Fred Flix: 'Old Commercials That Would Be Politically Incorrect Today'

Source:Fred Flix- Funny Face, LOL! 

“There was nothing wrong with these TV ads at the time. But they wouldn’t air in these “Oh, wait, I’m offended” days.”

From Fred Flix

The flat tire commercial where it's automatically assumed that the woman can't change a tire, certainly wouldn't play today. Back in 1955 or the ( the Utopia for the Christian-Right ) it was consider unfeminine for women to be involved in any form for physical work that's traditionally done by men. And since gays were still living in the closet including lesbians, gay masculine women weren't even around at least in public, so no woman back then was expected to do physical manly work. ( To make a politically incorrect joke ) So no changing the flat tires on the cars, or fixing appliances, home improvement, working on cars, construction work, nothing that would be considered manly. Women were expected to stay away from all of those activities in America.

Source: Jonathan East- Not for people who hate free speech 

The commercial with the beautiful sexy women that looks like it came out in the late 1970s just from the color picture and how the hair and everything else looked, as a straight man I don't have any problems with that commercial. I could see why radical feminists would have a problem with it because they would view it as sexual exploitation. Taking advantage of women's sex appeal and beauty. But they probably see professional cheerleader squads as sexist as well even though none of these women are expected to participate in any of these activities. I could see why a commercial like that wouldn't play in San Francisco or New York or Boston, but don't know why it would be a problem anywhere else in the country.

Source: EBay- Taking a stand for free speech 

The cigarette and tobacco commercials, are not politically incorrect in anyway, because they're simply not offensive to anyone. The problems that they have with especially chewing tobacco is that tobacco and even tobacco cigarets are so unpopular today because so many Americans at least now know what tobacco does to you and the health risks that come from it. Tobacco unlike alcohol which is still very popular is becoming taboo in America. Even smokers won't smoke in their homes anymore especially if they have kids or if their spouse doesn't like tobacco. But back in let's say 1975 or whenever that commercial came out practically every American was smoking. You almost had to back in the 1970s to be considered cool or groovy, far out, hip, whatever the hip term was then.

The  commercial with the office secretary, kind of looks sexist to me, but in a funny way. Apparently the woman in the commercial is looking for a lunch date with her boss ( of all people ) and believes she can get that simply by wearing the right perfume or deodorant. Sort of implying that she's trying to move up in the company by being nice to her boss. If that commercial came out 10-15 years later or was part of a sitcom from let's say 1975-79 or even later, the commercial would've implied that the woman was trying to sleep her way to the top. I would see even as a hard core supporter for free speech who believes in almost no limits on it why that commercial could be seen as sexist.

We just live in a very different world now as we did in 1955. In some ways free speech and personal freedom is even more popular now where women aren't expected to stay home  and where couples aren't expected to get married before they move in together or have sex, or even have kids together. But in other ways even though our constitutional right to free speech is just as strong as it was 60-65 years ago, it's become less popular with young people. Who believe anyone who isn't a straight, male, Christian, Caucasian, has some artificial right not to be offended. Which of course is obviously not true, but you wouldn't know that from our current pop culture and even political culture. One of the reasons why Donald Trump is President of the United States, because you have millions of Americans probably tens of millions who are fed up with political correctness. 

You can also see this post on WordPress. 

TruthDig: Robert Scheer- Interviewing Norman Lear: 'Bleeding Heart Conservative'

Source:TruthDig- The great comic writer Norman Lear. 

"In the second installment of a two-part interview on KCRW’s “Scheer Intelligence,” television icon Norman Lear shares his political views with host and Truthdig Editor in Chief Robert Scheer."

From TruthDig

"TYT Politics Reporter Nomiki Kons at Twitter spoke with legendary television writer and producer Norman Lear about Trump's America, where the Democratic Party lost its way, the NFL protests and more."

Source:Rebel HQ- The great comic writer Norman Lear. 

From Rebel HQ

As as Liberal myself I hate the term bleeding heart liberal, because someone who cares about others and people who are suffering regardless of their politics could be labeled bleeding hearts. Now, these different political factions will have their own ideas and approaches in how to help people who are suffering. But to care about the suffering of others all you have to be is a caring person.

But thats not my only problem with the term bleeding heart liberal. Because then there also the stereotypes that come with that term. Liberals all the time even though I believe that is finally starting to change with Socialists in America like the Bernie Sanders democratic socialist movement and the ANTIFA more communist or anarchist socialist movement on the radical Far-Left and not just Far-Left, but Liberals in the past at least have been labeled as soft, to put it lightly.

 I would add the term pussies, because so-called Liberals seem to believe that criminals shouldn't be put in prison, even if they're violent. As non-aggressive pacifists that even if the country was under attacked we shouldn't fight back and instead extend out hands to the people who are trying to literally destroy us.

Imagine if Dennis Kucinich was President of the United States during the Cold War and Russia literally attacked us and bombed Florida or some other big place in America. President Kucinich, "if we just talk to Moscow, maybe they won't bomb all of Florida and we'll only lose Miami. If we fight back, maybe they won't bomb Georgia as well."

There's nothing liberal or bleeding heart about pacifism about when your country is under attack and you choose not to defend yourself. No political label goes with that amount of irresponsibility and softness. Even Socialists have defended themselves and fought for their countries. And just like you don't have to be a Conservative or someone further to the Right to believe in self-defense and patriotism, you don't have to be a Liberal or someone further left to care about the suffering of others.

I guess this article is supposed to have something to do with the great Norman Lear. Perhaps the title of the piece has something to do with that suggesting that he's a bleeding heart Conservative. Norman Lear describes his politics as conservative because he believes in conserving the Bill of Rights and U.S. Constitution.  Which is what true Conservative is and actually believes. Not someone who believes in sending law enforcement agents to break into private homes to break up extra marital or homosexual affairs affairs, because the so-called Conservative believes that adultery and homosexuality, are not only immoral, but should be illegal.

Imagine if Alabama U.S. Senate candidate Roy Moore ever becomes President of the United States and his able to get appoint and get confirm 3-4 Christian-Conservatives who are actually Christian-Theocrats, to the U.S. Supreme Court , then maybe adultery and homosexuality would get outlawed in America. If they were somehow able to get those laws passed out of Congress regardless if with party or party's are in control of the House and Senate.

But someone who is so fundamentalist with their religious beliefs to the point that they believe should be appointed Minister of the United States and be able legally punish people who disagree with them and have different moral values, is not a Conservative, but a theocrat which is different. Norman Lear's conservative politics represents conservatism, pure and simple. Roy Moore's politics represents Christian-Theocracy, which is very different, because Moore's politics aren't about the U.S. Constitution, but a very strict fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible.

Norman Lear's writing and producing of comedy in America, is so cutting edge and his belief in the First Amendment is so fundamentalist (not that there's anything wrong with that) that I don't believe he could be writing and producing comedy today. Because people in and outside of Hollywood are so dominated by political correctness that if Lear created a modern Archie Bunker (perhaps played by Donald Trump) maybe Jon Voight, or Phil Robertson (from Duck Dynasty) you would see the Political Correctness Police and Army, marching the streets complaining about how bigoted the new Archie Bunker, All in The Family, and even Norman Lear is. Of course they would be wrong, but these protests and boycotts would have a big enough affect to keep that type of First Amendment comedy and programming from making it on the air or into the theaters.

You can also see this post at The Daily Journal, on Blogger.

You can also see this post on The Daily Journal, on WordPress. 

You can also see this post at FreeState MD, on Blogger.

Skep Torr: 'The Dark Side Of Political Correctness'

Source:Skep Torr- Is there a bright side to PC?

“A comprehensive overview on the trend of PC culture and language control.”

From Skep Torr:

The dark side of political correctness, where should I start? The two most offensive aspects I find about it are the hypocrisy and the pure fascism of it. Apparently in PC World minorities are entitled not to be offended even if the critic is correct with everything they’re saying. But majorities are essentially free speech targets.

In PC World you would almost be expected to make fun of criticize Caucasians. (Especially if they’re on the right) What the New-Left calls white people or the man. But even if you’re correct in how you criticize anyone else you’re somehow a bigot. Someone is bigoted to point out the horrible human rights record of Saudi Arabia when it comes to women especially. Because Saudis are Arab and Muslim. Even though they have a horrible human rights record.

But if you make fun of and criticize Southern Anglo-Saxon Protestants when they make bigoted statements towards women and gays, you’re somehow progressive, because you’re speaking the truth. Even though SASP’s are no more bigoted towards gays and women as Islamists.

And then the fascist element if it: this idea that you can’t say something, because it might offend someone else even if you’re correct in what you’re saying and you especially can’t do this in college. Perhaps the first place where you want free expression and ideas to be heard so people can learn about them and learn how to think for themselves.

I mean where do political correctness warriors think they live? It can’t be Communist Cuba where they wouldn’t be allowed to hold these PC rallies without government permission. They live in America where we all have a guaranteed right to free speech.

The alternative to political correctness is education and I mean real education. Not someone standing up in front of a class and telling people how to think, but instead sharing actual facts and real information and different philosophies out there and then letting the students figure out what this all means and what’s good and bad based on what they have learned.

And instead of banning language because it might offend someone you use criticism that is correct to improve yourself. And use language and thought that’s simply wrong as an opportunity to point out how ignorant the commentator is.

Instead of trying to shut someone up simply for being stupid and expressing themselves. Instead educate them on their own stupidity and see if they’re smart enough to learn and improve themselves. But fascism is never the answer in a liberal democratic free society. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

You can also see this post at The New Democrat, on WordPress. 

You can also see this post at The Daily Post, on Blogger.

The Politics of Writing: 'The Value of Comedy'

Source:IZ Quotes- U.S. Senator (Democrat, Minnesota) and political satirist Al Franken.

Source:The Daily Review

‘Comedy is often in our lives for reasons we don’t stop to think about. There’s comedic movies, stand up comedians,  television shows, and then there’s just those funny people we l…’ 

From The Politics of Writing 

"Bill Maher and John Cleese discuss the comedic value of human stupidity, political incorrectness and religious fundamentalism in this clip from November 21, 2014." 

Source:Real Time With Bill Maher- Comedian John Cleese, making the case against political correctness.

From Real Time With Bill Maher

I agree with most of what this blogger said. Who will go nameless simply, because the blogger doesn’t have a name. (My first joke) But I would put it different and I seem to be doing that a lot lately when I share other people’s pieces. The value of comedy is to make people laugh especially if they’re having a bad day or things aren’t going well for them.

I do that all the time to make people feel better. Someone tells me they lose their job and I’ll ask them: "Where did you lose it? Maybe you should try to look for it. Don’t worry, you’ll find another one and a better one. And will do a better job of hanging on to it." And this is sort of extreme example, but that’s my point. Comedy should make people feel better even if it’s just for a moment before reality kicks back in.

I love comedy about life (as if there is any other comedy) but that is what funny people do. They share stories about what’s going on in their own life and what’s going on in the world and look for the comedic angle. Anyone whose spent more than five-minutes in America knows there’s always something to make fun of. Take our U.S. Congress to use as an example. The oldest comedy club in America and the National Comedy Club going back to 1776.

If you can’t find something funny about Congress, you either never drink, or are broth blind and death at the same time. Perhaps you live as a tomato with impersonating a human being and you’re simply not aware of the world that is right in front of your own face. Take the cloture rule in the Senate where 41 votes beats 59. Anyone familiar with math knows that 59 is more than 41. But not in the U.S. Senate and that is just one funny example about Congress.

I only thing about comedy when it comes to life and current affairs is that first it has to be funny and then it has to be accurate. Or at least not out of the ballpark where it doesn’t make sense. Like if you’re going to make a fat joke about someone, at least have the decency and intelligence to know that person is actually fat, meaning clearly overweight. And not just a large muscular person who is very curvy.

There are plenty of three-hundred-pound football players who are just very big, because they have huge bones and are incredibly strong and can probably bench press someone’s car. (Hey, Yugo and Beatles are still cars) If you’re going to make a joke a politician, it should make sense and be in the ballpark. Make fun of Donald Trump, because any joke about him is probably true at this point.

When I finally get off the computer and done at my office and have some time to do things that have nothing to do with writing and blogging, generally the first thing I do is eat and try to relax. But after that I’m generally looking for something funny to watch. Not looking to read a book unless it’s something that I’m about to blog about.

Besides half of my job revolves around reading other people’s material anyway. I just want to relax and laugh at something that had nothing to do with my day and job. That is the value of comedy. That little escape that tells you that there’s another world out there that’s much different from your reality. And a chance to just kick back and take a deep breath. Before I have to get back to work.

Library of Law & Liberty: John O. McGinnis- 'The Political Dangers of Rising Political Correctness'

Source:The Daily Review- Sometimes a photo says it all.

“When I was inducted into the academic honor society at the Phillips Exeter Academy, we heard from an outside speaker, an academy graduate and a professor who happened to be an African American. Among various inflammatory remarks, he said he was surprised to hear an Irish name on the list. I shrugged off his comments, and my father, only a generation removed from the old country, still treasures this anecdote more than any other from my education.”

Source:Library of Law & Liberty

“These videos are not for entertainment, they are clearly “fair dealing” under UK copyright law and are exempt as they are reporting current affairs, as I am sure you are aware UK courts “bear in mind that considerations of public interest are paramount”.
UK courts see the fair dealing defence usually only applies when part of a work has been taken such as small clips as per my youtube videos.

Reporting of current events

Under Section 30(2), fair dealing using any work for the purpose of reporting current events, with sufficient acknowledgement, is a valid exception to copyright. Photographs are excluded, however; Cornish, Llewelyn and Aplin write that this is “in order to preserve the full value of holding a unique visual record of some person or event” The BBC cant help themselves.”

Source:Robin Hood UK- Talking about political correctness gone mad.

From Robin Hood UK

I have several issues with political correctness, but I believe my main issues gets to the Marxian, or Marxist angle of it. That suggest freedom of thought and speech is somehow dangerous. Which is how authoritarian regimes stay in power by preventing their regimes from having to hear from any real opposition from inside of their country. The more that communications has advanced just in the last twenty-five years makes that even more difficult. But for the life of me I can’t understand why someone who calls them self a Liberal or Progressive, would be arguing for something that is illiberal and regressive. Which is preventing free thought and education from flowing to the people these illiberal’s say they care about.

The other angle about political correctness that I hate is the pure hypocrisy of it. You make fun of the Christian-Right about their bigoted views about gays and their place in the world for women, you’re funny and progressive. You make the same jokes about the Islamic-Right or Islamists, who in some cases are even further right than the Christian-Right on those issues, you’re a bigot. You make fun of Anglo-Saxon rednecks jokes and call rednecks Jim Bob and Mary Lou and accuse them of having kids with their cousins and make kissing cousins jokes, you’re funny. You make African-American ghetto jokes about people named Tyrone Jackson and Sheneka Jackson and jokes about all the different fathers that Sheneka has had for each baby she has, you’re a bigot.

The phone booth size political correctness world that illiberal’s live in, (phone booths are booths that people use to make phone calls in) jokes about minorities and criticism even if true about is considered bigoted. But jokes about majorities even if wrong and highlighting stereotypes about Caucasians, especially Southern Anglo-Protestants, are considered progressive. Americans who can’t take a joke, should stay away from comedy, or only listen to illiberal New-Left comedians. And while they’re doing that maybe they’ll be able to learn to walk with both legs again after they get their foot out of their ass. Maybe they’ll drink more alcohol and less caffeine and take up pot and learn to relax. Perhaps go outside and see a world where not everyone agrees with them. Which is what liberal democracy is about the right for people to freely express themselves and share their viewpoints.

Remember we’re talking about liberal democracy. Not illiberal democracy or Marxist Statism. We’re talking about a society where people can freely express themselves and be very informative. Or risk sounding like a complete asshole who know everything about nothing and nothing about anything of value. And in a society like that you’re going to hear things that might offend you. That you might disagree with and even find hateful. You’re also going to hear things that are inspiring and very informative. You would be wise to pay attention to the hard information. Get out of your coffee houses and put your i-phone down from time to time and you might actually learn something. Even accidentally, but you would be doing yourself a lot of good. While you put the asshole in their place for being exactly that, but not trying to silence them simply for being ignorant. 

You can also see this post at The Daily Post, on Blogger.

The Steve Allen Show: Lenny Bruce (1959)

Source:Sam Legend Wrestling- Comedian Lenny Bruce, on The Steve Allen Show in 1959.

"Lenny is tender/mean/sweet at the same time. Enjoy! One of my favorite comedy  bits of him."

From Sam Legend Wrestling  

"Lenny's heart-wrenching take on solitude and love's end... It always makes my eyes dewy: Lenny's SO autobiographical here, and so tender/mean/sweet at the same time. Enjoy!" 

Source:Michal Oleszczyk- Comedian Lenny Bruce, on The Steve Allen Show in 1959.

I don’t know how well-known Lenny Bruce was by 1959, when NBC brought him on The Steve Allen Show, but I doubt he brought his adult comedy act (so to speak) with him. Otherwise they wouldn’t have had him on.

Source: The Daily Review- Comedian Lenny Brice, on The Steve Allen Show in 1959.

Steve Allen, right before he brought on Lenny Bruce, made a great comment and I realize he was being humorous, but he was damn right on it. He said and I'm paraphrasing: "We should just offend everybody so we don't have worry about offending anyone.

And Lenny Bruce is the comedian to do that, because that's is exactly what they meaning Steve Allen and Lenny Bruce, we're talking about back then which was censorship and political correctness, but not from the Left, (the Far-Left, really) but the Right.

Lenny Bruce, had a message and his own act and issues he wanted to talk about. And he also believed in free speech, which all comedians really should. And he couldn't give a damn if his act offended people, especially when it was just entertainment anyway.

Comedy, is not for oversensitive tight asses, who think fat jokes are anti-obesity. Or gay jokes are automatically homophobic, or religious jokes Christian, Muslim, whoever else, that person is some bigot towards that religious group.

Comedy, is exactly that, a way to critique life and people in life. Including groups and even talk people and groups and their shortcomings. Not to say that every member of whatever group, has some clear flaw, but to point out humorous flaws about members of certain groups and even flaws that some groups carry as a group.

The political correctness movement of the 1950s, didn't want to hear jokes about sex, religion and sure as hell didn't want to hear adult language. Especially since they still saw adults as kids for the most part who needed to be babysat.

The political correctness warriors of the 1950s, didn't want to hear jokes about sex, because they believe sex didn't exist or something. They didn't want to hear jokes about narcotics, because they were on alcohol or marijuana highs and believed narcotics simply didn't exist.

Lenny Bruce, challenged the political correctness establishment in America and paid a hell of a price for it. All he was about was free speech and talking about issues and using adult language even that most Americans, at least outside of the Bible Belt used anyway, but did it in public. Did it in a way that simply wasn't done back then for the most part and didn't become mainstream at all, at least until the late 1960s.

Lenny Bruce was a true American, because he was an individual who felt the freedom to be himself. And express how he felt about issues even in public.Lenny felt no need to fit in to whatever was the culturally correct closet, because he was an American in the best sense of the term as someone who felt and had the freedom to be himself. Instead of whatever was considered culturally correct at the time. 

You can also see this post on WordPress. 

You can also see this post at FRS FreeState, on WordPress.

New America Foundation: 'Double Take- Speaking on Freedom of Speech'

Source:New America Foundation- with a look at free speech in America.

"A Yale lecturer resigned from her teaching post after an email she sent to students triggered heated discussions about campus racism. In her email, the lecturer, Erika Christakis, voiced concern that calls to limit expression by censoring Halloween costumes issued by Yale’s Intercultural Affairs Committee may do more harm than good to students still learning about the ways of the world.

Student and faculty groups at Yale and nationally in turn used Christakis’ email as catalyst to justify a problematic stance bordering racial and ethnic insensitivity, claiming protection under first amendment rights. Christakis, they said, acted with the best intentions in mind and is entitled to free speech.

The backlash and other reactions against or in support of Christakis’s email reveal a great deal not just about a popular US (mis)understanding about free speech—primarily defined by a misleading notion that all citizens are entitled to limitless expression—but also expose a deep-rooted inability of institutions of higher learning to engender meaningful discussion capable of dismantling obstacles barraging mutual respect." 

From New America 

"A panel of the nation's leading free speech thinkers including Dr. Stanley Fish of the Cardozo School of Law, Foundation for Individual Rights in Education President Greg Lukianoff, Eric Posner of the University of Chicago Law School, and Jonathan Rauch of the Brookings Institution." 

Source:National Constitution Center- hosting a panel on free speech in America.

From the National Constitution Center

At risk of sounding like a Nationalist,: people right and left have debated whether America is exceptional or not the last ten years or so and debating what is called American Exceptionalism. Is America an exceptional place or not and if we are, are we exceptional in a positive sense. Do we represent as Americans the right values or not. Our First Amendment which of course is our guaranteed constitutional right to Freedom of Speech, is one example of why we are exceptional. Along with our diversity which is across the board and our other guaranteed civil liberties and constitutional rights.

No constitutional right is absolute and that includes both the First Amendment and the Second Amendment. But what it means is that Americans essentially have unlimited free speech and free expression rights and basically and unlimited ability to express ourselves and how we feel about things, places, issues, culture and even people, short of inciting violence, violently harassing people, or falsely libeling people. 

Americans also have a constitutional right to express how they feel about what others are saying and even believe that some people don't have the same constitutional right to free speech as themselves. Which seems to be what the Far-Left and Far-Right both have in common in America, the belief that their free speech rights are more important. 

This means Donald Trump can run his nonsensical reality show disguised as a presidential campaign and say all sorts of garbage (to be nice) about groups of Americans. And the rest of the country has the same right to express out they feel about The Donald: The Captain of Reality TV.

Free Speech, is not a threat to America. The opposite is the truth, which is fascism in the form of political correctness, whether it comes from the Far-Left or Far-Right. That says the political correctness warriors knows best what is acceptable and unacceptable speech. And they’ll decide what people should think and what we can say. 

You can’t have a liberal democracy without free speech and a liberal right to free speech. Put all the views out there and then let the people weigh in on what the speakers and thinkers are saying. Correct the falsehoods, reward the truth tellers and critique the liars. That is how liberal democracy and free speech works. Instead of having some Board of Experts deciding what is appropriate and improper speech in a developed society.

Paul Richards: 'The Free Speech Movement: Civil Disobedience in Berkeley 1964'

Source:Paul Richards- When Berkeley believed in free speech and the First Amendment.

"The Free Speech Movement (FSM), Berkeley, CA, 1964-65.  Clips from "Decision in the Streets" (1965) Estuary Press by Harvey Richards.  Available from the Harvey Richards Media Archive... 

From Paul Richards 

"The Free Speech Movement (FSM) was a massive, long-lasting student protest which took place during the 1964–65 academic year on the campus of the University of California, Berkeley.[1] The Movement was informally under the central leadership of Berkeley graduate student Mario Savio.[2] Other student leaders include Jack Weinberg, Michael Rossmann, George Barton, Brian Turner, Bettina Aptheker, Steve Weissman, Michael Teal, Art Goldberg, Jackie Goldberg and others.[3]

With the participation of thousands of students, the Free Speech Movement was the first mass act of civil disobedience on an American college campus in the 1960s.[4] Students insisted that the university administration lift the ban of on-campus political activities and acknowledge the students' right to free speech and academic freedom. The Free Speech Movement was influenced by the New Left,[5] and was also related to the Civil Rights Movement and the Anti-Vietnam War Movement.[6] To this day, the Movement's legacy continues to shape American political dialogue both on college campuses and in broader society, impacting on the political views and values of college students and the general public." 

From Wikipedia

I hate as a Liberal hearing California being called a liberal state and some bastion of liberalism. And just go back to the 1960s and how they came down on students who were simply looking to express their free speech rights on campus and get involved in politics. 

If you go to the last ten years or so and California was one of the first states to pass a same-sex marriage ban and I believe they had at one time a ban on homosexuality, at least as it relates to sex. Ronald Reagan, was Governor of California there and served two terms from 1967-75. They recalled a moderate Democratic Governor in Gray Davis in 2003 and replaced him with a moderate Republican in Arnold Schwarzenegger.

California, even with their individualistic hippie movement in the 1960s that was based in Northern California and a certain extent Southern California, was at the heart in support of the political correctness movement, but coming from the right-wing in America. Especially at the state level in the California State Government. And trying to ban students from protesting and speaking out against the political issues of the day. 

Since the 1960s California has reversed course and still support political correctness, but do it from the Far-Left instead of the Far-Right. And will deny right-wing speakers from speaking on their campus's and even left-wing speakers like Bill Maher, if they don't like what he has to say. His views on Islam in late 2014, is an excellent example of that.

What the free speech movement of the 1960s especially the mid 60s starting around 1963 and going through 64 and 65 and through the Vietnam War, was about was free speech. The right for American citizens who happen to be in college to express themselves on the issues. Protest in favor of equal and civil rights for all Americans and protest against the Vietnam War. 

The political correctness warriors back in the 1960s, were on the Right. Who still believed it was 1956 or something and that all Americans looked at America and American culture and the world the same way and if there was anyone who didn't share those cultural and political views. they needed to be shut up. Which is how the New-Left in America reacts when people disagree with them on cultural issues today.

The free speech movement back then and I at least believe still does today when you look at Bill Maher and Richard Dawkins (to use as examples) and you have Conservative Libertarians on the Right as well, but back then at least the free speech movement came from the Left. From people who loved being Americans and America, but especially loved the rights, freedom and responsibility that came with being an American. Like Freedom of Speech and choice, the right for Americans to be themselves. And not have to either by legal, or cultural force to live life the way that the so-called establishment believes that they should. Which is what the hippie movement and the free speech movement, gay right and so-forth. The right for Americans to be Americans which are individuals. And not clones of the establishment.

Associated Press: Lynne Hollander-Savio- 'Berkley's Campus Free Speech Movement at 50'

Source:Associated Press- Back when Berkeley believed in free speech and the First Amendment.

"Lynne Hollander Savio, a former student activist and wife of the late Mario Savio, remembers the 1964 Free Speech Movement that launched a wave of student activism at the University of California, Berkeley and college campuses across the country. (Dec. 2)"

From the Associated Press

The Millennial's today who are still in college, the so-called Social Justice Warriors who want to establish their form of political correctness on the entire country who believe that minority Americans, are entitled to never having to hear anything that offends them, could learn so much from the Baby Boomers of the 1960s. The Hippies, who weren't fighting for collectivism and censorship, political correctness, but instead were fighting for individual freedom and Freedom of Speech. The right for Free Americans to express exactly how they feel about issues. On and off campus.

The Hippies, the long beards of the 1960s, the Baby Boomers, were fighting against the right-wing establishment who believe America was still in the 1950s. When individualism and individuality, were still not common and if anything looked down upon. Where people were told how to think, instead of taught how to learn and then base their own views on what they just learned. Where individual freedom and free speech were only tolerated if people were doing, saying and believing what the establishment approved of.

Again, free speech is exactly that. Take it for what its worth, because it by itself is not designed to make you feel good or bad, but to express how someone feels and when done right inform people as well. 'This is where you're doing well and this is where you need improvement. This is what you should do less of if not stop all together. This is what you should be doing more of.' And these are just some examples of what free speech is. Which is something the long beards of today, the Millennial's who are in college simply don't understand and approve of.

It means that you have the constitutional right to express how you feel about someone, or some group, or something, but that person next to you and everyone else not only have the constitutional right to not only tell you what they think about what you have to say, but express their own views on the same subject, or any other subject that they want to talk about. And you have the same constitutional right to express how you feel about what they have to say about whatever they're talking about as well.

Just because America has a history of racial and ethnic discrimination, which is the worst part of our national history, doesn't protect ethnic, racial and religious minorities from having to hear anything critical about themselves or their group in the future. Especially when the criticism is accurate. There's nothing bigoted about the truth and even when someone delivers half-truths about people perhaps to make partisan points and even racial or ethnic points to make a group seem worst than they actually are, you can always present the rest of the story and point out whatever hypocrisy the commentator is making.

There's nothing bigoted about saying that women and gays are treated like second-class citizens and slaves, or risk death if they try to convert from Islam in the Arab and broader Muslim World, since those things are actually true. Just like gays and women are treated like second-class citizens in the Bible Belt in America. Free speech, is free and facts don't lie and when someone is actually offended by the truth, then they have a real problem with dealing with reality. And have real self-improvement issues to deal with beyond whatever negative facts that have already come out about them. But that is no reason from censoring the truth and free speech. Especially in a liberal democracy like America.

Constitution Daily: 'The First Amendment Speech Debate on College Campuses'

Source:Constitution Daily- this should be a great place where the battlefield of ideas and debate goes on everyday. Where people are required to think and learn, especially about things that they don't understand or agree with.

"Jeffrey Rosen: [00:00:00] I'm Jeffrey Rosen president and CEO of the national Constitution Center and welcome to We the People, a weekly show of constitutional debate. The national Constitution Center is the only institution in America chartered by Congress to increase awareness and understanding of the Constitution among the American people on a nonpartisan basis. Recently President Trump announced that he will soon sign an executive order that requires colleges and universities to "support Free Speech if they want Federal research dollars." On today's episode of we the people we ask, would the order be a good idea? What would the consequences be and would it be consistent with the Constitution? Joining us to debate the Constitutional and legal merits of the proposed executive order are two great friends of the national Constitution Center and two of America's leading experts on campus free speech. Sitting with me here at the NCC studio is Sigal Ben-Porath who is a professor of Education, philosophy and political science at the University of Pennsylvania. Her work focuses on citizenship education and political philosophy. And she's the author of the recent book free speech on campus. Sigal thank you so much for braving the cold and joining us here today in studio."  

From the National Constitution Center 

"As part of Uncomfortable Learning at Williams College, Greg Lukianoff spoke at Williams College about how colleges suppress free speech. Greg talked about the challenges that students have faced, such as students being arrested for handing out copies of the Constitution or Drexel's rule against derogatory laughter. He also addressed what students can do to encourage debate and free speech at colleges."  

Source:Uncomfortable Learning- Greg Lukianoff, talking about free speech on college campuses.

From Uncomfortable Learning

This point has been made several times before and I am one of those bloggers who has made this point over and over, but college is about learning new ideas, thoughts and expressions. If it's censorship that you want, then perhaps you need to create time machine or something that will take you back to the 1950s when the words damn and hell were essentially forbidden in public. Well, at least on TV and in the movies. 

And if it’s just a nice polite world that you’re looking for (well, for minorities that is, leaving majorities subjected to whatever everyone else wants to say about them for good and bad) then perhaps you need to create your own country. Perhaps Paradise Island or someplace in the Pacific or Caribbean where there isn’t any hate or bigotry. (At least towards minorities, that is) 

To paraphrase President Andrew Shepard from The American President: America, is not easy. You have to want it bad in order live and make it here. Because we’re a country where you can essentially say whatever the hell you want to short of inciting violence, falsely accusing people, or harassing people. 

Americans, have the constitutional right to be enlightened, but we also have a constitutional right to be assholes. We also have the constitutional to be truth tellers even if what we have to say may tend to offend people who we are talking about.

That is called America, that is called liberal democracy, that is called the land of the free. This is what a liberal society and free society is about. The right for people to be free and live freely even if what we’re doing and what we have to say may tend to offend people who are oversensitive, or have much more culturally conservative perspective on life. 

America is not a good place for tight asses and people who can’t take a joke and who always find the one cloud on a beautiful sunny day. America, is about freedom and individuality and free expression. Even if that may tend to offend people who can’t ether take a joke and even understand criticism, let alone take it.

I’m almost to the point that I believe everyone who attends college in America should be required to pass a class on both the U.S. Constitution and First Amendment and Bill of Rights in general. Because apparently they didn’t bother to learn those things in high school. I had to take and pass a government course in high school in Maryland in the early nineties just to graduate from high school. When most of these students weren’t even born yet. Gives you a little idea how old I am. And I’m glad I did do that, because it’s a reason why I’m a political junky and blogger today.

But I guess today’s students were too busy texting the student who sits right next to them, or listening to their I-Pod in class, or googling what shoes Khloe Kardashian wore with her new bag when she went shopping in Beverly Hills last weekend. Or whatever else they might have done when they should have been paying attention to their teacher’s lecture on American history and social studies. 

You want to know why Americans get stereotyped as stupid? I’ll tell you anyway: because we now have a generation of Americans who don’t understand their country’s history and form of government and their own constitutional rights, like Freedom of Speech.

And when these kids finally get to college after finally completing summer school, it suddenly occurred to them that some Americans say some rough things about other Americans including minority Americans and some of those negative things are negative facts. And they’ve decided they’re going to try to force their sense of decency on the rest of the country. But America simply doesn’t work that way. 

America, again is that gigantic melting pot of a country. The largest, the most diverse, most beautiful, the freest melting pot in the world. Where all sorts of people have the right to express their own views. And they can’t be shut up for telling the truth. Or because people can’t take a joke, or simply don’t like what someone has to say. 

You can also see this post on FRS FreeState, on Blogger.

Libertarianism.Org: David S. D'Amato- 'The Most Liberal Value: Free Speech'

Source:The Daily Review- perhaps liberal democracy is not for the oversensitive in America.

"Recent events on American college campuses have prompted a debate on where we should draw the line that divides permissible from impermissible speech. Many students argue that some kinds of speech cause real trauma and hurt, and that therefore universities ought to intervene to protect them. The essential argument is the old and illiberal one that some words and ideas are simply out of bounds, that our benevolent rulers—in their infinite wisdom—must decide which words we may say or write, which books we may read, indeed, which opinions we may hold. Nevertheless, we might excuse students, unsophisticated and new to the world of ideas, for their failure to understand true liberal values. In all of their eager, overwrought opposition to intolerance, they have become the picture of intolerance. Much less pardonable, though, are the cowardice and capitulation of scholars and university administrators, who, despite their erudition and experience, have cleared the way for an authoritarian culture of hypersensitivity that grows stronger by the day. Just as the events of September 11th cowed us into embracing the most dangerous of enemies, the national security state, so too has our irrational fear of “hate speech” (and other similarly amorphous categories) persuaded us to abandon one of our foundational liberties. As Robert Higgs recently observed, we have regrettably become “a massively entertained, hyper fearful bunch of people who will sit still for a police state.” 

From Libertarianism.Org 

"As Professor Tom Bell explains, it was unfavorable speech that not only allowed individuals to protest Jim Crow laws and neo Nazis, but to fight for unpopular causes like the abolition of slavery or gay rights. In order for society to progress, hateful and offensive speech should not be censored. Freedom of expression must be protected." 

Source:Learn Liberty- on free speech in America.

From Learn Liberty

If someone told you that believe in free speech all the time, except when someone says something that they disagree with, find offensive, or offends people they believe deserves special protection, how would you respond to that? Someone says something that offends someone all the time in America. Whether the supposed target of the speech is right to be offended or not. Welcome to liberal democracy where you always have to the right to express yourself. The right for people to be intelligent and ignorant in the same society and even in the same person.

Again, we're talking about expression and speech. Not politeness, or meanness. Free speech in America is a guaranteed constitutional to a liberal amount of free speech that covers both politeness and meanness. As well as criticism and constructive criticism. Which means Americans have a hell of a lot of freedom to express themselves. That is what liberal free speech is about. Our Founding Fathers, (Our Founding Liberals) made Freedom of Speech our First Amendment for a very good reason: they saw it as our most important constitutional right.

No such thing as liberalism without free speech, free expression, freedom of assembly, the freedom of beliefs and philosophy including freedom of, or from religion. Without these guaranteed liberal constitutional rights liberalism doesn't exist and we are left with a world with one statist collectivist ideology after another with no one promoting freedom and free democracy. Except for perhaps today's so-called Progressives (Neo-Communists, really) who are more interested in the collective than individual rights including free speech.

Without liberalism and Liberals, we don't have the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights. Think about that for a second for anyone who wants too or claims liberalism as their political philosophy. Liberalism, the philosophy of liberty and individualism, as well as tolerance and equality, just as long as they're not forced upon people by the state. Without liberalism we don't have all of those guaranteed individual rights that Millennial's today have no problem taking advantage of when they're expressing their own views. Just as long as others aren't able to do the same when they say things that these college students disagree with.

If someone wants to convince me they're a Liberal, I'm going to ask them about free speech. I imagine their first answer will be something to the effect that they're in favor of it. That will be the easy part, but then like a good prosecutor that I'm not I'll ask them about political correctness, critical speech and even offensive speech. If they say they have no issues with redneck or Christian jokes as far as people having the right to make those comments, or that they agree with them, I'll agree with that person on that.

But then I'll ask today's young people (to sound corny) "how about minorities and Muslims? Do you support free speech or political correctness? Do you believe minorities deserve special protection that majorities don't when it comes to criticism and humor, or that everyone has the right to free speech regardless of who they're speaking about?" 

Depending on how young people answer those questions will determine if they're a Liberal or not. The person who says they're a Liberal and supports free speech regardless of who, or what it is about, will be the Liberal. At least when it comes to free speech. I would also want to know how they feel about Freedom of Choice in general and the Right to Privacy, government's role in helping who are struggling (to use as examples) but my first question would about free speech.

Liberalism, of course is not just about free speech. Liberalism is about individual rights and free choice, quality opportunity for everyone to succeed and that government even has a role here to see that everyone can succeed in society. But a big part of liberalism has to do with free choice and free expression. 

Our liberal free speech rights, our liberal rights to express ourselves, including public anger at our government when they do something that we hate and strongly disagree with and that even includes flag burning. Something that I'm against, but I support the right of others to disagree with me on that. 

Without freedom of speech as a liberal value, you don't have liberalism. It would be like being a Socialist who doesn't believe in the welfare state. A Libertarian who doesn't believe in the Right to Privacy: the philosophy would be destroyed as a result.

The Washington Post: George Will: 'On American Campuses, Freedom From Speech'

Source:The Washington Post- Yale campus Far-Leftists, protesting against free speech. 

"Yale’s president, Peter Salovey, dealt with the Crisis of the Distressing E-mail about Hypothetical Halloween Costumes about as you would expect from someone who has risen to eminence in today’s academia. He seems to be the kind of adult who has helped produce the kind of students who are such delicate snowflakes that they melt at the mere mention of even a potential abrasion of their sensibilities.

Salovey gave indignant students a virtuoso demonstration of adult groveling. With a fusillade of academia’s cliches du jour, he said the students’ “great distress” would be ameliorated by “greater inclusion, healing, mutual respect, and understanding” in the service of — wait for it — “diversity.” But of course only diversity that is consistent with the students’ capacious sense of the intolerable.

Salovey said he heard their “cries for help.” The cries came from students who either come from families capable of paying Yale University’s estimated $65,725 costs for the 2015-16 academic year or who are among the 64 percent of Yale undergraduates receiving financial aid made possible by the university’s $25.6 billion endowment. The cries were for protection (in the current academic patois, for “a safe space”) from the specter of the possibility that someone might wear an insensitive Halloween costume. A sombrero would constitute “cultural appropriation.” A pirate’s eye patch would distress the visually challenged. And so on, and on." 

You can read the rest of George Will's piece at The Washington Post

"Preps, security for Hu speech at Yale, protesters gathering" 

Source:Associated Press- one of the protestors at this Yale rally. I beg you not to ask me to translate what he said.

From the Associated Press 

I believe getting on people for what Halloween costumes college students is the last straw at least for me when it comes to the whole free speech debate on campus and off campus as well. As far as how stupid this whole debate is. 

We now have a generation of Americans who don't know how to relax and take a joke. Not sure they can even deliver a joke as well, so now we have a generation of tight assess. I wasn't a fan of the Millennial Generation ten years ago because I saw them as superficial, technology, social media and celebrity news obsessed assholes. Who were experts on everything that is meaningless and unimportant, but had a hard time coming up with the name of their own U.S. Representative, or Senator, let alone whose the mayor of their hometown. And perhaps would struggle to name all fifty-states. Spotting them their own state wouldn't be enough help for them.

I still see as Millennial's as superficial tight asses. But it gets worst, because now they have some view that it is now their mission in life to deny all minorities from having to hear, read, or deal with anything that may offend them. Apparently being not so bright they haven't figured out that they still live in America and if they don't like free speech, perhaps going to college in Cuba, (if the Cubans would take them) would be a better place for them to go to school. Perhaps they would actually learn something down there. Or maybe they would just miss being able to make their own decisions and holding protests on campus without first getting approval not from the President of the school, but from the President of the Communist Republic. America is not safe zone for opposition and critical speech that may offend people who can't take a joke, or handle the truth.

College, is a place for learning, developing, and experiencing, so you have some idea what life is like when you're in the real world and not everything is given to you and you have to work and earn everything that you get, where not everyone is going to be nice to you and always tell you how great you are. That place is called America and in America, Americans have the right to be themselves and express themselves. 

In America, we need to let people know what they think of them and be positive about people. As well as let people know when they come up short. In a liberal democracy we have the right to express ourselves about anything we want to. But with what comes with that is being accountable for what we say based on what other think about our views. But also what others think about us as people and they might not always be nice. America is not a great place for oversensitive tight asses who can't take a joke, or criticism. And hopefully the Millennial Generation is still young enough to learn that. 

You can also see this post at Real Life Journal, on Blogger.

TIME: Charlotte Alter- 'Here’s What All Successful Student Protests Have in Common'

Source:TIME Magazine- 1960s civil rights proponents.

Source:The Daily Review 

"Many college graduates have a story of marching in the quad, or holding signs, or gathering to chant slogans in front of a university building. Protest is as much a part of college as late-night pizza or last-minute exam cramming. But some movements make change, while others die down when midterm season comes or leaders graduate.

Students at the University of Missouri found themselves in the former category on Monday, when their protests over the University of Missouri president’s handling of racial issues on campus led to his resignation. Students had been ramping up pressure against Tim Wolfe for weeks, arguing that he had ignored or minimized problems including racial slurs hurled at black students and a swastika drawn in feces on a campus wall. On Monday, as a graduate student’s hunger strike stretched into its eighth day, and the school’s football team threatened to go on strike (which could have cost the university $1 million), Wolfe announced that he would step down and students celebrated." 

From TIME Magazine 

"Six years in the making and with a cast of thousands, Berkeley in the Sixties recaptures the exhilaration and turmoil of the unprecedented student protests that shaped a generation and changed the course of America. Many consider it to be the best filmic treatment of the 1960s yet made.

This Academy Award-nominated documentary interweaves the memories of 15 former student leaders, who grapple with the meaning of their actions. Their recollections are interwoven with footage culled from thousands of historical clips and hundreds of interviews. Ronald Reagan, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Mario Savio, Huey Newton, Allen Ginsburg, and the music of Jefferson Airplane, Jimi Hendrix, Joan Baez and the Grateful Dead all bring that tumultuous decade back to life." 

Source:California Newsreels- protesters for free speech.

From California Newsreels

Its reflective and insightful analysis of the era - from the HUAC hearings and civil rights sit-ins at the beginning of the decade through the Free Speech Movement, the anti-war protests, the growth of the counter-culture, the founding of the Black Panther Party and the stirrings of the Women's Movement - confronts every viewer with the questions the 1960s raised, which remain largely unanswered.

What separates the student protest movements of the 1960s from today, is that the 1960s protesters were protesting for freedom. Protesting for civil and equal rights for all Americans. Protesting in favor of free speech on campus and in general. Protesting against an unjust war that they hated and so they wouldn’t have to go fight in that war themselves. 

The so-called student protesters today are protesting in favor of political correctness over Freedom of Speech. They want a special new right for minorities: the Right Not to be Offended. No American currently has that right in the U.S. Constitution, but these New-Left protesters feel that minorities in America are entitled to it.

So you have the 1960s student protesters, the Baby Boomers the hippies, the real Liberals from this era who wanted the ability to be left alone, live their own lives and live in freedom, before the New-Left emerges in the late 1960s, that wanted to tear down the American establishment and our form of government and move to a socialist system. 

The 1960s hippies marching for individual freedom for all Americans and not have to fight wars they think are immoral. And you have the sons and daughters, perhaps even grandsons and granddaughters of the New-Left of the 1960s and 1970s, protesting today against free speech. And create a new right for minorities that doesn’t exist for anyone else.

The hippies, we're successful, because America was politically changing in the 1960s and becoming that country that we really are today of people who believe in the right to be left alone and be free to live our own lives and even freely express ourselves. While the New-Left, represented a fringe in the 1960s that believed capitalism was immoral and even racist, that our form of government was even undemocratic and completely wanted to change the American way of life and impose their socialist and even Marxist values on the rest of the country. 

And today you have the New-Left still representing a fringe that sees free speech as dangerous and that minorities deserve the right not to be offended. The 1960s protesters were successful, because in many cases they had the country with them. The New-Left protesters today don’t have that.