On the other hand, she seems to be doing fine all on her own.

University!

In recent years, a University of Oklahoma vice president has declared that no university resources, including e-mail, could be used for “the forwarding of political humor/commentary.” The College at Brockport in New York banned using the Internet to “annoy or otherwise inconvenience” anyone. Rhode Island College prohibited, among many other things, certain “attitudes.” Texas Southern University’s comprehensive proscriptions included “verbal harm” from damaging “assumptions” or “implications.” Texas A&M promised “freedom from indignity of any type.” Davidson banned “patronizing remarks.” Drexel University forbade “inappropriately directed laughter.” Western Michigan University banned “sexism,” including “the perception” of a person “not as an individual, but as a member of a category based on sex.” Banning “perceptions” must provide full employment for the burgeoning ranks of academic administrators.

h/t EBD

The Canadian Museum for Human Rights…

… has placed a gag order on employees that asks them “not to disparage or make negative comments, publicly or privately, oral or written about the [museum], including employees of the [museum]. Any breach of this provision will result in forfeiture of some or all of the settlement proceeds.

More at Black Rod.

University!

“The people who believe that colleges and universities are places where we want less freedom of speech have won,” Mr. Lukianoff says. “If anything, there should be even greater freedom of speech on college campuses. But now things have been turned around to give campus communities the expectation that if someone’s feelings are hurt by something that is said, the university will protect that person. As soon as you allow something as vague as Big Brother protecting your feelings, anything and everything can be punished.”

University! – The “abysmal” state of free speech at Canadian public universities is stifling students’ right to speak their minds, according to a new report card that gives mostly failing grades to universities and their student unions.
h/t Victor

A complaint about broadcaster Ezra Levant’s rant that likened Gypsies to “swindlers” has prompted a Toronto police investigation.

Click for the story. Stay for the comments.
Plenty more from Kathy Shaidle.

Where the foxes caper unmolested, the government packs your school lunch and the hum of the intellectuals grows ever louder…

University!

At Popehat;

Anthea Butler, a professor at Penn, defended calls for the arrest of the man who made [Innocence of Muslims], suggesting that it had “inflamed” people across the globe, putting Americans at risk. Garrett Epps wrote that blasphemy is not the “essence of free speech” and that other nations understand freedom differently than we do. Professor Peter Spiro reacted to the film by suggesting that “international norms” about hate speech should prevail over our relatively absolutist free speech values.
We should address such views, not ignore them. But as we consider them — as we evaluate whether anti-blasphemy laws will ever be consistent with the modern American values embodied in our First Amendment precedents — we should examine what the competing values truly are. What are the “other values” which other societies believe outweigh free speech? What sorts of things “inflame” people in those societies? If other societies understand free expression differently than we do, how do they understand it? What “international norms” are emerging on blasphemy?
I decided to try to answer those questions by looking at how the nations of the world have treated blasphemy during one year: October 2011 through September 2012. In other words, I decided to examine how one year reflected the competing values concerning free speech and blasphemy.

The rest is here.
P.S. “Incidentally, the “Innocence of Muslims” guy is still in jail. Plus, he’s been banned from setting foot in the UK.”

Finally, others are catching on.

Heh – “No I don’t think it’s right to say ‘excitable yokel.’ Under the guidelines it has to be ‘A yokel who gets excited.’ With the program get.”

Arrest me, Hillary Clinton, before I start. Call Eric Holder!
And while you are at it, tell him to round up Salman Rushdie. His novel about Mohammed is obviously blasphemous. He was lucky to escape that fatwa. We should have one of our own.
And arrest those Danish cartoonists too – ink-stained wretches!

And lots more…

A recent “study” by the UCLA Chicano Studies Research Center entitled “Social Networks for Hate Speech: Commercial Talk Radio and New Media” (PDF) should be very familiar to any Canadian who closely followed the kangaroo court persecutions of Mark Steyn and Ezra Levant.
This latest attempt to clamp down on the free speech of conservative Americans is nothing new, as this 1995 column of Charles Krauthammer illustrates. Anyone asserting that this latest “study” uses scientific methods to “prove” its assertions was clearly catatonic throughout the entire Climategate scandal.
The Leftist agenda at work here is anything but opaque. It’s also painfully tiresome:

1. Determine what conclusions you wish to come up with.
2. Conduct a “study” that’s dressed up with endless verbiage and statistical charts.
3. Issue press releases to the Leftist MSM and blogosphere about there now being “scientific proof” that what conservatives say is hateful and might even lead to violence.
4. Sit back and laugh while your political enemies are demonized.

When it comes to actual violence, the recent contrast in the coverage of the Aurora, Colorado shootings versus the minimal coverage of the Washington, DC shooting speaks volumes more than this “study” ever will. Waiting for a UCLA study to investigate why Leftist individuals lash out in violence is akin to this.

Continue reading →

More at Sun News.

Meet the People’s Rights Amendment.

…it’s important to recognize that the proposal goes far beyond denying free speech rights to entities organized as corporations. It would deny them all other constitutional rights as well. Section 1 of the proposed amendment states that the “the rights protected by this Constitution” are limited to “the rights of natural persons.”
Notice that this is not limited to free speech rights or even to First Amendment rights generally. Section emphasizes that “People, person, or persons as used in this Constitution does not include corporations, limited liability companies or other corporate entities established by the laws of any state, the United States, or any foreign state.” Notice that this is not limited to for-profit corporations lobbying for their narrow self-interest. It applies to all corporations of any kind, including nonprofits, media corporations, churches, and others.
Thus, the PRA would deny all constitutional rights to all entities organized as corporations. If the Amendment passes, government would be free to search corporate-owned premises at will, restrict freedom of religion at houses of worship owned by corporate entities (which includes most churches), condemn corporate-owned property for private uses and without paying compensation…

Via Instapundit

Via Marc Lemire;

Starting at 11:00am, Conservative MP and freedom fighter Brian Storseth (Conservative, Westlock – St. Paul, Alberta) is going to be testifying for an hour before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights (JUST) about Bill C-304, An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act (protecting freedom). Bill C-304 is landmark legislation, which will see the censorship powers (Section 13) stripped from the fanatics at the Canadian Human Rights Commission. So far, Bill C-304 has passed two readings in the House of Commons, and has the support of the Justice Minister and the Conservative Party of Canada.
If you are in Ottawa on April 24th, 2012, you can attend the JUST sub-committee at:
Tuesday, April 24, 2012
11:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.
Room 306, La Promenade Building
151 Sparks St.
Ottawa, Ontario

ParlVu is going to be broadcasting MP Brian Storseth’s testimony live. (JUST Meeting No. 31)

At Sun News…

Related!

The major media’s double standard, elucidated by Publius:

Death of the Prime Minister
Just for laughs:

On Bob Rae’s schedule for Wednesday night [Feb. 22]: some time boxed in to deliberate Stephen Harper’s demise. All for fun, though!
The Liberal Party of Canada seatwarmer is one of the rent-a-dons booked for the annual wit-whack that is the Leacock Debate. Hart House. Great Hall. Toronto. 6 p.m. The issue up for pedantic undressing? “A plane carrying Celine Dion, Rob Ford, Stephen Harper and Don Cherry is about to crash. There is only one parachute. Who lives?” Debate amongst yourselves.

Such wit! Such originality! Nothing like telling jokes about Stephen Harper meeting a painful and gruesome end…
The location for this laughing with death debate is Hart House, that’s the student center for the University of Toronto…