TRAITORS, suckers--American Psycho Association (APA) wants fed funding for spending on censorship

Apollonian

Guest Columnist

American Psychological Association Seeks Federal Funding For Censorship​

by Mac Slavo | SHTFPlan.com
January 18th 2024, 2:55 am

Link: https://www.infowars.com/posts/amer...ciation-seeks-federal-funding-for-censorship/

Association asking for federal funding from ruling class to help stop 'misinformation' online.

The American Psychological Association is going all in for a new psyop campaign, that’s centered around censorship. The association is asking for federal funding from the ruling class to help stop “misinformation” online.

This is an ongoing censorship campaign. In 2021, the APA accepted a $2 million grant from the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to help it control the mainstream COVID-19 narratives.

According to a report by Natural News, the APA was tasked with developing “a scientific consensus statement on the science of misinformation,” and a post on the APA’s website announcing the award claimed: “Psychologists can serve an important role in guiding the world out of the pandemic. We are the discipline with expertise to address vaccine decision-making and susceptibility to misinformation.”

Now that the APA has dipped its toe into the censorship agenda, it is asking the ruling class to fund it in doing so. In a self-serving post on its website, it outlined eight recommendations for countering misinformation. The APA lists funding psychological research studies as one of its solutions, explaining that large-scale trials will help them understand which “interventions” work best at combatting specific types of misinformation.

The subtitle reads: Specific ways to meet the ongoing risk of misinformation to health, well-being, and civic life
https://www.infowarsstore.com/catal...=banner&utm_content=DNAForceBlackFridaybanned
Just to be clear, when they refer to “civic life,” they are only referring to the slave class and what they are allowed to be exposed to information-wise.

The APA’s CEO, Arthur C. Evans, Jr. says that making sure the slave class stays that way, especially during a (s)election year is a top priority. He also bragged that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have tasked the APA with fighting misinformation and that the organization can help censor those who don’t buy the official narrative.

Considering the way that people who tried to share their concerns about COVID-19 vaccines were often mocked online for not believing in “science” by those on the left, it makes perfect sense that the APA and the CDC are so eager to spend money trying to find scientific justification for further censorship. –Natural News
The censorship and attempts to stop the free flow of ideas that threaten the ruling class will be ramped up as society quickly descends into the dystopia we all know is coming.
 
Last edited:


Jim Jordan’s ‘Amazon Files’ Reveals Biden White House Pressure On Company To Censor Books​

Link: https://www.womensystems.com/2024/02/jim-jordans-amazon-files-reveals-biden.html/

Women System February 06, 2024

Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) took to X/Twitter on Monday to post “never-before-released internal emails” subpoenaed by the House Judiciary GOP that he dubbed the “Amazon files,” which reveal “that the Biden White House pressured Amazon to censor books that expressed views the White House did not approve of.”
“Internal docs subpoenaed by @JudiciaryGOP & @Weaponization indicate that @amazon bowed down to Biden White House pressure to censor BOOKS,” Rep. Jordan announced at the start of his X/Twitter thread.

The congressman followed up with screenshots of the internal emails, one of which read, “Hi all — here are the notes for our Pre-brief discussion with the White House today.”
Beneath that was an item on an agenda, titled, “Books Curation and Guidelines 101,” and a bullet punt under it that asked, “Is the Admin asking us to remove books, or are they more concerned about search results/order (or both)?”

In another post, Rep. Jordan highlighted an internal email from March 2021, in which senior Biden White House official Andy Slavitt demanded to know who he and his Biden administration colleagues could talk to at Amazon about content they did not approve of on the website.

Jeff Bezos (Cooper Neill/Getty Images)
US President Joe Biden arrives to deliver his keynote speech at Ulster University in Belfast, during his visit to the island of Ireland. Picture date: Wednesday April 12, 2023. (Photo by Brian Lawless/PA Images via Getty Images)
US President Joe Biden (Photo by Brian Lawless/PA Images via Getty Images)
“Who can we talk to about the high levels of propaganda and misinformation and disinformation of Amazon?” the internal email read.
 

Government Funds AI Tools for Whole-of-Internet Surveillance and Censorship​

by Debbie Lerman | Brownstone Institute
February 12th 2024, 9:29 am

Link: https://www.infowars.com/posts/gove...hole-of-internet-surveillance-and-censorship/

[see vid at site link, above, at bottom of the article]

This is not a futuristic dystopia. It’s happening now.

I feel scared. Very scared.
Internet-wide surveillance and censorship, enabled by the unimaginably vast computational power of artificial intelligence (AI), is here.

This is not a futuristic dystopia. It’s happening now.
Government agencies are working with universities and nonprofits to use AI tools to surveil and censor content on the Internet.
This is not political or partisan. This is not about any particular opinion or idea.
https://www.infowarsstore.com/catal...utm_medium=banner&utm_content=wintersunbanned
What’s happening is that a tool powerful enough to surveil everything that’s said and done on the Internet (or large portions of it) is becoming available to the government to monitor all of us, all the time. And, based on that monitoring, the government – and any organization or company the government partners with – can then use the same tool to suppress, silence, and shut down whatever speech it doesn’t like.
But that’s not all. Using the same tool, the government and its public-private, “non-governmental” partners (think, for example: the World Health Organization, or Monsanto) can also shut down any activity that is linked to the Internet. Banking, buying, selling, teaching, learning, entertaining, connecting to each other – if the government-controlled AI does not like what you (or your kids!) say in a tweet or an email, it can shut down all of that for you.
Yes, we’ve seen this on a very local and politicized scale with, for example, the Canadian truckers.

But if we thought this type of activity could not, or would not, happen on a national (or even scarier – global) scale, we need to wake up right now and realize it’s happening, and it might not be stoppable.

New Documents Show Government-Funded AI Intended for Online Censorship​

The US House Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government was formed in January 2023 “to investigate matters related to the collection, analysis, dissemination, and use of information on US citizens by executive branch agencies, including whether such efforts are illegal, unconstitutional, or otherwise unethical.”
Unfortunately, the work of the committee is viewed, even by its own members, as largely political: Conservative lawmakers are investigating what they perceive to be the silencing of conservative voices by liberal-leaning government agencies.
Nevertheless, in its investigations, this committee has uncovered some astonishing documents related to government attempts to censor the speech of American citizens.
These documents have crucial and terrifying all-of-society implications.
In the Subcommittee’s interim report, dated February 5, 2024, documents show that academic and nonprofit groups are pitching a government agency on a plan to use AI “misinformation services” to censor content on internet platforms.
Specifically, the University of Michigan is explaining to the National Science Foundation (NSF) that the AI-powered tools funded by the NSF can be used to help social media platforms perform censorship activities without having to actually make the decisions on what should be censored.
Here’s how the relationship is visualized in the Subcommittee’s report:
Screen-Shot-2024-02-10-at-12.50.00-PM-800x450.png

Here’s a specific quote presented in the Subcommittee’s report. It comes from “Speaker’s notes from the University of Michigan’s first pitch to the National Science Foundation (NSF) about its NSF-funded, AI-powered WiseDex tool.” The notes are on file with the committee.
Our misinformation service helps policy makers at platforms who want to…push responsibility for difficult judgments to someone outside the company…by externalizing the difficult responsibility of censorship.
This is an extraordinary statement on so many levels:
  1. It explicitly equates “misinformation service” with censorship.
This is a crucial equation, because governments worldwide are pretending to combat harmful misinformation when in fact they are passing massive censorship bills. The WEF declared “misinformation and disinformation” the “most severe global risks” in the next two years, which presumably means their biggest efforts will go toward censorship.
When a government contractor explicitly states that it is selling a “misinformation service” that helps online platforms “externalize censorship” – the two terms are acknowledged as being interchangeable.
  1. It refers to censorship as a “responsibility.”
In other words, it assumes that part of what the platforms should be doing is censorship. Not protecting children from sex predators or innocent citizens from misinformation – just plain and simple, unadulterated censorship.
  1. It states that the role of AI is to “externalize” the responsibility for censorship.
The Tech platforms do not want to make censorship decisions. The government wants to make those decisions but does not want to be seen as censoring. The AI tools allow the platforms to “externalize” the censorship decisions and the government to hide its censorship activities.
All of this should end the illusion that what governments around the world are calling “countering misinformation and hate speech” is not straight-up censorship.

What Happens When AI Censorship is Fully Implemented?​

Knowing that the government is already paying for AI censorship tools, we have to wrap our minds around what this entails.
No manpower limits: As the Subcommittee report points out, the limits to government online censorship have, up to now, involved the large numbers of humans required to go through endless files and make censorship decisions. With AI, barely any humans need to be involved, and the amount of data that can be surveilled can be as vast as everything anyone says on a particular platform. That amount of data is incomprehensible to an individual human brain.
No one is responsible: One of the most frightening aspects of AI censorship is that when AI does it, there is no human being or organization – be it the government, the platforms, or the university/nonprofits – who is actually responsible for the censorship. Initially, humans feed the AI tool instructions for what categories or types of language to censor, but then the machine goes ahead and makes the case-by-case decisions all by itself.
No recourse for grievances: Once AI is unleashed with a set of censorship instructions, it will sweep up gazillions of online data points and apply censorship actions. If you want to contest an AI censorship action, you will have to talk to the machine. Maybe the platforms will employ humans to respond to appeals. But why would they do that, when they have AI that can automate those responses?
No protection for young people: One of the claims made by government censors is that we need to protect our children from harmful online information, like content that makes them anorexic, encourages them to commit suicide, turns them into ISIS terrorists, and so on. Also from sexual exploitation. These are all serious issues that deserve attention. But they are not nearly as dangerous to vast numbers of young people as AI censorship is.
The danger posed by AI censorship applies to all young people who spend a lot of time online, because it means their online activities and language can be monitored and used against them – maybe not now, but whenever the government decides to go after a particular type of language or behavior. This is a much greater danger to a much greater number of children than the danger posed by any specific content, because it encompasses all the activity they conduct online, touching on nearly every aspect of their lives.
Here’s an example to illustrate this danger: Let’s say your teenager plays lots of interactive video games online. Let’s say he happens to favor games designed by Chinese companies. Maybe he also watches others play those games, and participates in chats and discussion groups about those games, in which a lot of Chinese nationals also participate.
The government may decide next month, or next year, that anyone heavily engaged in Chinese-designed video games is a danger to democracy. This might result in shutting down your son’s social media accounts or denying him access to financial tools, like college loans. It might also involve flagging him on employment or dating websites as dangerous or undesirable. It might mean he is denied a passport or put on a watchlist.
Your teenager’s life just got a lot more difficult. Much more difficult than if he was exposed to an ISIS recruitment video or suicide-glorifying TikTok post. And this would happen on a much larger scale than the sexual exploitation the censors are using as a Trojan Horse for normalizing the idea of online government censorship.
Monetize-able censorship services: An AI tool owned by the government can theoretically be used by a non-governmental entity with the government’s permission, and with the blessing of the platforms that want to “externalize” the “responsibility” for censorship. So while the government might be using AI to monitor and suppress, let’s say as an example, anti-war sentiment – a company could use it to monitor and suppress, let’s say as an example, anti-fast food sentiment. The government could make a lot of money selling the services of the AI tools to 3rd parties. The platforms could also conceivably ask for a cut. Thus, AI censorship tools can potentially benefit the government, tech platforms, and private corporations. The incentives are so powerful, it’s almost impossible to imagine that they will not be exploited.

Can We Reverse Course?​

I do not know how many government agencies and how many platforms are using AI censorship tools. I do not know how quickly they can scale up.
I do not know what tools we have at our disposal – other than raising awareness and trying to lobby politicians and file lawsuits to prevent government censorship and regulate the use of AI tools on the internet.
If anyone has any other ideas, now would be the time to implement them.
 

State Department Threatens Congress Over Censorship Programs​

BY TYLER DURDEN
SUNDAY, FEB 18, 2024 - 07:10 AM
Authored by Matt Taibbi via Racket News,

Link: https://www.zerohedge.com/political/state-department-threatens-congress-over-censorship-programs/

A year after its censorship programs were exposed, the Global Engagement Center still insists the public has no right to know how it's spending taxpayer money...


The State Department is so unhappy a newspaper published details about where it’s been spending your taxes, it’s threatened to only show a congressional committee its records in camera until it gets a “better understanding of how the Committee will utilize this sensitive information.” Essentially, Tony Blinken is threatening to take his transparency ball home unless details about what censorship programs he’s sponsoring stop appearing in papers like the Washington Examiner:

The State Department tells Congress, which controls its funding, that it will only disclose where it spent our money “in camera”
A year ago the Examiner published “Disinformation, Inc.”, a series by investigative reporter Gabe Kaminsky describing how the State Department was backing a UK-based agency that creates digital blacklists for disfavored media outlets. Your taxes helped fund the Global Disinformation Index, or GDI, which proudly touts among its services an Orwellian horror called the Dynamic Exclusion List, a digital time-out corner where at least 2,000 websites were put on blast as unsuitable for advertising, “thus disrupting the ad-funded disinformation business model.”

The culprit was the Global Engagement Center, a little-known State Department entity created in Barack Obama’s last year in office and a surprise focus of Twitter Files reporting. The GEC grew out of a counter-terrorism agency called the CSCC and has a mission to “counter” any messaging, foreign or domestic as it turns out, that they see as “undermining or influencing the policies, security, or stability of the United States.” The GEC-funded GDI rated ten conservative sites as most “risky” and put the Examiner on its “exclusion” list, while its ten sites rated at the “lowest level of disinformation” included Buzzfeed, which famously published the Steele Dossier knowing it contained errors and is now out of business.
In an effort to find out what other ventures GEC was funding — an absurd 36 of 39 2018 contractors were redacted even in an Inspector General’s report — the House Small Business Committee wrote the State Department last June asking for basic information about where the public’s money was being spent. State and GEC stalled until December 3 of last year, when it finally produced a partial list of recipients. Although House Republicans asked for an “unredacted list of all GEC grant recipients and associated award numbers” from 2019 through the current year, the list the Committee received was missing “dozens” of contractors, including some listed on USASpending.com.
The Examiner and Kaminsky subsequently wrote an article slamming GEC for sending “incomplete” records of the censorship investigation, in the process including links to a “snippet” of the GEC’s contractors:

In response to the outrage of this disclosure, the State Department sent its letter threatening in camera sessions until it gets a better “understanding” of how the Committee will use its “sensitive” information. That’s Beltway-ese for “We wouldn’t mind knowing the Examiner’s sources.”
About that: the State letter wrote that the Examiner’s records were “reportedly obtained from the Committee,” and included a footnote and a link to a Kaminsky story, implying that the Examiner reported that it got the records from the Committee. But the paper said nothing about the source of the documents, which as anyone who’s ever covered these types of stories knows, could have come from any number of places. It’s a small but revealing detail about current petulance levels at State.
“Anti-disinformation” work is not exactly hypersonic missile construction. There’s no legitimate reason for it to be kept from the public, especially since it’s increasingly clear its programs target American media companies and American media consumers, seemingly in violation of the State Department’s mission. The requested information is also not classified, making the delays and tantrums more ridiculous.
There are simply too many agencies that have adopted the attitude that the entire federal government is one giant intelligence service, entitled to secret budgeting and an oversight-free existence. They need pushback on this score and have at last started to get it. Thanks in significant part to the Examiner as well as lawsuits by The Federalist, Daily Wire, and Consortium News, the latest National Defense Authorization Act included for the first time a provision banning the Pentagon from using “any advertiser for recruitment that uses biased censorship entities like NewsGuard and GDI,” as a congressional spokesperson put it in December. We’ll see how it pans out, but congress withholding money for domestic spy programs is at least a possible solution, now in play.
Perhaps it’s time for the State Department to receive a similar wake-up call. If GEC wants to put conditions on disclosure, can we put conditions on paying taxes? SMH, SMH…

MORE POLITICAL STORIES ON ZEROHEDGE​


"12 Fellas Down. 1 To Go": Nikki Haley Has Terrible, No Good, Very Bad Weekend On Social Media​



Drug-Use, Robberies, & Public Sex: Cali Public Library Forced To Close Due To Rampant Illegal Activity​



Understanding The Trump Phenomenon: It's Not What The Elites Think​


 

Senate GOP Probe National Science Foundation Over ‘Brazen Attempt’ To Censor Free Speech​

FEBRUARY 23, 2024

Link: https://www.yourdestinationnow.com/2024/02/senate-gop-probe-national-science.html/

The U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF) is facing pressure from Senate Republicans after a report revealed efforts to combat alleged misinformation.
Sen. Eric Schmitt (R-MO) sent a letter to NSF Director Dr. Sethuraman Panchanathan on Friday requesting a “comprehensive list of projects funded by the NSF Convergence Accelerator Track F.” Through the program, the NSF has spent tens of millions of dollars to “combat mis- and disinformation,” according to The Daily Caller News Foundation.

“To say that NSF’s reported involvement in funding research projects aimed at developing AI tools for identifying and combating alleged misinformation is un-American would be an understatement,” Schmitt wrote in the letter, obtained by The Daily Wire. “This seems to be yet another brazen attempt by your agency and the Biden Administration to collude with Big Tech to silence those who eschew the thoughts and ideals of the political Left.”
Schmitt’s request follows a report on the NSF program by the House Judiciary Committee.
“The purpose of these taxpayer-funded projects is to develop artificial intelligence (AI)- powered censorship and propaganda tools that can be used by governments and Big Tech to shape public opinion by restricting certain viewpoints or promoting others,” the report said according to the DCNF.
The NSF has dolled out sizeable grants to top U.S. universities to track and study online discourse for examples of misinformation and disinformation. Syracuse University received nearly $500,000 to study how “misinformation becomes woven into narratives online, how technology influences this process, and how design might be used to alter it.”
Researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology received $750,000 from the program. One of the researchers wrote in a project proposal summary to the NSF that “broad swaths of the public cannot effectively sort truth from fiction online.”

The NSF program has already been the target of subpoenas by Republicans in the House.
“The Biden Administration has shown a stunning disregard for Americans’ freedom of speech online and has gone as far as to coerce social media companies to censor Americans online,” Schmitt told The Daily Wire in a statement. “With the rapid rise of artificial intelligence in the public and commercial sector, we have a duty to ensure AI is used responsibly and not weaponized against Americans’ constitutional rights.”

 

We Are Being Systemically Blinded​

by Bret Weinstein | Brownstone Institute
March 6th 2024, 4:38 pm

Link: https://www.infowars.com/posts/we-are-being-systemically-blinded/

[see vids at site link, above]

Bret Weinstein warns: "We have literally witnessed the Department of Homeland Security attempt to set up a truth ministry and declare accurate critique of government as a kind of terrorism."

[This testimony was given at the US Senate, Monday, February 26, 2024.]
Ladies and gentlemen, I believe we must zoom out if we are to understand the pattern we are gathered to explore, because the pattern is larger than the Federal Health Agencies and Covid Cartel. If we do zoom out and ask ‘What they are hiding?’, the answer becomes as obvious as it is disturbing: they are hiding everything.

It will be jarring for many to hear a scientist speak with such certainty. It should be jarring. We are trained to present ideas with caution, as hypotheses in need of a test. But in this case I have tested the idea and I am as certain of this as I am of anything. We are being systematically blinded. It is the only explanation I have encountered that not only describes the present, but also, in my experience, predicts the future with all but perfect accuracy.
The pattern is a simple one. You can see it clearly, and test it yourself: every single institution dedicated to public truth-seeking is under simultaneous attack–they are all in a state of collapse. Every body of experts fails utterly. Individual experts who resist, or worse, who attempt to return their institutions to sanity are coerced into submission.
If they won’t buckle, they are marginalized or forced out. Those outside the institutions who either seek truth alone, or who build new institutions with a truth-seeking mission, face merciless attacks on both their integrity and expertise–often by the very institutions whose mission they refuse to abandon.
https://www.infowarsstore.com/catal...utm_medium=banner&utm_content=wintersunbanned
There is a saying in military circles: once is a mistake. Twice is a coincidence. Three times is enemy action. I have no doubt that given an hour, the people on this panel could point to a hundred examples of the pattern I have just described, while finding even a handful of exceptions would pose a significant challenge.
We are left in a fool’s paradise:
Our research universities spend huge sums of public money to reach preordained conclusions.

Professors teach only lessons that are consistent with wisdom students have picked up on TikTok—even when those lessons contradict the foundational principles of their discipline.
Once proud Newspapers like the NYT and WP only report important stories after they have become common knowledge.
Morticians must now raise the alarm over patterns missed by medical examiners.
The CDC has become an excellent guide to protecting your health, but only for people who realize you should do the opposite of whatever it advises.
The courts–the last holdout in this ongoing inversion of reality–are now regularly used as a coercive weapon of elites against those who threaten their power.
We have literally witnessed the Department of Homeland Security attempt to set up a truth ministry and declare accurate critique of government as a kind of terrorism.
To my fellow patriots of the West, the pattern is unmistakable. I cannot tell you with any certainty who they are, or what they hope to accomplish.
But I can tell you that we are being systematically denied the tools of the Enlightenment, and the rights guaranteed in our Constitution. We—those who remain dedicated to the values of the West–must fight this battle courageously, and we must win, for if we do not stem the tide, the result will be a dark age that differs from prior dark ages only in the power and sophistication of the coercive instruments that will be wielded by those who will rule us.


Watch: Democratic Leaders Tell America That Illegal Aliens Come First
 

Democrats Cry Foul as Anti-Free Speech Allies Turn Against Them​

by Jonathan Turley | Jonathanturley.org
April 8th 2024, 4:56 pm

Link: https://www.infowars.com/posts/democrats-cry-foul-as-anti-free-speech-allies-turn-against-them/

After years of supporting censorship and blacklisting of people with opposing views, politicians and academics are finding themselves the subjects of the very anti-free speech tactics that they helped foster.

Censorship and blacklisting create an insatiable appetite. While Democrats fostered such efforts to silence conservatives and dissenters on vaccines, climate change, abortion, transgenderism and other issues, they now find themselves pursued by the very mobs that they once led.

Below is my column in The Hill on the recent disruptions of events featuring leading Democrats from President Joe Biden to Rep. Jamie Raskin. After years of supporting the censoring and blacklisting of others, these politicians are now being targeted by the very anti-free speech movement that they once fostered. Hillary Clinton last week became the latest Democrat targeted by protesters in a visit to her alma mater, Wellesley College.
Here is the column:

You are “killing people,” President Biden told social media companies a couple of years ago. He sought to shame executives into censoring more Americans. Biden has lashed out at disinformation by anti-vaxxers, “election deniers” and others. This month, those words were thrown back at Biden himself as a “genocide denier” by protesters who have labeled him “Genocide Joe” over his support for Israel.
After years of supporting censorship and blacklisting of people with opposing views, politicians and academics are finding themselves the subjects of the very anti-free speech tactics that they helped foster.
Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), for example, has been a leading figure in Congress opposing efforts to curtail massive censorship programs coordinated by the Biden administration. While opposing the investigation into past federal censorship efforts, Raskin continues to push social media companies to increase the censorship and silencing of Americans. Last December, Raskin sent a letter on behalf of other Democrats on the powerful House Oversight Committee demanding even more censorship, not only on election fraud, COVID or climate change, but also on abortion.
https://www.infowarsstore.com/healt...anner&utm_content=DJNFoundationalEnergybanned
“We are troubled by the rapid spread of abortion misinformation and disinformation on your company’s social media platform,” he wrote, “and the threat this development poses to safe abortion access in the United States.”
When journalists and even other members testified in favor of free speech, Democrats attacked them as “Putin lovers” and fellow travelers supporting “insurrectionists.”
Last week, however, the left turned on Raskin. He was giving a lecture titled “Democracy, Autocracy and the Threat to Reason in the 21st Century.” According to the Maryland Reporter, the protesters accused Raskin of being “complicit in genocide.” After efforts to resume his remarks, University of Maryland President Darryll Pines finally ended the event early.

Pines then pulled a Raskin. While mildly criticizing the students for their lack of “civility,” he defended their disruption of Raskin’s remarks as if a heckler’s veto were free speech. “What you saw play out actually was democracy and free speech and academic freedom,” he said. “From our perspective as a university, these are the difficult conversations that we should be having.”
There was, of course, no real conversation because this was not the exercise but the denial of free speech. The protesters were engaging in “deplatforming,” which is common on our campuses, where students and faculty organize to prevent others from hearing opposing views.
So, after years of Raskin encouraging the censorship of others, the mob finally came for him. The yawning response of the university was not unlike his own past response to journalists, professors and dissents who have come before his committee.
The only “difficult” aspect of this conversation is for university figures like Pines who are called upon to defend the free speech rights of speakers or faculty. They need to show the courage and principle required to uphold the free speech commitment of higher education, even at the risk of being targeted themselves. That includes the sanctioning of students who prevent others from hearing opposing views in classrooms and event forums. These students have every right to protest outside such spaces, but higher education is premised on the free exchange of ideas. There is really no further “conversation” needed, just a letter of suspension or expulsion for those who deprive others of their rights.
Deplatforming is the rage on our campuses. Universities often use it to cancel events for conservatives or controversial speakers. Often officials will sit idly by, refusing to remove protesters or deter disruptions. And that can lead to self-help measures by others.
Last week, Walter Isaacson, former CEO of CNN and the Aspen Institute, was accused of assaulting a Tulane student protester, Rory MacDonald, during an event held off campus. Isaacson, 72, who teaches at Tulane, was attending the university-sponsored event and had had enough when MacDonald became the eighth protester to stop the event. He stood up and shoved MacDonald into the hall.
MacDonald insisted that he and his fellow protesters were merely “peacefully interrupting” the event to stop others from speaking. He displayed slight scratch marks and is quoted as expressing a fear of returning to campus after the incident. Protests have been held on campus to have Isaacson fired.

I have long criticized the growing anti-free speech movement in higher education. Yet these students have been taught for years that “speech is violence” and harmful. They have also been told by figures such as Pines that silencing others is an act of free speech. Academics and deans have said that there is no free speech protection for offensive or “disingenuous” speech. In one instance, former CUNY Law Dean Mary Lu Bilek insisted that disrupting a speech on free speech is itself free speech.
Even schools that purportedly forbid such interruptions rarely punish students who engage in them. For example, students disrupted a Northwestern class due to a guest speaker from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (after the class had heard from an undocumented immigrant). The university let the protesters into the room after they promised not to disrupt the class. They proceeded to stop the class and then gave interviews to the media proudly disclosing their names and celebrating the cancellation. Northwestern did nothing beyond express “disappointment.”
At Stanford, law students prevented a federal judge from speaking. When the judge asked for law school officials present to intervene, former Stanford DEI Dean Tirien Steinbach stepped forward and attacked the conservative judge for triggering the students by sharing his views. After a national outcry, Stanford President Marc Tessier-Lavigne and Law School Dean Jenny Martinez issued a joint apology that notably did not include punishment for a single student.
These schools are enablers of the anti-free speech movement as much as figures like Raskin.
For years, academics supported such mobs or remained silent as their colleagues were cancelled or fired. Now they are suddenly discovering the value of free speech as the mob comes for them.
Censorship and blacklisting create an insatiable appetite. While Democrats fostered such efforts to silence conservatives and dissenters on vaccines, climate change, abortion, transgenderism and other issues, they now find themselves pursued by the very mobs that they once led. Just two years ago, Biden was celebrated for denouncing social media executives as “killers” for allowing free speech. Now he, Raskin, and others are accused of killing others with “Zionist disinformation.”
It is an epiphany that often comes too late. During the French Revolution, journalist Jacques Mallet du Pan remarked that “like Saturn, the Revolution devours its children.”
 
Back
Top