Cancel culture, the elite of cyber bullying

Cancel culture, the elite bully pulpit of cyber bullying.

Recent attempts to defend “cancel culture” claims that the discussion is not about free speech. Rather, they say, there is a panic because elites and conservatives over “threatened by changing social norms.” Do not buy the lie. No doubt, there are people who are bothered by changes. However, “cancel culture” is clearly the elite form of bullying that kills all discussion – and it is not just elites and conservatives who are in its clutches. True “free speechers” defend the speech of others with whom they disagree, then answer the disagreements with their own opportunity to speak freely. “Cancel culture” demands all bow before its power and be silent.

“I get a sense among certain young people on social media that the way of making change is to be as judgmental as possible about other people...People who do really good stuff have flaws.” Former President Barack Obama

Some recent examples of cancel culture

• Emmanuel Cafferty, fired from San Diego Gas & Electric Company after being goaded into making a hand gesture of which he did not understand the meaning. The recording went viral and he lost his job.
• David Shor, fired from Civis Analytics after sharing the findings of a study by Omar Wasow, a black professor at Princeton, a political-science journal article arguing that nonviolent civil-rights protests had been more politically effective than violent ones.
• Madji Wadi, lost his business after it became public that his daughter has made racist tweets—even though he fired her when he found out.
• Leslie Neal-Boylan, fired from her job as University of Massachusetts-Lowell Dean of Nursing after writing “Everyone’s Life Matters” (in a context clearly against discrimination).
• Nick Cannon, fired by ViacomCBS after comments on Cannon’s Class were deemed to promote anti-Semitic conspiracy theories.
• Stephen Hsu, Michigan State University senior vice president for research and innovation, resigned under pressure from petitions excoriating his scientific research on controversial topics.
• Savannah Chavez, the daughter of police officer Ismael Chavez who was killed in the line of duty in McAllen, Texas, uploaded a tribute to her father on Twitter. She received such vile harassment that she just deleted the tribute.
• Gordon Klein, teacher at UCLA’s Anderson School of Management, suspended for declining to grade black students easier after the George Floyd incident.
• Daniel Maples, fired from Ted Todd Insurance in Fort Myers, Florida, for a context-less 15 second video of his life that went viral.
• W. Ajax Peris, political science lecturer at UCLA, was referred to UCLA’s Discrimination Prevention Office after reading out loud Martin Luther Kings’s “Letter from Birmingham Jail” -- which includes the use of “the n-word.”
• James Bennet, forced to resign as New York Times opinion editor when the intolerant mob could not tolerate certain opinions—though he much of his job purpose was to bring in varied opinions to the paper.
• Stan Wischnowski, forced to resign as top editor of The Philadelphia Inquirer after an uproar over the title of an opinion article that suggested that damaging buildings in Minnesota disproportionately hurt the very people taht protesters were trying to uplift.
• The Church of the Highlands, a multi-racial church of 60,000 people in Birmingham, Alabama, stripped of its lease agreement with the city, and the church’s volunteer work in the community canceled. Why? The church pastor, Chris Hodges, “liked” conservative posts on Twitter.

An employer does not have to let an employee say or do anything they want to on the job. Nevertheless, these examples are of persons not found deficient in their words or actions until hate-filled mobs turned their hostility on them.

Not only firings, the cancel culture extends to treats to life and limb. For example, Catherine Sullivan, a retired professor and University of Georgia alumna, had her location exposed and threats made against her because she disapproved of the university’s decision about names of campus buildings. 

When caught with any backlash, most of the cowardly culprits claim they fired the person for some other reason. Such nonsense should be suspect in light of mewling remarks usually made to the mobs prior to the firings.

The COVID-19 Panic Shows Us Why Science Needs Skeptics -- “The dumpster fire of COVID predictions has shown exactly why it’s important to sustain and nurture skeptics, lest we blunder into scientific monoculture and groupthink.”

Freedom of Speech related links

Some Freedom of Speech related links

• College students support free speech — unless it offends them
• College Students Want Free Speech — Sort Of
• I Can Tolerate Anything Except the Outgroup
• Lukewarm Embrace of Free Speech
• Majority of students favor college bans of ‘hurtful or offensive’ speech
• Student Attitudes Free Speech Survey
• What College Students Really Think About Free Speech

Freedom of Speech or Freedom to Squelch

Our time-honored value of freedom of speech is now regularly offered up on the altar of tolerance. Freedom of speech is often replaced by the freedom to squelch. The first amendment restricts Congress from making a law “abridging the freedom of speech.” We understand that freedom of speech is not absolute, and can exclude that which is blatantly obscene or an incitement to harm others[i] – e.g. the proverbial “shouting fire in a crowded theater”. The framers of our Constitution held freedom of speech in high esteem, a value that promotes and protects the welfare of its citizenry. Behind binding Congress from abridging speech rests the value of individuals giving wide latitude to others to freely speak their minds. The free exchange of ideas is not only a fundamental right, but also a fundamental! Freedom of speech is a cornerstone of democracy, promotes the free exchange of ideas, undergirds effective decision-making, and protects the minority from the majority.

The sway of this value is slowly shrinking – has been for quite some time. Unfortunately, our higher education system is a primary purveyor of vitiating the value of free speech. A recent Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) survey found that 9 in 10 American colleges restrict free speech. Another FIRE survey of the students found general lip-service for the concept of free speech that waned considerably in specific situations. FIRE Director of Communications Nico Perrino said, “This is troubling because it suggests a surface-level understanding of the free speech protections that underlie the First Amendment and an unwillingness to see them applied to the protection of expression some find offensive or objectionable.” The results play out daily in our society.

In Portland, Oregon, protesters – unable to get their way by stopping the invitation – disrupted the talk of author, scholar and feminism critic Christina Hoff Sommers “with chanting and loud music.” In February 2017, the University of California at Berkeley “canceled a speech by then-Breitbart editor Milo Yiannopoulos due to fires, injuries, and vandalism caused by rioters. A month later at Vermont’s Middlebury College, a discussion featuring academic and writer Charles Murray was shut down mid-speech when a hostile mob drowned out Murray by chanting throughout his talk.”[ii]

At a recent California Democratic presidential candidates’ forum Kamala Harris’s appearance was interrupted by a protester who grabbed her microphone. Not only that, but when “House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) took the stage at the California convention and called for national unity...Her comments didn’t go over very well with some people in the audience, who shouted her down by yelling ‘Impeach,’ referring to President Donald Trump.”

Meanwhile in Washington, DC, a Theater cancelled Kristy Swanson and Dean Cain’s pro-Trump performance over ‘threats of violence’. “...the Mead Theater notified the producers of FBI Lovebirds: UnderCovers that they would no longer participate in the production due to concerns over ‘threats of violence’.” Though the threats of violence were likely real, there was also concern that the “Theater withdrew the event…in…an attempt to squash the content of FBI Lovebirds: UnderCovers and what it reveals about the anti-Trump forces in the government…They just don’t want the truth out there… the theatrical establishment is really afraid of the way we are using Verbatim Theater, which utilizes only the actual words and texts from Strzok and Page…The intolerant left can’t challenge the actual, verbatim text.”

In a mix of abridging freedom of speech and freedom of religion, a Bible Study battle has gone Federal after a Christian couple was threatened with eviction. The Evergreens at Smith Run, a senior community in Fredericksburg, Virginia, seemingly cannot tolerate a Bible study in the living quarters of its residents and have threatened octogenarians Ken and Liv Hauge with eviction if they do not cease and desist!

A common thread in much anti-free speech rhetoric is to claim the opposed speech violates the rights of others/someone. The courts have weighed in on many cases, attempting to distinguish between speech that is controversial and offensive versus speech that is dangerous and harms others. Speech does not violate your or my rights just because we don’t like it. The zenith of free speech is vigorously defending the rights of speech that you don’t like! The nadir is “we support free speech – just not your free speech.”

Other anti-free speech advocates no longer feign intellectual opposition, but use the heckler’s veto of brute force.[iii] If we have the strength of numbers to shout you down or shut you down – we will!

---

[i] Even then, courts do not always agree what constitutes these actions of obscenity or harm.

[ii] In the aftermath, protestors damaged Murray’s car as he tried to leave, and put Professor Allison Stanger in a neck brace after “one of the demonstrators pulled Prof. Stanger’s hair and twisted her neck.” Having not learned their lesson – or having learned the wrong lesson – Middlebury College cancelled a talk by conservative European politician Ryszard Legutko of Poland “for safety purposes.” The correlation in the heckler’s veto seems to not be left-side or right-side political views, but unresolved anger. Hecklers from the right shouted down California attorney general Xavier Becerra at Whittier College in 2017, apparently because of California’s lawsuit against the Trump administration over DACA. Protestors on either side of the ideological spectrum resort to this low when they believe it suits their purpose.

[iii] Another iteration of this tactic features using the power of the purse to bully one with opposing views into submission.

Praying in Pennsylvania

On Monday, March 25, a prayer by a Christian lawmaker in Pennsylvania stirred up a hornet’s nest. Before each session the House rules call for opening in prayer as the first order of business. That Monday, the opening prayer was given by freshman Representative Stephanie Borowicz. If transcribe correctly, here is what she said:

Let’s pray. Jesus, I thank you for this privilege, Lord, of letting me pray, God, that I, Jesus, am your ambassador here today, standing here representing you, the King of Kings, the Lord of Lords, the Great I Am, the one who is coming back again, the one who came, died, and rose again on the third day. And I’m so privileged to stand here today, so thank you for this honor, Jesus. God, for those that came before us like George Washington and Valley Forge, and Abraham Lincoln who sought after you in Gettysburg, Jesus, and the founding fathers at Independence Hall, Jesus, that sought after you and fasted and prayed for this nation to be founded on your principles and your word and your truth. God forgive us. Jesus, we’ve lost sight of you. We’ve forgotten you, God, in our country, and we’re asking you to forgive us, Jesus, as your promise in your word says that if my people who are called by my name will humble themselves and pray and seek your face, and turn from their wicked ways, that you will heal our land. Jesus, you are our only hope. God, I pray for our leaders, Speaker Turzai, Leader Cutler, Governor Wolf, President Trump for his [stance] that he stands beside Israel unequivocally, Lord. Thank you, Jesus, that we’re blessed because we stand by Israel, and we ask for the peace of Jerusalem as your word says, God. We ask that we not be overcome by and that we overcome evil with good in this land once again. I claim all these things in the powerful, mighty, name of Jesus, the one who at the name of Jesus every knee will bow and every tongue will confess, Jesus, that you are Lord. In Jesus name. Amen.

Her prayer has brought rancor, condemnation, applause for a Muslim prayer, and a Resolution “urging members of the House of Representatives who have the opportunity to offer a prayer in the course of a legislative session to craft a prayer respectful of all religious beliefs.” What irony that the decriers evidently wish to be “respectful of all religious beliefs” except beliefs like those of Representative Borwicz! Democratic Governor Tom Wolf – one of those prayed for – was “horrified” by the prayer and averred, “Pennsylvania was founded by William Penn on the basis of freedom of conscience” – just not freedom of conscience for Stephanie Borowicz or those who believe as she does! Freedom only for those who kowtow to the beliefs of Wolf and those on his side. Very few like Wolf see the contradictions of their own claims.

I would not have prayed as did this representative. Her prayer seems sort of weird, according to my own standards. However, it is never inappropriate for a person to pray according to her sincerely held religious beliefs just because someone is present who holds different beliefs, or someone disagrees. Prayer is an act of communing with and/or making a petition to God. If this legislature really intends to have prayer, then leave each pray-er to pray according to the dictates of his or her own heart with governmental interference. Anything less is either a sham or a formality.

I liked the “old days,” when we stood for free exercise and free speech even for those who differed with us, rather than limiting free exercise and free speech to that which agrees with our own opinions.

• “The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.” – Thomas Jefferson
• “Every man must give an account of himself to God, and therefore every man ought to be at liberty to serve God in that way that he can best reconcile to his conscience.” – John Leland
• “The Religion then of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man: and it is the right of every man to exercise it as these may dictate.” – James Madison
• “Speech may not be banned on the ground that it expresses ideas that offend…The proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express ‘the thought that we hate’.” – Samuel Alito, in Metal v. Tam
• “To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it.” – G. K. Chesterton

Practical thoughts on religious liberty and spiritual adultery

Often when we speak and write on religious liberty versus spiritual adultery we may speak in abstract terms of doctrine, without understanding or explaining how the right view of doctrine applies to our practice. There is a fine line for Christians to walk between supporting freedom of religious views and actions while not bidding Godspeed to those who do not hold the true doctrine of Christ. Trying to find exactly where this fine line is can be a matter of Christian liberty. Here are some (in my opinion) practical suggestions on dealing with religious liberty and spiritual adultery.

I have mentioned a number of times the Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission and the Muslim mosque amicus brief. I am not a Southern Baptist and the outcome of their internal debate is not personally applicable to me. We do not support the SBC Cooperative Program or the ERLC, neither do we engage in any denominational programs, policies or politics in such ways. Nevertheless, the situation has brought forth a broad debate concerning religious liberty and spiritual adultery, not only among Southern Baptists, but a broad spectrum of Christians throughout the United States. It is a debate that should be had. [See More on Moore.] I don’t believe there is some vast sin or collusion with evil in simply presenting an amicus brief that asks a government to abide by the laws it has on the books. I don’t see this as the same as aiding and abetting the spread of Islam. That said, if I had been making the decision, I wouldn’t have filed the brief. Not filing the brief is not the same as actively working against the right to religious freedom, and entering the legal arena is not the wisest use of church time and money. [E.g., “The church should not resort to the civil power to carry on its work. The gospel of Christ contemplates spiritual means alone for the pursuit of its ends.” – Baptist Faith and Message]

A recent freedom of religion situation in Georgia involves a preacher of a different faith and practice than Baptists. Eric Walsh, a doctor who is also a lay preacher in the Seventh Day Adventist Church, accepted employment as a director for the Georgia Department of Public Health. Walsh is a highly regarded and highly accomplished member of the medical community. Shortly after he accepted the position, someone found out from his sermons online what he believed on homosexuality (among other things). The Georgia Department of Public Health retracted his job offer.[i] Despite having serious disagreements on doctrinal issues with the Seventh Day Adventists, I find no compromise or spiritual adultery in defending and supporting the rights of Eric Walsh. My support for his right to employment free from inspection of his religious beliefs does not equal support for his religious beliefs. Such support could, at least in theory, increase his ability to proclaim the doctrines which he believes and I do not. Yet that support is not spiritual adultery, but rather support of religious liberty.

Here’s an illustration of how I try to walk the fine line and reconcile the existence of religious liberty and spiritual adultery. I believe in religious liberty. I believe we should avoid spiritual adultery. I believe the group called Jehovah’s Witnesses do not hold the true doctrine of Christ. If a Jehovah’s Witness owns a mini-mart I don’t automatically refuse to shop there based on that fact[ii] – even though I realize if the owner is an active Jehovah’s Witness that he or she may use some of the proceeds from the business to support their false worship. But I am not supporting the false worship. I am simply shopping at a business, and the owners choose to do what they will with the profit from their business (as with any owner of any business). If we can’t do any business with anyone engaged in false worship “then must we needs go out of the world (I Cor. 5:10).” On the other hand, the Jehovah’s Witnesses might host a bake sale to raise money for their Kingdom Hall. I can support their freedom to have the bake sale free of molestation and with the same rights as any other group that might host a bake sale – but I won’t be buying any of their bread. This is directly and deliberately supporting their false worship. Christians may have trouble deciding and even come to different answers whether shopping at a store owned by a Jehovah Witness, buying the Jehovah’s Witnesses’s bread at their fundraiser, or supporting their right to have the fundraiser are all the same kind of relationship of the Christian to those who do not hold the true doctrine of Christ (or if they are substantially different).

---

[i] Walsh won a suit against the Georgia Department of Public Health for religious discrimination. Dr. Eric Walsh Exonerated in Georgia Discrimination Case

[ii] Actually I am never consumed with the idea of finding out who owns a store where I shop.

"I think" or "I feel"

Another follow-up to what I've written on "offenses": Offense Welcome: Please Debate This Article

“When 'I feel' began to overtake 'I think' in my classroom, I took a closer look at disagreeing well.”

“I’ve noticed that when you’re discussing things, you rarely preface your opinions with 'I think' or 'I believe.' Do you know what you say?”

Topsy Turvy

Yesterday I posted about the offense of being called “illegal immigrant” and last week I posted a link to The Coddling of the American Mind. On Thanksgiving Day I read Dr. Everett Piper: A Man Among Boys in which the president of Oklahoma Wesleyan University addressing a situation of a student complaining after a chapel service that “he felt 'victimized' by a sermon on the topic of 1 Corinthians 13.”

These and other like incidents provide strong evidence of the overwhelmingly self-centered society we have become. We are so absorbed within ourselves that we claim the right to find nothing disagreeable and have no one disagree with us. Guilt is neither a culpability we possess nor a shame we should feel. We have turned the freedom of speech topsy turvy into a freedom from speech we don't like, and limited the universality of sin to the rare trait of those who disagree with us.

God help us!

Free speech

When people say things that others do not want to hear, often the answer or solution of those who don't want to hear it is to curtail speech -- to silence the speaker. Curtailing free speech is not the answer. More speech is the answer, not no speech or less speech. Not just more speech, but better speech. Bad speech should be answered by better speech, not intimidating speech; by loving speech, not louder speech.

Free speech quotes

The posting of quotes by human authors does not constitute agreement with either the quotes or their sources.

"Error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it." -- Thomas Jefferson, Inaugural Address.

"Though all the winds of doctrine were let loose to play upon the earth, so Truth be in the field, we do injuriously, by licensing and prohibiting, to misdoubt her strength. Let her and Falsehood grapple; who ever knew Truth put to the worse, in a free and open encounter?" -- John Milton

"A man may be a heretic in the truth, and if he believe things only because his pastor says so, or the assembly so determines, without knowing other reason, though his belief be true, yet the very truth he holds becomes his heresy." -- John Milton

"Give me the liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according to conscience, above all liberties." -- John Milton

"It is not possible for man to sever the wheat from the tares, the good fish from the other fry; that must be the Angels' ministry at the end of mortal things. Yet if all cannot be of one mind — as who looks they should be? — this doubtless is more wholesome, more prudent, and more Christian, that many be tolerated, rather than all compelled." -- John Milton

"If there is any principle of the Constitution that more imperatively calls for attachment than any other, it is the principle of free thought—not free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought that we hate." -- Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. in United States v. Schwimmer.

"People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use." -- Soren Kierkegaard

"Freedom of speech means freedom for those who you despise, and freedom to express the most despicable views. It also means that the government cannot pick and choose which expressions to authorize and which to prevent." -- Alan Dershowitz

"It is easy to believe in freedom of speech for those with whom we agree." -- Leo McKern

"I have the right to write whatever I want. And it's equaled by another right just as powerful: the right not to read it. Freedom of speech includes the freedom to offend people." -- Brad Thor

Free Speech, the Pope and Salman Rushdie

* Pope on Charlie Hebdo: There are limits to free expression

"If my good friend Dr. Gasparri says a curse word against my mother, he can expect a punch," Francis said, throwing a pretend punch his way. "It's normal. You cannot provoke. You cannot insult the faith of others. You cannot make fun of the faith of others."
"There are so many people who speak badly about religions or other religions, who make fun of them, who make a game out of the religions of others," he said. "They are provocateurs. And what happens to them is what would happen to Dr. Gasparri if he says a curse word against my mother. There is a limit."

* Salman Rushdie, threatened over book, defends free speech

"He said some believe speech should be free, but it shouldn't upset anyone or go too far.
"Both John F. Kennedy and Nelson Mandela use the same three-word phrase which in my mind says it all, which is, 'Freedom is Indivisible,'" he said. "You can't slice it up, otherwise it ceases to be freedom. You can dislike Charlie Hedbo. ... But the fact that you dislike them has nothing to do with their right to speak."

* Cameron rebuts Pope on speech offensive to religion

"I think in a free society, there is a right to cause offense about someone's religion. I'm a Christian. If someone says something offensive about Jesus, I might find that offensive but in a free society I don't have a right to wreak my vengeance upon them."

Je suis Charlie

I am not Charlie Hebdo, but I do sympathize with and support their right to express their views without persecution or execution. Some believe that whoever insults the prophet Mohammed should be killed. Any malignant Muslims who think they should kill those who vilify their views must be restrained from obtaining their goals. And the goal is not just killing, but also scaring and silencing.

I say I am not Charlie Hebdo not to lessen of crimes of Cherif and Said Kouachi, but simply to note that I don't endorse their method of making their point. I don't read French (even though I studied it in high school 40 years ago), but it seems their style descends into some pretty low depths. Satire is not always inappropriate, but a steady diet of its lowest forms may be debilitating. I may not agree with what they had to say, but I defend their freedom to say it. While defending their freedom to say it, I can also point to what I believe is a better way. Speak the truth in love, the most excellent way (I Cor. 12:31b; 13:1-7; Eph. 4:15). Speak the truth in love, but defend the right to speak of those who don't.

Related op-ed
* I Am Not Charlie Hebdo -- "Public reaction to the attack in Paris has revealed that there are a lot of people who are quick to lionize those who offend the views of Islamist terrorists in France but who are a lot less tolerant toward those who offend their own views at home."

I wish

...that more Americans understood, believed, promoted and protected the concept of "free speech". I think we've forgotten the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which includes: "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech..."

Sure, the First Amendment doesn't justify shouting fire in a crowded theatre. It does not include the right to incite actions that would harm others (and other related things). But the freedom established by our Constitution is very broad -- and often annoying. There may be a "dictionary" full of words and ideas that I don't want to hear. The fact that I don't want to hear them doesn't mean they can't be said. The same right gives me the freedom to respond to, contradict and disprove what has been said. Rather than use this method of interactive free speech, we are entering an era when many simply bully the speaker into submission rather than respond to what is spoken. Those who have no answer often resort to the gnashing of teeth, stopping of ears, and throwing of stones (all in not tolerating intolerance).

Acts Chapter 7 When they heard these things, they were cut to the heart, and they gnashed on him with their teeth...they cried out with a loud voice, and stopped their ears, and ran upon him with one accord, And cast him out of the city, and stoned him...

What about free speech?

Last week Rush Limbaugh clearly opened his mouth wide and stuck his foot in it. He almost swallowed it whole! A Georgetown Law School student testified before the Democratic Steering and Policy Committee on Thursday February 23 about contraception and health care coverage. According to reports*, Limbaugh called her a “slut” and a “prostitute.”

The internet is covered up with this topic on blogs and forums. I don't want to directly address the views of Sandra Fluke (the law student), with which I disagree, or the tirade of Limbaugh, with which I also disagree. What has caught my attention is the reaction of opponents of Limbaugh, who have turned this into a crusade to get all his sponsors to drop him and have him fail so as to go off the air (or get kicked off). This brings to mind the question to me what these crusaders believe about free speech.

Should Limbaugh have called the lady these names? No. From what I read in her transcript she really didn't even speak for herself, but rather for others.  Makes me wonder whether Rush even read or heard what she said?? But what about the mentality that is not satisfied to disagree with and condemn his speech, and even quit supporting those who sponsor him. No, they have launched a national campaign to pursue him until he is driven off the air. Perhaps I just can't comprehend it because I don't have a protest mentality. I'm not into "boycotting". There are plenty on the right that share this protest mentality with the left and also follow in hot pursuit whenever they smell blood in the water. Seems to me a more balanced view of free speech disagrees, debates -- maybe even sues if libel is involved -- but is not maniacally driven to see that someone's speech is completely shut down. Clearly those sharks pursuing Limbaugh now aren't just protecting and supporting Sandra Fluke -- they have an agenda and they hate Limbaugh's speech.


Or am I missing something?

[*Note: there is no question that he did so, I only word it this way because I didn't hear it myself.]