The only real purpose of all those mechanisms is to silence any opposition or criticism of the board and speaker. Bluntly, they're about maintaining power, not about improving civil discourse
There is no such thing as "hate speech" under the First Amendment. There is no exception that would make it illegal to say. So nobody who knows the laws would use the term seriously. It is, as you say, just a way to shut down criticism.
This regressive movement wants power and has developed this anti-racism ideology, irrationality, and doublespeak so that its power will be unquestioned, not even subject to question. This movement is allying with others, the only requirement being irrationality and hostility to traditional individual freedoms.
That parent should sue the school board for its unconstitutional denial of his/her right to speak. The suit should demand the antiracist ideology be extirpated from the school system and school board. It is anti-American and anti-human.
We are very, very close to becoming another North Korea, governed by a hateful, malevolent, implacable, and all-powerful, regressive directorate. G-d help us.
It's about quiet censorship, and good for this author for calling it out by name. We need to, whenever we run into this censorious impulse, quietly but firmly reject it's very premise. As in, "There is nothing in the least in my comments having to do with hate - please confine your comments to the actual content of what I said."
Also, when coming from a government official - whether elected or the hired help - such accusations may, in fact, still violate the First Amendment's restriction on government infringement of free speech. Labeling an individual's speech as unacceptable would sure seem an infringement ...
"There is nothing in the least in my comments having to do with hate - please confine your comments to the actual content of what I said." - Well said, Jim!
Only surprised that the school board didn't report her to CA state police as a potential "terrorist".
Can't do that with the Biden Administration anymore.
You may remember how the Biden administration treated parents at school board meetings as potential "terrorists" in response to a September 2021 letter from the National School Boards Association (NSBA) and an October 2021 Department of Justice (DOJ) memo. Attorney General Merrick Garland issued a memo directing the FBI and federal prosecutors to address the "disturbing spike in harassment, intimidation, and threats of violence" against school officials. Of course, after the Biden Administration threatened parents and chilled cricicism, it was "mission accomplished". The NSBA later apologized for the letter, stating there was "no justification" for some of the language used. Dollar late, dollar short ... the damage had already been done.
Maybe it's time to take a page from some of the anti-data center people: vote them out of office. In many cases the only way to change a group's thinking is to change the composition of the group itself.
This behavior is only enabled by voters who put them in place. Sane candidates need to be supported and publicized to offset this progressive movement. The board members are not fools - they are pursuing and advocating what they believe in, as deviant as that may be. The fools are the voters who continue spitting into the wind and electing the deviates.
It certainly seems that taxpayers, parents and other stakeholders should have the right to be heard at a school board meeting. Youth is not necessarily a qualification for a serious administrative position. A young person may have more recent, direct experience of a school district's services and a different perspective to share. But shutting citizens out of public discussion is not something that an elected official should be engaging in. A mature person should be able to engage with an opposing viewpoint.
The idea that a perspective, when framed as harmful or hateful, is then no longer needing to be addressed, is a striking one that echoes much of the censorship around free speech at the moment. Essentially, disagreement is being misconstrued as distaste towards an individual. That's a tricky path to go down. Thank you for bringing this case to light.
The only real purpose of all those mechanisms is to silence any opposition or criticism of the board and speaker. Bluntly, they're about maintaining power, not about improving civil discourse
There is no such thing as "hate speech" under the First Amendment. There is no exception that would make it illegal to say. So nobody who knows the laws would use the term seriously. It is, as you say, just a way to shut down criticism.
Exactly
Same as it ever was…
This regressive movement wants power and has developed this anti-racism ideology, irrationality, and doublespeak so that its power will be unquestioned, not even subject to question. This movement is allying with others, the only requirement being irrationality and hostility to traditional individual freedoms.
That parent should sue the school board for its unconstitutional denial of his/her right to speak. The suit should demand the antiracist ideology be extirpated from the school system and school board. It is anti-American and anti-human.
We are very, very close to becoming another North Korea, governed by a hateful, malevolent, implacable, and all-powerful, regressive directorate. G-d help us.
It's about quiet censorship, and good for this author for calling it out by name. We need to, whenever we run into this censorious impulse, quietly but firmly reject it's very premise. As in, "There is nothing in the least in my comments having to do with hate - please confine your comments to the actual content of what I said."
Also, when coming from a government official - whether elected or the hired help - such accusations may, in fact, still violate the First Amendment's restriction on government infringement of free speech. Labeling an individual's speech as unacceptable would sure seem an infringement ...
"There is nothing in the least in my comments having to do with hate - please confine your comments to the actual content of what I said." - Well said, Jim!
"My point was simple: experience can inform a discussion, but it should not determine who is right before the discussion begins."
Yes, I hate that you disagree with me, so it is hate speech. I hate your speech.
Creeping authoritarianism.
These are the soft cudgels Jon Rauch warned about long ago, still at work in (once) California’s Mayberry.
I would add to that , “I feel unsafe”. An insult to everyone in the world who are truly in an unsafe situation. Luxury victimhood.
Exactly!
It’s not creeping, it’s sprinting and it’s right behind you.
I can hear ‘em now. But as the Red Queen said to Alice , “It takes all the running you can do, just to stay in the same place”.
Only surprised that the school board didn't report her to CA state police as a potential "terrorist".
Can't do that with the Biden Administration anymore.
You may remember how the Biden administration treated parents at school board meetings as potential "terrorists" in response to a September 2021 letter from the National School Boards Association (NSBA) and an October 2021 Department of Justice (DOJ) memo. Attorney General Merrick Garland issued a memo directing the FBI and federal prosecutors to address the "disturbing spike in harassment, intimidation, and threats of violence" against school officials. Of course, after the Biden Administration threatened parents and chilled cricicism, it was "mission accomplished". The NSBA later apologized for the letter, stating there was "no justification" for some of the language used. Dollar late, dollar short ... the damage had already been done.
Maybe it's time to take a page from some of the anti-data center people: vote them out of office. In many cases the only way to change a group's thinking is to change the composition of the group itself.
This is all so true!
Great article, thank you!
This behavior is only enabled by voters who put them in place. Sane candidates need to be supported and publicized to offset this progressive movement. The board members are not fools - they are pursuing and advocating what they believe in, as deviant as that may be. The fools are the voters who continue spitting into the wind and electing the deviates.
It certainly seems that taxpayers, parents and other stakeholders should have the right to be heard at a school board meeting. Youth is not necessarily a qualification for a serious administrative position. A young person may have more recent, direct experience of a school district's services and a different perspective to share. But shutting citizens out of public discussion is not something that an elected official should be engaging in. A mature person should be able to engage with an opposing viewpoint.
Ezidore was born in 2004 or so. I'm not sure about the wisdom of electing teens or college age kids to leadership positions like this.
Hate speech = true things democrats don’t want uttered aloud.
The idea that a perspective, when framed as harmful or hateful, is then no longer needing to be addressed, is a striking one that echoes much of the censorship around free speech at the moment. Essentially, disagreement is being misconstrued as distaste towards an individual. That's a tricky path to go down. Thank you for bringing this case to light.