Tag Archives: freedom of expression

national news, political news

Anger is feeding on itself at rallies

04firstdraft-trump-blog480

Talking heads all over the political spectrum seem to be speaking with one voice on critical point.

Donald J. Trump’s frontrunning bid to be the next president of the United States has been fueled by angry Americans. He leads the Republican field of primary contenders because, they say, he has tapped into that anger.

As the fellow who delivers my mail every day told me this week: “Trump is saying what everyone is thinking.”

Yeah, whatever.

The anger is presenting itself at these rallies. Protestors are showing up to disrupt the Trump events, which by itself isn’t anything new. I’ve been to more than few political rallies in my lifetime — dating back to 1972 — to understand that fundamental American demonstration of political expression.

What’s different this time has been the behavior of the candidate, who from the podium is fomenting aggressive resistance to what the protestors are seeking to express.

Now the candidate — Trump — has laid blame on a Democratic candidate for fomenting the protests. He says the noise is coming from those supporting U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign. Sanders, quite understandably, has denied such an accusation.

I am not going to take sides on who’s starting these disruptive events.

Instead, I want to focus for a moment on how Trump has handled himself when these outbursts occur.

It’s the strange behavior from the podium that has me most troubled. Never in my entire life have I watched and listened to a supposedly mainstream American political figure actually egg on his supporters to punch protestors “in the face.” One of those Trumpsters seemed to take that exhortation quite literally when he sucker-punched a protestor who was being escorted from a rally venue in North Carolina.

How can we tamp down this visceral anger?

One place to start would be for the candidate to change the tone of his campaign rhetoric. Do we need to keep hearing the same one-note samba about how “stupid” we’ve become, or how “we don’t win anymore” or whether we’ve succumbed to weakness displayed by “political correctness”?

I’m prepared to hear some constructive solutions.

Enough of the condemnation andĀ recrimination.

legal news, State news

Supreme Court to hear Confederate plate case

1 Comment

This is going to be an interesting case headed for the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Sons of Confederate Veterans think Texas license plates should carry a design that includes the Confederate flag. Millions of Texans are on their side. Millions of other Texans — as yours truly — think the design is offensive in the extreme.

http://www.texastribune.org/2015/03/21/supreme-court-consider-confederate-license-plates/

The state Department of Motor Vehicles has denied the design, citing a state law that says it can deny a specialty plate ā€œif the design might be offensive to any member of the public.ā€Ā Former Gov. Rick Perry opposed the design, citing its offensiveness to millions of Texans.

Cut-and-dried, yes? Hardly.

The Sons of the Confederacy think a denial deprives the organization of freedom of speech.

Here’s how the Texas Tribune reported the sequence of events: “The group challenged the DMVā€™s decision in federal court, but a district judge upheld the state’s decision to restrict what it determined to be offensive content. The Sons of Confederate Veterans appealed to the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, which reversed the lower court’s decision. The court said the DMV had unlawfully discriminated against the Confederate group’s beliefs that the flag was a symbol of Southern heritage in favor of those who were offended by it.”

Southern heritage? I suppose it does represent oneĀ element of Southern heritage. That segment happens to include a Civil War that killed 600,000 Americans, a war that was fought over the South’s contention that states had the right to do certain things — such as sanction slavery.

The Confederate flag in the 150-plus years since the end of the Civil War has become a symbol of hate groups who fly the flag proudly whenever they’re protesting issues, such as granting all Americans — including African-American — the right to vote.

The symbol is offensive and should not adorn motor vehicle license plates.

I just hope the Supreme Court sees it that way, too.

 

International news

Rift in U.S. foreign policy team?

John Kerry says Benjamin Netanyahu is “welcome to speak” in the United States.

Susan Rice calls an upcoming speech by Netanyahu “destructive.”

Who is correct, the secretary of state or the Obama administration’s national security adviser?

I’ll put my money on Secretary Kerry.

http://thehill.com/policy/international/234242-kerry-netanyahu-is-welcome-to-speak

Netanyahu is going to speak Tuesday to a joint congressional session about Iran. President Obama wishes he wouldn’t make the speech; Obama has no plans to meet with Netanyahu while the Israeli prime minister is in this country — at the invitation of House Speaker John Boehner.

Bibi’s talk will center on Iran’s desire to develop a nuclear program, which critics say — correctly, in my view — is a precursor to the Islamic Republic seeking a nuclear weapon. Israel doesn’t want the Iranians to have a nuke. Neither does the United States.

However, let’s stipulate something. The United States prides itself on freedom of expression. It extends that freedom to friendly foreign dignitaries. Set aside reports of serious tension between Netanyahu and Obama over this upcoming speech and consider that the two nations remain ironclad allies.

Kerry said the relationship, “in terms of security,” has never been stronger.

Let’s hear what the prime minister has to say.

International news

Free expression under assault

The attack this week on a French satirical magazine that killed 12 people was launched against a guiding principle of liberty.

The target was freedom of expression.

There cannot be any buckling to the forces of terror, according to Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson.

He is so very correct. Here is Robinson’s column in full:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/01/09/journalists_must_stand_firm_125200.html

Charlie Hebdo is known for its biting — and sometimes crude — satire. It published some cartoons depicting the Muslim prophet Mohammed in a less-than-flattering light. Some French Muslims took exception and opened fire at Charlie Hebdo’s Paris office. The bloodshed ended Friday with the deaths of three assassins; four hostages also died in a French commando assault outside of Paris, but other hostages were freed.

Publications around the world are going to look at how they should react to this horrifying act of revenge. Free expression is a cherished right of those who enjoy liberty. Let it stand forever.

Robinson notes in his column: “Right now, in the wake of the Charlie Hebdo massacre, the tendency must be to err on the side of defiance. News organizations have an obligation to demonstrate that they will not be cowed — and indeed, many are doing just that. But what happens a month from now, or a year from now?”

And then he adds: “If freedom of speech is to mean anything, we must avoid self-censorship. And if we are to avoid self-censorship, we must be able to protect and defend the right to make editorial decisions on their merits — which means being prepared to protect the journalists who make those decisions. This means that media organizations and governments must provide adequate security measures so that journalists can do their work.”

I’m with him.