Ever since the NFL season started, there’s been constant discussion about the decision of certain players not to stand during the national anthem and presentation of the flag before games. This talk reached a fever pitch last week after President Trump, during an Alabama rally, referred to the players who refuse to stand as “son[s] of bitch[es].” Detractors of the president and supporters of the players protesting the anthem are attempting to frame national discourse over the issue as a matter of the First Amendment. They, of course, are correct, but perhaps not in the way they might expect.
Earlier this month, civil liberties advocate and journalist Glenn Greenwald (along with Ryan Grimm of The Intercept) wrote an article warning about a bill before Congress with potentially dire consequences for free speech. If passed, the Israel Anti-Boycott Act, S.720, would make it illegal for Americans to engage in organized boycotts against the state of Israel. Participation in such activity could lead to a sentence of up to 20 years in prison. Unfortunately, the bill is very likely to pass. Continue Reading
In America, free speech is a sacred right. That is, until it threatens corporate interests. We’ve seen the scenario repeated. Someone says something offensive. Interest groups become aware and threaten sponsors of the speaker’s platform with boycott. Sponsors relent to protect their corporate image, and, ultimately, the speaker loses the platform. Continue Reading
Donald Trump’s election as President was, in part, a reaction to PC culture; a culture which regards the utterance of certain speech as worse than the offense of violent crimes. Unfortunately, the election of Trump has not eliminated this culture. Instead, it has evolved. Some of those who spoke out against PC culture before Trump’s election now enforce their own version of it. Take a look at a couple recent examples: Continue Reading
Earlier this month, a new threat to liberty emerged as originalist Justice Antonin Scalia died in Texas, vacating his seat on the Supreme Court. On that day, the stakes of the 2016 presidential election grew exponentially. Now, whoever gets elected will either maintain the status quo in the Court or create a new, more dangerous majority. Continue Reading
This past week, shortly after he announced he was mounting a second run for the presidency, former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson, the Libertarian Party’s 2012 presidential nominee, shocked libertarians with his declaration (to at least three news sources) that the face covering worn by many Muslim women, the burqa, should be banned from public places. Though Johnson later retracted the comment (after much condemnation from libertarians), it provides evidence that his instincts on free expression, particularly of unpopular views, swing statist rather than libertarian. Continue Reading
In an American Third Party Report exclusive, Bob Whitaker, the 2016 presidential nominee of the American Freedom Party, answers questions about his background, political views, and presidential campaign. Below is the transcript and audio of the interview.
Originally published at Wikinews
Republican Continue Readingcandidate , former commissioner of the (IRS), filed a complaint on Monday with the (FEC) to challenge his exclusion from Thursday’s first Republican Party presidential debate. Everson argues his exclusion violates Title 11 of the in that debate hosts must not “structure the debates to promote or advance one candidate over another”, and must “use pre-established objective criteria to determine which candidates may participate in a debate.”
“Americans, whatever their thinking on [same-sex marriage], should worry about what the [Obergefell] majority’s claim of power portends.”
–Justice Alito dissenting in Obergefell v. Hodges
Obergefell v. Hodges, which struck State prohibitions on same-sex marriage, establishes a troubling precedent for democratic institutions and limited government. Through the “reasoned judgment” of five of its nine justices, the Supreme Court bypassed traditional democratic means to establish the issuance of public benefits for same-sex marriages as a fundamental right under Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process. Though many libertarians now celebrate the decision, a careful reading should temper any jubilation. This decision promotes the Cult of the Court, which may now work to restrict rights and actually expand government. Continue Reading