Poll: 71% of Americans Say Political Correctness Has Silenced Discussions Society Needs to Have, 58% Have Political Views They’re Afraid to Share
Posted: November 1, 2017 Filed under: Censorship, Think Tank | Tags: CATO, Conservative, Free speech, Freedom of Expression, Intolerance, Liberal, Opinions, Politically Correct, Tolerance 1 CommentEmily Ekins reports: The Cato 2017 Free Speech and Tolerance Survey, a new national poll of 2,300 U.S. adults, finds that 71% Americans believe that political correctness has silenced important discussions our society needs to have. The consequences are personal—58%
of Americans believe the political climate prevents them from sharing their own political beliefs.
Democrats are unique, however, in that a slim majority (53%) do not feel the need to self-censor. Conversely, strong majorities of Republicans (73%) and independents (58%) say they keep some political beliefs to themselves.
[Full survey results and report found here.]
It follows that a solid majority (59%) of Americans think people should be allowed to express unpopular opinions in public, even those deeply offensive to others.
[Also see – Free Speech in the Good War]
On the other hand, 40% think government should prevent hate speech. Despite this, the survey also found Americans willing to censor, regulate, or punish a wide variety of speech and expression they personally find offensive:
- 51% of staunch liberals say it’s “morally acceptable” to punch Nazis.
- 53% of Republicans favor stripping U.S. citizenship from people who burn the American flag.
- 51% of Democrats support a law that requires Americans use transgender people’s preferred gender pronouns.
- 65% of Republicans say NFL players should be fired if they refuse to stand for the anthem.
- 58% of Democrats say employers should punish employees for offensive Facebook posts.
- 47% of Republicans favor bans on building new mosques.
Americans also can’t agree what speech is hateful, offensive, or simply a political opinion:
- 59% of liberals say it’s hate speech to say transgender people have a mental disorder; only 17% of conservatives agree.
- 39% of conservatives believe it’s hate speech to say the police are racist; only 17% of liberals agree.
- 80% of liberals say it’s hateful or offensive to say illegal immigrants should be deported; only 36% of conservatives agree.
- 87% of liberals say it’s hateful or offensive to say women shouldn’t fight in military combat roles, while 47% of conservatives agree.
- 90% of liberals say it’s hateful or offensive to say homosexuality is a sin, while 47% of conservatives agree.
Americans Oppose Hate Speech Bans, But Say Hate Speech is Morally Unacceptable
Although Americans oppose (59%) outright bans on public hate speech, that doesn’t mean they think hate speech is acceptable. Read the rest of this entry »
[VIDEO] Five Clichés Used to Attack Free Speech
Posted: June 16, 2017 Filed under: Censorship, Crime & Corruption, History, Mediasphere, Politics, Think Tank, U.S. News | Tags: Antifa, Donald Trump, First Amendment, Free speech, Freedom of Expression, news, Nick Gillespie, Radical Left, Reason (magazine), Reason.tv, SCOTUS, Supreme Court, video Leave a comment
Protesters Torch Free Speech At Berkeley In Latest Example of Mob Rule On America’s College Campuses
Posted: April 20, 2017 Filed under: Diplomacy, Education, Politics, Think Tank | Tags: Berkeley, First Amendment, Free speech, Mobs, Radical Left, Violence Leave a commentWe recently discussed the courageous stand of the University of Chicago in favor of free speech (a position followed by schools like Purdue). Free speech is being rapidly diminished on our campuses as an ever-widening scope of speech has been declared hate speech or part of the ill-defined “microaggression.” Now Berkeley has shown the world exactly what this intolerance looks like as protesters attacked people, burned property, and rioted to stop other people from hearing the views of a conservative speaker. As on so many campuses, they succeeded. The speech by Milo Yiannopoulos was cancelled. A triumph of anti-speech protesters. Berkeley now must face a defining moment. The only appropriate response for the school is to immediately reschedule the speaker and stand in defiance of those who want to deny the right to speak (and to hear and associate) to others. Moreover, it is liberals who should be on…
View original post 519 more words
[VIDEO] What’s Wrong With Canada’s Islamophobia Motion? A Muslim Answers
Posted: April 6, 2017 Filed under: Censorship, Law & Justice, Mediasphere | Tags: Canada, Clarion Project, Free speech, Freedom of Expression, Islam, Islamofacsism, Islamophobia, Jihadism, Muslim Brotherhood, Raheel Raza, Sharia Law, video Leave a commentClarion’s Raheel Raza is unhappy with what she sees as a challenge to free speech, something enshrined in Canadian law.
Camille Paglia: Feminism, Free Women and Free Speech
Posted: March 22, 2017 Filed under: Education, Reading Room, Think Tank | Tags: American Revolution, Camile Paglia, Date Rape, Free speech, Free Women Free Men, French Revolution, Men, Netflix, Political Correctness, Women Leave a commentThe ‘dissident feminist’ on the intersection between feminism and debate.
Camile Paglia writes: History moves in cycles. The plague of political correctness and assaults on free speech that erupted in the 1980s and were beaten back in the 1990s have returned with a vengeance. In the United States, the universities as well as the mainstream media are currently patrolled by well-meaning but ruthless thought police, as dogmatic in their views as agents of the Spanish Inquisition. We are plunged once again into an ethical chaos where intolerance masquerades as tolerance and where individual liberty is crushed by the tyranny of the group.
[Order Paglia’s book “Free Women, Free Men: Sex, Gender, Feminism” from Amazon.com]
The premier principles of my new book, Free Women, Free Men, are free thought and free speech—open, mobile, and unconstrained by either liberal or conservative ideology. The liberal versus conservative dichotomy, dating from the split between Left and Right following the French Revolution, is hopelessly outmoded for our far more complex era of expansive technology and global politics. A bitter polarization of liberal and conservative has become so extreme and strident in both the Americas and Europe that it sometimes resembles mental illness, severed from the common sense realities of everyday life.
[Read the full excerpt here, at Time.com]
My dissident brand of feminism is grounded in my own childhood experience as a fractious rebel against the suffocating conformism of the 1950s, when Americans, exhausted by two decades of economic instability and war, reverted to a Victorian cult of domesticity that limited young girls’ aspirations and confined them (in my jaundiced view) to a simpering, saccharine femininity. Read the rest of this entry »
[VIDEO] Roger Scruton: Offensive Jokes
Posted: February 26, 2017 Filed under: Humor, Mediasphere, Think Tank | Tags: 1st Amendment, Free speech, Freedom of Expression, Jokes, Offensive Jokes, Roger Scruton, Speech Codes, Tolerance, video Leave a comment[VIDEO] Liberal: Why I Want Milo Yiannopoulos On My Campus
Posted: February 9, 2017 Filed under: Censorship, Education, Mediasphere, Politics | Tags: Academia, Fox News, Free speech, Freedom of speech, Liberal, Milo Yiannopoulos, news, protests, Tucker Carlson, video Leave a comment
Childishness and Intolerance on College Campuses Embody What’s Wrong with American Liberalism
Posted: November 18, 2016 Filed under: Education, Politics, Think Tank | Tags: Academia, American Dream, Bernie Sanders, Bruce Springsteen, Carl Higbie, college campus, Donald Trump, Free speech, George Will, Hillary Clinton, Millennials, Washington Post Leave a commentAcademia should consider how it contributed to, and reflects Americans’ judgments pertinent to, Donald Trump’s election.
George Will writes: Many undergraduates, their fawn-like eyes wide with astonishment, are wondering: Why didn’t the dean of students prevent the election from disrupting the serenity to which my school has taught me that I am entitled? Campuses create “safe spaces” where students can shelter from discombobulating thoughts and receive spiritual balm for the trauma of microaggressions. Yet the presidential election came without trigger warnings?
“Only the highly educated write so badly…the point of such ludicrous prose is to signal membership in a clerisy.”
The morning after the election, normal people rose — some elated, some despondent — and went off to actual work. But at Yale University, that incubator of late-adolescent infants, a professor responded to “heartfelt notes” from students “in shock” by making that day’s exam optional.
Academia should consider how it contributed to, and reflects Americans’ judgments pertinent to, Donald Trump’s election. The compound of childishness and condescension radiating from campuses is a reminder to normal Americans of the decay of protected classes — in this case, tenured faculty and cosseted students.
[Read the full text of George Will’s column here, at The Washington Post]
As “bias-response teams” fanned out across campuses, an incident report was filed about a University of Northern Colorado student who wrote “free speech matters” on one of 680 “#languagematters” posters that cautioned against politically incorrect speech. Catholic DePaul University denounced as “bigotry” a poster proclaiming “Unborn Lives Matter.” Bowdoin College provided counseling to students traumatizedby the cultural appropriation committed by a sombrero-and-tequila party. Oberlin College students said they were suffering breakdowns because schoolwork was interfering with their political activism. California State University at Los Angeles established “healing” spaces for students to cope with the pain caused by a political speech delivered three months earlier . Indiana University experienced social-media panic (“Please PLEASE PLEASE be careful out there tonight”) because a Catholic priest in a white robe, with a rope-like belt and rosary beads, was identified as someone “in a KKK outfit holding a whip.” Read the rest of this entry »
[VIDEO] ‘Can We Take a Joke?’ Official Trailer HD, Featuring Adam Carolla, Lisa Lampanelli, Gilbert Gottfried, Penn Jillette
Posted: June 7, 2016 Filed under: Art & Culture, Censorship, Humor, Politics, Think Tank | Tags: Accidentally on Purpose (TV series), Adam Carolla, Ann Coulter, Ari Fleischer, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Bernie Sanders, documentary, Donald Trump, Film, Free speech, Penn Jillette, Politically Correct, Stand-up comedy Leave a comment
In the age of social media, nearly every day brings a new eruption of outrage. While people have always found something to be offended by, their ability to organize a groundswell of opposition to—and public censure of—their offender has never been more powerful. Today we’re all one clumsy joke away from public ruin. Can We Take A Joke? offers a thought-provoking and wry exploration of outrage culture through the lens of stand-up comedy, with notables like Gilbert Gottfried, Penn Jillette, Lisa Lampanelli, and Adam Carolla detailing its stifling impact on comedy and the exchange of ideas. What will future will be like if we can’t learn how to take a joke?
College Encourages Lively Exchange Of Idea
Posted: April 29, 2016 Filed under: Censorship, Education, Humor, Mediasphere | Tags: college, First Amendment, Free Expression, Free speech, Ideology, Parody, satire, University Leave a commentBOSTON—Saying that such a dialogue was essential to the college’s academic mission, Trescott University president Kevin Abrams confirmed Monday that the school encourages a lively exchange of one idea. “As an institution of higher learning, we recognize that it’s inevitable that certain contentious topics will come up from time to time, and when they do, we want to create an atmosphere where both students and faculty feel comfortable voicing a single homogeneous opinion,” said Abrams, adding that no matter the subject, anyone on campus is always welcome to add their support to the accepted consensus…(read more)
[VIDEO] A Progressive’s Guide to Political Correctness
Posted: March 28, 2016 Filed under: Censorship, Education, Mediasphere, Politics, Think Tank | Tags: college, Free speech, George Will, Marxism, PC, PC Police, Politically Correct, Prager University, Progressivism, Safe Spaces, Speech Police, The Washington Post, Totalitarianism, Washington D.C., Washington Redskins 1 Comment
Is there a point where the “P.C. Police” are satisfied? Are there ever “enough” rules governing the jokes we tell, the mascots of sports teams, or the symbols on city seals? Or should we want a society as non-offensive as the American college campus? George Will, Washington Post Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist, imagines what an idyllic politically correct universe would look like.
Liberals’ Response to Dissent: Shut Up
Posted: November 4, 2015 Filed under: Censorship, Politics, Think Tank, White House | Tags: Academic freedom, Bill Clinton, Blog, Condoleezza Rice, Facebook, Fire, First Amendment, Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, Free speech, Freedom of speech, George W. Bush, Hong Kong, Speech, United States Leave a commentMichael Barone writes: “‘Shut up,’ he explained.” Those words are from Ring Lardner‘s short story “The Young Immigrunts.” They’re an exasperated father’s response from the driver’s seat to his child’s question, “‘Are you lost, Daddy?’ I asked tenderly.”
They also can be taken as the emblematic response of today’s liberals to anyone questioning their certitudes. A response that at least sometimes represents the uneasy apprehension of the father in the story that they have no good answer.
“We are told that speech codes are necessary because some students may be offended by what others say. In recent years we have been warned that seemingly innocuous phrases may be ‘microaggressions’ that must be stamped out and that “trigger warnings” should be administered to warn students of possibly upsetting material.”
It was not always so. Today’s liberals, like those of Lardner’s day, pride themselves on their critical minds, their openness to new and unfamiliar ideas, their tolerance of diversity and differences. But often that characterization seems as defunct as Lardner, who died at an unhappily early age in 1935.
“Beyond the campus, liberals are also eager to restrict free speech. This is apparent in some responses to those who argue that global warming may not be as inevitable and harmful as most liberals believe, and that while increased carbon emissions would surely raise temperatures if they were the only factor affecting climate, some other factors just might be involved.”
[Read the full story here, at Washington Examiner]
Consider the proliferation of speech codes at our colleges and universities. The website of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education sets out the speech codes at 400 of the nation’s largest and most prestigious institutions of higher learning. The liberals who run these institutions — you won’t find many non-liberals among their faculties and administrations — have decided to limit their students’ First Amendment right of freedom of speech. Read the rest of this entry »
[VIDEO] Penn Jillette on Being Offended: Outtake from ‘Can We Take A Joke?’
Posted: October 16, 2015 Filed under: Education, Humor, Mediasphere, Think Tank | Tags: Can We Take A Joke?, comedy, Fire, First Amendment, Free speech, Freedom, media, Offended, Penn Jillette, Speech Codes, TheFire.org Leave a comment
‘
Mythical Voltaire’s Free Speech for Millennials
Posted: May 15, 2015 Filed under: Censorship, Education, Humor, Mediasphere, Politics | Tags: Academia, college, First Amendment, Free speech, Freedom of Expression, hate speech, Neo-Victorian, Political Correctness, Progressivism, Speech Codes, The Enlightenment, University Leave a comment[VIDEO] Garland Shooting: Texas Imam Wants Free Speech Law Changed
Posted: May 13, 2015 Filed under: Censorship, Religion, War Room | Tags: First Amendment, Free speech, Freedom of speech, Garland Attack, Garland Shooting, Houston, Imam, Islamism, Jihadism, Pamela Geller, Sharia Law, Terrorism, Texas Leave a commentCartoonists: Who Saw This Coming?
Posted: May 8, 2015 Filed under: Art & Culture, Comics, Humor, Mediasphere | Tags: Anne Bayefsky, Cartoons, Charlie Hebdo, First Amendment, Free speech, Paris Attack, satire, Texas Shooting, Twitter 1 CommentThe New Sexy
Via Twitter @AnneBayefsky
Free Speech Under Fire: Muhammad Cartoon Contest Winner Retreats Into Hiding
Posted: May 5, 2015 Filed under: Censorship, Comics | Tags: Cartoons, Dallas, Free speech, Freedom of speech, Garland, Islam, Muhammad, Muslim, New York City, Pamela Geller, Security guard, Stop Islamization of America, Texas 1 CommentMan says he faces death threats after winning grand prize for drawing of prophet
“I don’t want to say where. There are Muslims out there who want to kill me.”
Bosch Fawstin netted $12,500 for winning the contest’s grand prize as well as the “People’s Choice Award” for his drawing depicting Muhammad wielding a sword and saying, “you can’t draw me!”
“I do it because we have been told we can’t. I’m not just provoking people for the hell of it.…Provocation is freedom of speech—it’s not separate from it.”
— Cartoonist Bosch Fawstin
In an interview on Tuesday, the cartoonist was vague about his whereabouts, saying only that he lives somewhere in the U.S.
[read the full text here, at WSJ]
“I don’t want to say where,” Mr. Fawstin said, also declining to say his age. “There are Muslims out there who want to kill me.”

One of the World Trade Center’s twin towers collapses after it was struck by a commerical airliner in a suspected terrorist attack September 11, 2001 in New York City. (Photo by Ezra Shaw/Getty Images)
“Mr. Fawstin said he was raised by Albanian Muslim parents in the Bronx but eventually renounced his faith. He said the 9/11 terrorist attacks motivated him to use his art to denounce Islamic extremism.”
He has drawn a comic book called “Pigman,” featuring a hero who battles “pigotry” and his arch nemesis, SuperJihad. He said he has also drawn several dozen cartoon renderings of the Islamic prophet. Read the rest of this entry »
Targeting Political Speech for the Next Election
Posted: November 5, 2014 Filed under: Censorship, Politics, Think Tank | Tags: Ann Ravel, California Fair Political Practices Commission, censorship, First Amendment, Free speech, propaganda, Ronald D. Rotunda 1 CommentMr. Rotunda is a law professor at Fowler Law School, Chapman University, the co-author, with John Nowak, of “Treatise on Constitutional Law” (Thomson Reuters, fifth edition, 2013), and a former commissioner of the California Fair Political Practices Commission (2009-13).
Ronald D. Rotunda writes: What Talleyrand once said of French royalty applies to Ann Ravel, the vice chairwoman of the Federal Election Commission: She has “learned nothing and forgotten nothing.” Ms. Ravel appears to be dreaming of imposing on the nation what she was unable to impose on California—the regulation of political speech on the Internet.
“The First Amendment protects freedom of speech and of the press equally—and the government cannot constitutionally discriminate against some forms of speech in favor of others.”
[Check out Ronald D. Rotunda’s book “Constitutional Law: Principles and Policies, 4th Edition” from Amazon]
In April 2012, when Ms. Ravel was chairwoman of the California Fair Political Practices Commission (a state agency comparable to the FEC) and I was a commissioner, she announced that the commission would issue regulations governing political speech on the Internet. The rules, she said, would even govern bloggers outside the state. Californians raised a fuss and her efforts got nowhere.
“The Federal Election Commission exists solely to protect the public against potential corruption of public officials. It has no authority to regulate pure political speech, which is what the Web does: It disseminates pure political speech.”
Now she’s back, and in a more powerful position in Washington. The FEC already regulates paid Internet advertising, but free Internet posts are exempt from campaign-finance regulations. On Oct. 24 Ms. Ravel stated that in doing so “the Commission turned a blind eye to the Internet’s growing force in the political arena.” She said that a “re-examination of the Commission’s approach to the Internet and other emerging technologies is long overdue,” and vowed to hold hearings next year on the matter—a clear hint that the goal is to remove the regulatory exemption for free online political speech. Read the rest of this entry »
Bone-Chilling Threat: FCC Exploring Plans to Place ‘Government Monitors’ in Newsrooms
Posted: February 19, 2014 Filed under: Censorship, Mediasphere | Tags: American Center for Law & Justice, FCC, Federal Communications Commission, Free speech, Freedom of the press, Obama administration, Tea Party, Thomas Jefferson, Wall Street Journal 5 CommentsThe American Center for Law and Justice‘s Matthew Clark reports: The Obama Administration’s Federal Communication Commission (FCC) is poised to place government monitors in newsrooms across the country in an absurdly draconian attempt to intimidate and control the media.
Peter Doocy reports from Washington, D.C.
Before you dismiss this assertion as utterly preposterous (we all know how that turned out when the Tea Party complained that it was being targeted by the IRS), this bombshell of an accusation comes from an actual FCC Commissioner.
FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai reveals a brand new Obama Administration program that he fears could be used in “pressuring media organizations into covering certain stories.”
As Commissioner Pai explains in the Wall Street Journal:
Last May the FCC proposed an initiative to thrust the federal government into newsrooms across the country. With its “Multi-Market Study of Critical Information Needs,” or CIN, the agency plans to send researchers to grill reporters, editors and station owners about how they decide which stories to run. A field test in Columbia, S.C., is scheduled to begin this spring.
The purpose of the CIN, according to the FCC, is to ferret out information from television and radio broadcasters about “the process by which stories are selected” and how often stations cover “critical information needs,” along with “perceived station bias” and “perceived responsiveness to underserved populations.”
In fact, the FCC is now expanding the bounds of regulatory powers to include newspapers, which it has absolutely no authority over, in its new government monitoring program.