Whoopie Goldberg attacked Bill Maher for something he said last week. This week, Maher defended Whoopi Goldberg's right to free speech and criticizes the View for suspending her for her recent comments. Maher's discussion focuses on the real meaning of Karma and and the evils of Cancel Culture.
As Glenn Greenwald tweets,
Only the US corporate media could take the person in this video, Joe Rogan, and claim he's a far-right figure. It happens in part because most of Rogan's critics never watch his show, but also because the media purposely lies and uses "far-right" to malign everyone they dislike.
It is mind-blowing how so many corporate media outlets characterize Joe Rogan "Right wing." They have either never listened to his show or they are out-and-out lying. I lean to the second possibilty. Journalistic malpractice. They do hate the growth of independent media, such as Rogan and Krystal and Saagar of Breaking Points. Follow the link below to the Mashup video by Matt Orfalea:
Follow Greenwald's thread for the accusations that Rogan is "right wing." MSM would rather try to cancel voices challenging their corrupted narratives instead of working harder to earn the respect as providers of meaningful news.
When I posted this on FB, some people pivoted to calling Rogan a "racist," as though has has ever used the N-word as a slur (he hasn't on his podcast). Rogan used the N-word many times (for which he has now apologized), but never as a racial slur.
I responded to those who took this pivot:
Do you see any difference between discussing the "N" word and using as a hateful slur? Do you think that professors should be fired for using the N-word to teach the evils of slavery? I personally know of such cases. Do you get upset when you see Joe Biden using the N-word? He has used it (not as a slur). What about when Obama uttered the N-word? Mark Twain? Do you consider the N-word to have magic significance (like the word "Voldemort") that it hurts people even when it is used as a teaching tool for combatting racism. Do you believe in magic? Rogan is not racist in the least. If you doubt this, just try to find one clip where he has ever shown any bigotry toward people of color. You won't find it.
Show me one example of where Rogan "implies" that he is a "racist." You won't find it. How about comparing your false characterization to the "progressive" view that we need to wholesale lower and eliminate standards because black people can't cut it? That's REAL racism. See this video by Glenn Loury and John McWhorter.
Law professor Jason Kilborn is forging ahead in the battle to vindicate academic freedom rights at University of Illinois Chicago, which punished him for a test question that included two redacted slurs.
- University forces professor into sensitivity course that uses the exact same redacted slur in the training materials.
- UIC’s level of hypocrisy and cluelessness boggles the mind.
“UIC crucifies Kilborn for using a redacted slur, then turns around and forces him into anti-racism training that uses that same slur,” said Ronnie London, head of FIRE’s Faculty Legal Defense Fund. “Kilborn is effectively showing up to re-education and being handed his own text.”
The Mission of Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE):
The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education’s mission is to defend and sustain the individual rights of students and faculty members at America’s colleges and universities. These rights include freedom of speech, freedom of association, due process, legal equality, religious liberty, and sanctity of conscience—the essential qualities of liberty. FIRE educates students, faculty, alumni, trustees, and the public about the threats to these rights on our campuses, and provides the means to preserve them.
“The University is not engaged in making ideas safe for students. It is engaged in making students safe for ideas."
University of California president Clark Kerr
Here's an excerpt from Edwin Chemerinsky's excellent 2017 book, Free Speech on Campus (p. 71):
Concerns about a culture of intolerance on college campuses led President Obama to tell Rutgers graduates in 2016 that democracy and education require a willingness to listen to people with whom you disagree:
I know a couple years ago, folks on this campus got upset that Condoleezza Rice was supposed to speak at a commencement. Now, I don’t think it’s a secret that I disagree with many of the foreign policies of Dr. Rice and the previous administration. But the notion that this community or country would be better served by not hearing from a former Secretary of State, or shutting out what she had to say—I believe that’s misguided. . . .Chemerinsky writes (p. 64):If you disagree with somebody, bring them in and ask them tough questions. Hold their feet to the fire. Make them defend their positions. If somebody has got a bad or offensive idea, prove it wrong. Engage it. Debate it. Stand up for what you believe in. Don’t be scared to take somebody on. Don’t feel like you got to shut your ears off because you’re too fragile and somebody might offend your sensibilities. Go at them if they’re not making any sense. Use your logic and reason and words. And by doing so, you’ll strengthen your own position, and you’ll hone your arguments. And maybe you’ll learn something and realize you don’t know everything. And you may have a new understanding not only about what your opponents believe but maybe what you believe. Either way, you win. And more importandy, our democracy wins.
We believe there is no middle ground. History demonstrates that there is no way to define an unacceptable, punishment-worthy idea without putting genuinely important new thinking and societal critique at risk. Universities contribute to society when faculty are allowed to explore the frontiers of knowledge and suggest ways of thinking that may be considered crazy, distasteful, or offensive to the community. When people ask the censor to suppress bad ideas in higher education, many important and positive ideas never have the chance to flourish, and many dangerous or evil ideas are allowed to thrive because they are not subjected to evaluation, critique, and rebuttal. In our view, no belief should be treated as sacrosanct. Nullius in verba remains vital: we must be willing to subject all ideas to the test.
In 2020, Chemerinsky was invited to talk at Claremont McKenna College. Four key points to his talk were reported at the school website:
Free speech: “To me, the core principle (of free speech) is that all ideas and views can be expressed no matter how offensive, even deeply offensive. … The government cannot prohibit speech or create liability for speech on the grounds that it’s offensive.”
Hate speech: “Hate speech is very hurtful. But most of all, the reason why hate speech is protected in the United States is that it stresses an idea. The Late Justice John Marshall Harlan said ‘to censor your words is to censor your ideas. We can’t cleanse the English language to please the most squeamish among us.’”
Campus culture: “Colleges and universities can have time, place, and manner restrictions with regard to speech, as long as they leave it open at alternative places for communication. Government can have time, place, and manner restrictions. For colleges and universities, the government can have it to restrict the disruption of campus activities and to protect safety. Colleges and universities have a moral duty towards the safety of the students and faculty.”
Speech we detest: “We don’t need freedom of speech to protect the speech we like. We need freedom of speech to protect the speech we detest. I am dubious to let the government decide what message to express. Freedom of speech is based on a faith—a faith that we would all be better off in the academic institution, where all our ideas and views will be expressed.”
Here is an illustration of why it is vitally important that we (sometimes) change our minds. This is an excerpt from the famous dissent of Oliver Wendell Holmes in the 1919 case of Abrams v The United States:
Persecution for the expression of opinions seems to me perfectly logical. If you have no doubt of your premises or your power, and want a certain result with all your heart, you naturally express your wishes in law, and sweep away all opposition. To allow opposition by speech seems to indicate that you think the speech impotent, as when a man says that he has squared the circle, or that you do not care wholeheartedly for the result, or that you doubt either your power or your premises.
But when men have realized that time has upset many fighting faiths, they may come to believe even more than they believe the very foundations of their own conduct that the ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas -- that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market, and that truth is the only ground upon which their wishes safely can be carried out.
That, at any rate, is the theory of our Constitution. It is an experiment, as all life is an experiment. Every year, if not every day, we have to wager our salvation upon some prophecy based upon imperfect knowledge. While that experiment is part of our system, I think that we should be eternally vigilant against attempts to check the expression of opinions that we loathe and believe to be fraught with death, unless they so imminently threaten immediate interference with the lawful and pressing purposes of the law that an immediate check is required to save the country.