Archives for category: Freedom of Speech

Jamal Khashoggi entered the Saudi consulate in Turkey and never came out.

A note from Karen Attiah, Global Opinions editor

I received this column from Jamal Khashoggi’s translator and assistant the day after Jamal was reported missing in Istanbul. The Post held off publishing it because we hoped Jamal would come back to us so that he and I could edit it together. Now I have to accept: That is not going to happen. This is the last piece of his I will edit for The Post. This column perfectly captures his commitment and passion for freedom in the Arab world. A freedom he apparently gave his life for. I will be forever grateful he chose The Post as his final journalistic home one year ago and gave us the chance to work together.

The last Column:

I was recently online looking at the 2018 “Freedom in the World” report published by Freedom House and came to a grave realization. There is only one country in the Arab world that has been classified as “free.” That nation is Tunisia. Jordan, Morocco and Kuwait come second, with a classification of “partly free.” The rest of the countries in the Arab world are classified as “not free.”

As a result, Arabs living in these countries are either uninformed or misinformed. They are unable to adequately address, much less publicly discuss, matters that affect the region and their day-to-day lives. A state-run narrative dominates the public psyche, and while many do not believe it, a large majority of the population falls victim to this false narrative. Sadly, this situation is unlikely to change.

The Arab world was ripe with hope during the spring of 2011. Journalists, academics and the general population were brimming with expectations of a bright and free Arab society within their respective countries. They expected to be emancipated from the hegemony of their governments and the consistent interventions and censorship of information. These expectations were quickly shattered; these societies either fell back to the old status quo or faced even harsher conditions than before.

My dear friend, the prominent Saudi writer Saleh al-Shehi, wrote one of the most famous columns ever published in the Saudi press. He unfortunately is now serving an unwarranted five-year prison sentence for supposed comments contrary to the Saudi establishment. The Egyptian government’s seizure of the entire print run of a newspaper, al-Masry al Youm, did not enrage or provoke a reaction from colleagues. These actions no longer carry the consequence of a backlash from the international community. Instead, these actions may trigger condemnation quickly followed by silence.

Valerie Strauss was dumbfounded by the irony of Betsy DeVos’s speech on Constitution Day.

First, she criticized colleges “for abandoning truth.”

“What she didn’t say was that the president for whom she works utters, on average, more than eight lies a day, according to The Washington Post. His mistruths and exaggerations have become a central feature of his presidency, reported on virtually every day.

“President Trump isn’t the only member of his administration who has been caught abandoning the truth, of course.

“To name just a few: former national security adviser Michael T. Flynn, who pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI; former Trump campaign foreign policy adviser George Papadopoulos, who pleaded guilty to making false statements to the FBI; Michael Cohen, Trump’s former personal lawyer, who pleaded guilty to crimes including campaign finance violations related to hush money paid to women who allegedly had affairs with Trump. Et cetera.”

Then, she complained that the nation’s schools were failing to teach civics.

“DeVos expressed such pronounced concern about a lack of civics education that you might be surprised to learn that her Education Department sought to cut money for it in the 2018 and 2019 budget proposals. Congress refused to go along.”

Of course, she went on about protecting the Constitution but here is what she did not mention.

“There’s something ironic about DeVos talking about a First Amendment right when she and the administration she works for seem not terribly concerned about another First Amendment right, freedom of the press.

“Putting aside Trump’s constant attacks on the news media as being the “enemy of the people,” the Education Department under DeVos often does not respond to journalists who ask basic questions, and the secretary herself rarely talks to reporters.

“The department also has been aggressive in finding internal leakers of unclassified information. Last year, DeVos asked her agency’s Office of Inspector General to investigate whether grounds existed to criminally prosecute employees who had leaked unclassified information and data to journalists. It cited three incidents, between May and October 2017, in which there appeared to be unauthorized release of information, including publication by The Washington Post of material from the department’s budget proposal before it was publicly released.”

Unclassified information!

Peter Greene writes here about a speech that Betsy DeVos gave at the National Constitution Center, defending free speech and truth.

“The final stretch of her speech is remarkably like the home stretch of a sermon. Get out from behind your twitter id and recognize you are talking to real, live human beings. We aren’t all saints. DeVos actually admits to having had some bad ideas. She (or someone in her office) turns some nice phrases, like a call for meeting with “open words and open dialogue, not with closed fists or closed minds.” And she calls to embrace a “Golden rule of free speech: seeking to understand as to be understood.”

“There is so much cognitive dissonance to process here. DeVos works for a man who exemplifies the opposite of everything she is saying. And there is very little one can point to in her own conduct, her own filling of the USED office, to show her stated beliefs in action. What exactly has DeVos done to understand the public education system and the people who are committed to what she once called a “dead end.” What has she done to understand the teachers who work in public schools? What has she done to understand any of her critics since she took office? Or, after all these years, is she comfortable in the belief that she knows everything she needs to know about all those things.”

Now is a time when civility is needed more than ever, to keep our society from falling into hostile and warring camps.

It is easy to call for civility but the lead should come from the President, and he is a model of incivility.

Donald Trump is the rudest, crudest, most publicly vicious person in memory to sit in the White Gouse. His trademark is insulting others, alive or dead, Democrat or Republican. He regularly insults John McCain, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, and anyone else he chooses. In Montana a few days ago, he ridiculed George H.W. Bush’s call for volunteering and community service:

“Trump said people get the meaning of his slogans, “Make America Great Again” and “Putting America First.” Then he added: “Thousand Points of Light. I never quite got that one. What the hell is that? Has anyone ever figured that one out?””

No, he can’t ever understand the thought of service or compassion or caring. Those words are not in his vocabulary. If you are not loyal to him, you are his enemy. Expect scorn and abuse.

Now the people who work for him and serve at his pleasure and defend his evil actions find that they are objects of scorn wherever they go. They call for civility for themselves but apparently it never occurs to them that they should ask their boss (or father) to be civil.

Evil begets evil. Incivility begets incivility. Kindness begets kindness.

Trump’s aides are reaping the meanness that he is sowing.

Just after arriving in Washington to work for President Trump, Kellyanne Conway found herself in a downtown supermarket, where a man rushing by with his shopping cart sneered, “You ought to be ashamed of yourself! Go look in the mirror!”

“Mirrors are in aisle 9 — I’ll go get one now,” Conway recalled replying. She brushed off the dart with the swagger of someone raised in the ever-attitudinal trenches of South Jersey. “What am I gonna do? Fall apart in the canned vegetable aisle?”

For any new presidential team, the challenges of adapting to Washington include navigating a capital with its own unceasing rhythms and high-pitched atmospherics, not to mention a maze of madness-inducing traffic circles.

Yet for employees of Donald J. Trump — the most singularly combative president of the modern era, a man who exists in his own tweet-driven ecosystem — the challenges are magnified exponentially, particularly in a predominantly Democratic city where he won only 4 percent of the vote.

“For as long as the White House has existed, its star occupants have inspired a voluble mix of demonstrations, insults and satire. On occasion, protesters have besieged the homes of presidential underlings, such as Karl Rove, George W. Bush’s political strategist, who once looked out his living room window to find several hundred protesters on his lawn.

“Yet what distinguishes the Trump era’s turbulence is the sheer number of his deputies — many of them largely anonymous before his inauguration — who have become the focus of planned and sometimes spontaneous public fury.

“Better be better!” a stranger shouted at Stephen Miller, a senior Trump adviser and the architect of his zero-tolerance immigration policy, as he walked through Dupont Circle a few months ago. Miller’s visage subsequently appeared on “Wanted” posters someone placed on lampposts ringing his City Center apartment building.

“One night, after Miller ordered $80 of takeout sushi from a restaurant near his apartment, a bartender followed him into the street and shouted, “Stephen!” When Miller turned around, the bartender raised both middle fingers and cursed at him, according to an account Miller has shared with White House colleagues.

“Outraged, Miller threw the sushi away, he later told his colleagues.

“On Saturday, as Stephen K. Bannon, Trump’s former strategist, browsed at an antiquarian bookstore in Richmond, a woman in the shop called him a “piece of trash.” The woman left after Nick Cooke, owner of Black Swan Books, told her he would call the police.

“We are a bookshop. Bookshops are all about ideas and tolerating different opinions and not about verbally assaulting somebody, which is what was happening,” Cooke told the Richmond Times-Dispatch, which first reported the incident.

“The cast of “Hamilton” delivered a message to Vice President-elect Mike Pence from stage after he watched the show at Richard Rodgers Theatre in New York. (Twitter/Hamilton via Storyful)
“Steve Bannon was simply standing, looking at books, minding his own business,” Cooke told the paper.

“While he was a part of the president’s team, Bannon dealt with life in Washington, a city he freely described as enemy territory, by hiring security and rarely venturing out in public. When Bannon traveled, it was usually aboard a private plane.

“For a time, a sign on the front steps of his Capitol Hill address read, “STOP.”

“Most of the interactions that Trump’s well-known aides have with strangers amount to nothing more than posing for selfies. But his advisers have also found themselves subjected to a string of embarrassing public spankings, a litany that began even before he took office.

“Before Vice President Pence’s swearing-in, his neighbors in Chevy Chase, where he was renting a house, hung rainbow banners to protest his opposition to equal rights for gay men and lesbians. When Pence went to the musical “Hamilton” in New York, the actor playing Aaron Burr concluded the evening by announcing from the stage that he was afraid that Trump wouldn’t “uphold our inalienable rights.”

“A White House reporter, once on the phone with Sean Spicer while the then-press secretary was standing in his yard in Alexandria, said he could hear a passing motorist shouting curses at him. By then, Spicer had become a regular inspiration for mockery on “Saturday Night Live,” along with Trump, Conway, and Bannon.

“Spicer said he spent his free time at home in those days because he didn’t want to deal with strangers’ interruptions — friendly or not.

“We were very deliberate about what we did and where we went because of the increasing notoriety,” Spicer said. “When we went out, the goal was not to make a spectacle.”

“More recently, Trump appointees have starred in a flurry of in-your-face encounters that ricochet around social media for days on end.

“A week ago, it was a Sidwell Friends teacher who interrupted her lunch at Teaism in Penn Quarter to tell Scott Pruitt — eating with an aide a few feet away — that he should resign as head of the Environmental Protection Agency.

“By last Thursday morning, nearly half a million viewers had clicked on a video of the confrontation that the teacher, Kristin Mink, had posted on Facebook. By late Thursday afternoon, Pruitt quit.

“I would say it’s burning people out,” said Anthony Scaramucci, Trump’s former communications director. “I just think there’s so much meanness, it’s causing some level of, ‘What do I need this for?’ And I think it’s a recruiting speed bump for the administration. To be part of it, you’ve got to deal with the incoming of some of this viciousness.”

“On at least two occasions, demonstrators have assembled outside the Kalorama home of Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner. Both like to attend early-morning spin classes at Flywheel, a nearby studio, where the room goes dark when the class starts — the better to pedal unobserved.

“At the conclusion of a recent session, Kushner, a baseball cap pulled down over his face, headed quickly outside to a chauffeur-driven SUV that whisked him away.

“The president himself leads a cloistered existence, never visiting a restaurant or golf club other than the ones he owns or controls. Reared in New York’s indelicate political culture, Trump does not like to appear meek, using rallies and his Twitter account to lacerate rivals.

“In recent weeks, say senior administration officials, Trump has voiced dissatisfaction with aides who have backed down during public confrontations, including his spokeswoman, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, who was asked to leave the Red Hen restaurant in Virginia last month by the establishment’s owner.

“Two weeks ago, Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen walked out of a downtown Mexican restaurant after demonstrators followed her inside to rail against the administration for separating children from migrant parents.

“Shame!” the protesters shouted while Nielsen remained in her seat, her head down as she typed messages on her smartphone.

“Newt Gingrich, the former Republican House speaker and Trump ally, said the way to end the public confrontations is “to call the police.”

“You file charges and you press them,” Gingrich said. “We have no reason to tolerate barbarians trying to impose totalitarian behavior by sheer force, and we have every right to defend ourselves.”

“He described the president’s opponents as those who “went through a psychotic episode and are having the political equivalent of PTSD. And when they wake up in the morning to the genius that Trump is, he tweets and they say, ‘Oh my God! He’s still president!’ And they get sicker.”

“Referring to Trump’s advisers, Gingrich said, “They should take solace in the fact that we must be winning, since these people are so crazy. They used to be passive because they thought they were the future. Now they know we’re the future, and it’s driving them nuts.””

This is an administration that thrives on hatred and divisiveness. An administration whose leaders insults Muslims, Mexicans, and anyone who didn’t vote for him.

The only way to end the incivility is to vote him and his toadies out of Office.

It is not the responsibility of the targets of his insults to be civil. It is his responsibility to grow up, act like a person of decency, show respect for those on the other side of issues.

But by now we know that’s asking too much. As his advisors say, “Let Trump Be Trump.” Let him continue to foam at the mouth and lob insults, hostility, and ridicule at everyone who displeases him. He has hatred in his heart. He loves only himself and money. Everyone else is collateral damage in his demand for obeisance. Flatter him if you want his favor. His ego is never satisfied. He is a tyrant. He never read a book, and I doubt that he ever read the Constitution.

There is no excuse not to vote in 2018 and 2020. This troglodyte is tearing our country apart.

Dana Milbank of the Washington Post is one of my favorite columnists. My only disagreement with this column is that he thinks we are not threatened by fascism. I have concluded that Trump’s racist, corporatist ideology, meshed with his demogogic rhetoric, looks, sounds, and feels like fascism.

He wrote this great column.

In case it is behind a paywall:

Every 75 years or so in our history, Americans have renewed their commitment to freedom.


Divide our history into thirds, and you can see, at regular intervals, a rededication to our founding doctrine. In 1789, the framers drafted the Bill of Rights. Seventy-four years later, at the turning point in the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln called for “a new birth of freedom” to honor those who died.
Seventy-eight years after that, on the eve of U.S. entry into world war in 1941, Franklin D. Roosevelt declared the “four freedoms.”


That was 77 years ago, and we are due for another renewal. Neither fascism nor civil war threatens us, but Americans are united in fear. Much of the country fears the loss of basic freedoms under President Trump: free speech, press and religion, due process and control over their bodies. Trump, meanwhile, foments fears among his followers of crime, gangs, immigrants and civil servants. And Americans of all beliefs fear they are losing the American Dream and its promise of economic mobility.


Trump’s opponents are seemingly confused about how to respond in this election year. Do they appeal to whites or nonwhites, progressives or moderates, move to the left to rally the “base” or hew to the center to capture the swing voters? Should they make an economic argument or a social argument, target those concerned about jobs or those angry about the president?


These are false choices, though, because our salvation will be what it always has been. On this 242nd birthday of the United States, let’s rededicate ourselves to freedom:


Freedom from Trump’s constant attacks on women, immigrants, people of color, gay people and Muslims.


Freedom to work and live without discrimination, harassment and violence because of your gender, race or religion.


Freedom to get medical care when you or your children are sick.


Freedom to earn a living wage, to attend college or get job training, and to retire in security.


Freedom from a rigged economy in which the top 1 percent own more than the bottom 90 percent combined.

Freedom to marry whom you choose.


Freedom to make decisions about your own body.


Freedom to send your kids to school without fear for their safety.


Freedom to breathe clean air, to drink clean water, to live on a habitable planet.


Freedom to elect your leaders without the rich, or foreign governments, choosing them for you.


And freedom to speak, to protest and to publish without the threat of violence.


Not only do such ideas unify the left (far more than quibbling about, say, which form of universal health care is best or what exactly should be done with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement), but freedom appeals broadly to Americans regardless of politics. Ask us what it means to be American, and you will get one answer above all others: “to be free.”


Conservatives long claimed ownership of it. (Remember Operation Iraqi Freedom, Operation Enduring Freedom and freedom fries?) But Trump has essentially ceded the freedom agenda to his opponents. One measure, using a database of his speeches, tweets and ­Q&As, finds that he has used the word “freedom” 72 times this year (often dismissively, as in “we need freedom of the press, but . . .”). That’s far less than he has used, say, “respect” (252), “strong” (502), “win” (306), “border” (617), “taxes” (158), “Democrat” (560), “kill” (159), “country” (1,288), “illegal” (127), “crime” (250) and “great” (2,826).


IThis isn’t just a linguistic de-emphasis of freedom; Trump has made common cause with dictators and played down human rights abroad while starting a trade war with democratic allies. At home he has questioned due process for refugees, taken immigrant children from their parents, imposed a travel ban on several Muslim-majority nations and declared the media the enemy of the American people. He is now poised to shift the balance on the Supreme Court away from abortion rights and gay rights.


In a very real sense, the fight against Trump is a battle for freedom.


He hopes to make the midterm elections about sanctuary cities, MS-13, a socialist takeover, the “deep state,” a corrupt justice system and immigrants “invading and infesting’’ America. Rather than join him in the fear chamber, progressives and Democrats ought to respond with a variation of what FDR proposed for the world in a very different context in 1941, “freedom of speech and expression,” “freedom of every person to worship God in his own way,” “freedom from want” and — of new significance now — “freedom from fear.”


“This nation has placed its destiny in the hands and heads and hearts of its millions of free men and women,” Roosevelt said, “and its faith in freedom under the guidance of God.”
This faith sustained America through those dark times. It will not fail us in our 243rd year.
“

Andrew Brenner is chairman of the House Education Committee in Ohio. He has a knack for making provocative and unfair statements. A few years ago, he said that public schools were “socialism.” He also regularly blocks people on Twitter if they disagree with his extremism. His critics have started their own Facebook page.

Denis Smith has written a genial open letter to Andrew Brenner. He thinks Andrew should revere the First Amendment even more than the Second Amendment, because it comes first.

He should listen to his constituents. He might learn that he is out of synch with their views.

It has often been said that the true test of free speech is whether you protect the speech you disagree with. Popular speech does not need protection. Dissent does.

David French is a senior writer at the National Review and a military veteran. He wrote this article for The New York Times. It is titled “Conservatives Fail the NFL’s Free Speech Test.”

I love this article.


The United States is in the grips of a free-speech paradox. At the same time that the law provides more protection to personal expression than at any time in the nation’s history, large numbers of Americans feel less free to speak. The culprit isn’t government censorship but instead corporate, community and peer intimidation.

Conservatives can recite the names of the publicly shamed from memory. There was Brendan Eich, hounded out of Mozilla for donating to a California ballot initiative that defined marriage as the union of a man and woman. There was James Damore, abruptly terminated from Google after he wrote an essay attributing the company’s difficulty in attracting female software engineers more to biology and free choice than to systemic discrimination. On campus, the list is as long and grows longer every semester.

It is right to decry this culture of intolerance and advocate for civility and engagement instead of boycotts and reprisals. The cure for bad speech is better speech — not censorship. Take that message to the heartland, and conservatives cheer.

Until, that is, Colin Kaepernick chose to kneel. Until, that is, the president demanded that the N.F.L. fire the other players who picked up on his protest after he was essentially banished from the league.

That was when the conservative mob called for heads to roll. Conform or face the consequences.

On Wednesday, the mob won. The N.F.L. announced its anthem rules for 2018, and the message was clear: Respect the flag by standing for the national anthem or stay in the locker room. If you break the rules and kneel, your team can be fined for your behavior.

This isn’t a “middle ground,” as the N.F.L. claims. It’s not a compromise. It’s corporate censorship backed up with a promise of corporate punishment. It’s every bit as oppressive as the campus or corporate attacks on expression that conservatives rightly decry.

But this is different, they say. This isn’t about politics. It’s about the flag.

I agree. It is different. Because it’s about the flag, the censorship is even worse.

One of the most compelling expressions of America’s constitutional values is contained in Justice Robert Jackson’s 1943 majority opinion in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette. At the height of World War II, two sisters, both Jehovah’s Witnesses, challenged the state’s mandate that they salute the flag in school. America was locked in a struggle for its very existence. The outcome was in doubt. National unity was essential.

But even in the darkest days of war, the court wrote liberating words that echo in legal history: “If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein.”

Make no mistake, I want football players to stand for the anthem. I want them to respect the flag. As a veteran of the war in Iraq, I’ve saluted that flag in foreign lands and deployed with it proudly on my uniform. But as much as I love the flag, I love liberty even more.

The N.F.L. isn’t the government. It has the ability to craft the speech rules its owners want. So does Google. So does Mozilla. So does Yale. American citizens can shame whomever they want to shame.

But what should they do? Should they use their liberty to punish dissent? Or should a free people protect a culture of freedom?

In our polarized times, I’ve adopted a simple standard, a civil liberties corollary to the golden rule: Fight for the rights of others that you would like to exercise yourself. Do you want corporations obliterating speech the state can’t touch? Do you want the price of participation in public debate to include the fear of lost livelihoods? Then, by all means, support the N.F.L. Cheer Silicon Valley’s terminations. Join the boycotts and shame campaigns. Watch this country’s culture of liberty wither in front of your eyes.

The vice president tweeted news of the N.F.L.’s new policy and called it “#Winning.” He’s dead wrong. It diminishes the marketplace of ideas. It mocks the convictions of his fellow citizens. And it divides in the name of a false, coerced uniformity. Writing in the Barnette decision, Justice Jackson wisely observed, “As governmental pressure toward unity becomes greater, so strife becomes more bitter as to whose unity it shall be.”

The N.F.L. should let players kneel. If it lets them kneel, it increases immeasurably the chances that when they do rise, they will rise with respect and joy, not fear and resentment. That’s the “winning” America needs.

E.J. Dionne writes here about the lessons of Memorial Day for NFL owners, who have agreed that their players are not allowed to “take a knee” when the National Anthem is sung to protest police brutality, although it is allowed in the privacy of the locker room.

It is, unfortunately, appropriate that the National Football League’s owners decided to issue their rule attacking free expression the week before Memorial Day.

A holiday dedicated to those who gave their lives for our nation’s freedom has itself been mired in political controversy almost from the beginning. The latest round of posturing and pandering around patriotism should not surprise us.

Samuel Johnson saw patriotism as “the last refuge of a scoundrel.” Let’s qualify that. An honest love of country is a virtue, not a vice. And nothing should sully the honor of the men and women whose sacrifices make it possible for us to speak and worship freely, and to exercise democratic control over our government.

Nonetheless, Johnson was onto something, because patriotism often is manipulated in the name of power, advantage and, in the case of the NFL’s wealthy overseers, money. And the contested history of Memorial Day is a story not only of innocent local pride but also of political and cultural clashes.

It took until 1966 for Congress to grant official recognition to Waterloo, N.Y. — it first decorated the graves of Union soldiers on May 5, 1866 — as the originator of the holiday.

But there are many other claims. The great Civil War historian James McPherson told the story of a Northern abolitionist who traveled to Charleston, S.C., to organize schools for freed slaves. On May 1, 1865, a year before Waterloo, he led a group of black children to a cemetery for Union soldiers “to scatter flowers on their graves.”

In the meantime, Southern women began organizing ceremonies for those who died doing battle for secession, culminating in the practice of Confederate Memorial Days. Gen. John A. Logan, the commander in chief of the Grand Army of the Republic, the politically influential Union veterans group, is widely credited with taking the holiday national. He called on the GAR’s posts to hold decoration rites on May 30, 1868, for those who died to keep the country together. By 1891, every Northern state had established May 30 as a holiday.

It’s no shock that the holiday’s many currents of regional and racial tension rose to the surface during President Barack Obama’s time in office. In 2009, a group of scholars, including McPherson, wrote Obama, urging him to abandon the practice that began with President Woodrow Wilson of sending a wreath to the Confederate Memorial at Arlington National Cemetery.

As was his way, Obama responded with what he hoped would be unifying gestures. He lay the traditional wreath at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier, had a wreath delivered to the Confederate Memorial and became the first president to send one as well to the African American Civil War Memorial in Washington . It commemorates the service of more than 200,000 people of color who fought for the Union.

Oh, yes, and in 2010, when Obama chose to honor the war dead in Chicago, some of his conservative critics intimated he was the only president not to lay a Memorial Day wreath at Arlington.

That was flatly untrue. Presidents Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush and others had all been elsewhere on Memorial Day at least once during their terms.

So phony claims and nasty innuendo built around imagined sins against patriotism and our veterans predate President Trump. But Trump’s attacks on NFL players who have knelt during the national anthem to protest police brutality and racial injustice represent a particularly vile effort to mobilize political support by implying that the dissenting athletes, most of them black, lack a devotion to country.

The privileged NFL owners chose to capitulate to this divisive propaganda. The anthem at the heart of this discussion celebrates our country as “the land of the free and the home of the brave.” Yet the owners’ action is the opposite of bravery and a blow to freedom. Many on the right have spoken out forcefully for free speech on college campuses. But do they now propose to turn stadiums into “safe spaces” where conservatives deny others the liberties they claim for themselves? (And kudos to conservative writer and Iraq War vet David French for calling out this contradiction.)

Democrats fret that even engaging with Trump on all of this risks placing progressives on the wrong side of patriotism. But the history of Memorial Day should teach us that the meaning of our patriotism has long been a matter of necessary struggle.

We should not let the divider in the Oval Office keep us from joining together in profound appreciation of our fallen. They perished under a flag that represents “liberty and justice for all.” The living cannot surrender either of these commitments.

Just in:

 

From: NYSEDP12 <NYSEDP12@nysed.gov>
Date: March 15, 2018 at 6:05:57 PM EDT
To: NYSEDP12 <NYSEDP12@nysed.gov>
Subject: Advisory Regarding School Walkouts

Colleagues,

Over the past several days, the New York State Board of Regents, Chancellor Rosa and Commissioner Elia have publicly expressed our support for New York State’s students who express themselves through free speech. We again commend students for seizing this moment to exhibit true leadership.

We are mindful and supportive of the importance of local control, and note in this regard that school districts’ codes of conduct should address situations such as school walkouts, providing for students’ right to speech, and these codes should be followed. We also remind you that a process exists through which aggrieved parents and guardians may appeal disciplinary actions taken against their students to the Commissioner of Education pursuant to Education Law section 310. Information on that process is available on NYSED’s website at: http://www.counsel.nysed.gov/appeals.

Thank you for your work to ensure that our schools are safe and supportive environments for students, and for including their voices in this meaningful and important dialogue.

Thank you,

Chancellor Rosa and the New York State Board of Regents

Commissioner Elia

Confidentiality Notice
This email including all attachments is confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. This communication may contain information that is protected from disclosure under State and/or Federal law. Please notify the sender immediately if you have received this communication in error and delete this email from your system. If you are not the intended recipient you are notified that disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited.

 

Apparently there are places in the U.S. that never heard of the First Amendment and its guarantee of freedom of speech. Vermillion Parish in Louisiana is one of them. A teacher was arrested for speaking out against the renewal of the superintendent’s contract. Probably, if she were a parent, no one would have touched her. But she was a teacher and she was treated like dirt.

I hope the NEA, the AFT, the ACLU, or some other group hires a lawyer for her.

“The Vermilion Parish School Board is comprised of eight members. For the better part of two years, four members were in favor of renewing Puyau’s contract and four were against. On November 20th of last year, one of the board members against the contract renewal, Luddy Herpin, passed away. The board president, Anthony Fontana, took advantage of the situation and brought an interim member who would support the contract before the board for approval to fill the seat until an election can be held. The appointment passed with a 4/3 vote.

“On January 8, 2018, the board held a special meeting to vote on the contract renewal and provide Puyau with a $38,000 raise. The teachers of Vermilion Parish filled the room in opposition. The teachers of this parish have not received a raise in ten years. Puyau was hired as superintendent in 2012; however, the district has maintained a rating of B, or above, since the inception of the school grading system.

“One of the teachers present, Deyshia Hargrave, was given permission to speak to the board on the issue. After she finished speaking, she sat down. Chatter and protests could be heard among the board members and the attendees. At some point, President Fontana addresses Hargrave, who is seated to his right, directly. She stands to respond. Fontana is distracted by the increased chatter to his left and comments to the effect that things are getting out of hand. At that exact moment, the City Marshall officer on duty enters the room. Seeing Hargrave standing and speaking, he approaches her and asks her to leave. In disbelief that she is being asked to leave while responding to a question directed at her, Hargrave initially resists. After realizing what is going on, she walks out of the room, and into the hallway, with the officer where he pushes her to the floor and handcuffs her.

“Meanwhile, this publicly elected board sits quietly and allows this to happen not only to a taxpaying citizen engaged in a public meeting, but a teacher employed in their district who is calmly explaining why the raise is opposed.”