I highly recommend this video if you'd like to get up to speed on many of the new and sophisticated ways your government is trying to regulate how you communicate with your fellow citizens. Glenn Greenwald and Matt Taibbi have been intensely covering the "censorship industrial complex" for years. This is merely the latest chapter of a disturbing series of stories they have broken.
Why do people we abhor have the right to say abhorrent things? Because we believe in the rule of law across the board. Another example offered by Alan Charles Kors: "We do not provide jury trials only for people we find decent."
Instead of "Believe the Woman" or "Believe the Man," how about Believe in Due Process? This video by Matt Orfalea illustrates why we need to be highly suspicious whenever the corporate media conducts its own hysterical "trials" of celebrities.
Commenting on this video, Matt Taibbi adds:
Most people accused of crimes aren’t famous ballplayers, but small-timers whose shoplifting or assault mugshots become ugly headlines above little online arrest reports that remain on the Internet forever, for potential future employers and friends alike to see. What should media do, about people who are accused but not yet convicted? Probably at minimum, cover exonerations with as much vigor as opening charges. Unfortunately, dirty laundry will always sell better.
I just returned from the 3-day FIRE Faculty Network Conference in DC.
I was surrounded by brave educators, many of whom have repeatedly faced adversity from their schools for the crime of being excellent teachers. I had the opportunity visit with three women professors who teach in the area of biological sciences (at three different universities). Each one of them was present because biology is so often seen as a threat to ignorant students, professors and administrators.
I also had the opportunity to meet Erika Lopez Prater, who was fired by Hamline University for doing an excellent job of teaching Islamic Religious History--her specific sin was displaying for the class the image of a much-revered historic 14th Century painting of Muhammed, painted by a Muslim for a Muslim audience. She did this after giving her class warning, so that anyone who might be offended could be excused from class. The administrator who fired her called her actions: "undeniably inconsiderate, disrespectful and Islamophobic”
I also had the opportunity to meet Professor of Religion, Mark Bergson, who argued, at considerable risk to his job, that Hamlin was making a horrific mistake by firing Lopez Prater.
Speakers at the conference included Greg Lukianoff and Steven Pinker. We all know that this problem--that many people who formerly opposed censorship and cancel culture are now in favor of these things--is not going away any time soon.
FIRE weighs in on the horrific struggle involving Israeli-Palestinian conflict with the same excellent suggestion that it offers regarding ever other conflict: The more feee speech, the better.
The article is titled: "As the Israeli-Palestinian conflict escalates, so must our commitment to free speech: Intense political disagreements demonstrate the necessity of the First Amendment." Excerpt:
Let every participant in the debate over the Israeli-Palestinian conflict show their cards, even those with the most extreme views. And let others marshal arguments and evidence to refute or discredit those views. Let it all happen out in the open.
At the end of the day, we’re not better off knowing less about what our fellow Americans actually think. As FIRE co-founder Harvey Silverglate has said, “I want to know who the Nazi in the room is so I know not to turn my back to them.”
In Snyder v. Phelps, the Supreme Court upheld the right of the Westboro Baptist Church to picket soldiers’ funerals with signs bearing messages like “Fags Doom Nations” and “Thank God for Dead Soldiers.” It’s hard to find a case involving speech that draws less public sympathy. But as the Court said in an 8-1 decision uniting justices across the ideological spectrum:
Speech is powerful. It can stir people to action, move them to tears of both joy and sorrow, and—as it did here—inflict great pain. On the facts before us, we cannot react to that pain by punishing the speaker. As a Nation we have chosen a different course—to protect even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate.Free speech comes at a price. But it’s nothing compared to the price we will pay if we abandon it.