Twitter Jack Dorsey Donates Millions To Activist Group That wants To attack Free Speech
It turns out that Twitter not only wants to censor content they don’t agree with politically, but they are also now looking to activists and giving them money so they can push to change our constitution to censor free speech.
While I am no fan of racist speech, the question has never been if some speech is racist, rather if all speech is, as we have heard continually from the left.
Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey announced on Thursday that he was donating $10 million to Boston University’s Center for Antiracist Research, a project recently launched by the antiracist scholar Ibram X. Kendi.
Kendi is the author of the 2019 book How to Be An Antiracist, one of two books that attracted renewed attention following the death of George Floyd. (The other is Robin DiAngelo’s White Fragility.) In a tweet, he thanked Dorsey for the grant, which came with “no strings attached.”
RELATED: Free Speech, Should It Be Curbed?
Yet here is the problem, if you look at how the left is today, if you disagree with their stance on global warming, they change the name of global warming to racism through ignoring global warming, this under this law would be made illegal.
But there is more, we are now told if you are not voting for Biden, you aren’t black, in other words, voting Democrat is an anti-racist thing, by implying this the left wants us to know voting for Trump or any Republican is racist in nature, is that going to be illegal as well?
We are told if you question the attacks against all whites with the new racist “White Privilege” teaching, this could only be based on racism, so disagreement will be seen as racist speech, either accept the teaching or be made illegal. This is where the left wants us to go.
But one has to ask, how many Americans know what free speech is? It seems many of the youth don’t. Here is what the Supreme Court has ruled on:
Freedom of speech includes the right:
- Not to speak (specifically, the right not to salute the flag).
West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943).
- Of students to wear black armbands to school to protest a war (“Students do not shed their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse gate.”).
Tinker v. Des Moines, 393 U.S. 503 (1969).
- To use certain offensive words and phrases to convey political messages.
Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971).
- To contribute money (under certain circumstances) to political campaigns.
Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976).
- To advertise commercial products and professional services (with some restrictions).
Virginia Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Consumer Council, 425 U.S. 748 (1976); Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350 (1977).
- To engage in symbolic speech, (e.g., burning the flag in protest).
Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989); United States v. Eichman, 496 U.S. 310 (1990).
Freedom of speech does not include the right:
- To incite actions that would harm others (e.g., “[S]hout[ing] ‘fire’ in a crowded theater.”).
Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919).
- To make or distribute obscene materials.
Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 (1957).
- To burn draft cards as an anti-war protest.
United States v. O’Brien, 391 U.S. 367 (1968).
- To permit students to print articles in a school newspaper over the objections of the school administration.
Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260 (1988).
- Of students to make an obscene speech at a school-sponsored event.
Bethel School District #43 v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675 (1986).
- Of students to advocate illegal drug use at a school-sponsored event.
Morse v. Frederick, __ U.S. __ (2007).
While we at 0censor don’t feel we have a right to tell anyone how to spend their money, they are free to do so as they see fit. Yet when you give money that is intended to change policy or our constitution, this is what Twitter is doing, then it becomes everyone’s right to know. So what exactly is this movement wanting to implement?
In a 2019 piece for POLITICO magazine, Kendi proposed a constitutional amendment that would prohibit racism. Here is his idea in full:
To fix the original sin of racism, Americans should pass an anti-racist amendment to the U.S. Constitution that enshrines two guiding anti-racist principals: Racial inequity is evidence of racist policy and the different racial groups are equals. The amendment would make unconstitutional racial inequity over a certain threshold, as well as racist ideas by public officials (with “racist ideas” and “public official” clearly defined). It would establish and permanently fund the Department of Anti-racism (DOA) comprised of formally trained experts on racism and no political appointees. The DOA would be responsible for preclearing all local, state and federal public policies to ensure they won’t yield racial inequity, monitor those policies, investigate private racist policies when racial inequity surfaces, and monitor public officials for expressions of racist ideas. The DOA would be empowered with disciplinary tools to wield over and against policymakers and public officials who do not voluntarily change their racist policy and ideas.
Such an amendment would constitute a brazen assault on the principles of a free society. Kendi would like to empower a team of government bureaucrats who are beyond even the normal accountability of the political process. Their job would be to investigate both public and private racism, and “monitor public officials for expressions of racist ideas.” Kendi’s promise that what constitutes a “racist idea” would be “clearly defined” is hardly reassuring: There’s no way such a department could avoid becoming an Orwellian nightmare—indeed, the very program would necessitate the formation of a kind of speech police.
In other words, give in to the policies of the left or face the wrath of this new organization, the Department of Anti-racism (DOA).
Here is the problem; free speech has to be the right of a free society. The Supreme Court has stated multiple times that free speech is not to protect the speech we like and are comfortable with, it is speech that we disagree with, the one that we find makes us uncomfortable. At 0censor, we have always said, “Speech should never be silenced, it should be debated, open for all, that way wrong belief or speech is exposed. If you don’t do this, you make the onlookers wonder what you are hiding, bad ideas and speech become desirable to some, all of this would be stopped if you allowed it to be exposed to a counter-argument.”
“Speech should never be silenced, it should be debated, open for all, that way wrong belief or speech is exposed. If you don’t do this you make the onlookers wonder what you are hiding, bad ideas and speech become desirable to some, all of this would be stopped if you allowed it to be exposed to a counter-argument.”
This is not a bad idea; this is a terrible one. It may be one of the worst ideas ever. Inez Stepman of the Independent Women’s Forum called it “woke Stalinism,” and she’s not even really exaggerating. Under Kendi’s proposal, the government would investigate people for making allegedly racist statements, or causing allegedly racial inequities.
In this scheme, we would be turned into what Communist China, Russia, Cuba, and Venezuela were and are, a nation where people can’t speak in fear they may be informed on to the authorities.
We already see some of this, not just with Twitter, but all the big tech is censoring political speech they don’t agree with, they have politicized medicine, if a physician says something about COVID or a treatment for it, something they don’t agree with they either flag or silence the post.