Mediaboss Marketing

On August 1, 2016, Ben Shapiro, a conservative American political commentator, was notified that DePaul Universitys administration had banned him from speaking at the university due to security concerns. The Washington Times reported that Shapiro called the ban an assault on free speech.

Shapiro further stated:

Its both pathetic and predictable that the university is happy to grant a veto on speakers to snowflake leftists so long as the leftists threaten violence. He told The Daily Wire. This is how free speech dies: when people in power cave to the bullies rather than standing up for basic rights.

This drama continued November 16, 2016, when DePaul University, again banned Ben Shapiro from speaking at a public event sponsored by the DePaul chapter of Young Americans for Freedom; the talk was on campus intolerance. Not only was Shapiro refused entry to participate as a speaker at this event, he was also refused admittance as an audience member.

The Claremont Independent reported that, Pulitzer Prize winning author, George Will, was dis-invited to speak at, Scripps College ninth annual Elizabeth Hubert Malott Public Affairs Program. The mission of this program is to bring speakers to campus whose political views differ from the majority of students at the all-womens college.

It appeared the dis-invitation was due to a recent column Will wrote on sexual harassment on college campuses.

Neither Shapiro or Will were allowed to exercise their freedom of speech and academic expression in the very halls that are supposed to teach students about wide ranging perspectives, culture, and viewpoints.

Instead, there is a trend that demonstrates that higher education is being drowned out by liberal cries for greater tolerance.

However, what is tolerance if the very actions that defend tolerance instead demonstrate intolerance?

What does it mean, if you only hear what you prefer to hear, and not truly hear what other people are saying? What does it say, if you resort to violence to force others to stop a free exchange of ideas and thoughts?

Is that truly being tolerant? Or are violent acts an acceptable means to actively engage in intolerance under the false guise of being accepting?

This backlash against liberal intolerance is even starting to reverberate even with other self-professed liberals.

Just two years ago, President Obama gave a speech about this same issue and stated, Ive heard of some college campuses where they dont want to have a guest speaker who is too conservative. Or they dont want to read a book if it has language that is offensive to African-Americans, or somehow sends a demeaning signal towards women. I dont agree that you, when you become students at colleges, have to be coddled and protected from different points of view.

Is it really acceptable to cast out a speaker or initiate violence just because someone else says things that you disagree with?

Such discriminatory actions undercut the very freedoms that are defined within the U.S. Constitution; the ones that afford all Americans the right to speak freely.

This kind of dangerous thinking certainly hints at fascism and undermines core American values.

The purpose of going to a college or university is not just to get a degree, its also to be exposed to a variety of views and ideologies. When ideas go unrepresented in key discussions it turns classrooms into echo chambers rather than sounding boards.

According to a study conducted by the Association for Psychological Science, over a third of social psychologists admitted to discriminating against conservatives, even if they are qualified for a position. If liberals are so interested in having more acceptance and more tolerance in America then they should focus not only on others, but on themselves.

You can blame everyone else all you want, but true change wont occur until you change yourself.

You must accept peoples right to have a differing opinion than your own, and you must understand and realize that not everyone will agree with you. This doesnt make them a racist, a misogynist, or a homophobe it simply means that they have a different point of view.

During the 2016 presidential election both major parties provided further evidence that labeling people who have differing viewpoints does not always work. If you want to create change, insults are less useful than discourse. Americans should, and need to, debate ideas and differing perspectives, but such a debate cannot occur if only one perspective is allowed to speak.

Being close-minded towards other avenues of thought doesnt demonstrate tolerance, it demonstrates rudeness. It demonstrates a lack of flexibility and openness. It demonstrates intolerance.

A commonly used quote that applies to both family and friendships is, If you want to stay friends, dont talk about politics. Why should that be? Why shouldnt people be able to freely discuss varying political thought without jeopardizing both familial relationships and friendships? If people truly want to unite this country then they must realize that you cant always blame the other side for your problems, you have to take responsibility; not just on common issues, but on the acceptance that all perspectives should be allowed the same freedoms and tolerances you yourself are asking be given to you. Ask for greater tolerance of all thought, not just your own.

* Ryan Kuo is a student attending Oregon State University for his BS in political science.

The main BeingLibertarian.com account, used for editorials and guest author submissions. The views expressed here belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect our views and opinions. Contact the Editor at editor@beinglibertarian.email

Like Loading...

Go here to see the original:
The Intolerance of Thought - Being Libertarian

In the past decade, America has experienced an increase in identity politics, centered on race, gender, sexual orientation, and class status. This, combined with a two-party system, has resulted in very divided far Left and far Right ideologies. Identity has become a cornerstone of American politics.

This mindset only serves to further drive the wedge between the Left and the Right, observed through the recent riots at UC Berkeley, where a Left-wing fascist group, ironically calling themselves Antifa (short for Anti-Fascists), deemed violence an appropriate method to silence those whose opinions they disagree with. This collectivist mindset has swept across politics recently, and is now commonplace in the Left-wing progressive movement.

These are people who pretend to be protecting the rights of minority groups, like gays and blacks, but who are quick to label anyone from these minority groups as traitors, coons, and Uncle Toms if they fail to fall in line and preach their message. They fail to see how these people are not part of a group mindset, but are actually individuals with their own opinions and ability to think for themselves. This failure has led to Orwellian ideas like wrongthink, the idea that someones thoughts or expressed opinions can somehow be dangerous and must be met with violence to defend oneself from being assaulted. This of course is a ridiculous and draconian mindset to have.

Of course, as one may expect, the rise of identity politics on the Left has begun to seep into the Right as well, though it is not quite mainstream enough to be able to point to any solid examples. One can easily point to the Left and find numerous examples of identity politics run amok, but the Right has far fewer instances where this is plainly seen. Even the Alt-Right, which also often resorts to name calling and ridicule of anyone who disagrees with them, is more inclusive than far-Left groups.

Libertarianism has no place for identity politics; each person, despite his race, class, gender, or sexual orientation is seen to be an individual and is judged as such. This is why it can be difficult to find two libertarians who agree with one another on many issues outside of the ideologys core principles of property rights, individual freedoms, and so on.

The Libertarian Party is quickly becoming the bastion of individualism, a place for all people to come together and express their ideas without fear of reprisal or violence simply because their ideas do not conform to the collectivist mindset of the Left.

The group mindset is failing, and when the disenfranchised have realized that neither major party supports all of their personal ideals, they will begin to search for something new. The Libertarian Party stands to gain much traction from this shift away from collectivist group-think towards individualist ideology.

When identity politics divides the country into small groups who hate one another, individualism suddenly becomes a uniting force. As such, libertarianism outdoes any other political ideology.

So, to the women, minorities, members of the LGBT community, and anyone else who feels that these characteristics are arbitrary and do not actually define who they are and what they should believe, as the far-Left expects they should, the Libertarian Party is here and we welcome you.

Lets try freedom for a change.

* Christopher Lee McKitrick is a 29 year old New Hampshire native, a US Army veteran, and beer enthusiast. In his free time he enjoys hiking, writing, and reading.

The main BeingLibertarian.com account, used for editorials and guest author submissions. The views expressed here belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect our views and opinions. Contact the Editor at editor@beinglibertarian.email

Like Loading...

Excerpt from:
Identity Politics and Libertarianism - Being Libertarian

At the close of 2016, senior Breitbart editor and banned Twitter user, Milo Yiannopoulos, announced a quarter-of-a-million-dollar book deal with Simon and Schuster. The announcement inspired a deluge of Internet uproar against both the publishing house and the self-proclaimed Internet super-villain, with the mainstream media falsely labeling Milo as a white nationalist and crowning him the poster child of the alt-right (Milo isnt even a member of the movement).

Most troubling, however, were the calls for censorship, not only from celebrities (which is to be expected), but also from members of the publishing industry, an industry which very existence is contingent upon the exercise of freedom of expression. Whats worse, the calls for censorship have morphed into violent protests, as seen at UC Berkely, UC Davis, and the University of Washington. These reactions illustrate that an anti-speech culture is alive and well in the United States, and if we are not vigilant the First Amendments guarantee of freedom of expression may be at risk.

The Left used to be associated with elements of classical liberalism, notably Evelyn Beatrice Halls I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. If we take a look at what the progressive movement has become, it is clear that the anti-speech culture has taken a stranglehold on the ideology. Although the anti-speech culture has found a home in the progressive Left, it certainly isnt endemic to it. Consider the 1990s when conservatives sought to sensor violent video games and media that were not congruent with family values; in the post-9/11 era of patriotism, criticism of United States foreign policy was condemned as unpatriotic, and possibly even sympathetic to terrorism. In our current age of the social justice warrior, speaking outside of the progressive Lefts tightly-restricted narrative earns accusations of hate speech, racism, and misogyny.

At least, that is what students chant as they violently protest Milos speaking engagements. They even go so far as to claim that his very presence on campus makes them feel unsafe (as if one needs to be kept safe from ideas). But if you look past his Loki-esque antics and outrageous headlines, Milos positions are well within the parameters of the mainstream Republican and Libertarian platforms. The most unconventional aspect of him is the fact that he is a flamboyantly gay supporter of Donald Trump. Milos methods, however, are where he stands out from other conservative pundits, such as Ben Shapiro or Tomi Lahren. His unapologetic conservatism combined with his penchant for provocation make him an easy target for anti-speech crusaders.

Milo, much like a stand-up comedian, sees the pearl-clutching and grievance-taking aspects of the anti-speech culture as golden opportunities for creating satirical humor. The titles of his speeches (e.g., Why do Lesbians Fake so Many Hate Crimes?) and his article headlines (e.g., Would You Rather Your Child Have Feminism or Cancer?) are purposely outrageous to send shock waves through politically correct circles. This makes it easy for his detractors to rip the humor from his words so that they can make him the bigoted monster they claim he is. When a society becomes overly restrictive of expression, provocateurs inevitably arise to challenge the status quo: Take, for instance, George Carlin (Save the children? F*** the children!), Trey Parker and Matt Stone (America? F*** Yeah!), and now Milo (Darling, F*** your feelings!). Milo straddles the worlds of comedic provocateur and conservative thinker. For those on the Left already predisposed to disliking what he has to say, the line between satire and serious commentary becomes blurred, garnering outrage and calls for censorship.

Some of the vehement opposition to Milo is rooted in the flawed belief that we have the right to be protected from speech that offends. This is, of course, lunacy: One has the freedom to practice any given religion but not the freedom to live in a country where that religion is free from criticism, for example. This often comes up in discussions of Milos supposed Islamophobia, as hes made numerous comments critiquing Islam. But criticism of religion is one of the primary vehicles by which religions adapt to modern society. Moreover, people conflate exercising their constitutional rights with being protected from criticism for doing so. To demand to live in a country where you are protected from criticizing or offensive speech is to say that your feelings are more important than someone elses constitutional right to free expression.

There is also the flawed belief that there is some hate speech exception to the First Amendment. Hate speech is defined as speech that offends, threatens, or insults groups based on race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, disability, or other personal traits. With such a broad definition, nearly any speech could be categorized as hate speech. George Carlins jokes at the expense of Christianity could be considered hate speech; speaking out against an incumbent president could be considered hate speech; offensive art or burning the flag could be considered hate speech. The effective definition of hate speech can be wholly determined by societal passions, which are fluid and subject to change. Whatever Milos beliefs and comments regarding Islam, feminism, or Black Lives Matter, categorizing them as hate speech shouldnt be a factor in allowing him to express them, whether in talks at college campuses or in his upcoming memoir. Protecting non-offensive speech is easy. One could argue that the entire existence of the right to free expression is to specifically protect speech that is unpopular.

You may be asking why this is important. Everything Ive discussed, from calls for censorship, to violent protests, to social media bans are all within the realm of culture, not legislation. You could even argue that private social media companies are free to enforce their community standards as they see fit, with which I would agree.

Culture precedes legislation; wars won on the cultural front today will often find their way to the politicians pen tomorrow. We need only to gaze across the Atlantic to see that free expression is under assault in Western civilization, from the banning of pro-life websites in France to prison sentences for Holocaust deniers in Germany. Granted, Europe has never had quite the zeal for free expression that we do, but the restrictions placed on free speech in Europe are the result of the same flawed reasoning that opposes Milos freedom of expression here. More than that, we are witnessing growing justification for violent action against unpopular speech, evidenced by the attacks that have taken place on Richard Spencer, Muslims, and U.S. President Donald Trumps supporters. Restricting unpopular expression is a slippery slope with no end.

Freedom of expression is the bedrock upon which all other liberties stand; we should be thankful to people such as Milo for courageously drawing out and critiquing the anti-speech culture so that we may resist their attempted repression.

Featured image: Screen shot of a segment from Fox News of the riots at UC Berkely.

* Augustus is the CEO of Claudius Publishing and the editor-in-chief of Claudius Speaks, a literary journal that focuses on publishing undiscovered writers and artists. She is completing a masters in mathematics and, in her spare time, blogs about libertarian issues on her website, http://www.kaugustus.com.

The main BeingLibertarian.com account, used for editorials and guest author submissions. The views expressed here belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect our views and opinions. Contact the Editor at editor@beinglibertarian.email

Like Loading...

Read more here:
Dum Milo, Spero: The Importance of Milo Yiannopoulos for Freedom of Speech - Being Libertarian

Being Libertarian

Poor White Privilege Being Libertarian As I was browsing through MSN.com yesterday, I caught a story out of Westport, Connecticut about an essay contest about what white privilege means. It was not a sponsored link, but a top news story put on by the town's diversity committee. The essay ...

Read the original:
Poor White Privilege - Being Libertarian

There were some unhappy people at this weekend's libertarian conference when they found Richard Spencer in the building.

Videos posted to social media Saturday showed the white nationalist, often associated with the alt-right movement, attracted a crowd at the International Students for Liberty Conference at a Washington, D.C., hotel.

Sitting at a table with a large white sign bearing his name, Spencer was met with chants of "fuck you," but offered to talk with those who were willing. He mentioned he was invited to speak at the conference by people attending the event, though one account, citing a libertarian press source, disputed the claim.

Spencer broached topics such as President Trump's travel ban and getting sucker-punched in the face in Washington, D.C., in January.

Stay abreast of the latest developments from nation's capital and beyond with curated News Alerts from the Washington Examiner news desk and delivered to your inbox.

Sorry, there was a problem processing your email signup. Please try again later.

Processing...

Thank you for signing up for Washington Examiner News Alerts. You should receive your first alert soon!

At one point Spencer called Jeffrey Spencer, the content director for the Foundation for Economic Education, "totally awful."

Later, Tucker himself confronted Spencer, saying, "You don't belong here. Students for Liberty opposes everything that you stand for." He called Spencer a "troll," a "fascist" and a "liar."

Spencer made headlines in November after he gave a toast in Washington, D.C., that drew approving Nazi-style salutes from several conferencegoers. "Hail Trump! Hail our people! Hail victory!" boomed Spencer, popularizer of the term "alt-right" to describe white nationalists, at a National Policy Institute gathering in the Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade Center.

Spencer then extended his right arm with a glass to toast that victory. Most members of the audience cheered. Some can be seen in a video excerpt of a forthcoming documentary extending their right arms and palms instead in unmistakable Nazi-style salutes.

Also from the Washington Examiner

Republicans have yet to make a major move on issues like tax reform and repealing Obamacare.

02/19/17 12:00 AM

Multiple accounts on social media said Spencer was eventually removed from the conference Saturday.

Spencer himself tweeted: "Looks like I was deported by a 'libertarian' lover of the deep state guys," referring to Tucker. Deep state is when government and military officials are involved in secretly guiding the direction of government policy.

Top Story

The uncertainty brought on by political activism is chipping away at coal mining communities.

02/19/17 12:03 AM

Read the rest here:
Libertarians clash with Richard Spencer in DC - Washington Examiner