Category Archives: Freedom of Speech and of the Press

Posted on by

About that “accountability journalism”?

On Monday, May 9th, I received the email pictured at the right from Annie McCain Madonia, Chief Advancement Officer for the Lenfest Institute for Journalism, the non-profit owner of The Philadelphia Inquirer, saying:

As an Inquirer reader, you know the importance of quality, in-depth local news. Inquirer journalists are dedicated to keeping you informed and connected to the latest news in the Philadelphia area.

The Inquirer is owned by The Lenfest Institute for Journalism, which makes it the largest American newspaper owned by a nonprofit organization. This innovative ownership structure helps support investigative news and accountability journalism, new technology, and a newsroom of growing diversity and community impact.

Thanks to the support of individuals like you, The Inquirer has the resources to report on stories that impact and improve our communities. Will you join me in making a gift to support The Inquirer’s journalism, and double your impact with this match?

“Investigative news”? “Accountability journalism”?

Why, then, is there not a single mention on the Inquirer’s website, of a story which appeared an entire day ago concerning Philadelphia District Attorney Larry Krasner’s failure to pay his taxes? Continue reading →

Posted on by

The pro-abortionists really, really don’t like it when someone uses plain and concise language If abortion is such a good and noble thing, why must the left mealy-mouth their words about it?

We have previously noted how the credentialed media use control of language to try to influence the debate toward their favored positions, which always seem to be toward the left.

Twitter did so by prohibiting “targeted misgendering or deadnaming of transgender individuals.” Simply put, if someone wanted to tweet something about William Thomas, the male swimmer who claims to be female and is on the University of Pennsylvania’s women’s swim team using the name “Lia,” that person would have to concede to Mr Thomas’ claim that he is a woman by using the feminine pronouns and his assumed name, not his real one. The New York Times laughably gave major OpEd space to Chad Malloy, a man male who claims to be a woman going by the name “Parker” to claim that Twitter’s Ban on ‘Deadnaming’ Promotes Free Speech.

Twitter’s ban on ‘deadnaming’ — the reference to ‘transgender’ people by their birth names — and ‘misgendering’ — the reference to ‘transgender’ people by their natural, biological sex — tramples on the speech of normal people, people who do not believe that girls can be boys and boys can be girls. The argument is that, in effect, we can’t hurt their precious little feelings, and so we must concede their major point to engage in debate. Here’s hoping that Elon Musk changes that!

Now comes Jeffrey Barg, also known as the Angry Grammarian, getting upset that Associate Justice Samuel Alito used plain language, did something radical like tell the truth, in his leaked draft majority opinion on Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization: Continue reading →

Posted on by

Why does a newspaper censor the news? The Philadelphia Inquirer kept from its readers information already available to the public.

With 6,245,051 people according to the 2020 census, Philadelphia and its surrounding metropolitan area is the seventh largest in the United States. With a population of 1,603,797, the city of Philadelphia itself is the sixth largest in the United States. So why, then, does The Philadelphia Inquirer rank only 17th in circulation? Could it be because they censor the news?

Grandson charged with murdering his grandfather and another man stemming from a dispute over bedroom conditions

The circumstances leading to the arrest of Czar McMichael, 22, of North Philly, began on Thursday when Benjamin E. McMichael, 67, conducted “a routine inspection” of his grandson’s bedroom.

by Diane Mastrull | Sunday, May 1, 2022 | 4:27 PM EDT

Czar McMichael, via Fox 29 News

A Philadelphia man has been charged with murder in two shootings over two days that left his grandfather and another man dead in a double homicide that emanated from a complaint over the condition of the grandson’s bedroom, police said Sunday.The circumstances leading to the arrest of Czar McMichael, 22, of the Logan section of North Philly, began on Thursday when, police said, Benjamin E. McMichael, 67, conducted “a routine inspection” of his grandson Czar’s third-floor bedroom in their home on the 4600 block of North Broad Street and was upset with the condition of the room.

Police said the elder McMichael grabbed his grandson’s arm and Czar McMichael spun around and shot his grandfather.

On Saturday Anthony Ham, 45, of Philadelphia, along with an acquaintance stopped by the McMichael home to check on Benjamin because they hadn’t heard from him in a couple days. Ham got into the home by climbing through a window and unlocked the door for the person with him, whom police did not identify.

There’s more at the original.

What did I predict? That the newspaper would decline to print the suspect’s mugshot and would do what it could to conceal the suspect’s race. And in fact the Inquirer did not include the suspect’s mugshot, though it was easily available and had been published on Fox 29 News. Steve Keeley of Fox 29 tweeted his mugshot at 1:47 PM EDT, 2 hours and 40 minutes before the Inquirer’s article was published.

Mr Keeley also published the Philadelphia Police Department’s press release on the matter, which noted that the victims were a (45/B/M) and a (67/B/M), but of course the very “anti-racist” and #woke[1]From Wikipedia: Woke (/ˈwoʊk/) as a political term of African-American origin refers to a perceived awareness of issues concerning social justice and racial justice. It is derived from … Continue reading Inquirer were not about to publish that!

Yet the newspaper published the mugshot of Kathleen Kane, a Scranton woman who has been out of public office for six years, who has been disbarred and thus no longer practices law, and who has, as nearly as I can discover, simply been living on the spousal support from the wealthy businessman she divorced since she got out of jail.

Black murder suspect in the newspaper’s hometown? Conceal that information! Attractive white woman accused, but not convicted of, a DUI? Splash her photo all over the newspaper’s website, and Twitter!

This is what passes for journalism in the nation’s third oldest continuously published daily newspaper: conceal the facts which are inconvenient and do not go along with publisher Lisa Hughes’ ideas and goals.

References

References
↑1 From Wikipedia:

Woke (/ˈwoʊk/) as a political term of African-American origin refers to a perceived awareness of issues concerning social justice and racial justice. It is derived from the African-American Vernacular English expression “stay woke“, whose grammatical aspect refers to a continuing awareness of these issues.
By the late 2010s, woke had been adopted as a more generic slang term broadly associated with left-wing politics and cultural issues (with the terms woke culture and woke politics also being used). It has been the subject of memes and ironic usage. Its widespread use since 2014 is a result of the Black Lives Matter movement.

I shall confess to sometimes “ironic usage” of the term. To put it bluntly, I think that the ‘woke’ are just boneheadedly stupid.
Posted on by

“Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” — Benjamin Franklin

While Abteilung für Vaterländische Sicherheit is a more literal translation of Department of Fatherland Homeland Security, perhaps Reichssicherheitshauptamt, Reich Main Security Office, would be a more accurate one. And Reichsministerium für Volksaufklärung und Propaganda, frequently shortened to Propagandaministerium, was at least more honest than the ‘official’ name for Herr Biden’s Ministry of Truth, the ‘Disinformation Governance Board.’ As we hear about the Department of Fatherland Homeland Security and its new Ministry of Truth Disinformation Governance Board, now we get this story, from The Wall Street Journal:

FBI Conducted Potentially Millions of Searches of Americans’ Data Last Year, Report Says

Searches in national-security investigations came without warrants, could stoke privacy concerns in Congress

by Dustin Volz | Friday, April 29, 2022 | 6:22 PM EDT

Also see: William Teach: FBI Conducted Almost 3.4 Million Warrantless “Wiretaps” In 2021, Media Mostly Silent

WASHINGTON—The Federal Bureau of Investigation performed potentially millions of searches of American electronic data last year without a warrant, U.S. intelligence officials said Friday, a revelation likely to stoke longstanding concerns in Congress about government surveillance and privacy.

An annual report published Friday by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence disclosed that the FBI conducted as many as 3.4 million searches of U.S. data that had been previously collected by the National Security Agency.

Senior Biden administration officials said the actual number of searches is likely far lower, citing complexities in counting and sorting foreign data from U.S. data. It couldn’t be learned from the report how many Americans’ data was examined by the FBI under the program, though officials said it was also almost certainly a much smaller number.

The report doesn’t allege the FBI was routinely searching American data improperly or illegally.

Well, no, but then again, it wouldn’t.

The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution states:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Various Supreme Court decisions, including Mapp v Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961), Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108 (1964), and Ker v. California, 374 U.S. 23 (1963), have ‘incorporated,’ or applied the Fourth Amendment to state action as well. We take our constitutional rights seriously, but in its ever-expanding attempts to protect the United States, federal law has been gradually chipping away at those rights. And while the disclosure noted by the Journal occurred entirely under the Biden Administration, it has to be admitted that it has happened under Republican presidents as well. Remember: the Department of Fatherland Homeland Security was created under the younger President Bush following the September 11 attacks.

It was when the creation of that cabinet department was proposed that a very liberal friend of mine was calling it the Department of Fatherland Security. I gave it some credence, despite the fact he was pretty much a nutcase when it came to blaming the Bush family for everything bad under the sun.[1]The first World Trade Center bombing, she said, was aimed at the elder President Bush, even though he had already been defeated for re-election and left office, while the second was aimed at the … Continue reading

The disclosure of the searches marks the first time a U.S. intelligence agency has published an accounting, however imprecise, of the FBI’s grabs of American data through a section of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the 1978 law that governs some foreign intelligence gathering. The section of FISA that authorizes the FBI’s activity, known as Section 702, is due to expire next year.

While the ODNI report doesn’t suggest systemic problems with the searches, judges have previously reprimanded the bureau for failing to comply with privacy rules. Officials said the FBI’s searches were vital to its mission to protect the U.S. from national-security threats. The frequency of other forms of national-security surveillance detailed in the annual report generally fell year over year, in some cases continuing a multiyear trend.

The 3.4 million figure “is certainly a large number,” a senior FBI official said in a press briefing Friday on the report. “I am not going to pretend that it isn’t.” .  .  .  .

Congress last renewed Section 702 in 2018, and then-President Donald Trump signed the renewal into law after openly questioning the measure over unsubstantiated concerns that it was used to spy on his presidential campaign. It is set to expire again at the end of next year, and current and former intelligence officials have said they anticipate a bruising political battle.

At some point, a point I think has not only been reached, but passed, we need to start realizing that yes, there could be increased danger to our national security, but that the endangerment of our constitutional rights is a far, far, far greater threat to Americans than attacks from foreign governments or terrorist organizations. President Clinton was overly concerned about going after Osama bin Laden might somehow violate international law without the proper gathering of evidence first, to the point at which then-Secretary of State Madeline Albright insisted that Pakistan, the government of which was rife with Taliban sympathizers, had to be notified about a cruise missile overflight in the attempt to destroy Mr bin Laden and his associated in a campground in Afghanistan. The attack went ahead, but the al Qaeda leaders had left the scene hours before.

Yet since that time, we’ve created federal bureaucracies which trample upon our constitutional rights in attempts to protect our nation against outsiders. Is it really worth it to protect America if we have to cease being America to do so?

Section 702 should not be renewed, and we have to find some other way, even if it risks being less efficient, to protect the United States. Mr Biden’s Ministry of Truth should not be allowed, or funded.

References

References
↑1 The first World Trade Center bombing, she said, was aimed at the elder President Bush, even though he had already been defeated for re-election and left office, while the second was aimed at the younger President Bush, even though the planning and preparation for it had begun while Bill Clinton was President, and Al Gore was favored to win the 2000 election.
Posted on by

Freedom of Speech and the Special Snowflakes™

Donald Trump used to call the credentialed media #FakeNews, but even he never set up a ‘Disinformation Governance Board‘, nor picked someone like Nina Jankowicz, who for months told us that the Hunter Biden laptop story was Russian disinformation, to head it.

On April 25th, she told us how she feels about #FreedomOfSpeech:

Not to worry, she got the word out to the leftists and Special Snowflakes™ in the credentialed media: Continue reading →

Posted on by

The truth shall set you free, and the extreme left are afraid that Libs of Tik Tok will set some Democrats free of their party!

Why, I have to ask, is The Washington Post paying owner Jeff Bezos’ hard earned dollars to Elon Musk’s Twitter to promote an article doxing a conservative on Twitter? The image to the right is a screen capture, but if you click on it, it will take you to the original tweet.

Post writer Taylor Lorenz spent a lot of time investigating the Twitter account Libs of TikTok. LoTT’s schtick is to find the silliest things leftists put on the social media site Tik Tok, and snark them for sensible people on Twitter. Basically, LoTT is mocking people for their own exposed stupidity. My good friend Amanda Marcotte of Salon loved that LoTT was doxed, doubtlessly hoping that Chaya Raichik, a Brooklyn-based real estate salesperson and LoTT creator would lose her job, and her posting today is a hope that Mr Musk’s buyout of Twitter results in the whole thing being killed. Continue reading →

Posted on by

The New York Times really hates freedom of speech . . . for other people

In 1971, President Richard Nixon sought a restraining order to prevent The New York Times and The Washington Post from printing more of the so-called “Pentagon Papers,” technically the Report of the Office of the Secretary of Defense Vietnam Task Force, a classified history and assessment of American policy and operations in the Vietnam war. The Times and the Post fought the injunctions in court, the Times winning in New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971). The Times was all about the First Amendment and Freedom of the Press.

It’s early yet, but at least thus far, the editors of The New York Times have not published an editorial attacking Elon Musk’s agreed-to purchase of Twitter, but that doesn’t mean they haven’t allowed one of their Editorial Board to opine against it.

Twitter Under Elon Musk Will Be a Scary Place

by Greg Bensinger | April 25, 2022 | 7:20 PM EDT

Twitter has never been a place for rational, nuanced speech. Expect it to get much, much worse.

The New York Times has always been a supporter of freedom of the press . . . when they were the guardians and gatekeepers of that freedom. It wasn’t that long ago when for someone to get his opinions heard beyond bullhorn range, he had to persuade an editor to give him column inches in the newspaper or air time on radio or television. It did not matter how “rational” or “nuanced” what you had to say might have been, if an editor didn’t approve, it wasn’t to be published or broadcast. Continue reading →

Posted on by

At Ohio State University, the students want wrongthink punished

The freedom of speech comes with the freedom of other people to read or listen to, or not read or listen to, what you have said. The freedom of speech also comes with the assumed risk that those who do read or listen to your words can and just might criticize what you have written or said.

It seems, however, at least at Ohio State University, it also comes with the risk that you might be reported to the authorities.

OSU Student Faces Criticism For Saying Black People Are Superior: ‘I Full-Heartedly Believe That’

Danteé Ramos | Earthy Day, April 22, 2022 | 4:04 PM EDT

An Ohio State University (OSU) student leader is facing criticism after saying that he’d “love” to live in a world if “Black people were taught that they are superior.”

According to OSU’s student newspaper, The Lantern, On March 23, John Fuller, a junior, who was a member of the Ohio State University Undergraduate Student Government General Assembly at the time of the meeting, made comments while proposing resolutions targeting all anti-critical race theory legislation to the General Assembly.

“By taking away the teaching of one race as superior to another, that is inherently white supremacy because white people learn from birth that they are superior. There is nothing that they need to be taught in school that tells them that,” Fuller said.

“I just wanted to say that and make this very clear, the only people who are taught that they are superior to another race are White people,” Fuller said. “And I would absolutely love to live in a world where Black people were taught that they are superior.”

He added that he “full-heartedly” believes that Black people are superior.

OSU’s Undergraduate Student Government President, Jacob Chang, told the student newspaper The Lantern that Fuller’s comments were “diverging from our values.”

So, Mr Fuller was criticized for saying out loud that he “full-heartedly” believes that black people are superior. That is the risk he takes by speaking in public, and the freedom of speech of others to criticize what he said certainly exists. But then comes the money line in the story:

“The comments made during the General Assembly session is fundamentally, like, diverging from our values as the student government of Ohio State,” Chang said. “Therefore, it is our responsibility to report a case like this. I think we need to stand in solidarity with all people of color and anyone who suffers from racism, but we need to do it from a space that is unilaterally empowering everyone around them instead of like single out one group.”

OSU’s student newspaper, The Lantern, reported that after Mr Fuller made his comments, the Speaker of the student General Assembly dismissed him, and that members of the Assembly forwarded video and audio of his comments to the university’s Office of Institutional Equity.

They did? Apparently members of the Assembly believed that Mr Fuller’s comments ought not only to be disapproved, but punished as well. From The Lantern:

The resolution condemning all anti-critical race theory passed in the General Assembly, Chang said. The resolution is crucial to ensure that critical race theory is taught at public universities, but the way Fuller made it about “empowerment and another form of like supremacy” that was “inherently racist,” he said.

Chang said the next step is to hope the university takes action on the case against Fuller.

“No matter what race you are from, what background you are from, you cannot say stuff like that,” Chang said.

If you yell, “Fire!” in a crowded theater, and that yell leads to a crushing stampede to the exits, in which people are injured, you can be held legally liable. But Mr Chang and at least some members of the student government want to see Mr Fuller somehow punished for making a statement of which they disapproved which injured no one, unless perhaps it was someone’s precious little feelings. More accurately, they would like to see Mr Fuller punished somehow for “full-heartedly” believing that black people are superior to other races.

What might such punishment entail? Neither article tells us, but it isn’t difficult to speculate. Mandatory ‘re-education’ classes to reform his beliefs? A forced statement that he doesn’t really believe what he said? Could it even lead to academic probation, suspension or expulsion? We just don’t know, but the fact that the student government wants Mr Fuller punished somehow for what he believes and said he believes is chilling. Ohio State is a public university, which would mean that the state would be taking action against a student for exercising his freedom of speech.

Posted on by

Irony is so ironic: Robert Reich uses his freedom of speech and of the press to attack freedom of speech and of the press

We noted on Saturday, April 9th, that Ellen Pao, a tech investor and advocate, the resigned-before-she-could-be-fired CEO of Reddit, and a cofounder and CEO of the diversity and inclusion nonprofit Project Include, and someone who uses her freedom of speech and of the press to maintain her own website, used her freedom of speech and of the press — in that case, The Washington Post’s freedom of the press — to attack other people’s freedom of speech and of the press. That irony seemed to escape her.

Now comes Robert B Reich, a former US secretary of labor, is professor of public policy at the University of California at Berkeley and the author of Saving Capitalism: For the Many, Not the Few and The Common Good. His new book, The System: Who Rigged It, How We Fix It, is out now. He is a Guardian US columnist. His newsletter is at robertreich.substack.com, using his freedom of speech, and The Guardian’s freedom of the press, to tell us that if you support freedom of speech and of the press, you’re no better than Vladimir Putin! Continue reading →