[Peace-discuss] Postponed means no-platformed

[C G Estabrook]

Karen—

We all know that the adoption of the 1787 constitution, which established the federal government, was followed almost immediately by an important series of amendments (the Bill of Rights), by which local elites attempted to delimit the powers of the new federal government. They had reluctantly agreed to that government, specifically to protect themselves from the demands for more democracy from the working classes. (See Gore Vidal, “Homage to Daniel Shays.”)    

'The primary responsibility of government is "to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority," Madison declared. That has been the guiding principle of the democratic system from its origins until today.’ <https://chomsky.info/profit02/>.

The first ten amendments (1791) were attempts to constrain the new federal government. These limitations (notably the First Amendment's prohibiting the federal government’s interfering with  freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, and right to petition) were gradually extended to state and local government in the US (not without dispute), but it's important to note that were established particularly in opposition to the federal government.

In spite of the First Amendment’s prohibitions, the federal government has regularly interfered with those rights, notably in the Espionage Act (1917), which had little to do with espionage and much to do with suppressing criticism of US war-making. (The Obama administration employed the Espionage Act more than all other US administrations combined; it seems to be at the base of the USG’s attempt to silence Wikileaks' revelation to a yet-unknowing world of US war crimes.)  

In regard to Mill’s asseveration, the principal question today in regard to freedom of speech, etc., is Who’s going to bell the cat? The NYTImes, Facebook, etc. seem to have been delegated and licensed "to prevent harm to others” (principally to the 1% and their minions) by suppressing those freedoms.

Regards, CGE


> On Apr 11, 2019, at 9:22 PM, Karen Aram <karenaram at hotmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Carl
> 
> I was quoting you when I referred to the “Federal Government," I should have just said, “government.' 
> 
> Any lawyer can argue a case on the basis of “freedom of speech, whether he wins his case is often arbitrary, or based upon his ability to convince and persuade. 
> 
> You are right in that it is both “left and right,” playing with the first amendment, with students on the left, liberals usually, protesting Professors for saying that which they don’t like, and instead of countering with truth, they insist the University dismiss the Academic. I’m not referring to right wing, racist academics either. We’ve become a society of “I don’t like what you said, or I don’t like the words you use.” 
> 
> Having worked in the private sector, for two major corporations as well as the Asian Development Bank, I can attest to the fact that employees are often required to sign contracts upon their first day of work, that limits their freedom of speech. 
> 
> According to Wikipedia: "Freedom of speech and expression, therefore, may not be recognized as being absolute, and common limitations or boundaries to freedom of speech relate to libel, slander, obscenity, pornography, sedition, incitement, fighting words, classified information, copyright violation, trade secrets, food labeling, non-disclosure agreements, the right to privacy, the right to be forgotten, public security, and perjury. Justifications for such include the harm principle, proposed by John Stuart Mill in On Liberty, which suggests that: "the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others."[3]”
> 
> My objection to allowing everyone and anyone say what they wish, is in respect to “ad hominems” which are straying from the issue, ignoring the substance of the issue, and distracting from the argument. 
> 
> You’re quite right when you say:  “suppression in its own interest is a principal activity of capitalist society.”  
> 
> Though I provide a Wikipedia note below, its always questionable, there is nothing like a current book on “Constitutional Law.” 
> 
> According to Wikipedia: "Freedom of speech and expression, therefore, may not be recognized as being absolute, and common limitations or boundaries to freedom of speech relate to libel, slander, obscenity, pornography, sedition, incitement, fighting words, classified information, copyright violation, trade secrets, food labeling, non-disclosure agreements, the right to privacy, the right to be forgotten, public security, and perjury. Justifications for such include the harm principle, proposed by John Stuart Mill in On Liberty, which suggests that: "the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others."[3]”
> 
> 
> 
>> On Apr 11, 2019, at 18:02, C. G. Estabrook <galliher at illinois.edu> wrote:
>> 
>> Bob gives us an interesting account of an 'anti-BDS bill,’ but he ignores the process by which the First Amendment - which as Karen correctly says, originally constrained only the federal government - was extended to the states, not without serious opposition.
>> 
>> See 'Incorporation of the Bill of Rights’ on Wikipedia <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights>.
>> 
>> Free speech, free expression, freedom of the press, even academic freedom are principles that extend much further than American law, constitutional or otherwise. And their suppression in its own interest is a principal activity of capitalist society. See e.g., the 1993 book by my late friend, Nat Hentoff, “Free Speech for Me—But Not for Thee: How the American Left and Right Relentlessly Censor Each Other.” (An update, a generation later, is a consummation devoutly to be wished.)
>> 
>> As Chomsky said in lapidary fashion, "If you're in favor of freedom of speech, that means you're in favor of freedom of speech precisely for views you despise.”
>> 
>> —CGE
>> 
>> 
>>> On Apr 11, 2019, at 9:36 AM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 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
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Peace-discuss mailing list
>>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
>> 
>