Tag: freedom of speech

Privacy matter to you too? Tucker Carlson moves to Florida

 

 

 

 

 

Tucker Carlson  moves from Washington D.C.  to a barrier  island in  Florida.  Privacy considerations?   Harassment by the New York Times?  Protect privacy of his family?

Fox News political commentator Tucker Carlson  sold his home in Washington, D.C.’s leafy and affluent Kent neighborhood for $3.95 million after he bought  a $2.9 million home hidden down a private lane amid  tropical foliage on a tiny barrier island off Florida’s Gulf Coast.

Recently back from vacation, on 7/20/2020 Carlson said on his show:   “How would Murray Carpenter and his photographer, Tristan Spinski, feel if we told you where they live, if we put pictures of their homes on the air?” Carlson asked. “What if we published the home address of every one of the soulless, robot editors at the New York Times, who assigned and managed this incitement of violence against my family?”

He added: “We could do that. We know who they are.”

Despite the Times’s denial that an upcoming story would publish Carlson’s residence, his accusation sparked fierce backlash from a number of prominent conservatives, including at least one GOP lawmaker.

“There is absolutely no reason for the NY Times to do this, unless of course it is to intimidate Tucker Carlson — or anyone who has views like him,” tweeted Rep. Eric A. “Rick” Crawford (R-Ark.), sharing a video of the host talking. “This isn’t ‘reporting’ and should be condemned by any news entity who has any credibility left.”

Acting deputy secretary of homeland security Ken Cuccinelli retweeted criticism that the Times is promoting violence against Carlson, adding “That is clearly their intent.

____

Aptos Psychologist:  Let the New York Times know what you think about publicizing the home addresses of persons who disagree with your opinions.   Freedom of speech and privacy for persons in their homes is worth speaking up for.  Right?

 

Share

Freedoms — how are they doing? USA (Kellyanne Conway) & world wide (Hong Kong)

Freedoms -  how free is political speech here  in USA and around the world?

Let’s compare Trump’s counselor  Kellyanne Conway who   today 6/13/19  has been admonished by a USA  government agency  for engaging in  political speech, i.e., violation of the Hatch Act.

Let’s compare  Conway’s  political speech    with  other places such as Hong Kong  which today  pushes ahead on legislation that any resident or foreigner who says something the government does not like  can be sent to mainland China for trail.

Left leaning newspapers,  including  the  New York Times and Washington Post,  urge that Trump  fire his top  counselor  Kellyanne   Conway   because she made  political  comments about Democrat contenders.  Only Trump can fire Conway.  Civil servants are not supposed to engage in what the Hatch Act refers to as  perncious politics.Does this pass the ‘sniff test’?  Hardly.

The U.S. Constitution recognizes a number of inalienable human rights, including freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of religion, the right to keep and bear arms, freedom from cruel and unusual punishment, and the right to a fair trial by jury.

What about freedom of speech & assembly in other places?    Hong Kong –  Now here’s something that  smells bad:   Hong Kong Lawmakers  currently push legislation  that allows extradition  to mainland China. This puts legal independence of Hong Kong   residents and foreigners alike in jeopardy. Anyone can be hauled off to mainland China for what they say in Hong Kong.

The Hong Kong  proposed law threatens freedom of speech and  freedom of gatherings.  Thousands of protesters have gathered to protest.   As one protester said,  ‘ Say something the government does not like and they’ll take the person back to China for an unfair trail and prospect of torture.’  Only the government has the guns in Hong Kong.   Protesters hold umbrellas to ward off tear gas.

Kellyanne Conway acts as a counselor to Trump.  It is expectable that she will make comments about the Democrat contenders.

Why do  so many newspapers  including the New York Times  and Washington Post   — supposed defenders of freedoms — throw in with the Democrat lingo without taking a hard look at it?   Let’s directly ask the editors of those ‘defenders of freedom’ what they are  up to.

Start by asking Dean P. Baguet, current top editor at the New York Times.  Why does the New York Times support the Democrat line of thinking in such a tunnel visioned manner?  Let’s ask top Editors directly our questions.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share

You must pay union fees to get & keep a govt job? Your money supports political views you disagree with. That’s question Supreme Court will answer

You must pay union fees to get & keep a govt job? Your money  spent to  support political views you  fundamentally disagree with? That’s wrong.  This violates your freedom of speech rights.

For example, the SEIU  supported Obama in 2008 & 2012   and supported Hillary Clinton in 2016.   The SEIU pours millions of dollars into the Democrat Party each election cycle.   Why should  union dues you must  pay to keep your job be spent  for  politics you disagree with?

The Supreme Court hears a case on this issue starting Monday, February 26.  This is from the Wall Street Journal:

“Across the U.S., more than 500,000 state and local workers have objected to funding union advocacy but are nonetheless required by law to pay “fair share” fees to labor unions they have refused to join. The Supreme Court upheld the practice in a 1977 case, Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, reasoning that otherwise workers could “free ride” on the union’s collective bargaining. Prohibiting unions from charging nonmembers directly for political speech, it believed, would protect their First Amendment rights.

“On Monday the justices will hear oral arguments in a challenge to that 1977 decision brought by Mr. Janus. They should heed Justice Felix Frankfurter’s observation, in an earlier case on mandatory union fees, that it is “rather naive” to assume “that economic and political concerns are separable.” As Mr. Janus argues, bargaining over wages, pensions and benefits in the public sector involves issues of intense public concern and thus core First Amendment-protected speech. A state law that forces public employees to fund that speech violates their rights, no less than compelling them to speak. ( Janus v. Afscme doesn’t consider these questions for unions in the private sector.)

 “Other unions that held pro-Clinton rallies include the American Federation of Teachers, the National Education Association and the Service Employees International Union, which represents about one million public workers. The SEIU convention passed a resolution that the union will “elect Hillary Clinton” as president “by mobilizing millions of voters.” Unions and state governments maintain that nonmembers can be charged for these conventions because they are where the unions adopt bargaining strategies and representational policies.
_________
Aptos Psychologist: Stop taking money from government workers’ paychecks.  People are smart and can decide for themselves what politics they want to support.
Share

Free Speech at universities & churches

 

Freedom of speech

Censorship of conservative voices.   Your voice has no merit and we will censor your voice  – that happens more and more  in university settings and other public settings  –including   churches.

Don’t like someone’s opinion?  Make more speech.  That’s the essence of freedom to speak.

Administration at U.C. Berkeley  recently spent  $60o K to protect free speech when Ben Shapiro, a conservative writer,  spoke at U.C. Berkeley. As of 9/23/2017,   is not clear whether the Free Speech Week sponsored by Berkeley Patriot student group  will go forward.

What about  churches?

Are ‘conservative’ voices treated  equally — and  respectfully —  as ‘liberal’ voices in your church?

If some church member raises concerns about an issue  are they  greeted respectfully  with  ‘let’s talk about that…” or are they treated indirectly  with derision, ignoring the person and quick  hostile comments followed by walking away.

An example that happened recently: The church volunteer person  who sends out email regarding events of interest to the  parishioners was asked  more than once  to put a link to a specific  post concerning  an  event.  Response in person was ‘our parishioners are older and don’t do links…’   Oh?  The following week the email sent out by that volunteer contained a link to a newly created church related   blog.  Is that censorship? I think so.

How do churches handle conflict? With listening and prayer we hope.  And respect for the other person’s opinion.   And supportive of freedom to speak.  That takes active steps since the elections in November, 2016.

Increasingly, churches start their church board  meetings with a Covenant  how people will talk to each other.

How might respectful discourse be encouraged in all church related meetings?   At coffee hour?  When two or three church Members gather to make decisions  planning future  events?

Weigh in.  Express your views on this topic and other topics.

Monterey Bay Forum is exactly that  — a Forum  for the expression of different views.   Some people write under a pen name.   One high school youth publishes on Birds.  One ex-policeman now an  R.N. writes about his career changes.  There are many voices expressed on the Forum.  Licensed Psychologist  Cameron Jackson writes under her own name — on Twitter, Facebook, Instagram and through other avenues.

Your voice is welcome.

Many of the  most popular posts (most read over time)  on Monterey Bay Forum relate to Freedom.  Wonder why?    Probably because the domain name  is   www.freedomok.net    That’s probably why we see readers  popping up from all over the world and all over the U.S.A.

written by Cameron Jackson    DrCameronJackson@gmail.com

 

 

 

 

Share

Harvard University: name calling is lame …

  mean-mindedMean-minded: means  uncoopeative, un-kind, unfair.

 Freedom to express ideas too often   results  in personal   name calling.  You’re mean-minded!  Oh?  

This happens too often   in churches, at colleges  and  by other entities.

Rather than examine the validity of the message, go after the messenger.

Instead of answering why one disagrees with an idea  — e.g.,   someone says that  an Aptos CA   church board  made a dumb decision to get rid of  a board reporting to it   or  someone says that  a college department  at Harvard  made  a dumb decision to  require  a poltically correct course   — critics  attack the author expressing the idea.   She’s out to hurt us. She’s mean minded.  Sound familiar?

A recent illustration:

harvardThe Chair of the Department  of English at Harvard  — James Simpson —  recently   maligned  author Heather Mac Donald for her  “mean-minded article”. Mean-minded?   What in the world does that mean?

Jim Simpson, Chair
Jim Simpson, Chair

 Dept. Chair  Simpson adds nothing to explain what he means.  But being “mean-minded ” certainly sounds bad.  See  Jim Simpson’s Wall Street Journal letter titled Great Literature Magnifies Repressed Voices, Always

  heather mac donald manhattan instituteWhy malign author  Heather  Mac Donald for criticizing a new requirement of Harvard University  that all  English majors must take a politically correct class? It’s widely known that institutions of higher learning have become more and more politicized in recent years.  It’s a topic  which parents and all persons concerned with education are increasingly  concerned about.

Ms Mac Donald wrote a OpEd titled,  Does Harvard Consider Oscar Wilde Marginalized?

Mac Donald writes,  it used to be that English majors at Harvard were free  to “pursue the subline free of political overlay…” but now Harvard requires a course in authors who have been “marginalized for historical reasons...” “Told that literature is one long process of “marginalization” she [the English major student]  is less likely to lose herself in the shady pastoral poetry being instead on the hunt for partiarchy...”She has been primed to see marginalization, usually her own, evem hilariously at regally privleged Ivy League schools…”  

_______________

Aptos Psychologist:  take away  Let’s stop attacking the messengers and listen to the messages?

And, if a decision is bad — it’s always possible to re-consider it!

And, let’s protect freedom of speech — in churches and on college campuses.

 

 

Share
WP2Social Auto Publish Powered By : XYZScripts.com