Should taxpayer dollars be used to send political messages?: The Obama administration sure seems to think that is the case

Should taxpayer dollars be used to send political messages?: The Obama administration sure seems to think that is the case

freespeech ObamaAdministration

Why should some taxpayers be forced to support the political beliefs of others? Maine Gov. Paul LePage didn't think that they should so he removed a mural in one of the state office buildings. Apparently, once you put up a mural paid for with Federal government money you are stuck with it.

Maine Gov. Paul LePage, who ignited a storm of protest by removing a labor-themed mural from a state office building last month, is now facing demands from the U.S. Department of Labor to restore the artwork or repay the $60,000 federal grant used to create it.
In a letter to LePage on Monday and obtained by FoxNews.com, the department said the Republican governor violated the terms of federal laws governing money used to pay for most of the mural's price tag when he removed it over concerns about the message it sent.
Gay Gilbert, administrator of the U.S. Labor Department's office of unemployment insurance, said LePage would have to return the money to the unemployment trust fund states use to pay jobless benefits. The federal government manages the funds, which are financed through unemployment insurance taxes that employers pay. . . .

"Something is very wrong with Canadian campuses"

"Something is very wrong with Canadian campuses"

Canada freespeech

What happens when the left defines hate speech. From the National Post in Canada:

Something is very wrong with Canadian campuses these days. Left-wing students and outside agitators get away with shouting down speakers they disagree with, smashing windows to prevent lecturers they don’t want to hear, even chaining themselves to a stage and screaming “racist, racist, racist” at the University of Waterloo to prevent Christie Blatchford from talking about her new book. Student unions routinely decertify pro-life clubs, and administrators frequently cater to the demands of a handful of vocal socialist anarchists.

But when right-of-centre student groups attempt to protest the censorship they face, or demonstrate against leftist speakers and those they believe are hateful, they are met with threats of lawsuits or expulsion by administrators or student unions.

The most recent example of this double-standard came Monday, when the Carleton University Student Association (CUSA) banned a pro-life club from operating on campus or even using campus meeting rooms. The CUSA said Carleton Lifeline could regain its official status — if it renounced pro-life beliefs.

We doubt CUSA would ask campus Marxists to renounce socialism, or require Muslim groups to convert to Judaism, yet they are demanding the equivalent backflip from pro-lifers.

In just the past five years, students or administrators at Lakehead University, the University of British Columbia-Okanagan, the University of Calgary, Newfoundland’s Memorial University and Toronto’s York University have either severely restricted or banned pro-life activities. Typically, they have made the bogus claim that calling for an end to abortion amounts to prejudice against women and therefore can be banned as hate speech.

Meanwhile, administrators at York University have threatened to sue Jewish groups that announced plans to protest an on-campus address by British MP George Galloway, a high-profile apologist for terror groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah. The university maintained the campus was private property and insisted it would take action against any member of the public who protested Mr. Galloway’s speech. It even urged protesters not to use public spaces near campus . . . .

This is the same York University, of course, that annually witnesses an anti-Semitic hatefest known as Israel Apartheid week, and which has been accused in the past of providing insufficient protection of its Jewish students from threats and intimidation by supporters of the Palestinian cause.

The reason for all this is ideological bias: Definitions of free speech, equality and political rights all have been reworked to show favouritism to those espousing leftist ideology. . . .

Since when does city hall get involved in micro managing the content of billboard ads?

Since when does city hall get involved in micro managing the content of billboard ads?

freespeech GunControl

This is disappointing. If the signs were on the other side of this issue (e.g., inaccurate claims about the number of children who died from accidental gun deaths and the desirability of gun locks), I assume that they would have stayed up. Alan Korwin was apparently the person behind these ads. I would think that there could be successful legal action against the city.

The city of Phoenix took aim this week at an advertising campaign launched by a coalition of local businesses and groups, ordering the signs to be immediately stripped from 50 bus shelters across the city.

So how, you might ask, did the ad offend?

Does it include a picture of some scantily clad bimbo? Well, no.

Is it another piece of political trash? No.

Is the ad libelous? Religious? Profane?

No, no and hell no.

It's a sign that says "Guns Save Lives" and advertises a website where you can find firearms-safety classes.

Oh, the horror.

The 4x6 signs were put up as part of a campaign by TrainMeAZ, a group of firearms businesses and Second Amendment supporters that joined forces to promote training in the wake of a new state law that allows anyone 21 or older to carry a concealed weapon. Previously, you had to complete a gun-safety class if you wanted to pack heat in private places. Now, you don't.

Enter TrainMeAZ, which has started a website, TrainMeAZ.com, promoting gun-safety classes and offering information on where to enroll. They have this idea that you ought to know how to safely handle a gun if you're going to tote one about in your undies - or even if you aren't. And so they paid $11,000 for the bus-shelter ads, which went up this month.

And came down this week, on orders from City Hall. . . .

If you read the rest of the article you will see that the city claims that it consistently bans public service ads. But even if that is true, given Korwin's business is to sell books about guns, laws, and safety, I would think that he would still meet what the city claims has to be met for it local ordinance.

Thanks to David Moore Jr. for sending me this link.

Al Franken doesn't understand free speech.

Al Franken doesn't understand free speech.

AlFranken freespeech

Having a faster internet connection is costly. Those who want a faster connection get charge more. Those who want to use the internet more get charged more. Franken thinks that is a violation of free speech. To him everyone should get equal access to speed and apparently another goal of "net neutrality" that there shouldn't be higher charges if you use the internet more.

Well, our free speech rights are under assault -- not from the government but from corporations seeking to control the flow of information in America. . . .
"Net neutrality" sounds arcane, but it's fundamental to free speech. The internet today is an open marketplace. If you have a product, you can sell it. If you have an opinion, you can blog about it. If you have an idea, you can share it with the world.
And no matter who you are -- a corporation selling a new widget, a senator making a political argument or just a Minnesotan sharing a funny cat video -- you have equal access to that marketplace.
An e-mail from your mom comes in just as fast as a bill notification from your bank. You're reading this op-ed online; it'll load just as fast as a blog post criticizing it. That's what we mean by net neutrality.
But telecommunications companies want to be able to set up a special high-speed lane just for the corporations that can pay for it. You won't know why the internet retail behemoth loads faster than the mom-and-pop shop, but after a while you may get frustrated and do all of your shopping at the faster site. Maybe the gatekeepers will discriminate based on who pays them more. Maybe they will discriminate based on whose political point of view conforms to their bottom line. . . .