free speech


The fetishization of “opinion” and “free speech” is horrifying, people thinks it means they can saying anything anywhere without ever being criticized or held accountable or disagreed with regardless of their education on a subject.   


Reactions to Donald Trump labelling news media “the enemy of the American people” from: 

  • David Axelrod, former adviser to President Barack Obama
  • Carl Bernstein, investigative journalist and author who covered the Watergate scandal and was the first to suspect that Nixon was involved
  • Gabriel Sherman, national affairs editor at New York magazine
  • Eliot A. Cohen, scholar of international affairs and former counselor in the United States Department of State
  • Jesse Berney, writer and activist
  • Andy Greenwald, writer and critic
  • David Evan McMullin, former CIA operations officer and independent candidate during the 2016 United States presidential election

Pence talks “free speech” in Notre Dame graduation address, students walk out in protest

  • Mike Pence spoke to University of Notre Dame’s class of 2017 as their commencement speaker Sunday, making a divisive appearance that sparked demonstrations from students and the broader community.
  • As part of a protest organized by university activist group We Stand For, a crowd of students walked out of the graduation ceremony as Pence began speaking, sparking boos from some of the other attendees. 
  • The protest was designed as a way to stand in solidarity with the marginalized groups targeted by Pence and the Trump administration’s divisive policies and beliefs. Read more (5/21/17)

When a member of an oppressed group tells you to stop doing something that triggers them or to not use a slur, they’re not violating your free speech, because they don’t actually have any power to stop you. You won’t be arrested, fined, or penalized in any way if you continue to do the thing that bothers them. They’re simply saying that if you respected them and people like them, you would stop. By continuing, you’re simply stating that you’re willingly choosing to not respect them.


Trump also told Comey to consider jailing journalists

  • Trump told now-fired FBI Director James Comey during a February meeting that he should consider jailing journalists who publish classified information, the New York Times reported Tuesday.
  • That revelation — part of an explosive Times report that Trump had asked Comey to kill his federal investigation into former national security advisor Michael Flynn — was reported the same day Trump met with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, whose government has been one of the worst jailers of journalists in the world.
  • Trump’s suggestion that Comey imprison journalists was immediately met with backlash, including from the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, which called the alleged remark “dangerous." Read more (5/17/17)
The FCC is Investigating Stephen Colbert for His Hilarious Trump Takedown

Unless you live in a tree (and really, who could blame you now?), you know that earlier this week, Stephen Colbert eviscerated Trump in part of his “Late Show” monologue.

Trump supporters, who insist WE’RE “snowflakes”, flooded CBS with complaints. Because Colbert is on the public airwaves and not, say, basic cable, the FCC has opened an investigation and is promising to take action should Colbert’s bit meet the SCOTUS threshold for “obscenity”.

SO much has transpired this week–the Comey hearing, the Russian hack of French moderate Macron, the horrifying anti-LGBTQ Executive Order Trump signed yesterday–it’s hard to know where to focus.

It’s not that the FCC investigation is more important than the other stories; it’s that its implications are deceptively vast.

By any reasonable standard, Colbert’s words fall under protected free speech, even on public airwaves. Let’s note that the target, Trump, is a self-confessed multiple sexual assailant, is under active FBI criminal investigation for colluding with Russia, and recently settled a $25 million lawsuit for fraud.

He’s ripe for satire. He’s a fair target. And, ostensibly, he’s the POTUS.

As such, there’s no fucking way Colbert’s words merit an FCC investigation.

The outcome has far-reaching implications for satire and, as such, free speech, under this administration.

Pay close attention and, if you can afford it, become an ACLU member if you’re not already. Or donate when you can.

As a friend of mine who’s a political scientist likes to say, “Totalitarianism always starts with words.”

SJWs get offended by racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism, etc. 

Anti-SJWs get offended by “reverse racism”, “reverse sexism”, “heterophobia”, “cisphobia” (things that aren’t real)

People love to claim that “SJWs” are easily offended by non-offensive shit, and that the things that “anti-SJWs” get offended by actually are offensive, but the only reason they think that is because they view actual bigotry as acceptable, while viewing “reverse bigotry" as a first-degree criminal offense.

If a white/cis/het/male/abled person is told to go out of their way to avoid offending a minority group, that’s seen as unacceptable. It’s called “censorship”, “death of free speech”, and “political correctness”. But minority groups are constantly forced to go out of their way to avoid offending white cishet men, and that’s seen as normal