington and take back the federal government from Blacks and Jews, whom he argued were in control. He was convicted in an Ohio state court of criminal syndicalism — basically, the use of speech to arouse others to violence.

The Supreme Court unanimously reversed his conviction and held that all innocuous speech is absolutely protected, and all speech is innocuous when there is time for more speech to rebut it. The same Supreme Court had just ruled in Times v. Sullivan that the whole purpose of the First Amendment is to encourage and protect open, wide, robust, even caustic and unbridled speech.

The speech we love needs no protection. The speech we hate does. The government has no authority to evaluate speech. As the framers understood, all persons have a natural right to think as we wish and to say and publish whatever we think. Even hateful, hurtful and harmful speech is protected speech.

Yet, in perilous times like the present, we have seen efforts to use the courts to block the publication of unflattering books. We have seen state governors use the police to protect gatherings of protestors with whose message they agreed and to disburse critical protestors. We have seen mobs silence speakers while the police did nothing.

Punishing speech is the most dangerous business because there will be no end to it. The remedy for hateful or threatening speech is not silence or punishments; it is more speech — speech that challenges the speaker.

Why do folks in government want to silence their opponents? They fear an undermining of their power. The dissenters might make more appealing arguments than they do. St. Augustine taught that nearly all in government want to tell others how to live.

How about we all say whatever we want and the government leaves us alone?

Share
Categories
Ben Shapiro First Amendment FREEDOM OF SPEECH Intelwars Leftists Syracuse university

Ben Shapiro branded as ‘white supremacist’ by student leaders who condemn his planned speech: ‘We do not have to follow the First Amendment’

Syracuse University’s Student Association in a virtual meeting passed a resolution Monday condemning conservative figure Ben Shapiro’s planned speech at the school this fall, the college’s paper — the Daily Orange — reported.

The lengthy resolution also branded Shapiro as a “white supremacist.” In one rather jaw-dropping paragraph, student leaders added that “not only is Ben Shapiro a white supremacist, but he is homophobic, transphobic, xenophobic, ableist, and classist. It is inappropriate to bring someone on our campus that [sic] has actively disrespected our very own students through his language and actions.”

Say what?

The students’ argument? “Shapiro’s generalistic and harmful comments about Arabs and Palestinians promote white supremacy. When it comes to discrimination against Arabs and Palestinians, whilst Arab is considered to be an ethnicity and Palestinian is considered to be a nationality, both groups are generally racialized and discriminated [against] based on skin tone.”

Oddly the same paragraph acknowledges that Shapiro “himself is Jewish and has been targeted by white nationalist terrorists” and adds that he “has not explicitly stated that the white race is better.”

It’s worth noting that the Boston Globe issued a correction last fall after one its columnists erroneously called Shapiro’s news site, The Daily Wire, a “white supremacist-adjacent alt-right outpost.”

“Because of a reporting error, the @Large column in today’s Arts section, which is printed in advance, mischaracterizes the conservative media outlet The Daily Wire.” Shapiro’s outlet added that the correction reads, “Its founder, Ben Shapiro, has spoken out against the alt-right. The Globe regrets the error.”

The Daily Wire went further in a report about the correction:

A study by the Anti-Defamation League found that Shapiro was the number one target of the Alt-Right in 2016. The Daily Wire was one of the first outlets on the right to come out in full-throated condemnation of the Alt-Right, publishing a piece in September 2016 unequivocally disavowing the racist and anti-Semitic movement (read: “An Actual Conservative’s Guide To The Alt-Right: 8 Things You Need To Know”) and consistently criticizing the movement and its supporters in its reports and op-eds.

As TheBlaze has frequently reported, Shapiro is no stranger to such attacks from left-wing college students, as he’s endured smears and protests amid many speaking events at schools across America over the last several years.

‘We do not have to follow the First Amendment’

According to Campus Reform, one student association member during a video meeting expressed support for the resolution, said Syracuse is a private college, and added: “we do not follow the First Amendment … Well, we do not have to follow the First Amendment. As members of the Student Association, it would be very ill-informed of us to ignore students crying out and saying they feel unsafe and to put our political beliefs and values over safety.”

The resolution concluded by requesting that “the University take whatever measures are necessary to prevent [Shapiro’s] event from taking place.”

The student association’s finance board approved the College Republicans’ $39,000 request to invite Shapiro to Syracuse, the Daily Orange said, adding that he’s is scheduled to come to the campus in early October.

What did the College Republicans have to say?

The College Republicans’ executive board released a statement rejecting the resolution, saying the organization “emphatically” disputes the notion that Shapiro is a white supremacist, the Daily Orange reported.

Share
Categories
Cancel culture First Amendment free speech FREEDOM OF SPEECH Intelwars Left-wing college students Leftist intolerance Leftists prageru Will witt

Left-wing student calls police on PragerU’s Will Witt for conducting interviews on campus: ‘They’re threatening me … with their ideals’

PragerU’s Will Witt visited yet another college campus recently to conduct interviews with students when one recognized him — and called campus police on Witt and his camera operator.

Why?

After all, the student claimed, they were trying to “fearmonger” students with their questions.

While it isn’t clear what campus PraguerU visited, Witt and his camera operator indeed caught the student calling campus police and complaining that Witt and the camera operator were “going up to students, and they’re trying to ask them questions and such.”

Image source: Facebook video screenshot

“The gall,” Witt responded, tongue naturally in cheek.

After the student dropped dime, Witt and his co-worker tried to get the offended student to explain what was wrong with what they were doing — but the student had absolutely nothing specific to give them.

Finally, when a pair of officers arrived at the “scene,” the student told them Witt and his camera operator were “terrorizing our students on this campus, and that’s not OK.”

Wake-up time, kiddo

The student also declared that Witt & Friend were doing much more. “They’re threatening me with their language, with their ideals,” he said.

But the cops gave him a lesson he’s clearly not getting in the classroom.

“That’s what freedom of speech is,” one of them explained to the incredulous young man.

They informed the student that unless Witt and the camera operator were threatening him physically, no crime has been committed.

“So there’s noting you guys can do?” he implored one last time.

Um, that’d be a big ol’ no.

And that was that. Win for the First Amendment.

Witt ended the segment by reminding viewers that — once again — “leftists don’t support freedom of speech” and that his “dangerous ideas” and “difference of opinion” aren’t allowed on campus.

Share
Categories
Coronavirus Coronavirus panic free speech FREEDOM OF SPEECH Intelwars Law Enforcement New Jersey Newark, New Jersey Social Media

Newark officials threaten criminal prosecution against anyone posting ‘misinformation’ about coronavirus on social media

The Department of Public Safety in Newark, New Jersey, warned residents that they could be prosecuted if they spread disinformation about the coronavirus on social media.

The official social media account of the department posted the warning on Twitter:

Newark Public Safety Director Anthony Ambrose explained further in a statement released on Tuesday.

“Any false reporting of the coronavirus in our city will result in criminal prosecution,” said Director Ambrose.

“We are putting forth every investigative effort to identify anyone making false allegations on social media to ensure that any posted misinformation is immediately addressed,” he explained.

Ambrose said that they would rely on laws in New Jersey that ban speech causing false public alarm.

“Individuals who make any false or baseless reports about the coronavirus in Newark can set off a domino effect that can result in injury to residents and visitors and affect schools, houses of worship, businesses and entire neighborhoods,” he continued.

The spread of the coronavirus globally has caused much chaos but some critics, like Dr. Drew Pinsky, say the media is guilty of spreading hysteria and panic when people can take simple steps to stop the virus.

Here’s more about the virus panic:



www.youtube.com

Share
Categories
1st Amendment 9th circuit False advertising First Amendment free speech FREEDOM OF SPEECH google Intelwars Lanham ninth circuit Prager university prageru Youtube

Federal court upholds dismissal of PragerU free speech lawsuit against YouTube, Google

A panel of judges for the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower court’s decision to dismiss Prager University’s free speech lawsuit against YouTube and its parent company, Google.

PragerU sued YouTube and Google over YouTube’s decision to classify numerous PragerU videos as “restricted,” meaning they can’t be viewed by users who are using the site in restricted mode. Restricted mode is meant to shelter users from mature or explicit content. YouTube also demonetized some of PragerU’s videos so that third parties could not advertise on them.

The lawsuit claimed that YouTube violated PragerU’s First Amendment rights and also violated the Lanham Act through false advertising of itself as a platform that supports free speech. Both of those claims were rejected by the courts.

Because YouTube is a private platform, the court affirmed, it has a right to moderate content on the site as it pleases, even if some users may feel that moderation is biased or unfair. Judge Margaret McKeown wrote in the opinion:

Addressing the First Amendment claims, the panel held that despite YouTube’s ubiquity and its role as a public- facing platform, it remains a private forum, not a public forum subject to judicial scrutiny under the First Amendment. The panel noted that just last year, the Supreme Court held that “merely hosting speech by others is not a traditional, exclusive public function and does not alone transform private entities into state actors subject to First Amendment constraints.”

And although YouTube claims to promote free speech and a desire to give everyone a voice on its platform, those claims are not quantifiable or actionable, the court decided, meaning YouTube’s restrictions on PragerU content do not make those claims false advertising. McKeown wrote:

YouTube’s braggadocio about its commitment to free speech constitutes opinions that are not subject to the Lanham Act. Lofty but vague statements like “everyone deserves to have a voice, and that the world is a better place when we listen, share and build community through our stories” or that YouTube believes that “people should be able to speak freely, share opinions, foster open dialogue, and that creative freedom leads to new voices, formats and possibilities” are classic, non-actionable opinions or puffery.

Share
Categories
anti-Trump Donald Trump Equity and inclusion officer free speech FREEDOM OF SPEECH Intelwars Kellogg community college Lindsey Graham Michigan Mitch McConnell protest

College’s equity and inclusion officer who held ‘F*** Trump’ sign while protesting president’s visit to city now out of a job

The chief equity and inclusion officer at Kellogg Community College in Battle Creek, Michigan, is out of a job after posting a photo of himself holding a sign that read, “F*** Trump, F*** McConnell, F*** Graham,” at a protest of the president’s visit to the city in December,
WBCK-FM reported.

College President Adrien Bennings said on Monday that Jorge Zeballos’ position is being eliminated and that her office will assume equity and inclusion responsibilities, the station said. Bennings started as president at KCC last month:

Eric Greene, KCC’s chief communications, told the Battle Creek Enquirer that the move had nothing to do with Zeballos’ controversial actions: “I don’t think it would be fair to say that had anything to do with this. It had to do with the college being fiscal stewards of its resources, within any position at the college, there needs to be a clear demonstrated need.”

But last month, the college released a statement emphasizing Zeballos expressed personal opinions on his own time and not as a representative of the school, WWMT said, adding that he was still working at KCC.

“However, this matter is a teachable moment and healthy reminder for all KCC employees that our actions as individuals can have an impact on the institution,” the statement said, the station reported. “Whether that impact affects an individual’s employment status at KCC, positively or negatively, is a determination made via KCC’s ongoing performance management process”

What’s the background?

Zeballos took part in the Dec. 18 protest — and he later posted the photo in question to his Facebook page, which is no longer publicly accessible,
WWMT-TV reported.

But screenshots still exist:


Image source: Facebook, redacted

‘A sincere apology’

Zeballos recently addressed the KCC board of trustees and apologized for his actions,
Campus Reform reported.

“The first thing I want to say is that the last couple of weeks have been really challenging for the institution and for me personally,” Zeballos said. “This set of events has given me the opportunity to go into some deep reflection about my actions and the impact on the institution, so I want to offer this tonight: a sincere apology to the Board, my colleagues, Dr. Bennings, to students, to the community for the impact that my actions have had and the reactions that they have generated. I commit to moving forward, being much more mindful of any actions that I take and the impact that they might have on this institution. And I also firmly commit to taking any steps necessary to repair any trust that has been broken. Thank you.”



youtu.be

After Zeballos spoke, KCC student Kimberly Towski addressed the board and said Zeballos has the right to free speech under the First Amendment, Campus Reform reported.

But Hal Longman argued that “somebody who’s in the upper echelon of education using that kind of … language just exposes [their] ignorance …” the outlet noted.

Community member Joni Jones called Zeballos’ actions “below the dignity of the office” of chief equity and inclusion officer and asked, “Is this the type of language that we taxpayers or you board members expect from a public higher education administrator? Is there not a code of conduct fo KCC employees?” Campus Reform added.

But one attendee noted to the outlet that “people … found a way to attack and say, ‘Hey, we want to get one of you brown people out of a position of power,’ it’s just white privilege. It’s just that white entitlement piece straight across the board.”

Share
Categories
Atheism atheist Atheist license plate Constitution free speech FREEDOM OF SPEECH Intelwars kentucky Lawsuits license plate

Kentucky forbid man’s license plate about God for being vulgar — so he sued and now the taxpayer has to pay up

A man fought the state for the right to call himself “God” on his license plate, and he won in court.

Bennie Hart says he’s a constitutional activist and that he was standing up against the government to protect his rights.

“I tell people, ‘Stand up.’ The government will run all over you if you let them. You know if you roll over and play dead, they’ll roll over you,” said Hart.

The right he defended was his
ability to declare “I’m God” on his license plate.

“I’ve been an atheist since I was 15,”
said Hart. “I can prove I’m God. You can’t prove that I’m not. I’ve got a $100 bill I’ve carried for 20 years for the first person that can prove I’m not God, and I still got it.”

Hart had the theologically questionable message on his license plate for 12 years before he moved to Northern Kentucky and had it rejected by the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet.

They said that the message was contrary to their rule against “vulgar or obscene” phrases.

Hart
sued the state with the support of the ACLU and the Freedom from Religion Foundation. A federal judge agreed with Hart and now the commonwealth of Kentucky is on the hook for $150,000 of his legal fees.

“I think the Constitution is the most sacred thing that’s ever been written. It guarantees your right to religion, speech, your right to assemble,” said Hart.

“It’s just a beautiful document,” he concluded.

Here’s more about the lawsuit:


YouTube

www.youtube.com

Share
Categories
Conservative students First Amendment free speech FREEDOM OF SPEECH Intelwars Turning point usa University of wisconsin-river falls watch

Student rolls ‘free speech ball’ on campus to recruit for conservative club — until official shuts her down. Now student is fighting back.

Sofie Salmon, a freshman at the University of Wisconsin–River Falls, decided last September she’d break out an oversized beach ball — dubbed a “free speech ball” — and roll it around campus to encourage fellow students to express their First Amendment rights by writing messages on it, Alliance Defending Freedom said.

It also was a way for Salmon and her friends who accompanied her to get the word out that she was starting a chapter on campus for a conservative student organization Turning Point USA, The College Fix reported.

“In doing so, Sofie did not block any sidewalks, impede traffic, hinder instruction, or in any way disrupt the campus educational environment,” ADF noted in a Monday letter to the college’s chancellor Dean Van Galen. “She stayed only in public outdoor areas where other students often walk and talk.”

More from the ADF letter:

Even so, UW-River Falls Conference and Contract Services Manager Kristin Barstad approached Sofie and told her that she must stop and leave immediately. When Sofie asked why and what policy forbade her from speaking, Ms. Barstad was unable to cite a specific policy but stated that even though Sofie was a student she would have to pay to reserve space to engage in expression. The only place she could speak without permission from the University, Sofie was told, is on the public sidewalk on the edge of campus. When asked what the consequences would be if she kept talking with other students without permission, Sofie was told that the police would be called. Under this threat, Sofie reluctantly packed up and returned to her dorm.

Here’s video of the exchange between Salmon and Barstad:


youtu.be

What happened next?

According to the ADF letter, several weeks later Salmon asked via email where she could find the relevant policies on where she was allowed to speak on campus and how to reserve space in the future.

“I was really surprised about this as I’d never heard of these policies and it is confusing me as to how I’m supposed to go about talking with other students without paying a fee or having to book a space,” Salmon wrote to Barstad last November, ADF noted.

But the ADF letter said the “only reply Sofie received was from another administrator advising her on how to form a student club.” When she asked again for information on campus free speech policy, the letter said she “never received a response.”

What is the ADF demanding?

The ADF’s letter says the school’s policies are vague and unconstitutional and, to avoid litigation, officials should permit students to exercise their First Amendment rights without unwarranted restraints.

“The only permission slip students need to speak on public college campuses is the U.S. Constitution,” ADF Legal Counsel Caleb Dalton said. “The First Amendment doesn’t allow a university or college to play favorites or limit free speech to so-called ‘speech zones.’ The current University of Wisconsin–River Falls policies are unconstitutional because they force students to ask permission before speaking and allow school administrators to silence student speech based on viewpoint or other vague, arbitrary reasons.”

Dalton told The College Fix that Salmon “gave the university the opportunity to respond, and they didn’t.”

The ADF letter also asks the university for a written response no later than Feb. 24 identifying the policy used to prohibit Salmon from speaking and agreeing to revise the outdoor facility use policies to ensure that administrators do not prohibit students from speaking spontaneously in public outdoor areas, the law firm added.

How did the college respond?

The College Fix said UW-River Falls spokeswoman Dina Fassino indicated the matter is under review.

“At this time, the university is reviewing the letter received from the Alliance Defending Freedom in consultation with the UW System Office of General Counsel,” Fassino said in an email, adding the school would make no further statements at this time, the outlet reported.

Share