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
Biden Cartel Commentary Corruption Government Overreach How funny is this? How sick is this? Links from other news sources. Opinion Politics Reprints from others.

Biden Says He “Just Follows Orders” During Vietnam Conference.

Biden Says He “Just Follows Orders” During Vietnam Conference.

OAN’s Abril Elfi

President Joe Biden appeared in a press conference where he said “I’ll just follow my orders here.”

On Sunday, the 46th president spoke at a conference in Hanoi Vietnam and met with General Secretary Nguyễn Phú Trọng of the Communist Party of Vietnam.

Biden stood at the podium and read his prepared remarks while looking at his notes for the majority of the time.

After the speech, the Democrat delivered a press conference where he opened up another discussion by reportedly making a joke about the Vietnam War and asking for questions from reporters.

Biden stated that he would take questions from five reporters, but he could not locate the paper list of particular reporters he was supposed to call on that was prepared by White House officials.

He then proceeded to say that he will just “follow his orders from staff.”

At the end, Biden declared that he was “going to bed,” appearing more irate and mentally disoriented.

Due to Biden’s senile mannerisms, his critics have frequently called him “Sleepy Joe,” and online users have commented and poked fun at the press conference footage.

“I’ll just follow my orders here. Uh — Staff, is there anybody that hasn’t spoken yet? I ain’t calling on you! I told you, I only have five questions!” He shouted.

https://twitter.com/i/status/1700943109134168452

Categories
Biden Pandemic Commentary COVID Education Emotional abuse Links from other news sources. Politics Reprints from others. The Courts

NYC must reinstate 10 Dept. of Education employees fired for refusing COVID vaccine, judge rules.

NYC must reinstate 10 Dept. of Education employees fired for refusing COVID vaccine, judge rules.

(The Center Square) — A New York state judge has ruled that 10 New York City teachers who were fired for refusing to get the COVID-19 vaccine were wrongfully dismissed.

In the ruling, state Supreme Court Judge Ralph J. Porzio said the city’s denial of religious accommodations from getting vaccinated employees was “unlawful, arbitrary and capricious” and ordered the teachers to be reinstated with back pay.

“This court sees no rational basis for not allowing unvaccinated classroom teachers in amongst an admitted population of primarily unvaccinated students,” he wrote in the 22-page ruling.

During the pandemic, New York City imposed some of the strictest COVID-19 vaccine mandates in the country, enforcing rules for public and private sector workers.

More than 1,750 city workers were fired for refusing to get vaccinated, including 36 members of the New York City Police Department and more than 950 public school employees.

Several unions sued the city over the mandate, and last October, Porzio ruled that the city’s policy was enacted “illegally” and workers who were fired for refusing to comply must be “immediately reinstated” with back pay. The city appealed the judge’s ruling.

The article was originally found at The Center Square.

Categories
Commentary Crime Government Overreach Gun Control Leftist Virtue(!) Links from other news sources. Social Venues-Twitter The Law

When White Progressive Supremacist supporter goes too far. Other Progressives call out the New Mexico Governor.

When White Progressive Supremacist supporter goes too far. Other Progressives call out the New Mexico Governor. Recently the Governor claimed she was suspending the Constitution because Liberals were the cause of many gun crimes and drug trafficking’s.

But even other left wing fanatics attacked her craziness.

https://twitter.com/davidhogg111/status/1700601787605266779?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1700601787605266779%7Ctwgr%5Edac98cfcda5b90445124c124d1b672ac6d701274%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.thegatewaypundit.com%2F2023%2F09%2Fnew-mexico-governors-unconstitutional-gun-grab-so-top%2F

https://twitter.com/tedlieu/status/1700589909390835901?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1700589909390835901%7Ctwgr%5Edac98cfcda5b90445124c124d1b672ac6d701274%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.thegatewaypundit.com%2F2023%2F09%2Fnew-mexico-governors-unconstitutional-gun-grab-so-top%2F

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
Back Door Power Grab Biden Cartel Commentary Corruption Crime Government Overreach Links from other news sources. The Courts

Winning. Biden weaponizing DOJ and Social Media ruled a violation of the 1st Amendment.

Winning. Biden weaponizing DOJ and Social Media ruled a violation of the 1st Amendment. It does my heart to see these rulings. What a way to end the week.

The Biden administration “ran afoul” of the First Amendment by trying to pressure social media platforms over controversial COVID-19 content, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans ruled Friday.

In its 75-page ruling, the appeals court, said that President Biden, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the FBI and the surgeon general cannot “coerce” social media platforms to remove content it deems problematic.

https://twitter.com/AGJeffLandry/status/1700294017404010575?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1700294017404010575%7Ctwgr%5Ea8ee871c8bb33c1bc83e55734acde1eaaff486be%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.foxnews.com%2Fpolitics%2Fbiden-administration-violated-first-amendment-covid-19-content-social-media-court-appeals-rules

Under the new ruling, the administration has 10 days to seek a Supreme Court review. 

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.

Categories
Biden Cartel Commentary Crime Elections How funny is this? Leftist Virtue(!) Links from other news sources. Opinion Politics Reprints from others.

Worth posting again. Judge rules Trump election claims while in office covered by presidential immunity.

Worth posting again. Judge rules Trump election claims while in office covered by presidential immunity.

BY ZACH SCHONFELD

A Pennsylvania state judge ruled that an election worker cannot sue former President Trump over statements he made sowing doubt in the 2020 election results while in office, finding the statements are protected by presidential immunity.

Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas Judge Michael Erdos said Trump’s immunity covered a tweet he issued and comments he made remotely from the White House during a Pennsylvania state Senate committee hearing in November 2020. The statements, made without evidence, claimed fraud in Pennsylvania’s election tabulations.

“Other legal proceedings may examine the propriety of his statements and actions while he was the President and whether, as the plaintiffs in this and other cases contend, it was this conduct which served as the actual threat to our democracy,” Erdos ruled. “But this case is not the proper place to do so. Here, Trump is entitled to Presidential immunity.”

James Savage, a Pennsylvania voting machine supervisor in the 2020 election, filed two lawsuits — which have since been consolidated — alleging that Trump, Rudy Giuliani, two poll watchers and others conspired to defame him. Savage says their statements led him to receive death threats and suffer two heart attacks.

Erdos ruled Trump has immunity for the tweet and the remarks at the state Senate hearing because both statements were made while he was serving as president. But the lawsuit also contains claims over a letter Trump wrote to the House Jan. 6 committee last October, which Trump is not immune from as it was written after leaving office.

Erdos ruled the two earlier statements were part of Trump’s official duties, as he was speaking to the public on matters of public concern.

“Here, then-President Trump’s Gettysburg remarks and his tweet were public,” Erdos wrote. “Moreover, the topic of these statements—claims from third parties and the President himself about irregularities in the Presidential election which on their face called into question the integrity of the election and whether now-President Joseph Biden had been duly elected—was undoubtedly a matter of great public concern.”

Trump potentially faces a looming indictment in the Justice Department’s probe of the transfer of power following the 2020 election and the lead up to the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot. Trump’s unfounded claims of mass electoral fraud are also the subject of several other civil lawsuits, which remain tied up in other courts and for which he has similarly asserted immunity.

“We are pleased with the Court’s decision to honor the long-standing principle of Presidential Immunity,” Trump legal spokeswoman Alina Habba said in a statement.

“Today, the Court made it clear that it is well within the President’s discretion to address the integrity of our election without fear of liability,” Habba continued. “We expect that the rest of Mr. Savage’s claims will similarly be disposed of as they are without merit.”

Categories
Biden Cartel Commentary Corruption Leftist Virtue(!) Links from other news sources. Opinion Politics Progressive Racism Reprints from others. Stupid things people say or do. White Progressive Supremacy WOKE

No, the ‘Battle Hymn of the Republic’ is not ‘from slavery’ And neither is the Gadsden Flag.

No, the ‘Battle Hymn of the Republic’ is not ‘from slavery’ And neither is the Gadsden Flag.

By now, you have likely heard of the 12-year-old boy who was told that he may not display a Gadsden Flag in school because it has “origins with slavery.” Of course it absolutely does not have origins in slavery; it is a symbol and flag from the Revolutionary War era.

This level of ignorance—especially from an ‘educator’—ought to be embarrassing…but it should not be particularly surprising. There is a lot to know in this life, and no matter how much one learns, it’s just a few more drops in the ocean of things there are to learn. Add to that the fact that public-school teachers—in spite of the endless hagiolatry our society heaps upon them—are not generally an especially impressive lot. They are, in the aggregate, a little more educated and intelligent than the average, of course, but that is not saying all that much.

This woman had no knowledge of the Gadsden Flag. I’d bet money she’s never heard the name Christopher Gadsden. Chances are she is not particularly well-versed in American history, unless that is her speciality (and even then…). All she knows is that people she does not like—people whom she’s been told not to like—tend to fly and display this flag. Thus, it must have its origins in slavery. After all, everyone she does not like is a fascist, a racist, a white supremacist, or literally Hitler.

Back in the late 90s, I had a somewhat similar experience…

One day, I was idly humming the Battle Hymn of the Republic when I was stopped and informed (just like that 12-year-old boy) that this song had its origins in “slavery.” This was a work environment and the person was a colleague, so I kept it cool and just pointed out—a little frustrated, of course—that the Battle Hymn of the Republic was written by an abolitionist and was popular in the Union.

Obviously the colleague knew enough to associate the song with the Civil War, but that was it. Her left-wing programming and intersectional status kicked in from there and filled in the blanks: Civil War…being hummed by a white guy…………slavery.

This wasn’t even particularly conscious. This was more a kind of programatic confabulation. Same thing with the teacher. She did not know where the flag comes from, but she’s a good Baizuo, so she filled in the blanks of her ignorance with a Baizuo’s kind of “knowledge.” My colleague did the same, but from the standpoint of an aggrieved victim.

This colleague was a very sweet person. I really liked her, and she liked me too. I have not seen her for more than 20 years, but I still think of her fondly. But what she did that day was uncool. If you’ve been paying attention at all, you know that truth has begun to mean less in such matters than the identity groups of the people involved. Truth is what The Party says it is. Truth is found in the personal narrative of the ‘victim.’ Grievance trumps reality, and people have lost their jobs for exactly this sort of thing. Under a different set of circumstances, getting caught in that web might’ve cost me my livelihood. All over a grievance that had been fabricated out of thin air.

An experiment conducted at Dartmouth (and repeated in similar studies elsewhere) demonstrated that for some people, feeling aggrieved comes all too easily. You can read for yourself and watch the video below, but the gist is simple:

Study participants had a disfiguring scar drawn on their faces and were told to go out into the world, interact with people, and then report on how those people treated them. Unbeknownst to the participants, however, the scar was removed prior to them going out into public. In spite of the fact that there was no disfigurement, the participants claimed that they experienced discrimination because of their appearance.

This was just one experiment. Imagine being told, day after day, year after year, decade after decade, that you are a victim solely because of your identity, that that will never change, and that even when people are not discriminating against you, they secretly are.

What the left has done to people is vicious. These are precious human beings who did not need or deserve to be psychologically programmed in this way.