Tag Archives: #FreedomOfThePress

Posted on by

Amanda Marcotte doesn’t want you to exercise a right she chooses not to use Today's left support freedom of choice on exactly one thing

Salon senior politics writer Amanda Marcotte moved to South Philadelphia sometime in early 2019, but unless she never listens to the local news — always a possibility, given that she never writes on it — she has to have noticed the tremendous homicide rate in the City of Brotherly Love.[1]One wonders: does the uber-feminist in Miss Marcotte object to the appellation “City of Brotherly Love” as leaving out sisterly love? As of the end of Wednesday, June 23rd, the Philadelphia Police Department reported 262 homicides. 262 murders in 174 days so far is 1.506 homicides per day in Philly, which works out to, if that average is maintained, 550 for the year.[2]With only one homicide each day on Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday, the rate has come down slightly this week, but the weekend’s coming. Philadelphia’s record is 500, during the crack cocaine drug gang wars of 1990, with last year coming in in second place with 499.

At the end of June 23rd last year, there had been ‘only’ 190 homicides in the city, so this year’s number is 37.37% higher than 2020.

How Democratic is Philadelphia? Joe Biden carried Philadelphia County 603,790 (81.44%) to 132,740 (17.90%)

Unless something changes pretty drastically, 2021 isn’t just going to set the record, but blow it out of the water. And remember: the long, hot summer has just begun.

So, what is leading to all of this mayhem? According to Miss Marcotte, it ain’t the bad guys, but those inanimate guns!

oe Biden is right about the rise in crime: Blame guns — not police or protesters — for the violence

Conservatives are using crime as cover for ugly race-baiting, but their own lax gun policies are the real culprit

By Amanda Marcotte | June 23, 2021 | 1:11PM (EDT)

Violent crime is on the rise and it’s making Republicans happier than a fire sale on wraparound sunglasses.

Conservatives will find any excuse to indulge in their favorite sport: racist fear-mongering. The current uptick in violent crime fulfills their desire to use police to terrorize and stigmatize people of color while spinning it as merely in the interest of “public safety.” (Which is especially rich coming from the same people who left hundreds of thousands of Americans to die of COVID-19 rather than accept emergency pandemic measures.) And boy, they’re throwing themselves into the scare tactics with a relish usually reserved for sharing grammatically confusing memes on Facebook.

As the AP reported earlier this month, Republican politicians across the country are using rising crime rates as an excuse to pass laws aimed at suppressing Black Lives Matter protests and at protecting police budgets from re-evaluation. House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., sent a letter to Attorney General Merrick Garland on June 11 blaming crime on “radical and reckless decisions by some jurisdictions to defund their police forces,” which is, at best, a wild exaggeration of what have largely been efforts to redirect funds to crime prevention. Rep. Tom Emmer of Minnesota, the head of the National Republican Congressional Committee, falsely accused Democrats of supporting “the dangerous idea of defunding the police.”

Now, we noted, just yesterday morning, that very white, very liberal Portland, Oregon, had cut its police budget enough that the department was 150 officers under strength, and according to Portland Police Department numbers, the city is on pace for 92 murders this year, shattering 1987’s record of 70. With a city population of 662,549, that would give the city a murder rate of 13.89 per 100,000 population. How liberal is Portland? Joe Biden carried Multnomah County 367,249 (79.21%) to 82,995 (17.90%).

Just two days prior to that, we noted that Austin, Texas, where Miss Marcotte lived before her boyfriend and she moved to Brooklyn, had slashed its police budget by 1/3. Austin is the most liberal city in Texas; Joe Biden carried Travis County, where Austin is located, 435,860 (71.62%) to 161,337 (26.51%).

Our deadliest city, St Louis? As of June 22nd, there had been 88 murders in the Gateway City, and 82 of the victims, 93.18%, were black. Of the 36 known killers of those 88 dead black people, all were black. Joe Biden carried the city by 110,089 (80.85%) to 21,474 (15.77%).

So, unless those inanimate guns are just leaping into the air by themselves and shooting people, those guns are seemingly leaping into the hands of Democrats.

Miss Marcotte claims that, since the rise in the homicide rate is seemingly everywhere, with no distinct differences between places like Austin, where the police have lost a third of their funding, and other big cities, where the funding drops have been significantly less, the increase in the homicide rate cannot be attributed to defunding. But then she goes on:

The sociological reasons for the rise are still ambiguous, though there is little doubt that the pandemic contributed by adding economic and social stress, while also depriving young people of jobs and school opportunities that keep them out of trouble. Pfaff also suggests there may be a reason to believe that rising tensions between police and communities contribute, if only because people are unwilling to cooperate with law enforcement they see, for good reason, as oppressive. If that relationship “deteriorates significantly,” Richard Rosenfeld, a criminologist at the University of St. Louis-Missouri, told Salon’s Igor Derysh in February, “that simply widens the space for street justice to take hold.”

Well, yes, that’s true enough, but it undermines her other points. She claimed that crime, overall, had dropped, and the violent crime rate had spiked only modestly. As I have previously noted, there are two kinds of crimes: crimes of evidence and crimes of reporting. If a man rapes a woman on the streets of Philadelphia, as far as the police are concerned, if it wasn’t reported, it didn’t happen. It is commonly assumed that most rapes go unreported, with some guesstimates being as high as 90% not reported. Crimes like robbery might go unreported if the victims do not trust the police or think it will do any good, or are fearful of revenge by the criminals.

But murder is different: it is a crime of evidence. It isn’t easy to dispose of a dead body in a way that it won’t be found, especially if you haven’t carefully planned things. You’re looking at 100 to 300 pounds of dead meat, bone and fat, and something which will put off a strong and nasty odor after very little time. The vast majority of dead bodies get found.

So when I read that other crime has decreased, I just don’t believe it. Murder is not normally an entry-level crime; it’s a crime committed primarily by people who have committed other crimes. When you read about a murder who was caught — and the police actually catching killers is getting progressively worse — you almost always read that the killer was legally barred from owning a firearm, or that he was carrying it illegally. Noting Miss Marcotte’s own statement that people are less willing to cooperate with the police, it stands to reason that crimes of reporting would be reported less.

After a few paragraphs in which the author ties the existence of illegally purchased or possessed guns to the existence of legally owned firearms, she gives us her solution:

The surest way to reduce murder rates is to get guns out of people’s hands.

Miss Marcotte’s biggest issue has always been abortion, but it’s certainly not the only right she cherishes. She frequently and loudly exercises the rights she believes she should have. She exercises her freedom of speech and of the press in her tweets, her articles in Salon, and other places. She exercises her right to use contraception. She has exercised her right of peaceable assembly to join the #BlackLivesMatter protests in Philadelphia. An avowed atheist, she exercises her right not to go to church. She will defend those rights to, well, to the death is the common phrase, but I can’t say that she’d go that far.

But the right she has and chooses not to exercise — and, to me, it is actually choosing to exercise the right in the negative[3]Just as choosing not to speak or publish something is still an exercise in your freedom of speech and of the press. — is her right to keep and bear arms. Because it is a right she chooses not to keep and bear arms, she doesn’t think that anyone else should have that right. Her solution to the illegal use of firearms is to take guns away from people who have not used their weapons illegally.

Miss Marcotte is but a small, if vocal, part of the left in America. Very much proclaiming her own views, she, like The New York Times and The Philadelphia Inquirer and The Washington Post, doesn’t like hearing other people expressing their own. The left just plain don’t like anyone exercising their constitutional rights in a way of which they don’t approve.

Me? I support Miss Marcotte’s right to choose to buy, or not buy, a firearm. I support her right to write, or not write, whatever she chooses. I support her right not to go to church, and I even support her right not to read what I happen to write. Our freedoms are both positive and negative; we may choose to do or not do something as we please.

The left used to support that, but that was a long, long time ago.

 

References

References
↑1 One wonders: does the uber-feminist in Miss Marcotte object to the appellation “City of Brotherly Love” as leaving out sisterly love?
↑2 With only one homicide each day on Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday, the rate has come down slightly this week, but the weekend’s coming.
↑3 Just as choosing not to speak or publish something is still an exercise in your freedom of speech and of the press.
Posted on by

Yup, they did it again! The Lexington Herald-Leader publishes the photos of more white criminal suspects

We have noted, many times, how the Lexington Herald-Leader has eschewed publishing the photographs of criminal suspects who are black, but have not been so reticent when it comes to those who are white.

County jailer in Eastern Kentucky charged with DUI

By Liz Moomey | June 22, 2021 | 9:20 AM EDT

Carter County Jailer R W Boggs. Click to enlarge.

Carter County Jailer Robert “R.W.” Boggs was charged Sunday night with driving under the influence.

A Kentucky State Police trooper responded to a two-vehicle accident after Boggs hit a vehicle at the intersection of Ky. 773 and Lakeview Circle in Grayson.

According to a KSP news release, Boggs hit another vehicle twice while backing into a driveway on Lakeview Circle before stopping. The other driver exited their vehicle to inform Boggs he had hit their vehicle.

After field sobriety tests, police arrested Boggs for allegedly operating a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol and took him to Boyd County Detention Center.

There’s more at the original.

As the county jailer, Mr Boggs is a public official, and thus fits within the McClatchy mugshot policy for exception to the general prohibition on publishing mugshots. But, to me, so is Jason Lee Sharp, the East Jessamine High School teacher who was arrested and charged with rape, sodomy, and sexual abuse of a “person” under 16 years of age, yet the Herald-Leader not only declined to publish his mugshot, but when I linked his mugshot to their article, the paper removed the comments.

According to the mugshot policy, an editor had to have approved the publication of Mr Boggs’ photograph. Technically speaking, the photo of Mr Boggs is not a police mugshot, but the Herald-Leader used it as one.

Carter County is near the far eastern border of the Bluegrass State, bordering Boyd County and Ashland, one of Kentucky’s larger cities. The Ashland Daily Independent is far more of a ‘local’ newspaper to Carter County than the Herald-Leader, with Lexington being about eighty miles, over an hour’s drive along Interstate 64, to the west. The Daily Independent’s story on the arrest of Mr Boggs was slightly more detailed, but the Ashland paper did not publish Mr Boggs’ photo, or at least there is no photo attached to the story when I found it at 2:20 PM EDT.

Mr Boggs was charged with a relatively minor offense. No one was injured, and he has already been released from the Boyd County jail. The offense with which he has been charged is certainly not as serious as the charges against Mr Sharp.

But, that isn’t all.

Ky. man charged after 4-year-old found walking on a highway at night, deputies say

By Jeremy Chisenhall | June 22, 2021 | 7:46 AM EDT |Updated: 9:05 AM EDT

A Kentucky man was arrested over the weekend after deputies found a 4-year-old walking alone on US-25E at night, according to the Knox County sheriff’s office.

Deputies got a call about the small child walking about 2 miles north of Barbourville around 10:30 p.m. Saturday, according to the sheriff’s office. The caller said the child was walking on the white line of the road and nearly got hit by a car, according to deputies.

Deputies located the child, found out where he lived and went to his home.

“When the deputies went to the residence, they were told by the father that 62-year-old Darrell Myrick of Gray, had been left in charge of the child while the mom was away,” the sheriff’s office said in a social media post.

Myrick was arrested and charged with wanton endangerment, according to court records. He was held in the Knox County Detention Center on a $2,500 bond, according to jail records.

The Herald-Leader got the photo from the Knox County Sheriff’s Department Facebook page. Knox County is roughly 100 miles from Lexington, about an hour and 40 minute drive along Interstate 75 and then US 25E. Mr Boggs is a public official, but Mr Myrick is not; under what part of the McClatchy mugshot policy exceptions did whichever editor of the Herald-Leader who decided to include Mr Myrick’s mugshot justify his choice? He’s not a suspect in a hate crime, nor a public official, nor a serial killer or high profile crime suspect. He’s not an urgent threat to the community, in that he’s already in jail.

The Herald-Leader does, of course, enjoy the complete freedom of the press; the newspaper can print whatever it wishes. But I have to ask: for a newspaper which loves to hold other people accountable, who holds them accountable?

Posted on by

Pegging the irony meter: The New York Times tells us about someone else’s problems with freedom of speech!

I have, in the past, joked that I have an eidetic memory, but it isn’t true. My memory is pretty good, and I have also joked that, despite my advanced age, I don’t have Old Timer’s Disease. At any rate, I do seem to have a longer term memory than the editors of The New York Times:

Once a Bastion of Free Speech, the A.C.L.U. Faces an Identity Crisis

An organization that has defended the First Amendment rights of Nazis and the Ku Klux Klan is split by an internal debate over whether supporting progressive causes is more important.

By Michael Powell | June 6, 2021 | Updated 1:13 p.m. ET

It was supposed to be the celebration of a grand career, as the American Civil Liberties Union presented a prestigious award to the longtime lawyer David Goldberger. He had argued one of its most famous cases, defending the free speech rights of Nazis in the 1970s to march in Skokie, Ill., home to many Holocaust survivors.

Mr. Goldberger, now 79, adored the A.C.L.U. But at his celebratory luncheon in 2017, he listened to one speaker after another and felt a growing unease.

A law professor argued that the free speech rights of the far right were not worthy of defense by the A.C.L.U. and that Black people experienced offensive speech far more viscerally than white allies. In the hallway outside, an A.C.L.U. official argued it was perfectly legitimate for his lawyers to decline to defend hate speech.

Mr. Goldberger, a Jew who defended the free speech of those whose views he found repugnant, felt profoundly discouraged.

“I got the sense it was more important for A.C.L.U. staff to identify with clients and progressive causes than to stand on principle,” he said in a recent interview. “Liberals are leaving the First Amendment behind.”

The A.C.L.U., America’s high temple of free speech and civil liberties, has emerged as a muscular and richly funded progressive powerhouse in recent years, taking on the Trump administration in more than 400 lawsuits. But the organization finds itself riven with internal tensions over whether it has stepped away from a founding principle — unwavering devotion to the First Amendment.

It’s a long article, thousands of words, but, shockingly enough,[1]There should be a sarcasm tag here; I don’t find this shocking in the slightest. nowhere in the article does it mention the Times own opposition to freedom of speech.

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.

Of course, All the News That’s Fit to Print was to be determined not by the readers, but by the editors!

Well that was then, but it sure isn’t now. On November 29, 2018, the editors of the Times gave OpEd space to Chad Malloy to claim that a restriction on speech actually promoted freedom of speech:

How Twitter’s Ban on ‘Deadnaming’ Promotes Free Speech

Trans people are less likely to speak up if they know they’re going to be constantly told they don’t exist.

by Parker Malloy[2]‘Parker’ Malloy is a male, born Chad Malloy, who claims to be female. The Times referred to Mr Malloy as ‘Ms Malloy,’ and the Times went along with that. The First Street … Continue reading | November 29, 2018

In September, Twitter announced changes to its “hateful conduct” policy, violations of which can get users temporarily or permanently barred from the site. The updates, an entry on Twitter’s blog explained, would expand its existing rules “to include content that dehumanizes others based on their membership in an identifiable group, even when the material does not include a direct target.” A little more than a month later, the company quietly rolled out the update, expanding the conduct page from 374 to 1,226 words, which went largely unnoticed until this past week.

While much of the basic framework stayed the same, the latest version leaves much less up for interpretation. Its ban on “repeated and/or non-consensual slurs, epithets, racist and sexist tropes, or other content that degrades someone” was expanded to read: “We prohibit targeting individuals with repeated slurs, tropes or other content that intends to dehumanize, degrade or reinforce negative or harmful stereotypes about a protected category. This includes targeted misgendering or deadnaming of transgender individuals.”

Translation: any reference to a ‘transgender’ person’s biological sex or birth name can earn a person a suspension or permanent removal from Twitter. In mocking Twitter’s recent whine about Nigeria blocking all of Twitter within that country, and stating, “Access to the free and #OpenInternet is an essential human right in modern society”, William Teach noted:

My old account was given time-outs and suspensions many times before being permanently suspended. They never told me why the last. My new account has been given a few timeouts and a 7 day suspension (that one was for scientifically noting that the gender confused have many more mental health issues and a higher percentage of suicidal thoughts and suicide, and it’s a really bad idea to have them around military grade weapons).

Twitter, and, seemingly, The New York Times, will never agree to publish any opposition to the notion that girls can be boys and boys can be girls.[3]I asked if Three Dog Night should be canceled because in their song Joy to the World they wished joy to all the boys and girls without including the intersexed, the non-binary, the questioning, etc. Questioning the acceptance of ‘transgenderism’ is simply not to be allowed, but, to Mr Malloy and the editors of the Times disallowing that promotes freedom of speech.

That was hardly all. Ten and a half months later, the Times gave OpEd space to one of its own staffers, Andrew Marantz, to argue against the freedom of speech:

Free Speech Is Killing Us

Noxious language online is causing real-world violence. What can we do about it?

By Andrew Marantz | October 4, 2019 | 6:01 AM EDT

There has never been a bright line between word and deed. Yet for years, the founders of Facebook and Twitter and 4chan and Reddit — along with the consumers obsessed with these products, and the investors who stood to profit from them — tried to pretend that the noxious speech prevalent on those platforms wouldn’t metastasize into physical violence. In the early years of this decade, back when people associated social media with Barack Obama or the Arab Spring, Twitter executives referred to their company as “the free-speech wing of the free-speech party.” Sticks and stones and assault rifles could hurt us, but the internet was surely only a force for progress.

No one believes that anymore. Not after the social-media-fueled campaigns of Narendra Modi and Rodrigo Duterte and Donald Trump; not after the murder of Heather Heyer in Charlottesville, Va.; not after the massacres in a synagogue in Pittsburgh, two mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand, and a Walmart in a majority-Hispanic part of El Paso. The Christchurch shooter, like so many of his ilk, had spent years on social media trying to advance the cause of white power. But these posts, he eventually decided, were not enough; now it was “time to make a real life effort post.” He murdered 52 people.

As we noted here, the editors of the Times considered this such an important article that they added a title graphic of a statuette of Auguste Rodin’s The Thinker on fire.

Freedom of Speech, it seems, matter only to the editors of the Times when it is their freedom of speech, and of the press, that is in question. Greg Bensinger, a member of the Times’ Editorial Board, celebrated Facebook’s banning of Donald Trump.

The editors of the Times, and the rest of the credentialed media, have never gotten over the halcyon days in which they were the gatekeepers, the arbiters of what did, and did not, get published. Rush Limbaugh started to break their hold, by attracting a huge audience to his talk radio show, and then the internet destroyed it completely, allowing anyone with a computer to self-publish. On twitter, on Facebook, on blogger.com, people can publish their thoughts for free, and while yes, I do pay for this site, I really don’t pay that much. I guess that it was easier for the editors of the Times to support the freedom of speech and the press when they were the ones who determined just who got to exercise the freedom of the press. The #woke[4]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 got mostly liberal editorial page editor James Bennet fired because he agreed to print an OpEd piece by a sitting United States Senator with which they disagreed, and ran off liberal columnist Bari Weiss because, horrors! she is Jewish and mostly supports Israel.

Freedom of speech, of the press? Not something really allowed at The New York Times!

So, yeah, I was amused when the Times told us of the ACLU’s struggle with freedom of speech, without mentioning their own lack of support for it.
_______________________________
Cross-posted on American Free News Network

References

References
↑1 There should be a sarcasm tag here; I don’t find this shocking in the slightest.
↑2 ‘Parker’ Malloy is a male, born Chad Malloy, who claims to be female. The Times referred to Mr Malloy as ‘Ms Malloy,’ and the Times went along with that. The First Street Journal does not go along with the silliness of transgenderism, and while we do not change other people’s quotes, we always refer to a ‘transgender’ person by his biological sex pronouns, honorifics and his birth name, where known.
↑3 I asked if Three Dog Night should be canceled because in their song Joy to the World they wished joy to all the boys and girls without including the intersexed, the non-binary, the questioning, etc.
↑4

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

Resistance is not futile. I will not be assimilated.

Is National Public Radio supposed to be an advocacy reporting organization? Is NPR supposed to push a particular political point of view?

NPR’s Laurel Wamsley, who purports to be a journalist, wrote an article entitled A Guide To Gender Identity Terms, in which she presented the “proper use of gender identity terms.”

Issues of equality and acceptance of transgender and nonbinary people — along with challenges to their rights — have become a major topic in the headlines. These issues can involve words and ideas and identities that are new to some.

That’s why we’ve put together a glossary of terms relating to gender identity. Our goal is to help people communicate accurately and respectfully with one another.

Proper use of gender identity terms, including pronouns, is a crucial way to signal courtesy and acceptance. Alex Schmider, associate director of transgender representation at GLAAD, compares using someone’s correct pronouns to pronouncing their name correctly – “a way of respecting them and referring to them in a way that’s consistent and true to who they are.”

This guide was created with help from GLAAD. We also referenced resources from the National Center for Transgender Equality, the Trans Journalists Association, NLGJA: The Association of LGBTQ Journalists, Human Rights Campaign, InterAct and the American Psychological Association. This guide is not exhaustive, and is Western and U.S.-centric. Other cultures may use different labels and have other conceptions of gender.

Yeah, that’s an unbiased group!

But, Mr Schmider did tell the truth in one important way. Using a ‘transgendered persons’ preferred pronouns and sexual identity terms is meant to be “respecting them and referring to them in a way that’s consistent and true to who they are.” Miss Wamsley put it as “a crucial way to signal courtesy and acceptance.” At bottom, it is an attempt to coerce “acceptance” by claiming it is only courtesy.

The unasked question is — and the author never added anything in to her article which would have paid any attention to those who disagree — what if someone does not accept the idea that Bruce Jenner is really now a woman, or that anyone can somehow change his sex?

It begins with a falsehood. “Sex,” Miss Wamsley wrote, “refers to a person’s biological status and is typically assigned at birth, usually on the basis of external anatomy. Sex is typically categorized as male, female or intersex.” This is wholly untrue. While we might forgive His Majesty King Henry VIII for believing that Catherine of Aragon or Anne Boleyn were somehow responsible for his first two children being daughters, the role of the X and Y chromosomes in determining the sex of mammals, including humans, has been known for over a century. Sex is not somehow “assigned” at birth; sex is determined at conception, depending upon whether the sperm which fertilized the egg carries the X or Y chromosome. We recognize the sex of a newborn child by visual examination of the child, but the characteristics which indicate sex developed long before birth, during gestation, as programmed in by the developing child’s DNA.

When you read or hear someone talking about sex being assigned at birth, you know automatically the pure bovine feces is about to follow.

Everyone has pronouns that are used when referring to them – and getting those pronouns right is not exclusively a transgender issue.

“Pronouns are basically how we identify ourselves apart from our name. It’s how someone refers to you in conversation,” says Mary Emily O’Hara, a communications officer at GLAAD. “And when you’re speaking to people, it’s a really simple way to affirm their identity.”

“So, for example, using the correct pronouns for trans and nonbinary youth is a way to let them know that you see them, you affirm them, you accept them and to let them know that they’re loved during a time when they’re really being targeted by so many discriminatory anti-trans state laws and policies,” O’Hara says.

“It’s really just about letting someone know that you accept their identity. And it’s as simple as that.”

Well, yes it is . . . and I don’t. When Bruce Jenner tells me that he is now a woman, I do not believe him and I do not accept his claims. To refer to him as “Caitlyn,” to use the feminine pronouns in reference to him, is to concede something I do not and will not concede; it would be both lying to him, leading him to believe that I went along with his claims, and it would be lying to myself.

But, at least Miss Wamsley was sort of asking us to use the terms the transgender would like. It was November 29, 2018, that The New York Times granted OpEd space to Chad Malloy[1]Chad Malloy is a male who claims to be a woman, going by the name ‘Parker’ Malloy. to publish an article claiming that Twitter’s ban on ‘deadnaming’ and misgendering[2]‘Deadnaming’ refers to using the name a person was given at birth, such as Chad Malloy rather than his faux name of ‘Parker’ Malloy, while misgendering means referring to … Continue reading actually promotes free speech rather than stifling it. On October 4, 2019, the Times published an OpEd by staffer Andrew J Marantz, entitled Free Speech Is Killing Us. Noxious language online is causing real-world violence. What can we do about it?

Messrs Marantz and Malloy obviously believe that what hey can do about it is simply to ban any publication of speech with which they disagree. If I say that no, Mr Malloy is not a woman, I have not harmed him, at least not beyond hurting his precious little feelings, nor have I prevented anyone else from going along with his claims of being a woman; all that I would be doing is being truthful to myself.

It does not matter how well or how poorly this article is written; neither The New York Times nor any other outlet of the credentialed media would ever publish it, because they have established transgenderism as part of their core beliefs. In publishing Miss Wamsley’s article in its present form, it becomes clear that NPR has done so as well.

To control language is to control the terms of the debate, and the credentialed media clearly believe that if they can just get people to refer to Bradley Manning as ‘Chelsea,’ to get people to use the preferred gender identity pronouns and terms in reference to the ‘transgendered,’ such concessions will go a long way to validating their argument.

But I will not, and I urge others to look at what they are saying, and how they are saying it, and not to go along with the left’s attempts at controlling speech.
______________________________________
Cross posted on American Free News Network.

References

References
↑1 Chad Malloy is a male who claims to be a woman, going by the name ‘Parker’ Malloy.
↑2 ‘Deadnaming’ refers to using the name a person was given at birth, such as Chad Malloy rather than his faux name of ‘Parker’ Malloy, while misgendering means referring to someone by his biological sex rather than his preferred ‘gender identity.’
Posted on by

Journolism: Newspapers don’t think their readers can handle the truth! Once again, the Lexington Herald-Leader gets racially selective in publishing mugshots

Have you ever heard of JournoList? It was an email list of 400 influential and politically liberal journalists, to facilitate communication between them across multiple newsrooms, the exposure of which called into question their objectivity. I use the term ‘journolism’ frequently when writing about media bias.

As we have previously noted, the McClatchy Company, which owns the Lexington Herald-Leader, has an explicit mugshot policy:

Publishing mugshots of arrestees has been shown to have lasting effects on both the people photographed and marginalized communities. The permanence of the internet can mean those arrested but not convicted of a crime have the photograph attached to their names forever. Beyond the personal impact, inappropriate publication of mugshots disproportionately harms people of color and those with mental illness. In fact, some police departments have started moving away from taking/releasing mugshots as a routine part of their procedures.

To address these concerns, McClatchy will not publish crime mugshots — online, or in print, from any newsroom or content-producing team — unless approved by an editor. To be clear, this means that in addition to photos accompanying text stories, McClatchy will not publish “Most wanted” or “Mugshot galleries” in slide-show, video or print.

Any exception to this policy must be approved by an editor. Editors considering an exception should ask:

  • Is there an urgent threat to the community?
  • Is this person a public official or the suspect in a hate crime?
  • Is this a serial killer suspect or a high-profile crime?

If an exception is made, editors will need to take an additional step with the Pub Center to confirm publication by making a note in the ‘package notes‘ field in Sluglife.

As I have previously stated, despite several Google searches, using various permutations, I have not been able to find this policy in written form. I found this tweet:

and a photograph I have previously used from another tweet, along with the Sacramento Bee’s precursor article. Assistant Managing Editor Ryan Lillis wrote:

The Sacramento Bee announced Wednesday it will limit the publication of police booking photos, surveillance photos and videos of alleged crimes, and composite sketches of suspects provided by law enforcement agencies.

Publishing these photographs and videos disproportionately harms people of color and those with mental illness, while also perpetuating stereotypes about who commits crime in our community.

McClatchy’s headquarters are located in the Sacramento Bee’s building.

And thus we return to the Herald-leader:

Eastern Kentucky man tries to run over a cop, flees police after being shot at

By Jeremy Chisenhall | May 28, 2021 | 8:13 AM

An Eastern Kentucky police officer shot at a suspect Thursday afternoon after the suspect allegedly tried to run the cop over, according to Kentucky State Police.

James Bussell, a 45-year-old from Owingsville, allegedly sped away from a Mount Sterling police officer during a traffic stop, made a U-turn and tried to run over the officer. The officer involved in the traffic stop fired his gun at Bussell, but didn’t hit him. The suspect made another U-turn and tried to run the cop over again, state police said.

After Bussell’s second attempt to run the officer over, his car got stuck, according to state police. He got out and fled on foot, state police said. The altercation didn’t result in any injuries, police said.

Clearly a bad dude. There’s more at the original, including this:

Well, how ’bout that? The Herald-Leader posted another photo, of a criminal suspect, this one coming from the Mt Starling, Kentucky, Police Department’s Facebook page.

Unlike the photos of Jessica Ahlbrand and Ronnie Helton,[1]The newspaper deleted Mr Helton’s mugshot from the article a couple of weeks after publication, by May 16. which the newspaper published, Mr Bussell is still on the loose. The text of the MSPD’s Facebook page and Jeremy Chisenhall’s newspaper article does not make clear that Mr Bussell fits as “an urgent threat to the community,” but he is charged with:

  1. Attempted Murder (Police Officer).
  2. Fleeing or Evading Police 1st Degree (Motor Vehicle).
  3. Wanton Endangerment 1st Degree (Police Officer).

Yeah, those are pretty serious, and I would not disagree with the assessment that Mr Bussell is a threat to the community. But so was Juanyah Jamal Clay, and the Herald-Leader declined to publish his mugshot when he was on the lam.

So, why did an editor approve of publishing Mr Bussell’s photos, but not Mr Clay’s? Mr Bussell is charged with attempted murder, while Mr Clay was wanted on an murder, not attempted murder, but actual murder charge. Why publish the mugshots of Miss Ahlbrand and Mr Helton, both of whom were in custody, but not Mr Clay, who was still on the loose?

Why? Despite my obviously brilliant mind, I am not a telepath, and cannot read the minds of Mr Chisenhall, or peter Baniak, Executive Editor and General Manager of the Herald-Leader, but, when I look at all of the photos of criminals and criminal suspects that the newspaper has published, it has been easy to notice one thing: all of the published mugshots I’ve seen have been of white suspects. Mr Lillis’ article noted that the Sacramento Bee was concerned about “perpetuating stereotypes about who commits crime in our community,” and that could fit in well with the pattern I have noticed in the Herald-Leader.

I am not the only person who has noticed!

We have noted previously Elizabeth Hughes, publisher of The Philadelphia Inquirer, and her determination to make her newspaper “an anti-racist news organization,” but has turned it into exactly that, a newspaper more concerned with racial identity and sorting out its news coverage that way than it has been about the “public’s right to know.”

The Society of Professional Journalists published their Code of Ethics; you should read it. It says, among other things, that “Journalists must be free of obligation to any interest other than the public’s right to know the truth.” This is exactly the opposite of McClatchy’s decision to suppress photographs of criminals and crime suspects because publication might cause “disproportionate harm” to one group or another, or what facially appears to be the Herald-Leader’s editorial decisions[2]Remember: an editor must approve all published mugshots. This is (supposedly) not left up to the various article authors. to skew the public’s perception by publishing only the photographs of white criminals and suspects.

It ought to be simple: just tell the truth, and be consistent in publication policies. If the editors are going to decide to publish photos of suspects who are still on the loose. publish photos of all suspects who are on the loose. Be journalists, and not journolists.

References

References
↑1 The newspaper deleted Mr Helton’s mugshot from the article a couple of weeks after publication, by May 16.
↑2 Remember: an editor must approve all published mugshots. This is (supposedly) not left up to the various article authors.
Posted on by

And another one bites the dust! Do black lives matter in Lexington?

There are no suspects yet, so I cannot fault the Lexington Herald-Leader for not posting their photos, but it does seem to be the newspaper’s policy specifically, and McClatchy Company’s policy in general, not to do so.

Teenager killed, two others injured in North Lexington shooting

By Karla Ward | May 8, 2021 07:57 PM EDT | Updated; May 9, 2021 | 10:20 AM EDT

Two men and a teen boy were taken to the hospital with serious injuries Saturday night after a shooting in a neighborhood off Georgetown Street.

The teenager, later identified as 17-year-old Mar’quevion Leach, died of his injuries at University of Kentucky Chandler Hospital, the Fayette County Coroner’s Office announced late Saturday.

Lexington police Lt. Chris Cooper said Saturday that officers were called to the 700 block of Florence Avenue just after 6 p.m. He said police received several calls about shots fired.

“Upon arrival, we did locate several individuals who had been injured by gunfire,” he said.

There’s a little more at the original.

Unless I’ve missed one, young Mr Leach would be the sixteenth person murdered in Lexington thus far this year. Saturday having been the 128th day of the year, that would put Lexington at one murder every eight days, assuming none of the other victims of what may have been a gun battle die. At that rate, Lexington would see 45 to 46 people murdered in 2021; the city set it’s records of 34 murders just last year, and that was four over the previous record of 30, set the year before.

Actually, 45 to 46 (the actual number is 45.625) is a better rate than just three weeks ago, when the city was on track for 51 homicides. But, if one of the other shooting victims succumbs, and becomes the 17th homicide victim, the projected total jumps to between 48 and 49 victims. A 17th would be fully half of 2020’s total, just 1/3 of the way through the year.

And the summer hasn’t started yet!

Do black lives matter in Lexington? It doesn’t really seem so, as young black men are being killed at record rates in a city which used to be fairly peaceful; I lived in the city from 1971 through 1984.[1]There is a Facebook page for a Mar’quevion Leach in Lexington, though the profile photo was posted ten years ago. I assume that this is the same person, as the name is fairly unusual.

The Herald-Leader reported that the police believe that the victims were “probably targeted.” At least to one person, Mr Leach’s black life didn’t matter, nor the lives of the other two victims.

References

References
↑1 There is a Facebook page for a Mar’quevion Leach in Lexington, though the profile photo was posted ten years ago. I assume that this is the same person, as the name is fairly unusual.
Posted on by

The credentialed media are the ones telling us that most black lives don’t matter

We noted on the 23rd how credentialed media institutions like what I like to call The Philadelphia Enquirer have been pushing the “cops shoot black people for no reason” meme, and how such an august newspaper — founded in 1829, making it decades older than The New York Times — responded with such glee at the conviction of former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin over the death of George Floyd:

Even on Sunday, April 25th, The Philadelphia Inquirer’s website main page is running a big section on the verdict against Mr Chauvin:

Screen capture, The Philadelphia Inquirer, April 25, 2021, taken at 11:25 AM EDT, by Dana R Pico.

Now comes former Washington Times reporter Robert Stacy McCain, noting how the credentialed media — if you can actually call the HuffPost “credentialed” — are still fanning the flames:

Media: The Enemy of the People

by Robert Stacy McCain | April 25, 2021

Tom Bevan of Real Clear Politics remarks on Twitter:

Hard to imagine a more divisive, sensational, context-less headline. A textbook example of the media being the enemy of the people.

The story in question is by the Associated Press:

Even as the Derek Chauvin case was fresh in memory — the reading of the verdict in a Minneapolis courtroom, the shackling of the former police officer, the jubilation at what many saw as justice in the death of George Floyd — even then, blood flowed on America’s streets.

And even then, some of that blood was shed at the hands of law enforcement.

At least six people were fatally shot by officers across the United States in the 24 hours after jurors reached a verdict in the murder case against Chauvin on Tuesday. The roll call of the dead is distressing:

  • A 16-year-old girl in Columbus, Ohio.
  • An oft-arrested man in Escondido, California.
  • A 42-year-old man in eastern North Carolina. . . .
  • An unidentified man in San Antonio.
  • Another man, killed in the same city within hours of the first.
  • A 31-year-old man in central Massachusetts.

The circumstances surrounding each death differ widely.

Were they engaged in crime? Were they resisting arrest? Did they pose a threat of deadly violence? “Circumstances . . . differ widely,” we are told, but all the Associated Press and the headline writers at the Huffington Post are interested in is the number, with the implication that the lives of innocent Americans everywhere are endangered by the police.

There’s more at Mr McCain’s original.

The “16-year-old girl in Columbus”? A police officer shot her as she was attempting to stab another girl to death! The Inquirer ran two stories on the death of Ma’khia Bryant, but I have not been able to find a single story on the newspaper’s website main page concerning the individual deaths of people virtually every single day in the City of Brotherly Love, which I believe to be because there’s no perceived political advantage to be found in stories about young black men being shot by other young black men. Jaslyn Adams, the seven-year-old girl killed in a McDonald’s drive-through lane, because gang-bangers were trying to kill her father? Her black life doesn’t matter, because it wasn’t taken by a white policeman.

Mr McCain noted:

Even if someone is charging at you with a knife, cops can’t shoot them — that’s the madhouse toward which the media seek to lead us.

When I saw that brief paragraph, with the internal link about Ma’khia Bryant, my mind went to the shooting of Walter Wallace, Jr. There were riots in the City of Brotherly Love last fall after two officers shot Mr Wallace, a mentally unstable man who had been the subject of several calls to police, by his own family, that very day due to his rampages. Body camera photos showed the whacked out Mr Wallace charging two officers, on the last call concerning Mr Wallace’s threatening behavior, with a raised knife.

Of course, the Usual Suspects waxed wroth. Why didn’t they shoot him in the leg, the Snowflakes™ chimed in? Why didn’t they use tasers? (The responding officers did not have tasers.) William Teach noted that the San Diego Union Tribune’s Editorial Board said that Police urgently need a more humane alternative to lethal weapons. It’s time to design one, as though no one is trying to do that right now. Sometimes I think that these people have watched too much Star Trek and think the police can just set their phasers on stun.

Naturally, the family, the same family who called the cops on Mr Wallace, “wanted answers.” The answer was simple: two officers responded, had to make a split second decision on a guy charging at them with a knife, and took the right one. Riots followed in Philly, and the Inquirer’s website gave 99 returns in a site search for Walter Wallace.

The activists at Ohio State University, which is located in Columbus, the city in which Miss Bryant was killed, were just thoroughly upset about it:

Destiny Brown, a senior at the Ohio State University, breathed a sigh of relief in her dorm room on Tuesday when the guilty verdict came down for former Minneapolis Police Officer Derek Chauvin. But the moment of respite proved short-lived. Minutes later, she scrolled on Twitter and learned that a 16-year-old Black girl, Ma’Khia Bryant, had been shot and killed that afternoon by Columbus police.

“I can’t even begin to process the fact that we live in a world where people’s lives — regardless of what they’re doing, what they have going on, guilty or not, innocent or not — their lives just do not matter,” Brown told Yahoo News. “It doesn’t make sense to me and never will.”

Overcome with a feeling of helplessness, Brown fired off a group text message to her friends Tuesday evening. “I’m ready to organize again,” she told them.

In a matter of hours, Brown and her friends had planned a sit-in to be held the following day at the Ohio Union, the university’s student center in Columbus. Their goal, Brown said, was simple: to demand that the school sever ties with Columbus police over Bryant’s killing and its mistreatment of students of color.

Columbus, Ohio, saw 175 murders in 2020, and, as of mid October, 75% of the victims were black:

Columbus Police also shared details on the homicide suspects. Of the 79 identified, 65 are Black with 59 being Black men, and nine are white with eight being white men.

Of the cases police say were solved, 56 had a Black victim and a Black suspect, two had a Black victim and a white suspect, seven had a white victim and a Black suspect and six had a white victim and a white suspect.

I couldn’t find more recent numbers, but in 2010, the population of Columbus was 28.0% black. Shouldn’t Destiny Brown, a senior at Ohio State, be asking why a city that’s 28% black is seeing 75% of murder victims being black, and that 96.6% of the solved murders of black people were committed by other black people? Then again, if the local media in Columbus are anything like the media in Philadelphia, Miss Brown may never have heard that so many black people had been killed locally, the vast majority of them by other black people.

The lovely Miss Brown wouldn’t admit it, of course, because she’s too #woke to do so, and asking the question leads to an uncomfortable truth: in urban America, the black culture allows these killings to happen, and the credentialed media have been their willing accomplices.

Posted on by

Is it time to start calling it the China Virus again?

Representative Thomas Massie (R-KY 4)

I have not referred to COVID-19 as the “China virus” or “Wuhan virus” on The First Street Journal because I thought that doing so generated more heat than light, and gave critics a weapon to use when they had no actually reasonable responses. It’s using the same reasoning which leads me to (normally) choose to use newspapers as my primary sources, since they are known to have a leftward bias, and that eliminates criticism that I am citing evil reich-wing sources, and thus cannot be taken seriously.

But Representative Thomas Massie (R-KY 4th District) tweeted the contents of a bill to be voted upon in the House of Representatives’ Judiciary Committee today, and that has me changing my thinking on this.

You can click on the photos he included and be able to read the bill yourself. But this is the part that gets to me:The online text of the proposed legislation is slightly different from what Mr Massie photographed. I have, in my transcription, used the words in Mr Massie’s photos.

(2) COVID–19 HATE CRIME.—The term “COVID–19 hate crime” means a crime of violence (as such term is defined in section 16 of 18, United States Code) that is motivated by—

(A) the actual or perceived race, ethnicity, age, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, or disability of any person; and

(B) the actual or perceived relationship to the spread of COVID–19 of any person because of the characteristic described in subparagraph (A).

SEC. 3. GUIDANCE.

(a) Guidance For Law Enforcement Agencies.—The Attorney General shall issue guidance for State and local law enforcement agencies on the following:

(1) The establishment of online reporting of hate crimes or incidents, and the availability of online reporting available in multiple languages.

(2) The expansion of culturally competent and linguistically appropriate public education campaigns, and collection of data and public reporting of hate crimes.

(b) Best practices to describe the COVID-19 pandemic: The Attorney General and the Secretary of Health and Human Services, in coordination with the COVID–19 Health Equity Task Force and community-based organizations, shall issue guidance describing best practices to mitigate racially discriminatory language in describing the COVID–19 pandemic.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; 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.

The online text of the proposed legislation is slightly different from what Mr Massie photographed. I have, in my transcription, used the words in Mr Massie’s photos.

Let’s tell the truth here: the “COVID-19 Hate Crimes Act” includes sections intended to criminalize thought and speech, and to issue “guidance” for which language is appropriate, and inappropriate for referring to COVID-19.

Well, I will not have my speech somehow assigned by government! If I start referring to it, occasionally, as the China virus or Wuhan virus, or William Teach’s Bat Soup virus, it is to use it as a protest against the government trying to assign proper speech to you and to me.

The Bill of Rights

Why was our Bill of Rights a set of amendments rather than being included in the original Constitution? It was because James Madison, one of the primary authors of the Constitution thought it unnecessary, because the Constitution did not give the federal government the power to enact laws in those areas. However, several states, as they ratified the Constitution, were alarmed about the lack of a Bill of Rights, and asked the Congress to add them.

Thus, the First Congress wrote, debated, amended and passed proposed amendments to beco0me just that. Had the Bill of Rights not been ratified by the states, this Congress would damned well have criminalized Wrongspeech.

What’s that, you say? Congress wouldn’t do that! Well, our various state Governors have issued authoritarian decrees which have been used to restrict the right of the people peaceably to assemble, by limiting the number of people who can gather for any purpose, including for things like family dinners for Thanksgiving and Christmas, and have actually closed churches, prohibiting the free exercise of religion, all in the name of combating the China Virus, and far too many of the sheeple have nodded their heads sagely and said, “It is good.”

It isn’t particularly helpful to the debate, or to people’s precious little feelings to refer to it as the China Virus, because the left have already politicized it, but sometimes it is necessary to start being a bit rude to fight the linguistic enforcement of the left and the credentialed media.

Posted on by

Is it time to change the spelling of ‘journalist’ to ‘journolist’? The Associated Press and The Philadelphia Inquirer try to deify Daunte Wright

Sometimes it’s easier just to embed a few of my tweets than write a separate article/ Because of the way Twitter does embedding, I had to embed the second and fourth tweets to let readers see the whole thing.

We are supposed to thing that Daunte Wright was just an ever-so-nice young man, and the woman who was copulating with George Floyd, another criminal, a convicted felon and serious drug abuser, told us that young Mr Wright was just “a wonderful, beautiful boy.”

No, he wasn’t. According to the Associated Press story:

According to court records, Wright was being sought after failing to appear in court on charges that he fled from officers and possessed a gun without a permit during an encounter with Minneapolis police in June.

A search of court records shows Wright had a minor criminal record, with petty misdemeanor convictions for possession/sale of a small amount of marijuana and disorderly conduct.

So, resisting arrest and escaping, both criminal acts.

What Is Resisting Arrest?

Resisting arrest in Minnesota is also called obstructing legal process, arrest, or firefighting. A person is guilty of obstructing legal process if they intentionally obstruct, resist, or interfere with a police officer in the performance of legal duties, or obstruct, hinder, or prevent a person’s apprehension on a criminal charge.

The Minnesota legislature intentionally wrote the law in very broad terms. Under the law, resisting arrest means:

  • Refusing to be handcuffed;
  • Refusing to surrender;
  • Struggling with the police;
  • Wrestling or fighting with the police; or
  • Somehow preventing the police from making an arrest.

Acts such as running from police, refusing to stop for police, and escape from a detention facility are crimes governed by other Minnesota laws.

Penalties For Resisting Arrest In Minnesota

The possible sanctions for resisting depend on the severity and dangerousness of the conduct alleged by police. Minnesota law punishes resisting arrest as a felony if:

  • The person knew or should have known the act created a risk of death, substantial bodily harm, or significant damage to property; or
  • The act did cause death, serious bodily injury, or substantial property damage.

Felony resisting arrest carries a maximum state prison term of five years, a fine up to $10,000, or both fine and imprisonment.

Resisting arrest is a gross misdemeanor punishable by no more than one year in prison, a $3,000 fine, or both if the act or threat was forceful or violent but did not cause death, substantial bodily injury, or substantial property damage. Otherwise, misdemeanor resisting arrest carries a maximum sentence of 90 days, a $1,000 fine, or both.

Also see: Nothing Can Placate the BLM Riot Mob, and ‘Journalists’ Are Part of the Mob

Escaping from the police on an attempted arrest can be a felony in Minnesota if the escapee flees in a car, or a misdemeanor if he escapes on foot.

In Minnesota, you are required to have a valid permit to carry in order to possess a handgun in a public place. The penalties for carrying a handgun without a valid permit are strict. For a first offense it is a gross-misdemeanor and any repeat offense becomes a felony. It is your burden to prove that you have a valid permit to carry when requested by law enforcement.

It seems that this “wonderful, beautiful boy” had racked up some previous charges, and that’s why there was a warrant out for his arrest.

The officer who shot and killed Mr Wilson has resigned and is facing criminal charges; she may well be convicted, and it’s difficult to believe that she mistook her service weapon for her taser. But the credentialed media are hyping up the notion that Mr Wright was some kind of sweet, innocent kid. At some point, we need to be honest here and change the spelling of journalist to journolist.