In our last post, we learned that researchers have found that people tend to self-censor their speech, both in person and on social media, if they believe that their opinions are unpopular or in the minority. Researchers call this phenomenon the spiral of silence. The tendency to self-censor is one that others, particularly progressives, use to political advantage, when they seek to punish or destroy those with whom they disagree. Depending upon how politically incorrect their points of view are perceived to be by others, speakers quickly learn to self-censor their speech lest they find themselves singled out, investigated, and punished by the enforcers of right think. Let’s look at some recent examples of this type of punishment that goes far beyond ridicule or ostracism.
You’d have to be living on a desert isle to not know about the events in Ferguson, MO, where an unarmed man was shot to death by a police officer shortly after the deceased had committed a strong-arm robbery (verified by video evidence); refused to follow the officer’s instructions (according to the deceased’s own friend); and allegedly (but according to numerous eye witnesses) assaulted the officer. Two St. Louis area policemen were recently forced out of their jobs based upon comments they had made.
One policeman, Matthew Pappert, was fired for comments he made on Twitter about the events in Ferguson, even though he apologized, something which has gotten many a celebrity off the hook.
The more interesting case is that of Officer Dan Page, who had an encounter with CNN reporter Don Lemon, who claimed that the officer shoved (assaulted) him while he was covering protests that followed the shooting. CNN subsequently dug up a You Tube video, recorded and published back in April 2014, wherein Page, speaking at a private function, made some comments with which many progressives disagree but with which many others do agree. His comments focused upon the New World Order, martial law and potential suspension of the Constitution, and his interpretation of the Bible with regard to Armageddon.
After Page’s comments were pointed out to the officer’s boss by CNN, he was at first suspended and then seemingly was forced to retire. Apparently the First Amendment (free speech, freedom of religion) doesn’t apply to police officers, especially when they cross a CNN reporter:
While he would have reacted to the video the same way absent the Ferguson protests, even [St. Louis County Police Chief Jon] Belmar admitted that he wouldn’t have faced the same pressure to maintain the county police force’s image.
Belmar told the Post-Dispatch that Page’s comments defaming President Barack Obama, the U.S. Supreme Court, Muslims and various sexual orientations would likely have triggered disciplinary review for being “beyond the scope of acceptable police conduct.”
But it was Page’s comments in the video describing himself, in Belmar’s words, as “an indiscriminate killer, that it didn’t matter what your race or background was” that most concerned the police chief.
“With the comments on killing, that was obviously something that deeply disturbed me immediately,” Belmar said.
Page, a 35-year veteran of the police department and a military veteran, retired before internal police reviews were completed, thus apparently making the investigations moot and preserving his pension and benefits.
Don’t count on the left being satisfied with Page’s removal from the force, however. The Huffington Post pointed out that Page will still receive his “full pension.” There are many stories on the Web decrying the fact that Page will receive his pension. Comments on these stories reveal that many of their readers apparently believe that Page’s comments should be punished by denying the man the pension and benefits he has earned over three decades of honorable service. The story at this link is one example. Note the last line: “The officer’s pension has not yet taken effect.” One might read that as a call to arms.
For the record, Oath Keepers states that Page is not a member of their organization. Also for the record, Captain Ron Johnson of the MO Highway Patrol, who was put in charge of security in Ferguson by MO Governor Jay Nixon, partnered with the Nation of Islam and the New Black Panthers–black supremacist organizations–to help keep the peace during protests.
Oath Keepers, by comparison, is not a white supremacist organization, but is a group of law enforcement officers and military veterans who are dedicated to upholding their oaths to the U.S. Constitution.
Johnson making nice with the New Black Panthers and the Nation of Islam is akin to Belmar partnering with the KKK to patrol the streets of Ferguson, MO. Would that fly in Obama’s USA?
Speaking of Obama, he recently said:
Let me be clear; our constitutional rights to speak freely, to assemble, and to report in the press, must be vigilantly safeguarded. … Ours is a nation of laws, for the citizens who live under them, and for the citizens who enforce them.
Officer Page enforced the law for 35 years, but apparently his constitutional right to speak freely has not been “vigilantly safeguarded.” Because Page said things that are not politically correct, he has now lost his job.
The very same day that Officer Page’s oddly coincidental retirement was reported, another seemingly similar story was reported:
The University of Illinois is facing scrutiny … over its decision to rescind a job offer to a professor after his prolific, sometimes profane use of Twitter to voice anger at Israel.
Phyllis Wise, the chancellor of the university’s Urbana-Champaign campus, says she decided not to hire Steven Salaita, a professor of American Indian studies, over concerns about what she called demeaning and abusive language. She heard by email from several dozen students, parents and financial donors expressing concerns, some of whom accused Salaita of anti-Semitism.
Salaita’s defenders say the decision violates his academic freedom, a concept that along with the tenure that shields professors from fallout over unpopular or controversial opinions goes far beyond the legal protections shared by workers in most businesses. …
On Aug. 1, Wise wrote Salaita telling him without explanation that he had no job. After complaints about the decision grew, she emailed faculty and students on Aug. 22 to say the decision was based on Salaita’s tone rather than his views on Israel. …
“As far as I am concerned, this [rescinding the job offer] would never (have) happened without external pressure,” said Robert Warrior, chairman of the university’s American Indian Studies Program. …
“It is unconstitutional for a public entity to punish someone for viewpoint,” said Baher Azmy of the Center for Constitutional Rights, adding that he believes the decision was based on “the content of his speech.”
So it appears that while the First Amendment does not apply to police officers who are employed by a “public entity”, some concerned constitutionalists apparently do believe that the First Amendment does apply to professors, even those not yet employed by a public entity (only promised a job, and therefore a person without tenure). “Academic freedom” is not a constitutional right, but free speech and freedom of religion are both constitutional rights.
Progressives will defend the free speech rights of an allegedly anti-Semitic professor but not the free speech rights of a police officer, even though the speech that “disturbed” Page’s boss was specifically political (protected by the First Amendment) as well as religious (also protected by the First Amendment).
Was Page’s real “crime” criticizing Barack Obama? Some citizens are supporting Page, but the “usual suspects” (like the ACLU) are not, and many actually applaud his punishment for speaking freely. It’s curious. Why the double standard?
Professors do not have to be “civil” but police officers must? There certainly is no groundswell of support for Page that equals this:
Once scholars heard of this [the “un-hiring” of Salaita], protests erupted. Within hours, nearly 2,000 signatures were gathered criticizing the decision; now the count is 17,000, and 3,000 professors are now boycotting UIUC. The American Association of University Professors issued a statement declaring that social media expression is private and protected speech, and that the use of “civility” as a litmus test—which the university now admits it has done in rescinding the hire of Salaita—is also not acceptable. The former is protected by the First Amendment, and the latter is not only an entirely vague and unmeasurable concept, but denying employment based on an alleged lack of “civility” narrows the wide range of expression and opinion upon which universities and colleges rely.
Apparently “social media expression is private and protected speech” only if the speech conforms to progressive orthodoxy and is politically correct.
I’m not arguing for or against either speaker. If I had to choose, I’d err on the side of the Constitution. For every Dan Page, there’s a Malik Zulu Shabazz. For every Steven Salaita, there’s a Matthew Pappert.
No one should be denied the ability to make a living, to pursue his chosen career, simply because he expressed his beliefs on social media or in public. That’s the point of the First Amendment, which should apply to all.
The answer to free speech you don’t like is more free speech.
A debate. A “conversation”. Not name calling. Not shunning. Not shaming. Not boycotts. Not intimidating employers into firing people for expressing their views.
This used to be the United States of America. What is it now?
Those who profess to support the First Amendment must ask themselves why they do not speak out on behalf of officers Page and Pappert, as some of them have spoken out on behalf of Salaita.
Political correctness? Group think? Fear of nonconformity?
What Page and Pappert said is not politically correct. On the other hand, use any search engine and you will find that anti-Semitism and anti-Israel rhetoric are becoming more and more politically correct, in the USA as well as in Europe. Here’s a link to just one story that comes up on such a search. There are many others.
Salaita, by the way, writes for Salon, a “progressive news website“. He recently argued that the USA should return “vast portions of five U.S. states — North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Wyoming and Montana–” to “the Indians.” Maybe Hawaii, too. Now there’s a popular opinion. Salaita also “questioned the idea that people should be asked in various ways to support the troops.”
So, you see, sometimes, an opinion that is not popular or is not held by the majority can nevertheless become politically correct and feed into the spiral of silence. Those who express opposing views may find themselves on the wrong side of the enforcers of right think, because the enforcers, although a minority, will engage in tactics that the majority eschews. In other words, the majority believe firmly that a person is entitled to his opinion and shouldn’t be punished for expressing it; but the minority believe in winning “by any means necessary.”
This link goes to a history of the issue of the free speech rights of public employees on the Web (particularly the police) and related legal cases. The article concludes:
When the Court inevitably confronts the impact of social media on the First Amendment rights of public employees, it will have to grapple with the fact that, in our new world of social media and the Internet, very little speech is truly private. That reality poses a genuine dilemma for government agencies, which have a legitimate interest in not having their ability to serve the public damaged by controversial speech that can be instantly communicated to large audiences.
Yet this is the very type of speech the First Amendment is designed to protect. It would be a grave and ironic loss if the emergence of social media took us back to 1892 and Justice Holmes’ view that people forfeit the First Amendment rights they enjoy in their private lives when they go to work for the government.
Who decides what is “controversial?” Who decides what speech is “civil?” Whenever or however the Court decides, one must believe that they will declare that all people, regardless of the content of their speech (politically correct or not) should be treated equally before the law.
Social media is now used by various political activists as a tool with which to punish those with whom they disagree.
Some have raised “doxing” to an art form. Reporters sometimes insert themselves into a story, looking for and then exposing what their “target” has said on social media, with the hope that the person will be punished for his or her politically incorrect (or “controversial”) words.
In another example related to events in Ferguson, Officer Darren Wilson, who shot Michael Brown, was doxed by reporters. Public records were searched, some of them in online databases, and information about his home address, his friends, his family, his long-deceased mother’s encounters with the law (even her grave site) was published in mainstream news articles, putting innocent people at risk.
Officer Wilson himself is innocent: Innocent until proven guilty. There’s another fundamental right that must not apply to police officers anymore, going by some comments on social media, in the news, and even by some so-called objective reporters.
Some reporters expressed seeming outrage that Officer Wilson had time before his name was revealed to delete from the Internet any social media postings and webpages that he may have created. Some of them are now intent upon what looks like a “mission from God” as they search for his current location. To what end?
No similar stories were written by the mainstream media about the family of Michael Brown. Nobody who follows mainstream media news knows, for example, about his family’s encounters with the law. Why is that?
As the boycott of Chick-fil-A showed, progressives will try as best they can to ruin the businesses of those who speak in what they deem to be a politically incorrect manner. Paula Deen’s business (and livelihood) was similarly attacked when she honestly answered a question about using a racial epithet, years ago.
Again, some people are allowed to apologize and be forgiven, while others are not–based upon the content of their speech.
The tendency that some have to search and destroy those with whom they disagree is exactly why there’s a spiral of silence both on the Web as well as in face-to-face discussions. Depending upon how politically incorrect their points of view are, many people come to believe that they must self-censor their speech lest they, too, are investigated by the enforcers of right think and then have their businesses boycotted or find themselves fired from their jobs or expelled from school solely because they exercised their constitutional right of free speech.
This should never happen in the United States of America.
hill val & huma so cozy don’t we see
8 – 2003 – what if -2 hell in a hand-basket O’ let us count the ways
OK.. D E P O R T! YES ~ let’s – then what? would the goat herders
little boy DO? 2 US? no answers still BUTT’ let me count the WAYS!
Alan Colmes HA that dirty little slug – thinking he’s so quick –
smarter most clever… butt’ still just a slippery snake that is ulgy… I
can’t believe his wife really married – it! .. She must be off also….
Why wouldn’t Klayman say the same about the bogus “announcements” as he does about the BCs? There’s no evidence whatsoever that there were ANY announcements of his birth in ANY newspapers. Nobody to date has shown anybody an actual 1961-circa newspaper. We all know how the CIA and others can insert anything they want into microfilms in archives and libraries. In fact, such a scenario was referred to in that TV program Legends (produced by a guy named Nachmanoff) just last week.
SHOW US A REAL PAPER and then MAYBE we’ll believe it and THEN we can point out, once again, that the “son” born to one of the many wives (“Mrs. BHO Sr.) was not necessarily Barry the usurper.
Again, I can return to one of my theories: That the Mrs. was Kezia, the child was born in Kenya (or maybe even in Hawaii), but to Kezia AND BHO Sr., who was nominally her husband at the time but who didn’t want the child because the child was conceived by Kezia via a man not her husband, while hubby was in Hawaii in college. None of those potential parents were citizens of the USA. Then this inconvenient child was adopted by the woman known as SAD, who may or may not have been one of the many wives of BHO Sr. (Unknown at this point because no evidence of any marriage seem to date.)
BHO Sr. was selected to join the new government in Kenya, by Mboya, who wanted BHO Sr. to remain with Kezia (which he did, btw). That scenario would have/could have resulted in a birth announcement in the Honolulu paper, IF THERE WAS ONE. If this scenario is true, then that could also explain why it was important to disappear the records of entries and/or exits into the USA from Kenya for the week of Barry’s birth. It may not have been SAD coming and going–it may have been Kezia. Or it may have been BHO Sr. himself, who went to Kenya to pick up the kid and return him to the USA, into the arms of SAD.
KEZIA….. OK I’ll bite the apple …once again… DIG THIS!
let’s see the one they speak about least …. humm mayB
~ so 12 lines turn into a blue ? box..very cool – rehashing memory lane
OBAMA’s huge FAB-ricated FAMILY…seems just like the other day!
… & where did Bridgette go? 8-5-2010
KENZIA… ??? OBAMA’s REAL MOTHER??? MAY – B
Mr. & Mrs B.H. Obama, a son, 8/4/61:
Doesn’t prove anything about the Dunhams, at all. Not an iota. Not scintilla. Not a smidgeon… nought. zero. zip.
so much BUTT’..so little ..just the same…. pages 22-23-24 ??..
https://www.scribd.com/doc/54015762/Barack-Hussein-Obama-Sr-Immigration-File pages… 22-23-24 …again
Yep, Z ~
and on pages 35 & 36, “certified” on 8/31/61 he forgot who his wife was — and remembered he was born in 1934. His wife and children didnn’t live anywhere at all, but he did remember his Social Security number.
According to the nativity gospel, his newborn son was under a month old and he and his wife live at 6085 Kxxxxxx Highway, when he certified that alien application request.
That’s only one of my theories. Biggest monkey wrench in the theory is that he is light skinned, so unless the dad was a white guy (possible) …
why is it no one ever gets any vibes from the fact that it clearly shows on there where he was Aug. 9th , 1959? If yu were going to go to school in Hawaii why would you need to fly into the country on the east coast? new York of all places? Irving Brown (the CIA liason who had an office there , who was friends with Mboya and all things UNiON) maybe met him there or got O. his first visit to the US via the US state department compliments. Or was it because O. went to a new York institution first, where the first African American Student cultural institution was(remember the headlines under O’s name in that Hawaiian Newspaper? There was no AF. American institute at U. of HI at that time.
Suppose Ann D . or somebody had little B. somewhere like the Philipines or Indonesia around 1959 -61 and needed to bring him back to US. so he could get an American Cit . and since the little turd looked sort of black she just used O. as a superficial donor till she could do something else about the matter. The state department may have been complicit even since her family was probably close to the establishment if you know what I mean. Maybe that’s why we can’t see her initial passport cause it would spill the beans and show where the little TuRD came from.
step – ma gets …. STAR Treatment in 2009
Here’s a question to ponder. The other story you linked said she still (in 2009) had trouble speaking English, which is why Ian had to watch over her when Auma and his daughter moved to Kenya (sounds like he was HER minder whereas Maya was Mad’s). So riddle me this: How do Barry and Mooch COMMUNICATE with her? How did “Ann” who was like a sister to her? IF neither ever lived in Kenya and neither spent very much time in the company of BHO Sr. (as indicated by all records people CAN find), then how did EITHER of them communicate with Kezia?
That’s interesting. It’s also at BR. Allegation that a FOX story by Bill Hemmer back before the 2008 election had an Occidental employee showing the reporter and the camera papers that suggested that Barry WAS there as a foreign student.
Speaking of mamas, who really is Obola Criminal Duncan’s mama? Her name is Nowai Korkoya. Where has she been in her journey through life? Has her path ever crossed the presodidnt’s path or of his illegal relatives here in the US? Here she is with The Revrund http://www.denverpost.com/portlet/article/html/render_gallery.jsp?articleId=26679884&siteId=36&startImage=1
Oh, that’s a good one, isn’t it, Zenway? She’s proud her “son” met the Queen. When your father has multiple wives, is that what those who aren’t your mother are? Stepmothers? Does he call Ruth his stepmother, too? btw, his photo looks faked AND: Is that Madelyn in the background in the dark shades? Did she go to Auma’s wedding, too? HE CALLS KEZIA “MAMA”? Hmm. What I said. OMG, that one is full of nuggets. Kezia wore black and red, too, butt on Inauguration Day? She was there on the platform with him? Did we know this? How did we miss that photo? My gosh, my memory is getting bad, because I don’t remember seeing HER there. Riddle me this: HOW can Akinyi be “good friends” with Sasha and Malia when Akinyi lived in London and then in Kenya, while her “cousins” lived in Chicago?
some people should not be allowed to vote they are so dumb. 😯
~ MALALA YOUSAFZAI ~ A TRUE HERO FULL of LOVE ~ YES!
MALALA… is by far the Youngest Nobel Laureate, 8 years younger
than the 1915 physics prize winner, 25-year-old Lawrence Bragg.
Before MALALA, the youngest peace prize winner was 2011 co-winner
Tawakkul Karman of Yemen, a 32-year-old women’s rights activist.
~ ~ ~
In Washington, .. ha .. (JUST WORDS OBAMA – means nothing 2 us)
President (OUR~ “USURPER” … about 2 B BUSTED!) B H O’…
Barack insane2theusa…. Obama … the TRASHER he called …
…. the Nobel Announcement …..
“a Victory” …. for “ALL” who “Strive” to Uphold the Dignity of “EVERY”
(& that MEANS EVERY…. ALL COLORS) > Human Being < …
~ BUTT' O' dear sir…. U DO NOT SHOW DIGNITY …. 2 EVERY
H U M A N ~ B E I N G … we see IT – we smell IT – U show & disgust
MOST of us WHO LOVE AMERICA … THAT U sir have a ~ D I R T Y
agend ~ BIBLE THUMPERS ? ~ GUN CLINGERS ?~ U~LIE
SO JUST WHAT "P E A C E" HAVE U created? by Winning
Y O U R ( joking) "PEACE" PRIZE SIR ? ~ WE CAN'T SEE IT!
YOU STRIP US CLEAN of OUR DIGNITY ~ YOU WIN WHAT sir???
U are sooooo yesterdays PAPER… what 2 do with U??? humm
From above ^^^ O’ WON ONE TOO…. quite silly really 4 WHAT?
Malala is applauded before she speaks at the United Nations Youth Assembly in New York on July 12, 2013. ….. @CNN
“THEY thought that the BULLets would Silence US, BUTT’ they Failed,”
she said. “And THEN, out of that Silence, came Thousands of Voices.”
~ KIND of sounds LIKE SO many in the “USA” ~ YES… WE CAN!!!
Thought provoking and frightening: http://fellowshipoftheminds.com/2014/10/10/did-the-simpsons-presage-the-ebola-epidemic-and-other-pop-culture-foreshadowings/
As for Ebola, they wonder at CT WHY CHINA AND RUSSIA are so mum about the potential pandemic. WHY, indeed. Curious, isn’t it?
I saw that as a question in the article. They probabley HAVE a vaccine, a proven vaccine. Tin foil hat would suggest they planted it; with Obola’s help?????
Oh, I didn’t see it within the article; I thought it was commentary added by the “author” at CT. Anyway, I didn’t even consider what you suggest, but it’s a good theory. I thought they were getting at the possibility that the whole thing (Ebola in the USA) is a false flag designed to get Congress to pony up more and more money. The DemoncRATS are already accusing the Republicans of heartlessness, unconcern about our citizens’ welfare, and racism because they said they won’t give all the money to Barry carte blanche but want a PLAN and a budget for where the money is going. Of course, he never lets a good crisis go to waste and he knows they’re watching him and the dollars so he WANTS a big slush fund, gotten out of Congress by the fear engendered by this manufactured crisis, so that he can then divert the money to whatever the heck he has done with the other money he’s diverted over the years. Spent it on things he knows Congress disapproved of already, no doubt.
★FALCON★ 140p ·1 hour ago ~ Guests now listed –
CHECK OUT @ BR … much is heating UP? & pinches of new news
~ PPSIMMONS ~
FREEDOM FRIDAY GUESTS
1. Nathan Jones – Christ in Prophecy TV Host
2. Mike Shoesmith
LAST HOUR – Brandon BIG B & Carl talking controversial
issues & taking YOUR calls for one HOUR ! ~ 850-623-1330 CALL IN!
LISTEN LIVE – carlgallups.com 5-7 PM ET ~ 4-6 PM Central
Wasn’t there supposed to be some big earth-shattering interview over the past week? Whatever became of that?
P S A
10:15 EST Tonight
‘Something of Value’
Mau Mau uprising in Kenya based on the novel by Robert Ruark
EDDIE’s BACK OCTOBER? KICK AZZ FUN! SNOWDEN, EDWARD
All roads lead to Barry? Who does THAT revelation shock?
Citizen… 4 Edward Snowden … @ DRUDGE
ALL in this Together…. O’ … good read
Maybe?…. what does it matter at this point…. a-lot of soul-savers
InnerCityGuy – Oct. 11, 2014 at 3:06pm ^^^^^ JUST MIGHT WORK ….!
~ 2 points: Political … & Reality
1. YES, from a cynical political perspective Rand is pandering, but he needs all votes not just the base if he wants the office. He has a good chance to do it
2. Reality – MSM only covers those that do not want to help themselves, but it does not represent everyone. Expand the definition from race to poor & you have a large group that does not know, nor have Role Models that even help them be Good Students, let alone simply work your way out. If you continue to expand the definition, you have a large group that do not know how to be good parents. A large group love their kids but cannot help them. Others continue to abuse their kids like they once were abused. I know, since I was once in that category. There are quite a few that want to succeed, willing to work hard, & do not want a handout. A complex problem cannot be solved by a sound bite or one action. YEP!!!
At the end of the day, Rand has an opportunity to target those individuals that have potential, NOT with a handout or money, but a way to Learn how to become Productive & Valuable in the workforce & in society. Ultimately whether he falls into category 1 or 2 will depend upon his actions. Talk is cheap. …. Interesting….YES…. SO LET’S DO IT!!!!!!
The-Monk – Oct. 11, 2014 at 6:50pm
They are upset with police.
Protest, riot, loot their neighbors stores & then burn them down.
Doesn’t sound logical to me.
PROTEST Rally …ha … I would NEVER EVER do the COPS JOB…
NEVER enough MONEY… What a BUNCH of street TRASH!
WHY don’t more BLACKS PARENTS SPEAK OUT over this MESS
REIGN in them BABIES….. you R raising ANIMALS …. & allowing
this to GO FORWARD! HANDS UP MY ass! STEP UP NOW!!
H E L P ….. CURE…. not … CONTINUE .. U CAN MAKE IT CHANGE!
BUTT” …they all REALLY ~ REALLY get OFF on all this….SICKNESS!