Author Topic: More Liberal Censorship  (Read 181238 times)

Straw Man

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41015
  • one dwells in nirvana
Re: More Liberal Censorship
« Reply #375 on: November 09, 2015, 02:57:07 PM »
Cornell University Kicks Jesse Watters Off Campus for Asking About Liberal Bias
Published October 26, 2015

Fox Nation:

Jesse Watters crashed Cornell University to test students on their liberal “indoctrination” after a report claimed that 96 percent of Cornell professors donated to Democrats. However, in the middle of the regular “Watters’ World” questioning, Jesse was kicked off the campus because Cornell media relations had not grant him permission to interview students.

“We ask that you don’t interview students on campus,” Melissa Osgood, Cornell’s deputy director of media relations said.

“Cornell doesn’t have a problem with Fox News, does it?” Watters asked.

“Absolutely not,” Osgood said.

After Watters asked repeatedly, even the senior director of Cornell media relations would not budge, saying that Fox News could not interview students “on campus” and that he would send Watters a statement.

Still, before Watters' ejection, he did get some questions in to some students.
 

Jesse: What’s the vibe on campus?

“A very diverse campus – a bunch of different people from a bunch of different backgrounds.”

Jesse: It’s not that diverse, because according to this report, 96 percent of the donations from faculty here went to Democrats.

“What’s wrong with that?”

 
Jesse: Do you ever feel the professors are pushing a political agenda here?

“I’ve got friends who are liberal arts majors –  they write a paper and they bring up a conservative viewpoint, they won’t get a good grade.”

“If I want an A, I tailor my paper to how the professor leans.”

 
Jesse: 95 percent is kinda high.

“It’s really high.”
 
Jesse: Your brain is a sponge right now, and I’m worried that these teachers are starting to have a chilling effect.

“Uh…”


Jesse: I’m going to give you a test to see if you’ve been indoctrinated and how bad it is. Do you think we should build a wall on the Southern border to protect against the illegal alien invasion?

[laughter]

“The invasion…”

“Make it out of ice.”

Jesse: That’s not very smart from a Cornell student.

“Well, it’s because I’m indoctrinated, so I know nothing.”

Jesse: So you’d be okay with Guatemalans coming into your dorm room and sleeping on your floor?

“Okay, no.”

Jesse: What is the national debt right now?

“200 million.”

Jesse: 18 Trillion. Professors aren’t tell you the truth.

“Maybe not.”

 
Jesse: What do you think about Hillary Clinton?

“After the whole email scandal, I’ve lost a lot of trust in her.”
 

Jesse: Do you trust Hillary?

“Yes.”

Jesse: Then why did she lie about the Benghazi attacks being about a video when she knew it was about a terrorist attack?

“Huh…”

“I don’t think that she was lying at all to the American public.”


Jesse: Sanders – you feelin’ the Bern?

“I feel like Hillary will give him the burn.”

 
O’Reilly’s Take:

O'Reilly: "They hated you."

Jesse: They did.

O'Reilly: "There's no doubt about it. Did the guy tell you why you couldn't shoot?"

Jesse: Finally I got a statement. It didn't say why I couldn't shoot, it just says Cornell does not consider a person's political stance in its hiring practices.

O'Reilly: "You didn't ask them anything about that."

Jesse: Maybe they should if 96% are Democrats.

O'Reilly: "Don't they know they looked 18 times worse not having you question?"

Jesse: Maybe after they hire some conservative professors, they can hire a new PR team.

O'Reilly: "They told me the real reason they didn't want you on campus."

Jesse: What was that?

O'Reilly: "You had mittens...That offended almost everybody."

http://nation.foxnews.com/2015/10/26/cornell-university-kicks-jesse-watters-campus-asking-about-liberal-bias

Do you even read the crap that you post

first paragraph

Quote
Jesse Watters crashed Cornell University to test students on their liberal “indoctrination” after a report claimed that 96 percent of Cornell professors donated to Democrats. However, in the middle of the regular “Watters’ World” questioning, Jesse was kicked off the campus because Cornell media relations had not grant him permission to interview students.

Cornell is a private university and they can kick anyone off campus if they want to, especially some douchebag reporter

I'm sure private fundie univerities would have no problem kicking out almost anyone who asked questions about their idiotic religious beliefs or bigotry and I'm sure you'd be in total support of that

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63713
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: More Liberal Censorship
« Reply #376 on: November 13, 2015, 09:22:06 AM »
MISSOURI: PROFESSORS AGAINST PRESS FREEDOM
WENDY KAMINER
WRITER AND LAWYER
How fortysomething academics inflame campus witch-hunts.
12 NOVEMBER 2015

 
There they go again’, may be all we can add these days when students shut down or shout down viewpoints that violate the imagined right of favoured groups to feel ‘safe’, ‘comfortable’ and ‘unoffended’. Protests about allegedly offensive speech and speakers occur at least once a week, targeting with increasing aggressiveness even mild disagreements with campus orthodoxies.

The latest high-profile protests erupted at Yale University. They were sparked by a fraternity’s alleged racially discriminatory actions but exploded over instances of unwelcome speech, when the associate house master of Silliman College, Erika Christakis, questioned the wisdom and necessity of cautionary notes about offensive Halloween costumes. Further outraged by the failure of Christakis and her husband, house master Nicholas Christakis, to apologise for their divergent defences of free speech, students demanded their resignations. ‘I don’t want to debate. I want to talk about my pain… Christakis needs to stop instigating more debate’, one student succinctly explained in an op-ed that appeared briefly in the Yale Herald.

When students at one of the United States’ most prestigious universities throw tantrums in reaction to a call for debate, free-speech advocates who have long warned of the dangers posed by campus civility codes may be tempted simply to respond, ‘We rest our case’.

But silence in the face of censorship isn’t an option. At the very least, speech-policing must be chronicled. Consider recent efforts to bar journalists from covering a protest at the University of Missouri, as reported by the New York Times:

‘Tim Tai, a student photographer on freelance assignment for ESPN, was trying to take photos of a small tent city that protesters had created on a campus quad… Protesters blocked Mr Tai’s view and argued with him, eventually pushing him away. At one point, they chanted, “Hey hey, ho ho, reporters have got to go”.’

‘I am documenting this for a national news organisation’, Mr Tai told the protesters, adding that ‘the First Amendment protects your right to be here and mine’. The protesters accused him of acting unethically and disregarding their requests for privacy.

Student hostility toward freedom of the press is, by now, routine and predictable. But it also infects some faculty members, partly because campus rules treating offensive speech as an actual civil-rights violation date back some 20 years. Students educated under early speech-code regimes are now in or entering their 40s. Those who stayed in academia are sometimes as censorious as their students.

So, University of Missouri protesters intent on forcibly barring press coverage were joined by a faculty member, Melissa Click, who, according to the New York Times, ‘appeared to grab’ at the camera of another photographer and yelled, ‘Who wants to help me get this reporter out of here? I need some muscle over here.’

Click teaches mass media. Her research focuses on ‘popular-culture texts and audiences, particularly texts and audiences disdained in mainstream culture’, according to her staff-profile page. ‘Her work in this area is guided by audience studies, theories of gender and sexuality, and media literacy.’ You might think that media literacy would require some study of press freedom. But the aptly named Professor Click’s current research includes studies of ‘Fifty Shades of Grey readers’ and ‘the impact of social media in fans’ relationship with Lady Gaga’.

What more can you say when confronted with media experts who oppose the freedoms on which media rely? If student and faculty censors aim to leave me speechless, they’re beginning to succeed.

Wendy Kaminer is an author, lawyer, and civil libertarian.

http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/missouri-professors-against-press-freedom/17622#.VkYXHdCRqng

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102396
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
Re: More Liberal Censorship
« Reply #377 on: November 13, 2015, 11:40:30 AM »
Yale graduates are some of the most violent and dishonest liberals the country has seen. 

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63713
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: More Liberal Censorship
« Reply #378 on: February 09, 2016, 09:59:24 AM »
Prof Bans Students From Saying ‘Husband’ Or ‘Wife’ Because It’s Not ‘Inclusive’
PETER HASSON
02/05/2016

In just the latest instance of taxpayer-funded censorship, students in one University of Florida course have been banned from using words such as “husband,” “wife,” “mom,” or dad” in the classroom and risk losing points off their grade if they don’t comply.

In the syllabus for her “Creativity In Context” class — a required course for any student pursuing a minor in Innovation — UF professor Jennifer Lee informs students of her four paragraph long classroom “communications policy” that she says will enforce “ethical conduct” in the classroom.

“The following policies and guidelines will be followed in this course,” the policy begins, followed by a bullet point instructing students to “Use inclusive language.” The policy mandates that students “[ s]peak in a way that does not make assumptions about others based on “norms”, stereotypes, or one’s own identity or experience.”

The syllabus explains that this means replacing the words “boyfriend”/”girlfriend” with the more inclusive “partner” or “significant other.” The rule applies to conversations about married couples too: saying “husband” or “wife” is forbidden. Even the words “mom” and “dad” have a more “inclusive” alternative — students are told to use the word ‘family” instead.

By using the new words, Lee explains, students will be using speech that “is inclusive of alternative orientations and family structures, and free of stereotypes.”

Students are also required to comply with professor Lee’s “safe education environment policy” — distinct from her “communications policy” — which warns students that “any behavior or language that makes others feel unsafe or unwelcome in this classroom can and will not be tolerated.” Lee openly acknowledges that this no-tolerance policy covers “interrupting or ignoring others.”

Lee’s exhaustive policies aren’t just meaningless words, either. She warns that “Students who do not meet conduct expectations will be given one warning by electronic mail, and continued behavior issues will result in the loss participation points per course instructor’s discretion.” She did not reply to The Daily Caller’s request for comment.

Ari Cohn, a lawyer with the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) told TheDC that the policies are “likely to chill classroom discussion to the detriment of all.” He went on to say that Lee’s “inclusive language” policy presents “a veritable minefield through which students must tip-toe when they wish to participate in class. Faced with the possibility of a lower grade, students are likely to refrain from providing their input for fear that the professor or a classmate will be offended by something that they say, no matter how unreasonably.”

Cohn noted, “Generally, professors have the discretion, and the right—consistent with principles of academic freedom—to conduct their classrooms as they see fit. However, faculty members must be careful not to infringe on the rights of their students to freedom of expression, and freedom of conscience.”

Lee isn’t the first professor to face public scrutiny for banning words inside the classroom. Just last fall, multiple professors at Washington State University threatened students with bad grades if they used “oppressive and hateful language” such as “illegal alien,” “male,” or “female,” in the classroom. After public backlash, the school walked back the language mandates.

http://dailycaller.com/2016/02/05/prof-bans-students-from-saying-husband-or-wife-because-its-not-inclusive/#ixzz3zh8RyIN7

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63713
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: More Liberal Censorship
« Reply #379 on: February 24, 2016, 10:19:26 AM »
BEWARE THIS MAN: State College President Bans Breitbart’s Shapiro   

by Breitbart News
22 Feb 2016

On Monday evening, just three days before Breitbart News Senior Editor-At-Large was scheduled to give his speech at California State University Los Angeles (CSULA) titled “When Diversity Becomes a Problem,” the president of the university officially cancelled the lecture, citing the need to organize a more “inclusive event.”

In an email to the Young America’s Foundation chapter at CSULA, university president William Covino wrote, “After careful consideration, I have decided that it will be best for our campus community if we reschedule Ben Shapiro’s appearance for a later date, so that we can arrange for him to appear as part of a group of speakers with differing viewpoints on diversity. Such an event will better represent our university’s dedication to the free exchange of ideas and the value of considering multiple viewpoints.”

Shapiro and YAF have vowed to take their event to campus anyway, without the permission of the school. “The campus fascists have taken over,” Shapiro told Breitbart News. “I pay taxes in the state of California; I’m paying for these whiny children to be indoctrinated by radical leftists. For CSULA to pretend that they’re trying to provide balance isn’t just stupid, it’s insultingly stupid. I am the balance, and they’re too afraid to let me speak. These aren’t diversity warriors. They’re jackbooted thugs. If they want to call the men with guns to shut down free speech, they’ll demonstrate clearly just who they are. I’ll see them on Thursday.”

YAF announced in a statement, “In recognition of the school’s dire need for ideological diversity, Young America’s Foundation and CSULA YAF, in cooperation with Ben Shapiro, fully intend to hold the event, which is part of YAF’s Fred R. Allen Lecture Series, without the university’s approval. The Foundation is prepared to take legal action if the school fails to recognize these students’ rights.”

Covino clearly had no problem with the university hosting radical leftists ranging from Dr. Cornel West to Angela Davis and Tim Wise without the need for a conservative counterpoint. “Balance at CSULA only runs one way,” Shapiro said. “This event obviously threatens the feelings of the precious snowflakes at the university. Tough.”

The shutdown follows weeks of controversy, after Professor Robert Weide threatened to wrestle students for sponsoring the event, and Black Lives Matter activist Professor Melina Abdullah, who took to Facebook to complain, “I say this event is a problem…What we go’n do y’all?!?!” One of the commenters, Ruben Martin, replied, “You want I should hoiwt’em bwoss? I’s got a fews ideas me n’d’fellas been kickin ‘round. Only ting iz he won’t be talking or lookin so nice no more. We’ll take the cannolies…” CSULA students have said the event poses a “threat to their lives” and is “damaging to their mental health.”

http://www.breitbart.com/california/2016/02/22/beware-this-man-state-college-president-bans-breitbarts-shapiro/

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63713
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: More Liberal Censorship
« Reply #380 on: March 01, 2016, 08:31:27 AM »
BEWARE THIS MAN: State College President Bans Breitbart’s Shapiro   

by Breitbart News
22 Feb 2016

On Monday evening, just three days before Breitbart News Senior Editor-At-Large was scheduled to give his speech at California State University Los Angeles (CSULA) titled “When Diversity Becomes a Problem,” the president of the university officially cancelled the lecture, citing the need to organize a more “inclusive event.”

In an email to the Young America’s Foundation chapter at CSULA, university president William Covino wrote, “After careful consideration, I have decided that it will be best for our campus community if we reschedule Ben Shapiro’s appearance for a later date, so that we can arrange for him to appear as part of a group of speakers with differing viewpoints on diversity. Such an event will better represent our university’s dedication to the free exchange of ideas and the value of considering multiple viewpoints.”

Shapiro and YAF have vowed to take their event to campus anyway, without the permission of the school. “The campus fascists have taken over,” Shapiro told Breitbart News. “I pay taxes in the state of California; I’m paying for these whiny children to be indoctrinated by radical leftists. For CSULA to pretend that they’re trying to provide balance isn’t just stupid, it’s insultingly stupid. I am the balance, and they’re too afraid to let me speak. These aren’t diversity warriors. They’re jackbooted thugs. If they want to call the men with guns to shut down free speech, they’ll demonstrate clearly just who they are. I’ll see them on Thursday.”

YAF announced in a statement, “In recognition of the school’s dire need for ideological diversity, Young America’s Foundation and CSULA YAF, in cooperation with Ben Shapiro, fully intend to hold the event, which is part of YAF’s Fred R. Allen Lecture Series, without the university’s approval. The Foundation is prepared to take legal action if the school fails to recognize these students’ rights.”

Covino clearly had no problem with the university hosting radical leftists ranging from Dr. Cornel West to Angela Davis and Tim Wise without the need for a conservative counterpoint. “Balance at CSULA only runs one way,” Shapiro said. “This event obviously threatens the feelings of the precious snowflakes at the university. Tough.”

The shutdown follows weeks of controversy, after Professor Robert Weide threatened to wrestle students for sponsoring the event, and Black Lives Matter activist Professor Melina Abdullah, who took to Facebook to complain, “I say this event is a problem…What we go’n do y’all?!?!” One of the commenters, Ruben Martin, replied, “You want I should hoiwt’em bwoss? I’s got a fews ideas me n’d’fellas been kickin ‘round. Only ting iz he won’t be talking or lookin so nice no more. We’ll take the cannolies…” CSULA students have said the event poses a “threat to their lives” and is “damaging to their mental health.”

http://www.breitbart.com/california/2016/02/22/beware-this-man-state-college-president-bans-breitbarts-shapiro/

What's most troubling is how young these folks are.  They should have held their own rally or meeting and presented their own ideas.  Or better yet, they should have participated in a debate with Shapiro.  Instead, they resorted to threats, anarchy, setting off alarms, blocking doors, and even promoted physical violence.  These are future leaders.   :-\

Campus Protesters Try to Silence Conservative Speaker, Demand College President’s Resignation
Natalie Johnson   / @nataliejohnsonn /
February 26, 2016


Conservative commentator Ben Shapiro talks about diversity despite a disruption when protesters at California State University, Los Angeles blocked entrances to the event in an attempt to shut it down. (Photo: Jacqueline Pilar/Young America's Foundation)
Student protesters swarmed California State University, Los Angeles to barricade the entrances of a theater where conservative commentator Ben Shapiro was set to deliver a speech about censorship and diversity on college campuses.

Led primarily by the school’s Black Student Union and Black Lives Matter chapter, the hundreds of demonstrators, including some professors, poured into the Student Union building Thursday afternoon to block other students from attending the event.

Many in the dense crowd of protesters shoved and shouted at attendees who tried slipping through the doors.

Members of the conservative Young America’s Foundation, host of the event, called “When Diversity Becomes a Problem,” said they were forced to sneak groups of four to five in the back door leading directly to the theater to avoid catching the attention of protesters who hadn’t yet obstructed the last entrance.

Amy Lutz, a program officer at YAF, said the group was able to funnel roughly 100 students into the theater on the CSU-LA campus before protesters surrounded the entrances, preventing anyone from entering or leaving for the duration of Shapiro’s speech.

“It was frightening. I felt like we were hostages in this room, because we couldn’t get out,” Lutz told The Daily Signal.

She said more than a dozen police officers stayed inside the theater, ordering attendees to stay put until the crowd dissipated. A demonstrator pulled the fire alarm midway through the lecture, but Shapiro carried on with his remarks despite the shrill noise and pounding at the doors.

“Here’s my message to the bloviating jackasses outside: Toughen up, you spoiled brat snowflakes, if you actually want a better world,” Shapiro, editor-in-chief of The Daily Wire, said to cheers.

Police escorted Shapiro out of the theater at the end of his speech, citing  “safety concerns.”

Much of the crowd moved from the theater to the executive’s office to hold a sit-in and demand the resignation of CSU-LA’s president, William Covino, for allowing Shapiro’s appearance.

Lutz said the reaction from the protesters underscores a troubling problem among universities across the United States. She said:

Not only is free speech under attack, but it’s also very difficult to be a conservative on a college campus. It’s very difficult to speak up, and a lot of students choose to be silent because they know in extreme cases, like this one at CSU-LA, people will aggressively fight back if they choose to speak their mind.

Melina Abdullah, a professor and chair of pan-African studies at the university, took to Twitter and encouraged students to protest Shapiro’s appearance, calling his event “hate speech.” She claimed police were sent to arrest students for protesting.

The Daily Signal could not independently confirm this statement.

Emily Jashinsky, a spokeswoman for YAF, told The Daily Signal that tens of thousands of viewers tuned in to Shapiro’s speech online Thursday night. She said the level of interest illustrates that the country is “growing increasingly frustrated” with censorship on college campuses.

On Monday, Covino emailed YAF members informing them he had canceled Shapiro’s appearance for security reasons, opting for a “more inclusive event” highlighting speakers with “differing viewpoints on diversity.”

The university president reversed his decision Thursday, hours before Shapiro’s speech was supposed to begin, when YAF refused to reschedule.

“I strongly disagree with Mr. Shapiro’s views. But if Mr. Shapiro does appear, the university will allow him to speak,” Covino said in a prepared statement provided to The Daily Signal by YAF. “We will make every effort to ensure a climate of safety and security.”

Jashinsky said YAF was “disgusted” by the president’s response. She said:

This was absolutely no occasion for celebration. This president [Covino] grudgingly embraced the concept of free speech. This is the president of a public university, who in his statement doesn’t condemn attacks his own professors have made on their students.

One of those attacks, she said, came from a professor who threatened to wrestle roughly a dozen YAF members for inviting Shapiro to speak.

“[Covino] doesn’t condemn any of the hostility toward conservative students,” Jashinsky said. “It should have been a full-throated endorsement of free speech, regardless of whether he agrees or not with what’s being said.”

David Hacker, senior counsel and director of the Center for Academic Freedom at the legal aid group Alliance Defending Freedom, told The Daily Signal he is exploring legal options on behalf of YAF.

Hacker, who was on campus during the protests, said he is waiting for a response from the university to a letter he sent Monday to its counsel.

The letter demands that the university rescind an “unconstitutional” $621.50 fee slapped on YAF to pay for security officers because of the event’s “controversial” nature.

“The university engaged in viewpoint discrimination against these conservative students, and it shouldn’t have done that,” Hacker said. “You can’t put a price tag on the view of somebody’s speech.”

http://dailysignal.com/2016/02/26/campus-protesters-try-to-silence-conservative-speaker-demand-college-presidents-resignation/


absfabs

  • Getbig III
  • ***
  • Posts: 636
Re: More Liberal Censorship
« Reply #381 on: March 01, 2016, 03:53:59 PM »
What's most troubling is how young these folks are.  They should have held their own rally or meeting and presented their own ideas.  Or better yet, they should have participated in a debate with Shapiro.  Instead, they resorted to threats, anarchy, setting off alarms, blocking doors, and even promoted physical violence.  These are future leaders.   :-\

Campus Protesters Try to Silence Conservative Speaker, Demand College President’s Resignation
Natalie Johnson   / @nataliejohnsonn /
February 26, 2016


Conservative commentator Ben Shapiro talks about diversity despite a disruption when protesters at California State University, Los Angeles blocked entrances to the event in an attempt to shut it down. (Photo: Jacqueline Pilar/Young America's Foundation)
Student protesters swarmed California State University, Los Angeles to barricade the entrances of a theater where conservative commentator Ben Shapiro was set to deliver a speech about censorship and diversity on college campuses.

Led primarily by the school’s Black Student Union and Black Lives Matter chapter, the hundreds of demonstrators, including some professors, poured into the Student Union building Thursday afternoon to block other students from attending the event.

Many in the dense crowd of protesters shoved and shouted at attendees who tried slipping through the doors.

Members of the conservative Young America’s Foundation, host of the event, called “When Diversity Becomes a Problem,” said they were forced to sneak groups of four to five in the back door leading directly to the theater to avoid catching the attention of protesters who hadn’t yet obstructed the last entrance.

Amy Lutz, a program officer at YAF, said the group was able to funnel roughly 100 students into the theater on the CSU-LA campus before protesters surrounded the entrances, preventing anyone from entering or leaving for the duration of Shapiro’s speech.

“It was frightening. I felt like we were hostages in this room, because we couldn’t get out,” Lutz told The Daily Signal.

She said more than a dozen police officers stayed inside the theater, ordering attendees to stay put until the crowd dissipated. A demonstrator pulled the fire alarm midway through the lecture, but Shapiro carried on with his remarks despite the shrill noise and pounding at the doors.

“Here’s my message to the bloviating jackasses outside: Toughen up, you spoiled brat snowflakes, if you actually want a better world,” Shapiro, editor-in-chief of The Daily Wire, said to cheers.

Police escorted Shapiro out of the theater at the end of his speech, citing  “safety concerns.”

Much of the crowd moved from the theater to the executive’s office to hold a sit-in and demand the resignation of CSU-LA’s president, William Covino, for allowing Shapiro’s appearance.

Lutz said the reaction from the protesters underscores a troubling problem among universities across the United States. She said:

Not only is free speech under attack, but it’s also very difficult to be a conservative on a college campus. It’s very difficult to speak up, and a lot of students choose to be silent because they know in extreme cases, like this one at CSU-LA, people will aggressively fight back if they choose to speak their mind.

Melina Abdullah, a professor and chair of pan-African studies at the university, took to Twitter and encouraged students to protest Shapiro’s appearance, calling his event “hate speech.” She claimed police were sent to arrest students for protesting.

The Daily Signal could not independently confirm this statement.

Emily Jashinsky, a spokeswoman for YAF, told The Daily Signal that tens of thousands of viewers tuned in to Shapiro’s speech online Thursday night. She said the level of interest illustrates that the country is “growing increasingly frustrated” with censorship on college campuses.

On Monday, Covino emailed YAF members informing them he had canceled Shapiro’s appearance for security reasons, opting for a “more inclusive event” highlighting speakers with “differing viewpoints on diversity.”

The university president reversed his decision Thursday, hours before Shapiro’s speech was supposed to begin, when YAF refused to reschedule.

“I strongly disagree with Mr. Shapiro’s views. But if Mr. Shapiro does appear, the university will allow him to speak,” Covino said in a prepared statement provided to The Daily Signal by YAF. “We will make every effort to ensure a climate of safety and security.”

Jashinsky said YAF was “disgusted” by the president’s response. She said:

This was absolutely no occasion for celebration. This president [Covino] grudgingly embraced the concept of free speech. This is the president of a public university, who in his statement doesn’t condemn attacks his own professors have made on their students.

One of those attacks, she said, came from a professor who threatened to wrestle roughly a dozen YAF members for inviting Shapiro to speak.

“[Covino] doesn’t condemn any of the hostility toward conservative students,” Jashinsky said. “It should have been a full-throated endorsement of free speech, regardless of whether he agrees or not with what’s being said.”

David Hacker, senior counsel and director of the Center for Academic Freedom at the legal aid group Alliance Defending Freedom, told The Daily Signal he is exploring legal options on behalf of YAF.

Hacker, who was on campus during the protests, said he is waiting for a response from the university to a letter he sent Monday to its counsel.

The letter demands that the university rescind an “unconstitutional” $621.50 fee slapped on YAF to pay for security officers because of the event’s “controversial” nature.

“The university engaged in viewpoint discrimination against these conservative students, and it shouldn’t have done that,” Hacker said. “You can’t put a price tag on the view of somebody’s speech.”

http://dailysignal.com/2016/02/26/campus-protesters-try-to-silence-conservative-speaker-demand-college-presidents-resignation/




PRIVATE ARMED SECURITY


Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63713
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: More Liberal Censorship
« Reply #382 on: March 09, 2016, 04:19:46 PM »
Student senator faces impeachment for conservative beliefs
By  Todd Starnes 
Published March 09, 2016
FoxNews.com
 
There’s a witch hunt underway for conservatives at the University of Southern California – and Jacob Ellenhorn appears to be Public Enemy No. 1.

Ellenhorn is a student senator at USC and president of the College Republicans. He is also an outspoken conservative.

Click here to join Todd’s American Dispatch: a must-read for Conservatives! 

And that’s a big problem among his fellow student lawmakers at USC.

Ellenhorn is facing possible impeachment – accused of all sorts of tawdry behavior – like publicly expressing his conservative opinions and (brace yourself) inviting high-profile conservative speakers to campus.

“It seems like freedom of speech and freedom to express your views is not allowed by the University of Southern California student government right now,” he told me.

Ellenhorn accused liberal students of engaging in a “witch hunt” and committing “institutionalized discrimination against me and my views.”

“If you voice a difference of opinion on any small issue – they lash out at you,” he told me. “You’re a racist, you’re a homophobe, you’re anti-woman, you’re  sexist. This is ridiculous.”

The official complaint, first reported by Campus Reform, alleges that Ellenhorn “created a hostile environments (sic) for our USC study body, and has also violated our USC Principles of Community by bringing a speaker and moderating an event that blatantly perpetuates sexism.”

The Lefties were especially troubled when Ellenhorn invited Milo Yiannopoulos to speak last year.

PODCAST: Listen to Todd’s indepth interview with Jacob Ellenhorn

Stephen Smith, an adjunct professor  and executive director of the USC Shoah Foundation, accused Yiannopoulos of being known for his “anti-feminist and more broadly misogynist commentary.”

“Harmful speech has no place in the Trojan community,” Smith wrote in a letter calling for Yiannopoulos to be disinvited.

“Whatever Yiannopoulos has to say on campus, his invitation here calls into question the human values as well as the academic standards of the USC College republicans,” he wrote.  “Controversial celebrity presenters may draw an audience, but the integrity of the USC College Republicans is rubbished by such content, the high standards of excellence we all try to uphold at USC are undermined, and the USC community as a whole is deeply offended on behalf of its women students, staff and faculty.”

Ellenhorn admits that he’s invited firebrand speakers like Yiannopoulos and Ben Shapiro.

“They are claiming that because I invited them – I made students on campus feel unsafe,” he said. “No one has to listen to them. No one was forced to attend. For goodness’ sake – we’re adults. We should be able to handle other people’s opinions.”

Senators are expected to hold hearings later this month to determine the young conservative’s fate. But Ellenhorn doesn’t seem to be all that intimidated.

He penned a fiery response to the complaint – accusing University Student Government of “trying to castrate strong male voices into submission.”

Bold.

Now, you might be wondering why I’m dedicating this column to covering what some might consider a silly campus skirmish. But this is no silly skirmish.

Pew Research did a study a few months ago – revealing that 40 percent of millennials believe there should be limitations on free speech. That’s a disturbing number.

I suspect that our public universities are being used to foster such anti-American thinking. The Left isn’t just opposing dissenting viewpoints. They are trying to silence opposing viewpoints.

Ellenhorn told me he’s seen his fellow senators rant about all sorts of outrageous issues – but he’s never tried to silence anyone. He’s never tried to have his opposition impeached.

“Difference of opinion should be triumphed,” he said. “But what they are trying to do is shut difference of opinion down.”

And they are in for a mighty big fight.

“I’m not going to stand down,” he said. “I’m going to stand up. I’m not going to be quiet.”


USC student Senator Jacob Ellenhorn (Courtesy of Jacob Ellenhorn)
 

Well said, Jacob! That’s exactly what you should do when faced with a leftwing bully. Stand your ground.

“They are trying to silence me – and I’m just going to get louder.”

The USC senators might want to invest in some ear plugs – because it’s about to get rowdy.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016/03/09/student-senator-faces-impeachment-for-conservative-beliefs.html?intcmp=trending

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63713
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: More Liberal Censorship
« Reply #383 on: March 16, 2016, 12:56:09 PM »
Here is what you can expect from a Trump presidency:  the typical liberal censorship and/or attempt to silence/punish opposing viewpoints.

POLITICO reporter denied access to Trump event
By HADAS GOLD
03/16/16

Donald Trump arrives for a primary night event at the Mar-A-Lago Club's Donald J. Trump Ballroom March 15, 2016, in Palm Beach, Florida. | Getty

POLITICO reporter Ben Schreckinger was denied entry to Donald Trump's press conference on Tuesday night, despite having previously been granted credentials by the campaign.

The move followed a threat last week from Trump officials to exclude POLITICO reporters from campaign events.

On Tuesday morning, Schreckinger, who has covered the campaign regularly for more than six months, received an email granting him credentials for Trump's speech and press conference at his Mar-a-Lago club in Florida that evening. But less than 10 minutes later, another email arrived saying those same credentials were denied. Upon arriving at Trump's private club, he was denied entry and escorted off of the property.

Schreckinger, whose latest story on Trump's campaign was a report on concerns about campaign manager Corey Lewandowski's temperament and behavior, never received an explanation as to why his credentials have been denied. Neither Lewandowski nor Trump spokeswoman Hope Hicks responded to requests for comment.

"I’m saddened by the personal nature of the Trump campaign’s attack on an excellent reporter, Ben Schreckinger. The campaign provided no explanation for barring our reporter from Donald Trump’s speech tonight. If this is the response to honest, fair, and sometimes critical reporting – like today’s piece on Campaign Manager Corey Lewandowski — it certainly will not intimidate POLITICO as we cover the campaign in the days ahead," POLITICO editor Susan Glasser said in a statement.

POLITICO is far from alone among media organizations being denied entry to Trump events. The Des Moines Register, Univision, Fusion, The Huffington Post, National Review, Mother Jones and BuzzFeed have all been denied credentials to Trump's events, often after publishing critical stories about the campaign. In January, New York Times reporter Trip Gabriel was ejected from an event in Iowa after writing about Trump's weak ground game in the state, which he eventually lost to Ted Cruz.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-media/2016/03/ben-schreckinger-denied-access-donald-trump-220836#ixzz43668CBhw

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63713
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: More Liberal Censorship
« Reply #384 on: March 24, 2016, 10:52:08 AM »
Raising a nation of sissies.   :-\

‘Donald Trump 2016’ Chalkings Around Emory University Led To Abject Panic
Matt Vespa | Mar 23, 2016


Folks, I’m not a Donald Trump supporter by any stretch of the imagination, but a) he has a right to speak and hold rallies without progressives ironically building walls to prevent people from attending and b) he should be defended–and anyone else for that matter–against the absurd political correctness agenda infesting our college campuses. It’s assumed that around 20 percent of Republicans won’t vote for Trump in the general election, though these mindless attacks might force unity in the face of this progressive evolution that has run absolutely amok. At Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia, someone had the temerity to exercise his or her First Amendment rights and write “Donald Trump 2016” in chalk across campus. This innocuous display of free speech sent some students running off like scared wombats, feeling triggered by the slogans. No, I’m not making this up; some of these delicate snowflakes got their feelings very, very hurt (via Mediaite):

According to student paper The Emory Wheel, the triggered students protested outside the administration building chanting, “You are not listening! Come speak to us, we are in pain!”

“I’m supposed to feel comfortable and safe,” one female student said. “But this man is being supported by students on our campus and our administration shows that they, by their silence, support it as well … I don’t deserve to feel afraid at my school.”

The university quickly responded in an email: “By nature of the fact that for a significant portion of our student population, the messages represent particularly bigoted opinions, policies, and rhetoric directed at populations represented at Emory University, we would like to express our concern regarding the values espoused by the messages displayed, and our sympathy for the pain experienced by members of our community.”

“It is clear to us that these statements are triggering for many of you,” they continued. “As a result, both College Council and the Student Government Association pledge to stand in solidarity with those communities who feel threatened by this incident and to help navigate the student body through it and the environment of distrust and unease it has created.”

Oh, it gets worse. Apparently, emergency counseling is being offered (via Fox Sports) [bold indicates text of email]:

The student government association is OFFERING EMERGENCY COUNSELING FOR STUDENTS TRIGGERED BY THE TRUMP 2016 CAMPUS CHALKINGS. Here is their email:

"That being said, by nature of the fact that for a significant portion of our student population, the messages represent particularly bigoted opinions, policies, and rhetoric directed at populations represented at Emory University, we would like to express our concern regarding the values espoused by the messages displayed, and our sympathy for the pain experienced by members of our community...

It is clear to us that these statements are triggering for many of you. As a result, both College Council and the Student Government Association pledge to stand in solidarity with those communities who feel threatened by this incident and to help navigate the student body through it and the environment of distrust and unease it has created.

To that end, Emergency Funds within the College Council monetary policy were created to provide time-sensitive funds during circumstances involving discrimination based on race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, and such funds are available to any student organization looking to sponsor events in response to this incident."

Donald Trump 2016 represents a “bigoted” opinion? And seriously, if a chalking gets you so worked up that you needs to seek counseling, you’re not a serious person. You’re a caricature, who is about to get a brutal dose of reality upon graduation. As Clay Travis of Fox Sports wrote, these kids are going to an institution of learning (and whining) that costs $65,000 per year– and this is what’s getting them worked up. It’s irrational, but also tragicomic that a mere political expression in chalk–that can be removed by water–has led to campus officials offering these progressive snowflakes a chance to see the shrink because they just can’t deal with certain aspects real life.  Students of Emory: we’re a nation that allows for people to hold differing opinions on a variety of subjects. You know, part of that whole diversity bit you love to espouse…until someone says something that you don’t like.

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2016/03/23/donald-trump-2016-chalkings-around-emory-university-led-to-abject-panic-n2138353

Straw Man

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41015
  • one dwells in nirvana
Re: More Liberal Censorship
« Reply #385 on: March 24, 2016, 10:58:01 AM »
Emory is a private university and Trump has no right of any sort to speak there and the students that pay to be there have every right to protest him speaking there

He can book an auditorium somewhere else in the city and hold his race baiting Hitler youth rally

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63713
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: More Liberal Censorship
« Reply #386 on: March 31, 2016, 12:27:38 PM »
A generation of cupcakes. 


Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63713
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: More Liberal Censorship
« Reply #387 on: April 01, 2016, 10:29:48 AM »
Raising a nation of sissies.   :-\

‘Donald Trump 2016’ Chalkings Around Emory University Led To Abject Panic
Matt Vespa | Mar 23, 2016


Folks, I’m not a Donald Trump supporter by any stretch of the imagination, but a) he has a right to speak and hold rallies without progressives ironically building walls to prevent people from attending and b) he should be defended–and anyone else for that matter–against the absurd political correctness agenda infesting our college campuses. It’s assumed that around 20 percent of Republicans won’t vote for Trump in the general election, though these mindless attacks might force unity in the face of this progressive evolution that has run absolutely amok. At Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia, someone had the temerity to exercise his or her First Amendment rights and write “Donald Trump 2016” in chalk across campus. This innocuous display of free speech sent some students running off like scared wombats, feeling triggered by the slogans. No, I’m not making this up; some of these delicate snowflakes got their feelings very, very hurt (via Mediaite):

According to student paper The Emory Wheel, the triggered students protested outside the administration building chanting, “You are not listening! Come speak to us, we are in pain!”

“I’m supposed to feel comfortable and safe,” one female student said. “But this man is being supported by students on our campus and our administration shows that they, by their silence, support it as well … I don’t deserve to feel afraid at my school.”

The university quickly responded in an email: “By nature of the fact that for a significant portion of our student population, the messages represent particularly bigoted opinions, policies, and rhetoric directed at populations represented at Emory University, we would like to express our concern regarding the values espoused by the messages displayed, and our sympathy for the pain experienced by members of our community.”

“It is clear to us that these statements are triggering for many of you,” they continued. “As a result, both College Council and the Student Government Association pledge to stand in solidarity with those communities who feel threatened by this incident and to help navigate the student body through it and the environment of distrust and unease it has created.”

Oh, it gets worse. Apparently, emergency counseling is being offered (via Fox Sports) [bold indicates text of email]:

The student government association is OFFERING EMERGENCY COUNSELING FOR STUDENTS TRIGGERED BY THE TRUMP 2016 CAMPUS CHALKINGS. Here is their email:

"That being said, by nature of the fact that for a significant portion of our student population, the messages represent particularly bigoted opinions, policies, and rhetoric directed at populations represented at Emory University, we would like to express our concern regarding the values espoused by the messages displayed, and our sympathy for the pain experienced by members of our community...

It is clear to us that these statements are triggering for many of you. As a result, both College Council and the Student Government Association pledge to stand in solidarity with those communities who feel threatened by this incident and to help navigate the student body through it and the environment of distrust and unease it has created.

To that end, Emergency Funds within the College Council monetary policy were created to provide time-sensitive funds during circumstances involving discrimination based on race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, and such funds are available to any student organization looking to sponsor events in response to this incident."

Donald Trump 2016 represents a “bigoted” opinion? And seriously, if a chalking gets you so worked up that you needs to seek counseling, you’re not a serious person. You’re a caricature, who is about to get a brutal dose of reality upon graduation. As Clay Travis of Fox Sports wrote, these kids are going to an institution of learning (and whining) that costs $65,000 per year– and this is what’s getting them worked up. It’s irrational, but also tragicomic that a mere political expression in chalk–that can be removed by water–has led to campus officials offering these progressive snowflakes a chance to see the shrink because they just can’t deal with certain aspects real life.  Students of Emory: we’re a nation that allows for people to hold differing opinions on a variety of subjects. You know, part of that whole diversity bit you love to espouse…until someone says something that you don’t like.

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2016/03/23/donald-trump-2016-chalkings-around-emory-university-led-to-abject-panic-n2138353

Debate continues over Donald Trump chalkings at Emory University
By STEPHANIE CONDON CBS NEWS
March 31, 2016

Students at Emory University were the subject of some ridicule last week after protesting that pro-Donald Trump messages written in chalk around campus left them "in pain." University administrators and students have taken several steps since then to respond to the protests, but criticism of the students continues.

Former Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich, an Emory alum, wrote on Twitter Thursday that he's worried about the "fragility and timidity" of some students. "In the age of ISIS how can a name in chalk be frightening?" He followed up with one more tweet on the matter:

Newt Gingrich  ✔‎@newtgingrich
Emory has me worried because i thought college was a place to grow up and explore ideas not a place to hide and be intimidated by trivia
9:41 AM - 31 Mar 2016

University president Jim Wagner met with the students and sent a campus-wide email broaching the matter last week, pledging to promote a "safe environment" at Emory.

Then on Friday, Wagner stopped by a table on campus where members of the Young Americans for Liberty, a libertarian group, were collecting signatures for a petition that asks the university administration to clarify free speech protections on campus. Wagner wrote his own sidewalk chalk message next to their table: "Emory Stands for Free Expression!"

The Young Americans for Liberty over the weekend created a whole new round of chalk drawings and messages on the campus, Inside Higher Ed reports. Their drawings included messages of support for all of the remaining Democratic and Republican presidential candidates -- including a picture of Trump with the message, "Make Emory Great Again."

Alex Reibman, one of the event organizers, told Insider Higher Ed that the new chalkings were "a counterprotest to show that students are capable of handling chalk and that we stand for freedom of expression."

Meanwhile, Ajay Nair, the dean of campus life at Emory, published a column in Inside Higher Ed this week to put the controversy "in context."

"In the context of a college campus, we thrive on open and civil dialogue, inviting even the most controversial perspectives and remarks," he wrote. "The college setting is a laboratory where students may, for the first time, grapple with such issues. Those conversations by their very nature can be difficult and must take place in a safe environment that is inclusive and guided by mutual respect and civility."

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/emory-university-continues-to-take-heat-for-response-to-donald-trump-chalk-drawings/

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63713
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: More Liberal Censorship
« Reply #388 on: April 07, 2016, 10:02:58 AM »
Student Government At Public University Wants To Kick Out Member Over Pro-Trump Chalking
SCOTT GREER
Associate Editor
04/06/2016

Student government leaders at the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga have demanded one of its members to resign over chalking a message on campus supporting Donald Trump.

In a message posted to Twitter early Wednesday morning, the incoming government slate called “Empower UTC” said they asked one of the participants in their coalition, Hailey Puckett, to leave student government over her pro-Trump artwork.

According to the message, Puckett’s values “do not line up with the pillars we’ve established ourselves on.”

“We do not support bigotry or hatred or the messages spread by Donald Trump’s ignorance,” the message from the student leaders said. “We do not support the mission of those who wish to spread that ignorance.”

“We promised to represent you, and by you we mean everyone,” the message continued. “We will not, however, represent those who support the oppression of others. We do not ask you to forgive or forget her actions, but that you start conversations with them. We ask that you spread messages of love and inclusion to everyone you encounter.”

Empower UTC is set to take over the positions of president, vice president and secretary for student government in the upcoming school year. As apart of the ticket, Puckett won a seat as a senator just last week in campus elections. According to a source at the college, Empower UTC was considered the pro-Greek Life, conservative ticket in the race.

The removal of Puckett appears to be in response to outrage over her posting a tweet celebrating a “Trump 2016” chalk mark she helped make. Underneath the slogan, a wall was drawn.

In response to the chalk mark, incensed students began tweeting out the hashtag #BlackUTC and #BlackUnity and chalked an opposing message on campus.

One of the main proponents for the dismissal of Puckett was part of a rival student government coalition that sought to promote more diversity on campus.

Completing this poll entitles you to Daily Caller news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Last weekend, over a hundred campuses were dotted with pro-Trump chalkings as part of a movement calling itself #TheChalkening. #TheChalkening was an effort less created to support Trump than to fight back against out-of-control campus political correctness. (RELATED: The Frat Site That Helped Ignite #TheChalkening Speaks Out)

The nationwide movement was done in response to Emory University students claiming chalk marks in support of Trump at their campus in March threatened their safety. (RELATED: Is It Now A Hate Crime To Support Donald Trump On A College Campus?)

UTC SGA president-elect Phillip Stubblefield did not a return a request for comment about his decision to ask for Puckett’s resignation, nor did Puckett herself return a request for comment by the time of publication.

http://dailycaller.com/2016/04/06/student-government-at-public-university-kicks-out-member-over-pro-trump-chalking/#ixzz45A2aZmum

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63713
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: More Liberal Censorship
« Reply #389 on: April 07, 2016, 02:25:05 PM »
Dems on FEC target conservatives, vote to punish maker of anti-Obama movie
By Paul Bedard (@SecretsBedard) • 4/7/16

The three Democrats on the Federal Election Commission, in their latest and boldest move to regulate conservative media, voted in unison to punish a movie maker critical of President Obama after he distributed for free his latest work, Dreams of My Real Father: A Story of Reds and Deception.
 
Filmmaker Joel Gilbert, owner of Highway 61 films, has produced several independent politically-themed movies and sent Dreams out to millions of voters in key swing states prior to the 2012 election.
 
While he acted on his own, and with no ties to political groups or parties, an FEC complaint was filed claiming he violated reporting rules, prompting him to seek the standard media "exemption."

But despite giving the same exemption to liberal movie makers like Michael Moore and Daily Kos, the Democrats recently voted against Gilbert in a February action, reviving their bid to punish conservative media, a campaign initially targeting online news outlets like the Drudge Report.
 
Lucky for Gilbert, the three Republicans on the FEC also united to vote to give him the exemption. The tie vote blocked any action, and was followed by a unanimous 6-0 vote to close the file. Had he lost, Gilbert would have been required to report who helped fund the anti-Obama movie.
 
The latest Democratic move on conservatives comes as some Democrats in Congress, and liberal publications, are pushing to end the even split between Democrats and Republicans on the FEC, a move conservatives have warned would lead to punishing new rules on right-leaning media and candidates.
 
Republican Commissioner Lee E. Goodman has been warning about the assault on conservative media for three years and said the vote on Gilbert showed that the Democrats are still focused on right-leaning media.
 
"Freedom of the press isn't so free when three government commissars vote to punish a filmmaker for distributing a documentary film," he told Secrets.

"Conservative documentary films have faced tough sledding at the FEC, no matter how the films are distributed," Goodman said, adding, "It's chilling."

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/dems-on-fec-target-conservatives-vote-to-punish-maker-of-anti-obama-movie/article/2587898

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102396
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
Re: More Liberal Censorship
« Reply #390 on: April 07, 2016, 10:38:39 PM »
Here is what you can expect from a Trump presidency:  the typical liberal censorship and/or attempt to silence/punish opposing viewpoints.

#5 and #13 of Alinsky Tactics.   Trump has used 12 of 13 of them. 

dr.chimps

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 28635
  • Chimpus ergo sum
Re: More Liberal Censorship
« Reply #391 on: April 08, 2016, 12:16:25 AM »
Cut-and-paste warrior.  ::)

GigantorX

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 6370
  • GetBig's A-Team is the Light of Truth!
Re: More Liberal Censorship
« Reply #392 on: April 08, 2016, 07:16:53 AM »
Cut-and-paste warrior.  ::)

He's simply listing examples in a thread dedicated to providing examples of said subject. You are free to discuss them any which way you choose.

What would you like to be done instead?

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63713
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: More Liberal Censorship
« Reply #393 on: April 14, 2016, 09:50:16 AM »
Ohio University Cancels Fundraising Week Events After Students Paint Pro-Trump Messages

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump greets supporters on April 11, 2016 in Albany, New YorkAFP
by BEN KEW
13 Apr 2016

Officials at Ohio University have cancelled several events during a charity fundraising week, known as ‘Greek Week,’ after students painted a wall designated for graffiti with pro-Trump slogans.

The fundraising events were due to take place between April 11 – 16, however the plans were amended after members painted “Build the Wall” and “Trump 2016” along with the GOP party logo.

The graffiti is understood to be an endorsement of Donald Trump’s campaign for the Republican Nomination, supporting his policy of building a wall between the US and Mexico to stop illegal immigration into the country.

The wall has been an outlet for free speech since the 1970’s, however many students have argued that pro-Trump artwork took it too far.

A letter sent to all sororities and fraternities signed by various student councils states, “This phrase is offensive and hurtful to many individuals as it is directly tied to the Hispanic/Latino/a community, makes them feel marginalized, and the message was interpreted that they do not belong at Ohio University.”

“The big picture right now is that some people didn’t feel unified with Greek life,” Matt Falconer, president of OU’s chapter of Sigma Chi, said. “That was one of the main reasons why Greek Week was altered.”

In light of an emergency meeting held by the university’s Hispanic and Latino Society, University President McDavis Roderick sent an email to students which read: “Indeed, this wall is a place of free speech and expression; however, the words painted were troubling because they had a very different meaning to some than they may have to others viewing the message or even to those who painted the message.” He also suggested cultural competency classes to encourage students to be more sensitive.

The graffiti has since been removed by Hispanic students who painted over it. The university has said the students will not be punished.

http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/04/13/ohio-university-cancels-fundraising-week-after-students-paint-trump-wall/

dr.chimps

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 28635
  • Chimpus ergo sum
Re: More Liberal Censorship
« Reply #394 on: April 16, 2016, 06:23:41 AM »
He's simply listing examples in a thread dedicated to providing examples of said subject. You are free to discuss them any which way you choose.

What would you like to be done instead?
He's a fucking google-snapping idiot. No true idea in his head except room-temperature GOP creed. You?   

LurkerNoMore

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 30999
  • Dumb people think Trump is smart.
Re: More Liberal Censorship
« Reply #395 on: April 16, 2016, 08:20:51 AM »
He's a fucking google-snapping idiot. No true idea in his head except room-temperature GOP creed. You?   

HAHAHAHAHA.

GigantorX

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 6370
  • GetBig's A-Team is the Light of Truth!
Re: More Liberal Censorship
« Reply #396 on: April 16, 2016, 09:41:35 AM »
He's a fucking google-snapping idiot. No true idea in his head except room-temperature GOP creed. You?   

Strong take!

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63713
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: More Liberal Censorship
« Reply #397 on: May 05, 2016, 09:19:07 AM »
Jason Riley Is the Latest Conservative to Be Disinvited from a College Campus Jason Riley
by PETER WOOD & RACHELLE PETERSON   
May 2, 2016

The higher-education disinvitation sweepstakes continue. Virginia Tech has just disinvited Jason Riley, a Wall Street Journal columnist and Manhattan Institute senior fellow. Riley had been asked to deliver the BB&T Distinguished Lecture at Virginia Tech’s Pamplin College of Business. But late last week he received an e-mail from the faculty member who arranged the lecture informing him that the head of the Finance Department, the J. Gray Ferguson Professor of Finance, Vijay Singal, had vetoed the invitation. We obtained a copy of this e-mail.

Why? Mr. Riley, who is black, has attracted some negative attention since his publication in 2014 of Please Stop Helping Us: How Liberals Make It Harder for Blacks to Succeed. Professor Singal feared that whatever controversy Riley had attracted so far would be amplified once he set foot on Virginia Tech’s campus. He imagined there would be amplified controversy over Riley’s speech because Virginia Tech is still reverberating from the last BB&T Distinguished Lecture, delivered by Charles Murray on March 25.

That event was widely noted because of the exceptionally clumsy way that Virginia Tech president Tim Sands handled it. Sands sent an “open letter” to the Virginia Tech community on March 10, ostensibly upholding the invitation to Murray but doing so in such poison-pen language that he practically wrote the placards for the protesters. In Sands’s words, Murray’s work, particularly The Bell Curve, is “discredited,” “flawed,” “used by some to justify fascism, racism and eugenics,” and “regarded by some in our community as repugnant, offensive, or even fraudulent.”

It emerged that Dr. Sands actually knew little of Murray’s scholarly work, but relied instead on hearsay from Murray’s distempered critics. Murray answered Sands with a pungent open letter of his own; delivered his scheduled lecture despite some protesters; and left the campus with only one significant casualty — namely President Sands’s reputation.

What makes Jason Riley’s disinvitation notable is how little prompted it. The link between the Murray affair and the disinvitation to Riley isn’t speculative. The letter to Riley telling him his lecture is canceled plunges right into the recent history, including Tim Sands having “embarrassed himself and the university” with his open letter. The professor who wrote to Riley clearly felt chagrined by this turn of events. He is “sure” that President Sands “never read” The Bell Curve, at which he directed such vitriol. And Sands’s remarks, he says, served as an accelerant to a protest at the business school two days before Murray’s speech. The protest turned out to be “an ugly, hate-filled two-hour attack on Charles Murray,” charging him with absurdities such as membership in the Ku Klux Klan.

The head of the finance department had not initially objected to Riley as the next BB&T speaker but later, when he realized that Riley had “written about race issues” in the Wall Street Journal, he decided Riley would have to go. The department head and others in the finance department “worried about more protests from the looney left” and were unmoved by arguments that it was wrong to give in to such intimidation.

Disinvitations from college officials are becoming distressingly common and not quite as shocking as they were a few years ago. The William F. Buckley Jr. Society at Yale last week held its Second Annual Disinvitation Dinner. Last year it honored George Will, disinvited from Scripps College for expressing doubts about “rape culture” on campus. This year, it honored former New York Police commissioner Ray Kelly, who was disinvited from Brown University right at the podium where he was scheduled to speak. The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education keeps a summary list of disinvitations, but even FIRE can hardly keep up with the disgraceful trend. It has yet to note, for instance, Suzanne Venker’s disinvitation by “Uncomfortable Learning,” the student group at Williams College that had invited Venker, a critic of feminism. Uncomfortable Learning exists to bring controversial speakers to campus but was overwhelmed by the backlash to Venker’s scheduled appearance.

What makes Jason Riley’s disinvitation notable, though, is how little prompted it. No students threatened to protest his speech or wrote editorials denouncing his views. No one picketed the finance department. Riley’s speech hadn’t even been announced on campus. Mere fear of potential protest swayed Virginia Tech to cancel Riley’s pending event.

For the past six months, cry-bully activists on campuses from Mizzou to Princeton to Dartmouth have bowled over craven administrators who have deferred to their demands and declined to exercise jurisdiction. The Riley disinvitation shows just how low campus authorities are willing to bow to the fancies of their students. Higher education can offer intellectual freedom little more than lip service when it authorizes the heckler’s veto.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/434834/jason-riley-virginia-tech-speaking-invitation-rescinded

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63713
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: More Liberal Censorship
« Reply #398 on: May 09, 2016, 09:45:48 AM »
Jason Riley Is the Latest Conservative to Be Disinvited from a College Campus Jason Riley
by PETER WOOD & RACHELLE PETERSON   
May 2, 2016

The higher-education disinvitation sweepstakes continue. Virginia Tech has just disinvited Jason Riley, a Wall Street Journal columnist and Manhattan Institute senior fellow. Riley had been asked to deliver the BB&T Distinguished Lecture at Virginia Tech’s Pamplin College of Business. But late last week he received an e-mail from the faculty member who arranged the lecture informing him that the head of the Finance Department, the J. Gray Ferguson Professor of Finance, Vijay Singal, had vetoed the invitation. We obtained a copy of this e-mail.

Why? Mr. Riley, who is black, has attracted some negative attention since his publication in 2014 of Please Stop Helping Us: How Liberals Make It Harder for Blacks to Succeed. Professor Singal feared that whatever controversy Riley had attracted so far would be amplified once he set foot on Virginia Tech’s campus. He imagined there would be amplified controversy over Riley’s speech because Virginia Tech is still reverberating from the last BB&T Distinguished Lecture, delivered by Charles Murray on March 25.

That event was widely noted because of the exceptionally clumsy way that Virginia Tech president Tim Sands handled it. Sands sent an “open letter” to the Virginia Tech community on March 10, ostensibly upholding the invitation to Murray but doing so in such poison-pen language that he practically wrote the placards for the protesters. In Sands’s words, Murray’s work, particularly The Bell Curve, is “discredited,” “flawed,” “used by some to justify fascism, racism and eugenics,” and “regarded by some in our community as repugnant, offensive, or even fraudulent.”

It emerged that Dr. Sands actually knew little of Murray’s scholarly work, but relied instead on hearsay from Murray’s distempered critics. Murray answered Sands with a pungent open letter of his own; delivered his scheduled lecture despite some protesters; and left the campus with only one significant casualty — namely President Sands’s reputation.

What makes Jason Riley’s disinvitation notable is how little prompted it. The link between the Murray affair and the disinvitation to Riley isn’t speculative. The letter to Riley telling him his lecture is canceled plunges right into the recent history, including Tim Sands having “embarrassed himself and the university” with his open letter. The professor who wrote to Riley clearly felt chagrined by this turn of events. He is “sure” that President Sands “never read” The Bell Curve, at which he directed such vitriol. And Sands’s remarks, he says, served as an accelerant to a protest at the business school two days before Murray’s speech. The protest turned out to be “an ugly, hate-filled two-hour attack on Charles Murray,” charging him with absurdities such as membership in the Ku Klux Klan.

The head of the finance department had not initially objected to Riley as the next BB&T speaker but later, when he realized that Riley had “written about race issues” in the Wall Street Journal, he decided Riley would have to go. The department head and others in the finance department “worried about more protests from the looney left” and were unmoved by arguments that it was wrong to give in to such intimidation.

Disinvitations from college officials are becoming distressingly common and not quite as shocking as they were a few years ago. The William F. Buckley Jr. Society at Yale last week held its Second Annual Disinvitation Dinner. Last year it honored George Will, disinvited from Scripps College for expressing doubts about “rape culture” on campus. This year, it honored former New York Police commissioner Ray Kelly, who was disinvited from Brown University right at the podium where he was scheduled to speak. The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education keeps a summary list of disinvitations, but even FIRE can hardly keep up with the disgraceful trend. It has yet to note, for instance, Suzanne Venker’s disinvitation by “Uncomfortable Learning,” the student group at Williams College that had invited Venker, a critic of feminism. Uncomfortable Learning exists to bring controversial speakers to campus but was overwhelmed by the backlash to Venker’s scheduled appearance.

What makes Jason Riley’s disinvitation notable, though, is how little prompted it. No students threatened to protest his speech or wrote editorials denouncing his views. No one picketed the finance department. Riley’s speech hadn’t even been announced on campus. Mere fear of potential protest swayed Virginia Tech to cancel Riley’s pending event.

For the past six months, cry-bully activists on campuses from Mizzou to Princeton to Dartmouth have bowled over craven administrators who have deferred to their demands and declined to exercise jurisdiction. The Riley disinvitation shows just how low campus authorities are willing to bow to the fancies of their students. Higher education can offer intellectual freedom little more than lip service when it authorizes the heckler’s veto.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/434834/jason-riley-virginia-tech-speaking-invitation-rescinded

Wall Street Journal columnist will speak at Virginia Tech after school issues public apology
Posted: Thursday, May 5, 2016
BY ROBBY KORTH | The Roanoke Times

Jason Riley, a conservative columnist for the Wall Street Journal, will speak at Virginia Tech once the school issues him a public, written apology.

Riley stirred controversy earlier this week in a column saying that he was disinvited from speaking at a lecture. He is known as an outspoken black conservative who wrote the 2014 book “Please Stop Helping Us: How Liberals Make It Harder for Blacks to Succeed,” and for his appearances on Fox News.

At the time, Tech officials said he actually never was invited because a professor who had emailed him an invitation wasn't authorized to do so. Instead, a university committee had selected a Harvard economist to give the BB&T funded business school lecture.

Tech President Timothy Sands said in a Thursday statement that he and other university officials "regret the confusion and assure our friends, parents, students, alumni and partners that we will take the actions necessary to ensure that such miscommunication does not occur in the future."

Tech spokeswoman Tracy Vosburgh said Thursday that the school will issue the public apology at some point. She said details on the Riley talk – assuming he agrees to speak – are not yet ironed out. She said that Riley could come as a part of the original lecture series or a separate function. Riley would be paid by Tech's Pamplin College of Business, she said. The cost for the speech was not available Thursday.

Riley said he had a phone conversation with Virginia Tech Pamplin College of Business Dean Robert Sumichrast, Thursday afternoon.

"He was extremely contrite, respectful and very apologetic for what happened," Riley said of the conversation in a phone interview with The Roanoke Times.

Riley said he appreciated that Sumichrast acknowledged that he was invited and then disinvited. He said in the conversation Sumichrast also offered to issue an apology on the school's behalf, something crucial Riley said because he felt like Tech administrators had been characterizing him "as a liar."

Riley said once he reads the public apology he will make arrangements to travel to Blacksburg for a lecture in the series, though he isn't yet sure if it will be part of the BB&T series or a separate event.

He said he'd like to talk about public policy rather than the behind-the-scenes issues he's had with Virginia Tech.

Riley had said that he was invited by Tech finance professor Douglas Patterson for the 2016 BB&T fall lecture series.

Patterson wrote to Riley "My purpose in writing is to invite you to give the fall 2016 lecture here in Blacksburg."

The university, through the business school dean and its public relations office Tuesday, said Riley was never officially invited to speak.

“I am deeply sorry to see this characterization of Virginia Tech in the national media and across social media,” Sumichrast wrote in a letter to the university community Tuesday.

The committee set up by Sumichrast selected Robert Barro, an economist at Harvard University, as the series’ next speaker, according to Tech spokeswoman Tracy Vosburgh.

Patterson, in the earlier email to Riley, wrote that university officials were concerned about potential backlash after protests after an appearance by Charles Murray as a BB&T lecturer in March.

Riley said he was happy with the outcome. However, he was disappointed because he believes it took media backlash - the issue was discussed on Fox News Wednesday night and in a Riley column in the Wall Street Journal - for him to actually receive the invitation.

"It's kind of a shame that's what it takes for you to be heard on campus," Riley said.

Vosburgh said that the backlash wasn't the reason Tech wanted Riley to come to campus. Once officials realized that he had been offered an invitation by a Tech professor, it was time to make good on it.

"It was the right thing to do," she said.

The BB&T lecture series began in 2007 with a $1 million grant funded by the foundation to explore “the foundations of capitalism and freedom,” according to a 2007 news release.

The courses and lectures are aimed at comparing free market economies with alternative economic systems such as capitalism versus socialism, the release said.

http://www.richmond.com/news/virginia/article_dd343f6a-f815-53de-b462-f2238ded786d.html

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63713
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: More Liberal Censorship
« Reply #399 on: May 10, 2016, 09:50:54 AM »
Did Facebook bury conservative news? Ex-staffers say yes.
By Philip Bump
May 9, 2016
 
The great irony of the tech blog Gizmodo's revelation that Facebook's trending-topic curators weeded out stories about Facebook or about issues popular with conservatives is that Gizmodo's story therefore likely won't end up on Facebook's list of trending topics. After all, the report, which suggests that the social media behemoth's team filtered out stories on conservative topics from conservative sites, will most certainly be very, very popular with conservatives. (Update: Or maybe it will.)

What we're talking about here is that little box in the upper right of your Facebook page — the short list of news topics that are being discussed on Facebook at the moment. They're clearly tailored to the user; as I write, mine include stories about New York (where I live) and politics, which I would assume that a surgeon in Dallas probably wouldn't see. Because Facebook has one-sixth of the world using it every day, pretty much everything is being talked about to some extent. The company uses an automatic system (an algorithm) to surface what's currently popular, and a team of staffers then further curates the list to tailor it to meet particular standards.

And there's the problem. Gizmodo quotes several former curators suggesting that conservative news stories would be booted from the automatically generated list of trending stories for two reasons. One was if the story came from a conservative-leaning site,  such as Breitbart.com or Newsmax.com, in which case curators were told to find the same story on a mainstream media site, if possible. The other was if the curator didn't want to include the story or didn't recognize the story as important. It's hard to know the extent to which the latter judgments took place, but one of the former curators — a conservative — told Gizmodo, "I believe it had a chilling effect on conservative news."

That's problematic, for obvious reasons. (Gizmodo notes that it's not clear whether this is still happening, because the trending news algorithm is constantly being tweaked, and that it's not clear whether liberal news was similarly affected.) The bigger question is the extent to which Facebook overlays another filter on top of what you see — and the extent to which that can influence political decisions.

We already knew (even if we sometimes forget) that there are a lot of layers of filtration that occur before you see anything on Facebook. There's the filtering that you yourself do, picking friends, clicking links, posting stuff. There's the main Facebook algorithm that puts things in your feed. That's based in large part on what you tell the system you like. Two years ago, journalist Mat Honan liked everything in his feed, telling Facebook, in short, that he liked everything. Within 48 hours, his feed was a garbage dump. His human curation had failed.

So this manipulation of the trending news is another layer. But it's significant in part because it's the most obvious manifestation of what Facebook wants you to see. Facebook slips ads in your feed and highlights some posts over others, but the trending news is Facebook itself sharing content with you. And as Gizmodo reports, its employees are deliberate in doing so. For example:

In other instances, curators would inject a story — even if it wasn’t being widely discussed on Facebook — because it was deemed important for making the network look like a place where people talked about hard news. “People stopped caring about Syria,” one former curator said. “[And] if it wasn’t trending on Facebook, it would make Facebook look bad.”

Facebook was also criticized for not having a trending topic on the Black Lives Matter movement, one former curator claimed. So they "injected" it into the feed. "This particular injection is especially noteworthy because the #BlackLivesMatter movement originated on Facebook, and the ensuing media coverage of the movement often noted its powerful social media presence," Gizmodo's Michael Nuñez writes. Black Lives Matter existed without Facebook, but this injection could only have helped.

In April, Nuñez reported that Facebook employees were advocating for chief executive Mark Zuckerberg to explain during a company meeting what responsibility Facebook had to block Donald Trump's candidacy. (The question doesn't appear to have been answered.) If it wanted to block Trump from appearing on the site, an expert told Nuñez, it was within its legal rights to do so, just as it can block other forms of content. The report resulted in assurances from the company that it would never interfere with people's voting choices. "We as a company are neutral," a spokesman told The Hill, "we have not and will not use our products in a way that attempts to influence how people vote."

Any news organization, including The Washington Post, is subject to bias introduced by the people that work for it. Hand-tailoring what the trending-news algorithm spits out introduces bias (not that the algorithm itself is without any bias, given that it, too, is cobbled together by humans). But that bias affects an audience of a size that The Post could only dream about.

This is a company that wants to create a system to bring the Internet to the entire world — so that the entire world can use Facebook. It's a company whose chief executive, Zuckerberg, led a recent effort to reform immigration policies in the United States. If Facebook wanted to, it could put a message in support of immigration at the top of every user's news feed, completely legally — though risking huge backlash.

Or it could use its influence more quietly. In 2010, Facebook conducted a social experiment, introducing a tool letting people tell friends when they'd voted in that year's elections. People who saw that message were 0.4 percent more likely to vote — resulting in an estimated 300,000 more people getting to the polls. This prompted a lot of questions about how Facebook could influence turnout, either at its own whim or as a product offered to political campaigns.

That's the issue at the heart of the question over what Facebook is suppressing or promoting. This is a media company at a scale that's without precedent in the world. Nearly three-quarters of American adults who use the Internet use Facebook. And those adults didn't see stories about political topics in their trending news feeds because a human who works at Facebook decided not to show it.

Update: Facebook released a statement on Monday afternoon.

We take allegations of bias very seriously. Facebook is a platform for people and perspectives from across the political spectrum.

Trending Topics shows you the popular topics and hashtags that are being talked about on Facebook.

There are rigorous guidelines in place for the review team to ensure consistency and neutrality. These guidelines do not permit the suppression of political perspectives. Nor do they permit the prioritization of one viewpoint over another or one news outlet over another. These guidelines do not prohibit any news outlet from appearing in Trending Topics.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/05/09/former-facebook-staff-say-conservative-news-was-buried-raising-questions-about-its-political-influence/