Bari Weiss posts this type of article every couple months in the new york time, the paper of record in this country
I wouldn't say prominently. The only one vaguely pushing them is Maher - obviously because he agrees with their views. Other appearances are generally one offs.
Why? What does a debate do? I agree with Sam Harris a lot of the time but even when he went against critics in debate (and in my view won), it didn't make any difference to those of the opposite opinion. A debate does feck all.
My legit interest is in why people can't see through shitty arguments. I don't actually care about the individuals like Shapiro etc. He's a qualified lawyer - he can lie his ass off and look after himself.
Maher also said Milo was a young Chris Hitchens.
...yeah.
Not sure I care who he's pushing.
I have no issue with that at all. Let them debate the pros and cons of Israel policy - something that isn't done nearly enough.
Congress shall make no law[...]or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
This isn't a question of debating Israel - it is a direct attack on the core of the 1st amendment that the government cannot regulate political speech.
In that sense it is directly different from any free speech issues within a private organisation or groups of people - this is direct censorship by the govt itself and unambiguously condemned by the 1st amendment. As to your technical question of whether this applies to Texas - it does, the 14th amendment issue was resolved about 50 years ago: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/incorporation_doctrine
And it's hilarious that you bring up Greenwald because unlike me he is a first-amendment absolutist and in fact became a journalist after being a civil rights lawyer - dong more for actual free speech issues than this entire "oh no, PC" club collectively. I will go further and suggest that you might listen to an actual civil rights lawyer (or an organisation of them) and not overpaid columnists if you want to learn about threats to free speech.
That may be the case re: the 1st amendment, but that would need to be litigated up the judicial chain since I'm guessing the constitutionality of the Texas state law would need to be challenged in court.
You have made a lot of deductions and other sentences using reasoning in this thread. You can do the same regarding the legality of the BDS laws without waiting for court rulings. Further, you have shown an interest in defending free speech in this thread. If you do believe in free speech as a virtue, I fail to see how you can tolerate a law that attacks a political position.
this is how employment generally worksShould some one ... be allowed to collect state money as a result of a workshop they teach at a public University.
whether Texas has a states right argument about being able to limit public funds for a matter that their voters (and by extension the politicians they elected) object to.
this is how employment generally works
The reason employment works like that is because it's illegal make people work for nothing. There was a whole war over it.Ordinarily yes, but not when there are legal considerations at play.
This is political censorship/mob rule/whatever other horror free-speech advocates believe college students can bring about.
The reason employment works like that is because it's illegal make people work for nothing. There was a whole war over it.
People get sacked all the time for saying extremely offensive things.
There is almost no chance that a Democratic-controlled NLRB would have reached the same conclusion. As proof of this, consider the Cooper Tirepicketing case decided under the Obama Board. In that case, picketers yelled out clearly racist statements at replacement workers and were fired for doing so. The NLRB said the termination was unlawful because the statements occurred in the context of protected activity (picketing) and the 8th Circuit ultimately affirmed the NLRB’s decision in that case.
Hurricane Harvey's floodwaters damaged many homes in the Texas city of Dickinson, and residents are applying for assistance and working to repair their properties.
But Dickinson's application for repair grants is raising eyebrows. Alongside standard items such as project descriptions and grant amounts, the city application reads:
"By executing this Agreement below, the Applicant verifies that the Applicant: (1) does not boycott Israel; and (2) will not boycott Israel during the term of this agreement."
In doing so, the application appears to make eligibility for hurricane relief funds contingent on political beliefs regarding Israel, which the American Civil Liberties Union describes as unconstitutional.
Private companies have total freedom over their employees, which trumps their free speech rights. Indeed it was a Republican NLRB that ruled that James Damore could fe fired because they felt that his employer had the right to be "permitted to “nip in the bud” the kinds of employee conduct that could lead to a “hostile workplace". (Source:http://mattbruenig.com/2018/02/16/trump-nlrb-smashed-google-guy/)
It is different when it comes to the government, that too as a client:
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo...y-if-you-boycott-israel-you-may-be-out-of-luc
That's why I said this is a matter between the state's right to make its own laws based on its community standards and the federal 1st amendment. It has to be adjudicated up the judicial chain.
Ok, this is going in circles.
I think the only consistency in your position is a defence of positions you think need more airtime and a willingness to forgo free-speech protections for positions you don't feel like bothering with.
Then you've completely misunderstood my position. I'm not arguing that BDS proponents don't have the right to promote the group. They do. But a member or fan of the group can't expect to not be penalized for having broken a state law. For the third time - That is a matter that has to be adjudicated between the federal and state governments. Such a legal process of course wouldn't prevent a BDS supporter from utilyzing their first amendment right to support BDS. The issue isn't a pure 1st amendment issue - its a legal dispute between federal law and local standards.
If the 1st amendment prevents the federal govt from making some law, that same law is DoA everywhere else because of the incorporation clause in the 14th amendment.
Also:
Imagine my shock
Not the federal government - state governments
The incorporation doctrine is a constitutional doctrine through which the first ten amendments of the United States Constitution(known as the Bill of Rights) are made applicable to the states through the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
A U.S. Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that the First Amendment right to free speech applied to state laws under the Fourteenth Amendment.
Its not about the individuals in question - but rather that a broader set of ideas should be debated in popular culture. Currently, people have to go fishing on YouTube, Reddit and Twitter to ferret out these debates when said ideas should be more prominently talked about on MSM outlets.
What is incorporation?
Which amendment applies to speech? 1st
Is it incorporated? Yes
Is there a case regarding this? Yes
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/gitlow_v._new_york_1925
More relevant to Bari Weiss:
Do free-speech columnists talk about this, GOP-promote employer censorship and other govt over-reach post 9/11 when they mention threats to free speech? No
Should they be taken seriously? Hence, no.
Outlets like Reddit, Twitter and YouTube are huge though - they're hardly outside the mainstream. And as has been pointed out these voices do get plenty of MSM exposure anyway.
I blame Oprah.
She is the one who popularized and commercialized a model that disavows any sort of objectivity or journalistic integrity. She regularly had hucksters and con artists on the show while again disavowing any responsibility to the truth. She publicly disavows any responsibility for promoting questionable characters.
While Orpah's brand of "feel good" materialism made her the most profitable media personality for decades, her emotional QVC show normalized the idea that its okay to have completely one-sided media that has no responsibility to the truth or looking for a balanced opinion but just selling products on emotional appeal.
Even beyond Oprah, I think it can be argued that Joe Rogan is more of a journalist than the old late night talk show hosts like Johnny Carson or David Letterman who were really just selective long form advertisements disguised as "comedy" (I don't think I have ever laughed out loud at anything Carson, Letterman or Leno ever said).
As for Weiss, I think its unfortunate that the Greenwald cabal are spending the entire day attempting to discredit her for writing an opinion piece promoting alternative opinions.
They are huge in terms of the fact that anyone can access them, but they are entirely different than MSM outlets where information is presented and contextualized to the public, where viewers don't have to look for the news.
"lets get that sweet, sweet ad money" isn't context, it's a sociopathic tendency to chase cheques over everything else.They are huge in terms of the fact that anyone can access them, but they are entirely different than MSM outlets where information is presented and contextualized to the public, where viewers don't have to look for the news.
This is literally the debate you claim to crave. They are arguing against her premise that the people she touts are being suppressed.
They are actually attacking her from what I've seen, when they should be challenging the idea.
They're very different, yes, but they're still hugely in the mainstream and are incredibly influential. Plus as has been said Shapiro et al get to appear on a lot major news outlets and talk shows regularly anyway.
I generally exclude Fox from the equation. I know Shapiro and more recently Peterson, have been making appearances on Fox, but its more so to advance the channel's propagandist narratives than to engage in a proper debate. Peterson, in particular, seems to have been coopted by conservatives to prop up their personal responsibility arguments. Unfotunately that's just groupthink reinforcement than a proper two sided debate.
Its not about the individuals in question - but rather that a broader set of ideas should be debated in popular culture. Currently, people have to go fishing on YouTube, Reddit and Twitter to ferret out these debates when said ideas should be more prominently talked about on MSM outlets.
Greenwald helpfully excluded Fox from his screenshots.
MSM has a lot less exposure or respect today. What they're saying or talking about isn't that relevant. I think most people take it all with a fist full of salt and I'd say its a shrinking proportion of people who have much exposure to it. Youtube, Reddit and Twitter are probably more relevant today. I like them but reddit pushes people off into their own little bubbles. Youtube is a bit of a cesspit. It has good content but the user comments and uploads are just painfully bad. If by some miracle someone posts something worthwhile it'll get lost in a tidal wave of shit. I've taken to just dismissing anything and everything that originated on twitter, its like a side universe for boring, whiny babies to vent.
Good. If Weiss' piece in the NY Times combined with some of the usual suspects recently getting more air time on the networks is starting to happen then that's fantastic. I suppose it is impossible to keep indefinitely bottled up in the social media world.
The appearances happened prior to this article, an article where all these people decried their voices being silenced.
