[Peace-discuss] Postponed means no-platformed

Thu Apr 11 14:36:32 UTC 2019

Karen Aram now asserts:

<<“free speech amendment and bill of rights,” applies only to the federal
government>>

This ridiculous assertion is provably not true - if logic and evidence
matter here any more, if they ever did. This is what happens when people
who have no practical political experience of organizing in the First
Amendment arena start pontificating. They are sure that they are right,
because they are right in a bubble that extends six inches around their
head, and they think that validation comes from the little cult they've
joined, so they don't care about the real world anymore.

A few years ago, we had a big fight in the Illinois legislature about a
proposed "anti-BDS" bill. And when I say "we," in the context of this list,
I really mean "me." As far as I recall, I'm the only person on this list
who took meaningful action to organize opposition. I gathered signatures.
You didn't. I went to Springfield for the committee meetings. You didn't. I
lobbied Mike Frerichs, who was then chair of the Senate higher education
committee, where the bill was sent first. You didn't. In a one-on-one
meeting with Mike Frerichs, he looked me in the eye and basically said: I
get this. I understand what these "anti-BDS" people are trying to do, and
why they're trying to do it. And that's why I said to Ira Silverstein - now
disgraced and gone on sexual misconduct allegations, but then the lead
sponsor of the bill, championed by the Jewish Federation - that's why, Mike
told me, he said to Ira, I don't believe that your bill belongs in my
committee and your bill is not going anywhere in my committee, so if you
want to move your bill at all, you're going to have to take it out of my
committee and take it somewhere else. So that's what Ira did. He took it to
another committee. Because Mike Frerichs was like a tree that's standing by
the water. He was not going to be moved.

So then Ira took his bill to Kwame Raoul's committee, I think it was the
justice committee. I went to the committee hearing. And I saw with my own
eyes how Kwame Raoul shut down the anti-BDS bill of Ira and the Jewish
Federation by invoking the First Amendment,. It was a beautiful
performance. I would not trade it for seeing Maria Callas at the Met. Like
Mike Frerichs, Kwame Raoul was a tree standing by the water which was not
going to be moved. That's why I supported Kwame Raoul for Attorney General,
even though he was also supported by the Chicago Machine. Because with my
own eyes I saw Kwame Raoul stand in the breach alone, wielding the First
Amendment to defeat Ira Silverstein and the Jewish Federation and their
anti-BDS bill.

Kwame Raoul said: look, this is a First Amendment issue. Some people
support BDS, some people oppose BDS. I'm not saying what I think is right
or wrong about that. I'm saying that we have a First Amendment right to
speak our minds in this country, and you have to respect that. You do your
thing, you let the others do their thing. That's how the First Amendment
works. And when Kwame Raoul, the chair of the committee, said those words,
that was the end of the Jewish Federation's anti-BDS bill in the Illinois
legislature.

But there's something I haven't mentioned yet which decisively shaped the
debate.

The Illinois ACLU came out against the Jewish Federation's anti-BDS bill,
saying that it was unconstitutional and violated that First Amendment. The
position of the Illinois ACLU was: the legislature should not
pass.unconstitutional laws. The ACLU issued a statement against the bill.
The ACLU lobbied against the bill. Everybody who was lobbying against the
bill was always carrying the ACLU statement, always citing and linking to
the ACLU statement, always mentioning the ACLU's opposition to the bill on
First Amendment grounds. The ACLU's opposition on First Amendment grounds
shaped everything else that happened. The most important factor in
defeating the bill wasn't my lobbying or JVP's lobbying or the number of
signatures we had. The most important factor was the opposition of the
Illinois ACLU, citing saying that the *ILLINOIS* anti-BDS bill violated the
First Amendment.

When I met with Mike Frerichs, the first thing I said was: "this bill is
opposed by the Illinois ACLU." He said: I know it's opposed by the ACLU.
Duh. The lobbyist for the Illinois ACLU already talked to him. He's the
chair of the committee where the bill is sitting. Of course the ACLU
already talked to him.

A key reason, perhaps *THE* key reason, that Mike Frerichs and Kwame Raoul
were like trees standing by the water that were not going to be moved is
that the Illinois ACLU was like a tree standing by the water that was not
going to be moved. And what the Illinois ACLU was saying was: this
*ILLINOIS* bill is an unconstitutional violation of the First Amendment and
that's why we oppose it. We have no position on BDS, the ACLU said. We're
defending the First Amendment, because that's what we do.

So there you have it. *Quod erat demonstrandum.* If logic and evidence
matter on this list, we will never see it asserted here again that the
First Amendment "only applies to the federal government." Even the
stupidest, most arrogant, most stubborn morons here will never again dare
to make that assertion on this list.

===

Robert Reuel Naiman
Policy Director
Just Foreign Policy
www.justforeignpolicy.org
naiman at justforeignpolicy.org
(202) 448-2898 x1

On Thu, Apr 11, 2019 at 8:35 AM Karen Aram via Peace-discuss <
peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote:

> Carl is right, the “free speech amendment and bill of rights,” applies
> only to the federal government. Don’t take my word for it, ask a lawyer,
> I’m pleased to hear him finally admit it.
>
> This is one of the reasons I am often in conflict with Carl. Allowing
> members of the community who care nothing about war or peace, take the
> opportunity to make personal attacks against others, on the Peace Discuss
> List, serves no purpose. We sign up those we assume support peace and wish
> to acquire information in relation to war, and peace, and all that is
> related, and engage in discussions which should be based on the issues.
>
> It’s also one of the means of allowing provocateurs to destroy or kill the
> credibility of a movement or group, allowing anything, anywhere to be said
> under the guise of “freedom of speech.”
>
>
>
> On Apr 11, 2019, at 05:08, Robert Naiman <naiman at justforeignpolicy.org>
> wrote:
>
> "There is no general right to freedom of speech in the US." There is if
> the public insists there is. If people take the attitude that it would be
> cool to take away other people's free speech rights as much as it is
> possible to legally get away with, then no. But taking the attitude that it
> would be cool to take away other people's free speech rights as much as it
> is possible to legally get away with would be wrong. It would be immoral.
> It would be unethical. It would be an insult to the memory of people who
> struggled in the past to expand the space of free speech rights, like
> Marianne Brun.
>
> The University of Illinois largely got away with taking away Salaita's
> free speech rights. They were sanctioned by the AAUP; those sanctions were
> removed shortly after the University reached a legal settlement with
> Salaita. He got a payout, but not the job that he had been promised.
>
> What attitude should righteous people take towards this situation? Should
> they celebrate the fact that UIUC largely got away with abrogating
> Salaita's free speech rights? Should they rub their hands with glee? Should
> they cackle with joy?
>
> Or should they try to figure out how to stop the abrogation of free speech
> rights in the future?
>
> I always knew you as a First Amendment hardliner, Carl. That was the one
> thing we always agreed on. Now that you have defected away from the camp of
> First Amendment hardliners, I guess we don't agree on anything.
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 5:51 PM C G Estabrook <cgestabrook at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> As Bob well knows, the Bill of Rights (including the 1st Amendment) was
>> designed to bind only the federal government.
>>
>> There is no general right to freedom of speech in the US. And as A. J.
>> Liebling pointed out long ago, "Freedom of the press is guaranteed only to
>> those who own one.”
>>
>> For the consideration of a society where such a general right might
>> exist, see Ursula K. Le Guin’s classic novel, "The Dispossessed: An
>> Ambiguous Utopia” (1974).
>>
>> It’s science fiction of course.
>>
>>
>> > On Apr 10, 2019, at 2:00 PM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss <
>> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote:
>> >
>> > And "no-platformed" means "blacklisted."
>> >
>> > When was the meeting when the First Amendment was repealed? I don't
>> remember being invited to that meeting.
>> >
>> > ===
>> >
>> > Robert Reuel Naiman
>> > Policy Director
>> > Just Foreign Policy
>> > www.justforeignpolicy.org
>> > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org
>> > (202) 448-2898 x1
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 1:57 PM David Green via Peace-discuss <
>> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote:
>> > POSTPONED: Max Blumenthal - The Management of Savagery: How America's
>> National Security State Feuled the Rise of Al Queda, ISIS, and Donald
>> Trump—at The Wharf
>> >
>> > Wednesday, April 3, 2019 - 7 p.m. to 8 p.m.
>> > Politics and Prose is postponing tonight’s event at The Wharf with
>> author Max Blumenthal as we work to address concerns that have arisen over
>> the event’s format, substance, and security. We apologize for any
>> inconvenience and appreciate your patience and understanding.
>> >
>> > In his new book, Blumenthal, award-winning journalist and author of
>> geo-political studies including Goliath and The 51 Day War, charts the
>> history of American involvement in the Middle East from the Reagan
>> administration to today. His account follows two deeply intertwined
>> strands: the simultaneous rise of international jihadism and Western
>> ultra-nationalism. Starting with Washington’s secret funding of the
>> mujahideen after the Russian invasion of Afghanistan, and moving to the
>> flow of arms that today is more likely to end up with Syrian extremists
>> than with the anti-Assad forces they’re meant for,  Blumenthal charts how
>> the same groups Washington has supported eventually turn their anger
>> against us. Meanwhile, the nation’s domestic politics have become more
>> extreme in their own way, leading to today’s deeply polarized and unsettled
>> society under Trump.
>> >
>> >
>> https://www.politics-prose.com/event/book/postponed-max-blumenthal-management-of-savagery-how-americas-national-security-state
>>
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Peace-discuss mailing list
>> > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>> > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Peace-discuss mailing list
>> > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>> > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20190411/effab9d4/attachment-0001.html>