Censorship 101 - Crimson Style

“I do not agree with what you have to say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it.” -- Evelyn Beatrice Hall, British writer (1868-1956)

Censorship 101 - Crimson Style

Commentary by Sanford D. Horn

June 19, 2017

Hate speech, provided it does not incite violence, is still free speech, except at Harvard University. At Harvard, free speech and expression is costly - to the tune of about a dozen rising freshmen being told their First Amendment rights end at the front gates of the ivory towers of the Cambridge, MA campus, as their acceptances were rescinded.

Apparently the First Amendment does not include social media postings that were determined to be offensive by a faceless, nameless committee that Harvard won’t divulge. On what has been called a “private Facebook page,” according to the Wall Street Journal, this particular group of students, posted sexually explicit messages, along with others mocking the Holocaust, joking about pedaphilia, and child abuse.

There is no question that the posts were vile, distasteful, unsavory, and repugnant; yet, no laws were violated. These students, heretofore previously on their way to matriculate at Harvard this fall, find themselves on the outside looking in, whose potential notoriety could prevent them from landing at any campus, should fight the rescinding of their acceptances.

This is a classic example of the slippery slope so bone chilling, it makes George Orwell’s 1984, look like Dr. Seuss. This is precisely why the United States has a First Amendment - protecting the right to speak one’s mind. It’s still not against the law to say/post offensive comments, and while Harvard also has the right to deny admission to any applicant it chooses, to do so because of opinions with which a committee does not agree, is disturbing.

Brilliant jurist Alan Dershowitz, who has a 53 year relationship with Harvard, and said as a private institution, Harvard is not “technically bound by the First Amendment.” He then quickly added that the rescinding of acceptances is “over-punishment and Draconian…. Harvard has committed itself to following the First Amendment and I think this violates the spirit, if not the letter of the First Amendment.”

How many students on campus, be it Harvard or anywhere else, think the same thoughts that were posted on this private Facebook page? (Although how a Facebook page is private in and of itself is flummoxing.) Perhaps the admissions committee did not vet these applicants carefully enough; but that’s on Harvard, not the students.

What will be the next set of opinions to keep people from the hallowed ivy of Harvard? Perhaps the committee will deny admission to those making disparaging remarks about Boston or the Kennedy family. And, this isn’t even about denying admission, it’s about rescinding admission from students already deemed “acceptable” for Harvard.

One cannot shield oneself from hurtful, offensive, or even viscerally disturbing images and words unless shuttered within their homes sans print, audio, visual media and even music lyrics. Nor does one have the right not to be offended.

The school claims it denies admission based upon honesty, maturity, and moral character. Wow - talk about a broad based set of criteria; and criteria decided upon by whom? The students in question were certainly honest in their despicable postings.

As for maturity, who defines maturity? Is maturity based upon whether or not the young students agree with the opinions of the older admissions committee? Does age alone define maturity? Is a 60-year-old automatically more mature than an 18-year-old simply based upon the numbers?

With regard to moral character, who is the arbiter of that definition? What if the admissions committee does not support gay marriage. Should students who do, be denied admission? Or should students who are married to a same-sex partner be denied admission? Is it morally acceptable to be anti-gay, but not anti-Semitic? Is it morally acceptable to oppose pedaphilia but not beastiality? By whose morals is Harvard basing their subjectivity?

In the Supreme Court case Matal v. Tam decided on Monday, June 19, the justices ruled unanimously, 8-0, that trademarks cannot be  banned simply because they are offensive. (Rookie Justice Neil Gorsuch, not on the court when the case was heard, did not participate.)

Banning an offensive trademark “offends a bedrock First Amendment principle: Speech may not be banned on the ground that it expresses ideas that offend,” wrote Justice Samuel Alito.

Alito also wrote that restricting “speech expressing ideas that offend… strikes at the heart of the First Amendment. Speech that demeans on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability, or any similar ground is hateful; but the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express the thought that we hate.”

“A law that can be directed against speech found offensive to some portion of the public can be turned against minority and dissenting views to the detriment of all. The First Amendment does not entrust that power to the government’s benevolence. Instead, our reliance must be on the substantial safeguards of free and open discussion in a democratic society,” wrote Justice Anthony Kennedy.

If the likes of Justices Alito, Clarence Thomas and Ruth Bader Ginsburg can agree on anything, let alone a pivotal First Amendment case, Harvard University can see its way clear to readmit those students with whom they disagree and open a dialogue where speech is encouraged and treasured, not thwarted and silenced.

Sanford D. Horn is a writer and educator living in Westfield, IN.

First Amendment Denied at Berkeley

“I do not agree with what you have to say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it.” – Evelyn Beatrice Hall (1868-1956) – not Voltaire, as is often incorrectly attributed

First Amendment Denied at Berkeley

Commentary by Sanford D. Horn

February 2, 2017

Free speech and tolerance were in full bloom and on display at UC-Berkeley last night. Liberals, socialists, thugs, malcontents and miscreants utilized their First Amendment freedom of speech and expression while campus keystone cops tolerated the violence, destruction of private property, and overall criminal behavior.

Denizens at the self-pronounced “birth place of the free speech movement” demonstrated their antipathy toward the First Amendment of the United States Constitution by thwarting the efforts, and ultimately forcing the cancelation of a speech to be given by Milo Yiannopoulos. Yiannopoulos, 33, is a Greek-born British citizen and the senior editor for Breitbart News, a conservative operation.

Yiannopoulos, a vocal supporter of President Donald Trump, is considered controversial by the left simply because they take issue with his conservative stances on numerous key issues. Regardless of his viewpoints and beliefs, he accepted an invitation to speak on the Berkeley campus, and should have been able to do so unfettered from violence and destruction. Peaceful demonstrations and non-violent protests should be welcome – after all they are the bellwether of the foundation of the United States. Don’t like the speaker’s perspectives, host a speaker of your own or write a letter to the editor.

Instead, more than 1,500 pedantic anarchists and left wing hooligans both from on campus and off, took to the streets in a tumultuous riot lobbing Molotov Cocktails, committing arson, throwing bricks at law enforcement, looting a Starbucks, and writing graffiti death threats on private property. One rioter pepper-sprayed a woman wearing a Trump hat, while another Trump supporter was beaten by other thugs exercising their expressiveness. At only one arrest, there is plenty of video from which to cull and identify the miscreant participants. Ultimately, the Yiannopoulos event required canceling. Yet it begs the question, where is the safe space for those people wishing to attend the speech – the same safe space liberals clamor about when they claim they can’t even listen to words with which they disagree?

The college campus, long the home of spirited debate, has in the past two generations deteriorated into a fascist den reenacting George Orwell’s 1984, rife with its so-called free speech zones. So-called, because to have a free speech zone, is to surrender the right of free speech on the remainder of the campus. In fact, most campuses with so-called free speech zones require appointments made weeks in advance to utilize the space and the topics need to be approved by the campus thought police masquerading as administrators.

The answer to objectionable speech, is more speech, not less. People, especially the younger generations, are barely able to communicate with one another anymore thanks to technology – people have their headphones on, and their eyes diverted to computers, phones, tablets, all living in their virtual world communicating with strangers, but not knowing how to talk to the people around them on campus or the workplace. This is not just sad, it is dangerous. It’s dangerous because less speech leads to less understanding of others and ultimately the violence and intolerance that was born of liberal odium of philosophy and ideas divergent from their own. Thus the signs reading “this is war,” and “Nazi scum,” in objection to Yiannopoulos, who apparently identifies as gay and Jewish.

Liberals and conservatives are at a linguistic crossroads. While conservatives are said to want to censor certain book lists seen as inappropriate for students of younger ages, it is liberals who want to censor the words and thoughts of anyone deigning to disagree with them. They seem to have a visceral fear and loathing of alternative viewpoints with an uncontrollable need to silence the masses. Liberals don’t like a television program, they want it removed from the airwaves, while conservatives simply change the channel.

A complete investigation into the myriad criminal activities must be undertaken to identify the guilty. They need be prosecuted to the limits of the law. Students involved in the chaos and bedlam should be suspended from school with the concomitant loss of scholarships if applicable. Regardless of whether students or not, all guilty parties must be held financially accountable and make restitution. This also means the police must do their jobs. Where is Janet Napolitano, president of the University of California system? Hearing crickets.

For a college campus whether UC Berkeley or any other bastion of so-called free speech and thought to demand the suspension of the First Amendment, perhaps President Donald Trump was right when he suggested denying the school federal funding. A war was fought to guarantee the people’s rights. It’s time to fight again to preserve those very rights.

Sanford D. Horn is a writer and educator living in Westfield, IN.

Teach the Constitution TO Carmel High Admin

Teach the Constitution TO Carmel High Admin

Commentary by Sanford D. Horn

December 18, 2016

When thinking of the administrators at Carmel High School in the heart of ultra-red Hamilton County, Indiana one of my favorite scenes from Mel Brooks’ classic comedy Blazing Saddles immediately springs to mind.

The late Gene Wilder is attempting to console the late Cleavon Little following a vicious racial slur aimed at Little. Wilder to Little: “These are people of the land; the common clay of the new West – you know – morons!”

That is the appropriate adjective for the administrators of Carmel High School following their very short-sighted decision to remove an anti-abortion, pro-adoption sign posted, with permission, by Carmel Teens for Life. This act of censorship came at the heels of one, a singular, student’s complaint that the sign was offensive.

Picture this hand drawn sign reading “3,000 Lives Are Ended Each Day…,” in rainbow colors at the top, with about 300 multi-colored hearts filling the poster, and the word abortion at the bottom with the letters “b” and “r” crossed out, replaced by “d” and “p,” to turn abortion into adoption. A great message.

How is this offensive? To whom is this offensive? Is it offensive to people who support the murder of the unborn? Is it offensive to those opposing adoption? What reason could there be to find this sign offensive? Apparently a reason for the complaint is unnecessary, just the mere objection, and the censors are quick to act – the First Amendment be damned.

Does the Constitution cease to exist at the front door of Carmel High School? Or at any school for that matter?

Enter the Liberty Council, a non-profit, legal organization in Florida willing to take action against the school district following the singling out of the conservative student group. After all this is the same school that has permitted posters supporting the homosexual community as well as political groups. Fair and balanced – certainly not. Schools should not be picking and choosing which opinions to favor and support, yet the conservatives seem to be more under fire than the liberals.

“Schools can limit speech or other forms of expression if it is disruptive and would disrupt the school’s education mission,” said David Schuman, a professor at the University of Oregon’s school of law. How is a sign promoting life and adoption adorned with hearts disruptive to the school’s mission? One would think a sign promoting the murder of the unborn to be more disruptive and disconcerting to people. Schuman also said the reason for removing the poster would play a role, but Carmel High administrators have not been forthcoming with one.

Schuman suggested that disallowing “posters that generate complaints from students who have been emotionally upset and unable to study, or prohibiting speech considered lewd,” could be acceptable reasons.

Those would be enormously broad based and vague reasons as to prevent any sign of any subject from being hung at Carmel High and set a dangerous precedent for schools nationwide. Consider a poster hung advertising baseball tryouts and based upon the above criteria, should one student complain that the poster is making that singular student emotionally upset and unable to study, that sign would have to be removed. Perhaps the student had a bad experience at a baseball game when younger or was rejected from the team in a previous year. For that matter a student lacking the talent to sing could lodge a similar complaint about a poster advertising auditions for the school’s annual musical and that poster, again, based upon the above criteria would need to be removed.

It’s a slippery slope to the point where no communication would be allowable because of the possibility that a singular student could be emotionally impacted negatively. This is not what the Founding Fathers had in mind when writing the Constitution. We the people do not have the right not to be offended. As Iowa State Representative Bobby Kaufmann (R) said recently about some group of whiners, “suck it up, buttercup!”

Speech that one finds distasteful or offensive should not be silenced. Instead, it should be challenged with even more speech. Open the lines of communications – argue, debate, challenge – albeit respectfully, and perhaps everyone can learn something. The Carmel Teens for Life’s anti-abortion, pro-adoption poster should absolutely be returned to the walls of Carmel High School thus supporting the life of the Constitution and the First Amendment to the Bill of Rights.

Sanford D. Horn is a writer and educator living in Westfield, IN.

Cougars Cage Free Speech at UH

"I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations." – James Madison

Cougars Cage Free Speech at UH

Commentary by Sanford D. Horn

September 1, 2016

Last time I looked, my copy of the United States Constitution included the First Amendment – that’s the one granting we the people freedom of speech and expression. How about your copies?

Apparently at the University of Houston the First Amendment has been erased from their copy of the Constitution, and Student Government Association Vice President Rohini Sethi has been targeted and punished for exercising her rights as found in that pesky amendment.

Following the slaughter of five Dallas police officers, Sethi took to Facebook and wrote “Forget #BlackLivesMatter, more like #AllLivesMatter.” For her brazenness in suggesting that the lives of all people, regardless of skin color, should actually matter, Sethi was chastised by fellow University of Houston students as “incredibly offensive and hateful.” (Yet another example of the denial of honor to the murdered Dallas police officers: http://sanfordspeaksout.blogspot.com/2016/08/nfl-throws-flag-on-dallas-decal.html)

Sethi was then called to the carpet and subjected to unilateral punishment meted out by SGA President Shane Smith. Smith was granted this one-time power by the student senate to determine Sethi’s penance. For exercising her First Amendment freedom of speech and expression, Sethi is now being subjected to the following sanctions:

-       A 50 day suspension from the SGA which bars her from participating in group activities;

-       Sethi must attend three cultural events per month;

-       Sethi must write a reflection letter (upon reflection, Sethi should not have apologized for the initial post nor removed it);

-       Sethi must make a public presentation before a student senate meeting on September 28; and

-       Sethi must attend a diversity workshop.

Sethi could lose her position with the SGA should she not comply with all the demands as prescribed by the totalitarian Smith. One must wonder if Smith has an ax to grind against Sethi for imposing such harsh sanctions for simply expressing herself in a legal and peaceful manner. She threatened no one; offered an inclusive posting on social media designed to inculcate others that there is a bigger picture than Black Lives Matter, an increasingly violent and hate-filled group. Apparently to Smith only black lives matter.

The punishments saddled against Sethi are imposed solely by the SGA and not the school, according to a statement released by the University of Houston. The SGA is subject to its own governance, the school takes no responsibility, and makes no comment on the severity of a punishment imposed by a single individual, said the weak-kneed university administration.

Sethi said and wrote that while disagreeing with the punishment, she will abide by Smith’s pronunciation.

Yet while Sethi, independent of the SGA, and on her own volition, wrote the Facebook post replete with iron-fisted reprimand, a Twitter feed called #RemoveRohini, a Black Student Union creation, and trending with vicious, hate-filled invective vilifying Sethi, was ignored by the SGA. Note that the Black Student Union receives university funding from the 43,000 person student body.

Clearly the double standard is in full force at the University of Houston as the Black Student Union is entitled to enjoy its First Amendment rights, but not Rohini Sethi, where such freedoms have been suspended. Common sense has also been suspended on the Houston campus.

For alumni who support Sethi and her First Amendment rights, call President Renu Khator at 713-743-8820 and politely encourage her to step in and be the voice of reasonable discourse. Let the university understand how quickly alumni donations dry up when alumni and the Constitution of the United States are ignored.

Not only should Sethi not be subjected to such Draconian measures, an open debate sponsored by the Student Government Association should occur where students can opine without recriminations. A free and open exchange of ideas in public, not hiding behind social media for cowards to spout off anonymously, is what a university should endorse. To do less would deny tuition-paying students the real college experience.

Sanford D. Horn is a writer and educator living in Westfield, IN.

First Amendment under Fire on Campus

First Amendment under Fire on Campus

Commentary by Sanford D. Horn

November 12, 2015

The cost of college is so expensive even speech is no longer free. More and more students on college campuses across the United States are actually willingly seeking a limitation or even a curtailment of the First Amendment to the Constitution.

Let’s take a look at what the clearly uneducated masses are willing to surrender under the guise of eliminating not just hate speech, but hurt speech.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” (United States Constitution)

Students from the East Coast bastion of Ivy League liberalism at Yale University to the Left Coast bastion of California liberalism at Claremont McKenna College to the heartland and the University of Missouri and points in between are making ludicrous demands of their so-called institutions of higher learning and the alleged adults in the room are folding like a bad poker hand.

Discourse on campus used to be welcomed. Students were free to speak their minds, debate, argue, even shout a little without fear of retribution, censorship, or even expulsion or the risk of being fired if a campus employee.

One of my fond experiences at the liberal University of Maryland was to sit outside my dorm room and discuss history, politics, the issues of the day, as well as the upcoming presidential election until the wee hours with my next door neighbor. Me – white, he – black; me – Jewish, he – a Christian; me – conservative, he – not so much. We agreed on little, but we respected one another because we could have an intelligent conversation, and yes even argue, but come away shaking hands and even have lunch the next day. Disagreement does not equal disrespect.

But my experience on the College Park, MD campus was not all wine and roses. I encountered first hand anti-Semitism, but I did not demand the firing of the university president. It was certainly unpleasant to be sure, and even a bit traumatic, but it didn’t destroy me like a newspaper in the rain.

Today’s college students, by and large, and most certainly the liberal, progressive, socialist, secular students are incapable of tolerance. To them, if you do not kow-tow to their far left beliefs, you should be sent to reeducation camp, banished from the campus, and be labeled an intolerant hater. It is perfectly alright for them to be the hater because they have right on their side, he writes dripping with sarcasm. Today’s students demand safe zones, whatever the hell those are. To me a safe zone should be the entirety of the campus – safe for all to reside, study, work, play, and yes, debate and argue about issues knowing that some feelings may get hurt.

There is no constitutional protection against hurt feelings – that’s called the freedom of speech. The answer to bad or hate speech is not squelching speech, but inviting more speech. This generation of crybabies on campus wants no speech contrary to their own. Anything of a hurtful or disagreeable nature calls for protests and petitions for firing university presidents. Just wait until they are expectorated from that cocoon they call home on campus and enter the cold, hard reality of the ugly world.

Make no mistake; I am not calling for the end of protests and petitions. I live for a good protest and have written more than my fair share of petitions from junior high through graduate school. While peaceful protests are protected by the First Amendment, so too is stupidity. Stupid speech or disagreeable speech or even hurtful speech is also protected by the First Amendment. The notion of free speech zones on a campus that should be a wealth of ideas and discussion smacks of Orwell’s 1984. The entirety of the campus should be a free speech zone.

The idea that a so-called instructor of journalism at the University of Missouri would attempt to deny a student photographer his First Amendment right to conduct his duties is reprehensible. But that is exactly what Melissa Click, Ph. D. (U-Mass.) did to Tim Tai in her attempt to suppress the press. Tai behaved professionally in his constitutionally protected attempts to complete his photo-journalism assignment, while Click behaved like a rabid dog screaming for Tai to leave the site of a protest on the Columbia, MO campus. At one point, Click called for “muscle” to eliminate the problem.

According to the New York Times Click has stepped down from her post as an assistant professor at the School of Journalism. This marks the third resignation this week from Missouri. University President Tim Wolfe and Chancellor R. Bowen Loftin have already tendered their resignations under pressure by a mob of students citing insufficient response to alleged racism on campus. Those resignations will solve little and if there is a spate of racism on campus, which must be addressed, it is the hearts and minds of the perpetrators that require changing, not the heads of the university.

The possible racism is the impetus of the protests, a hunger strike by graduate student Jonathan Butler, as well as a potential strike by roughly 30 football players of this weekend’s game against BYU.

Wolfe and Loftin folded like a pair of cheap suits. They should have called the bluff of those football players. Not all the players were part of this plan and the team could have suited up enough players to field a team. If Missouri had to forfeit, costing the university one million dollars, that money should come from the striking players’ scholarships. Those players should be suspended for the duration of the season and tryouts should be held for walk-ons for the remaining three games. Shame on Wolfe and Loftin for caving to mob demands. If anyone should be out of job it should be head football coach Gary Pinkel for not reining in his players. The inmates are now running the asylum.

Missouri is not the only campus where chaos is reigning supreme. In California at Claremont McKenna College Dean of Students Mary Spellman resigned following student protests demanding more programming for black, gay, disabled, and low-income students. No explanation as to why Spellman felt she had to fall on some imaginary sword, when meeting with students could have solved their problems. Yet another sign of weakness, which actually solves nothing. Spellman is out of a job and the students’ demands have not been met or even heard. Now a new dean of students must be named, given time to settle in, adjust to the culture of the campus or to the job if not new to the campus before even tackling the concerns of the students, which could be long into the spring 2016 semester.

Additionally, on the CMC campus junior class President Kris Brackmann unnecessarily resigned having appeared in a photo with others who were clad in Mexican-themed Halloween costumes – replete with sombreros, ponchos, and moustaches. Is Brackmann, who did not don the so-called offensive costume, responsible for the choices of her friends? In her resignation, Brackmann wrote that she hopes to foster a “safe environment for everyone.” Who was made unsafe by those costumes? Who was threatened? Are people so innately weak and thin-skinned that the mere sight of a cultural Halloween costume is the cause of consternation? If so, those students have bigger problems. The real world will chew them up and spit them out like rubbery calamari.

Halloween costumes are also the source of animus and over-emphasized hysteria at Yale. The university produced costume guidelines for the students on campus. Since when does a university enforce a costume dress code? Are the campus denizens not adults?

Enter Nicholas and Erika Christakis. The couple lives on the New Haven campus presiding over an undergraduate college via resident life. Erika is also a lecturer in early childhood education, which is ironic, as she composed an e-mail that students are adults, should have the freedom of costume choice and the university’s guidelines were unnecessary.

Students were apoplectic, calling for the resignations of the Christakises because of the e-mail Erika dispatched. Have students surrendered their ability to think for themselves? Apparently they actually want the university to thrust a costume dress code upon them for fear of possibly offending someone with a potentially insensitive costume choice for the evening. And for this perceived slight, Nicholas and Erika Christakis should stand in the unemployment line?

Not only should Yale students not have the power to choose their own Halloween costumes, but the concept of free speech on campus is too much for them to handle as well. A conference to be held on the subject of free speech was disrupted by liberals or fascists – either way, students opposed to the First Amendment. Not only did those rambunctious students stop the free speech event, their unruliness included spitting on the participants and attendees.

Also under fire is Carol Swain, Ph. D. (U-North Carolina) a professor of law and political science at Vanderbilt University and a conservative Christian. A petition, composed by a student never having studied under Swain, and signed by more than 1,500 people, has at its core, a virtual non-issue. Swain posts materials to “Christian Conservatives” on-line. The petition, in part, says “…it is generally unprofessional to attach your job title to a channel promoting your personally held beliefs.”

This, clearly, is much ado about nothing, as professionals appearing on public programming have their name and title posted. Apparently the petitioners seeking, initially Swain’s dismissal, now “merely” her suspension, have an axe to grind because she is a conservative and a Christian. Swain, who is black, is also accused of hating minorities. Those seeking Swain’s ouster have an agenda that in no way supports diversity of speech or thought. Nor do they support diversity in terms of gender or race as the pecking order apparently does not include Swain being black and female when Christian and conservative trump the former. Hypocrisy coupled with political correctness is a dangerous combination.

So politically correct have the university campuses become, that any speech can be designated hurt speech – the new nonsense. G-d forbid nothing objectionable should pass through ears and into the empty heads of the precious flowers marching through campus in lockstep demanding the firing of anyone who dare utter something with which they disagree.

In 1783 George Washington wrote, “If freedom of speech is taken away, then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.” The knives are sharpening, America.

Sanford D. Horn is a writer and educator living in Westfield, IN.

1st Amendment Stops at Mozilla's Front Door

1^st Amendment Stops at Mozilla’s Front Door

Commentary by Sanford D. Horn
April 7, 2014

Once again political correctness and hypocrisy rear their ugly head as the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and the right of free expression is under assault by the extreme left thought police.

The hypocrisy comes from Mozilla, the Mountain View, CA producer of the web browser Firefox for pushing out its CEO Brendan Eich under threats and intimidation and a feckless, gutless inability to stand by its own corporate belief system.

Mitchell Baker, the executive chairwoman of Mozilla issued a completely hypocritical statement. “We know why people are hurt, and they are right: It’s because we haven’t stayed true to ourselves. We have employees with a wide diversity of views. Our culture of openness extends to encouraging staff and community to share their beliefs and opinions in public.”

Not so fast, Ms. Baker.

Brendan Eich was an employee – he did not own the company. Eich has views that differ from others within the company. Eich shared his beliefs and opinions with the public. And yet, he is on the outside of Mozilla looking for another employer simply because he dared have a different set of beliefs. But wait, wasn’t that encouraged? Apparently at Mozilla it is only encouraged if it is popular and politically correct. Otherwise it is frowned upon – virulently.

What heinous sin did Eich commit? In 2008 he contributed $1,000 to support California’s ban on gay marriage. That non job related activity, funded out of his own wallet, not Mozilla funds, has now put Eich on the unemployment line in a de facto firing.

If a person can’t be fired for his or her sexual orientation, how can a different person be forced out of a job for sharing his or her beliefs on that same very subject?

Threats of boycott by an on-line dating service called OKCupid also helped Mozilla push the panic button in shoving Eich out the door.

Demonstrating its hypocrisy was Sarah Kate Ellis, president and CEO of GLAAD (Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders) who issued this statement: “Mozilla’s strong statement in favor of equality today reflects where corporate America is: inclusive, safe and welcoming to all.”

Ellis could not be more wrong. Welcoming to all? Apparently not welcoming to Mr. Eich. No equality for Eich. No inclusivity for Eich either.

On the other hand, if a company can force out its CEO for supporting a belief antithetical to the corporate mantra, that same concept should work just as easily for the Hobby Lobbys of the world. Its ownership, the Green family should be able to fire all the employees who believe contraceptives ought to be part of the corporate health insurance policy. After all, those employees do not share the same belief as the corporate heads, and just as Mozilla forced out Eich, Hobby Lobby could force out those who possess contrary beliefs. Sounds truly dangerous were that to commence nationwide. It should not, nor should Eich be out of a job.

This action by Mozilla sets a scary precedent that anyone could be fired for their off the clock actions, opinions, ideas, or comments. That anyone could be fired if they don’t tow the company line of political correctness. That anyone could be fired for having contrary beliefs. That anyone could be fired for assuming the First Amendment exists within the confines of the corporate boundaries. Shame on them, shame on the lemmings who fall prey to this, most of all shame on America for allowing George Orwell’s 1984 to become reality where the thought police really do put the kibosh on free thinking and free expression. May G-d save the Republic.

Sanford D. Horn is a writer and educator living in Westfield, IN.

Ninth Circuit Short Circuits on Flag Shirts

Ninth Circuit Short Circuits on Flag Shirts

Commentary by Sanford D. Horn
March 4, 2014

More anger than incredulity simply because little emerging from the 9^th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals should surprise anyone with a pulse who has been paying attention to the machinations of that body.

Yet, a disturbing ruling made by the 9^th Circuit Court sounds the alarm bells of the loudest wakeup call imaginable – a cacophony of fear, sadness, and surrender – shaking this nation to its very core. Threats of racial violence have vanquished the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

In a much ballyhooed case dating back to May 5, 2010, five Live Oak Hill High School students arrived at school clad in t-shirts sporting the American flag. They were given the option of turning the shirts inside out or returning home with an excused absence because of numerous threats of racial violence. The 9^th Circuit Court determined that the concerns regarding the threats of violence overshadowed the students’ First Amendment right of free expression.

In reaching its decision, the 9^th Circuit Court relied upon the 1969 Supreme Court case Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District. In Tinker several junior high and high school students protested the war in Vietnam by donning black armbands in school. School officials banned the armbands just two days prior to the students appearing in the schools wearing them.

The students were subsequently sent home and suspended until such time as they returned to school sans armbands. The students’ claimed their First Amendment rights of free speech and expression were violated by Des Moines – after all, the First Amendment does not cease to exist upon entering the school.

The Supreme Court, in a 7-2 decision, supported the school officials’ authority to set rules and policies provided they are “consistent with the First Amendment rights of students and teachers.”*

Continuing with Tinker, “wearing an armband as a silent form of expressing an opinion was, according to the Court, ‘akin to pure speech’ and involved ‘primary First Amendment rights.’”*

Tinker, for it to be valid, relies upon the key word – consistent. “The Court stressed the fact that school officials had permitted other political symbols to be worn. For example, some students wore political campaign buttons, and others wore the Iron Cross, a symbol of Nazism.”* Only the anti-Vietnam Conflict armbands were singled out for exclusion, restriction, and eventually punishment – not even a symbol of Nazism was deemed inappropriate – which even in 1969 Iowa is both disturbing and lacking consistency.

If anything, Tinker should support the First Amendment right of the California students to wear their American flag t-shirts on Cinco de Mayo, or any other day, for that matter. Are flags in classrooms being taken down on Cinco de Mayo? How about the flags flying outside the school, yet still on the campus property? Are they raised on May 5^th?

The Live Oak High case, where the 9^th Circuit Court upheld a school’s decision denying students the right of expression in the wearing of t-shirts depicting the American flag lacks the consistency rooted in Tinker. Are other t-shirts with designs barred from this school? Are other dates subject to wardrobe review and restriction?

Cinco de Mayo celebrates victory by the Mexican army over the then far superior French army in the May 5, 1862 Battle of Puebla, yet is widely observed in the United States by those of Mexican heritage. While this “holiday” is typically enjoyed by many of non-Mexican heritage with the enjoyment of Mexican beer and food, there is no reason why Americans should be barred from wearing t-shirts emblazoned with American flags. Why not ban the wearing of t-shirts with French flags?

Should other battles be observed in this same manner – with threats of racial or ethnic violence to prevent people from donning American flag t-shirts? How about on April 25 for the celebration of the Dutch victory over Spain in the 1607 Battle of Gibraltar? How about September 12 for the celebration of Poland’s victory over the Ottomans in the 1683 Battle of Vienna? How about January 14 for the celebration of the French victory under Napoleon over the Austrians in the 1797 Battle of Rivoli? How about September 1 for the celebration of the British victory over the Afghans in the 1880 Battle of Kandahar? How about December 12 for the celebration of Finland’s victory over the Soviet Union in the 1939 Battle of Tolvajarvi?

Or, if battles are not the focal point of celebration and ethnic pride is, should American flag t-shirts be banned on St. Patrick’s Day if Irish-Americans threaten ethnic violence? How about Columbus Day? How about Israel Independence Day?

Moreover, when did American society reach the deleterious point of threats of violence ruling the day? Students opposed to the wearing of American flag t-shirts threatened racial unrest and outright violence – and their threats were used to deny First Amendment rights of speech and expression by American students with American flags in American schools.

The threat of violence from the Mexican and Mexican-American students at Live Oak High should have been thwarted and punished based upon the 1919 United States Supreme Court case Schenck v. United States.

Charles Schenck, during World War I, was accused, along with other Socialist party members, of violating the 1917 Espionage Act – prohibiting “destruction of military recruiting.”**

Schenck protested United States involvement in the Great War via anti-war pamphlets. He argued that the Espionage Act “prevented full public discussion on the war issue,”** and thus violated his First Amendment rights as found in the Constitution. Schenck lost his Supreme Court appeal on the grounds of what Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes defined as a “clear and present danger.”**

“Holmes’s analysis considered the context of the speech as well as the intent of the persons who sent the leaflets.”** INTENT. What is the intent of the Live Oak High School students threatening violence should other students don the American flag t-shirts in an American school? Clearly, violence; disruption of school activities, while wearers of the t-shirts intended to simply go through their school day wearing t-shirts adorned with the American flag.

“Holmes distinguished wartime and peacetime contexts and concluded that Schenck’s words constituted such an evil since the statutes applied to conspiracies as well as actual obstruction of the military. Under the statute the action did not have to be successful in order to violate the law.”**

The threats – whether carried out or not, present a clear and present danger and violate the law as outlined in Schenck. Those Live Oak High students issuing the threats of racial violence and disruption of daily school activities are the ones who should have been punished. After all, with the virtual zero tolerance policies regarding bullying, why were the threatening students not suspended? Instead their miscreant behavior was rewarded by the 9^th Circuit Court out of fear. This case should absolutely be appealed to the United States Supreme Court.

Students wearing t-shirts with American flags, Mexican flags, another country’s flag, or no flag at all should be both permitted and welcomed on campus in an effort to demonstrate First Amendment freedoms of speech and expression. In fact, such an allowance would be analogous to what Schenck himself wanted – “full public discussion of the war issue,” sans an actual war – or not.

As for the distinguishment made by Justice Holmes in 1919 between wartime and peacetime contexts, there are many who would aver that we the people are locked in a culture war for the soul of America. The definition of a culture war may be nebulous, but the results could prove catastrophic to the future of this country and its way of life. The United States will either go the way of the Roman Empire after its roughly 300 years and disappear as it was known, or the people will return to the words of the Founding Fathers.

The case of the Live Oak High School is bigger than simply denying students the right to freely express themselves while allowing bullies to threaten force and succeed. Upon the founding of the United States of America following victory in the Revolutionary War over King George III and Great Britain, Benjamin Franklin was queried as to the style of government to which the new nation would adhere – a republic or a monarchy. “A Republic, if you can keep it,” responded Franklin. It is up to we the people to keep and maintain the Republic. The maintenance therein is the genuine challenge, especially considering the growing number who have either not learned about the history of this Republic or simply do not care.

The violent and those who threaten violence should not be rewarded, nor should the wordless wearers of t-shirts be thwarted in the pursuit of their First Amendment rights of speech and expression – lest the future of the Republic suffer gravely.

While Franklin was ebulliently prophetic about the precarious nature of the Republic from its inception, former President Ronald Reagan 200 years later saw the workings of the people both in and out of government and offered these equally vital words:

“Freedom is never more than one generation from extinction. We didn’t pass it on to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.”

Sanford D. Horn is a writer and educator living in Westfield, IN.

*The Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States, P. 875

** The Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States, P. 758

Crying Fowl over Free Speech

Crying Fowl over Free Speech
Commentary by Sanford D. Horn
August 4, 2012

It’s not about Chick-fil-A. Chick-fil-A is merely the conduit to a larger dust-up – that of the First Amendment right of free speech and the denial by fascist mayors of legal institutions to conduct business in “their” cities.

The backstory is about Chick-fil-A and its president, Dan Cathy, expressing an opinion early in July that marriage is a Biblically-based institution and his commitment to marriage being a man-woman union sanctified by G-d.

“We are very much supportive of the family – the Biblical definition of the family unit,” said Cathy in an interview with the Baptist Press, according to commentator Cal Thomas in his July 29 editorial “Chickening out on free speech.”

That quote was widely unnoticed for several weeks until it was “discovered” that Cathy and Chick-fil-A contributes financially to conservative organizations such as the Family Research Council. As if Chick-fil-A’s conservative credentials were ever in question. After all, the 1,615-plus-restaurant chain, headquartered in Atlanta, and spread liberally throughout the Bible Belt has been closed on Sundays since its inception in 1967.

However, once the homosexual lobby and liberal media determined that Cathy shouldn’t contribute money his company earned to organizations of his choosing, the culture war entered yet another front.

The liberal mayors of liberal cities Boston, Chicago, San Francisco, and Washington, DC – yes, that’s two liberals in the same sentence, three if you count this one, but those mayors and cities are just that far to the left, have vowed to keep Chick-fil-A out of “their” cities.

“Chick-fil-A values are not Chicago values,” said Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel, in support of a city alderman who declared he will block any proposed Chick-fil-A in his district.

Yes, Chicago values include murders on an almost daily basis, illegal drugs as available as aspirin, out of wedlock birth reaching epidemic proportions and a public school system on the verge of imploding.

“There is no place for discrimination on Boston’s Freedom Trail and no place for your company alongside it,” wrote Boston Mayor Thomas Menino to Cathy.

Chick-fil-A is not discriminating against any group. All paying customers are welcome – gay, straight, black, white, yellow, brown.

Additionally, in what could be viewed as a threatening tweet, San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee wrote that “the closest Chick-fil-A to San Francisco is 40 miles away, and I strongly recommend that they not try to come any closer.”

The words of those mayors smacks of fascism. Yes, fascism, because they are single-handedly attempting to thwart potential efforts of a legal enterprise to conduct business in cities where all they need do is apply for the proper permits through the city departments that handle such applications. As in most typical American cities, mayors serve alongside a city council and all members have but a single vote.

In the case of Emanuel, his brand of hypocrisy goes pretty deep. As chief of staff under the Barack Obama administration that was opposed to gay marriage, Emanuel did not stand on principles and resign his position.

Now that Emanuel has come out of the closet in favor of gay marriage, is it only restaurants he opposes? Why has he not spoken out against the virulently anti-Semitic and anti-gay Louis Farrakhan who is negotiating with the city to help reduce the out of control homicide rate? Farrakhan is OK, but Cathy is not?

Reverend William Owens of the Coalition of African-American Pastors declared his own and his organization’s fervent support of the Biblical definition of marriage a la Dan Cathy and there has not been a single word of protest against the Pastors group. They have as much right to opine on this or any other issue as does Cathy without recrimination, threats of boycotts or threats of being barred from an entire city.

Are the economies in the cities of Boston, Chicago, San Francisco, and Washington, DC thriving to such an extent that their mayors can afford to turn away business? And steady, stable, popular business at that. In fact, franchisees are local owners, not a corporate executive. Chick-fil-A hires thousands and thousands of people, serves thousands and thousands of people regardless of race, creed, or religious affiliation.

This is not about chicken, but about standing up for one’s rights as people of faith. Recently, Catholics came under fire over the issue of free contraceptives being mandated by Obamacare. Now Christians are being harassed and bullied by so-called tolerant liberals – tolerant, of course only to their own opinions. And this is not just a Christian issue. Observant Jews also subscribe to the Biblical view and definition of marriage.

This is an issue of freedom of speech, something guaranteed in the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. Cathy has the right to opine on his belief of the definition of marriage. The mayors of the aforementioned cities have their rights of free speech as well, but they do not have the right to deny commerce opportunities to businesses with whose owners they disagree politically and religiously.

There is a fundamental difference between liberals and conservatives. When liberals don’t agree with a business or television or radio program, they call for it to be shut down or cancelled so no one has access to it. When conservatives do not like a business or media program, they simply patronize another business or change the channel. They believe in the rights of businesses to conduct business and for people to enjoy their First Amendment rights.

No one seems to be calling for the elimination of Starbucks, Apple, or Amazon – all of whose owners contribute substantially to gay causes. If someone finds Howard Schultz’s contributions to gay causes offensive, they are welcome to not patronize Starbucks.

Don’t agree with Cathy, don’t go to Chick-fil-A – it’s that simple, but you have no right to demand the business cease to exist. Go patronize a business with whom you do agree and contribute to their causes, or those of your own beliefs. Build up your causes, don’t tear down others’ causes.

But, if a statement is to be made to the mayors seeking to bar Chick-fil-A from their cities, how would they feel if conventions suddenly shifted from Chicago to Indianapolis, from Boston to Providence, and from San Francisco to Sacramento? What if people from all across the United States who shared Chick-fil-A values suddenly decided to take their vacation dollars away from the cities whose mayors said Chick-fil-A values are not Boston, Chicago, San Francisco, or Washington, DC values? Surely those cities would feel the bite and all the mayors would be left holding is an empty bag and ousting on Election Day.

As Chick-fil-A goes, so goes the nation. The company had its best single day in history on Wednesday, August 1, thanks to former Arkansas Governor and current Fox News Channel host Mike Huckabee, who called for that day to be Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day. Restaurants were filled with patrons lined up around blocks, corners, stores, waiting to support a business with which they share values or simply support the right of free speech, even when they may disagree with the values.

As a response, a “kiss-in” was held two days later. This was a plan for members of the homosexual community to arrive en masse at Chick-fil-As and demonstrate their objections to Cathy and his beliefs by kissing at the restaurants. Thousands were expected, yet mere dozens showed up, turning the kiss-in into a kiss-off.

Noting the huge turnout at Chick-fil-A, perhaps to ensure victory in November, Chick-fil-A should begin applying for permits to sell sandwiches at the polling places – of course provided they are the requisite distance from the entrance so as not to be accused of influencing voters. They make money and the voters have a snack while waiting to oust Obama. It's a brilliant combination of democracy and capitalism in action. Oh, and have an iced tea as well.

Sanford D. Horn is a writer and educator living in Westfield, IN.