Categories
Censorship Commentary Corruption Education Free Speech Links from other news sources. Reprints from others.

California colleges struggle in free speech rankings.

California colleges struggle in free speech rankings.

The Center Square) – According to national free speech rankings published by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, 59% of California colleges rate from “below average” to “poor,” with only one California college of 27 —  California State University, Los Angeles — ranked “above average.”

The survey was conducted from a selected group of 55,102 undergraduates enrolled at 254 four-year degree institutions across the United States drawn from more than 750,000 verified undergraduate students and recent alumni by college opinion research firm College Pulse.

“Each year, the climate on college campuses grows more inhospitable to free speech,” said FIRE Director of Polling and Analytics Sean Stevens in a public statement. “Some of the most prestigious universities in our country have the most repressive administrations. Students should know that a college degree at certain schools may come at the expense of their free speech rights.”

Scores were largely based on students’ comfort expressing ideas, tolerance for liberal speakers, tolerances for conservative speakers, prevalence of disruptive conduct towards speakers, administrative support for free speech amid controversy, on-campus conversation openness regarding political issues. Select actions, such as supporting or disinviting speakers, supporting or sanctioning student groups for speech, or supporting or sanctioning scholars whose speech rights were threatened during controversy, could earn or lose further points.

Coming in at 33 of 254 universities ranked nationwide but first in California, California State University was the only California university to rate as slightly above average, and was followed within California by the University of California, Merced, then Claremont McKenna College. Meanwhile, the worst-rated school in California, the University of California, Davis, ranked 237 nationally, was the one school in the state to receive a “poor” speech rating, and placed 250th for tolerance of disruptive conduct and 221st for tolerance for conservative speakers.

According to FIRE, the University of California, Davis, disinvited two campus speakers between 2019 and 2023. During one cancelation in 2022, administrators canceled a Turning Point USA speaking event when a fight broke out before the event in front of the venue.

Excluded from relative rankings for its bottom-barrel “warning” rating, Pepperdine University was criticized for a speech code that bars speakers from “statements that disparage God, Jesus Christ, or religion; language that demeans and exploits any identities; explicit lyrics; and references to sex, alcohol, and narcotics/drugs,” or using “profanity or tell obscene jokes or stories of any kind whatsoever during the performance.”

 

Categories
Censorship Commentary Government Overreach How sick is this? Links from other news sources. Opinion Politics The Courts The Law

Why do Progressives have issues with the First Amendment? Musk sues California.

Why do Progressives have issues with the First Amendment? Musk sues California. If it’s not California, it’s New York, If it’s not Illinois it’s Massachusetts, and it goes on and on.

But all have the same thing in common. Violating people’s first Amendment rights. If it’s not parents it’s other politicians, lawyers, or people from the business world like Musk.

In Musk’s case, they’re not going after him in court, California is passing laws that take away free speech. What’s next with these loons?

 

Categories
Censorship Commentary Corruption Government Overreach Links from other news sources. Reprints from others. The Law Uncategorized White Progressive Supremacy

Victory for free speech as mayor backs down from censorship campaign Had ripped down flyers from parental rights group.

Victory for free speech as mayor backs down from censorship campaign. Had ripped down flyers from parental rights group.

The mayor of Newburyport, Massachusetts, decided he didn’t like the message being offered in his community by a parental rights organization.

That group, Citizens for Responsible Education, had concerns regarding public school indoctrination and certain troubling instruction happening locally.

So members planned a forum, called “What is Social-Emotional Learning? What every parent needs to know about SEL and culturally responsive teaching in our public schools.”

Subjects to be covered include critical race theory; gender identity ideology; sex education curriculum; and diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives.

That was a message Mayor Sean Reardon decided he would not tolerate. So when the parents posted flyers advertising their meeting, Reardon ripped them down.

Now the resolution to that fight has resulted in a significant victory for free speech, according to a report from the American Center for Law and Justice.

“In addition to receiving a monetary payment to cover the damages CRE suffered, Newburyport’s Mayor Reardon agreed to issue a public statement acknowledging that his actions in ‘remov[ing] flyers from bulletin boards’ and the city’s posting policies should have better promoted the constitutionally protected free speech rights of CRE and, in the future, postings may not be censored based on their content or the viewpoints expressed,” the ACLJ reported.

“Additionally, Newburyport has agreed to revise its posting policies by removing its prohibition on religious flyers and its vague flyer review and approval process.”

The ACLJ reported that Matt Petry, a reporter for The Daily News of Newburyport, posted on social media that Reardon had confirmed he was ripping down the flyers.

The mayor claimed, to the reporter, the content “was not in line with the city of Newburyport’s values of being an inclusive and welcoming community.”

The parents initially asked the city to change its posting policy, but the city refused to respond.

Then, the ACLJ reported, the Massachusetts Family Institute and Attorney Kenneth A. Tashjy served a demand letter on the city, warning the policy was unconstitutional and a willful violation of free speech rights.

Article first found at the The Daily News of Newburyport.

Categories
Censorship Commentary Just my own thoughts White Progressive Supremacy

The Disqus Channels’ Censorship Squad is BACK!

Does anyone remember ModBod, whose sole purpose was to ban users?

The new Mod is a damn bot.

As you know, Disqus recently started a new version of Channels.

Unfortunately, it’s still Same Shit, Different Day.

Every comment Pud made there has been deleted on the Chit Chat Channel. EVEN ON THE THREAD HE STARTED! In three different threads, all his comments are now listed as deleted.

Curious, I looked up the profile for “DISQUS” (@disqusPM). No comments but several hundred followers. Who would be following an account that doesn’t post? I recognized one Troll account, and several “business” accounts are in its followers list. And some are instantly recognizable as — uhm — ‘questionable.’

The Channels Moderator is a damn bot.

So the question becomes who programmed it — Or (more likely) who is logging into that account and deleting comments from posters they presumably don’t like?

It’s back on Disqus!
Thoughtful people want to know.