Reason Magazine: Nick Gillespie Interviewing Nadine Strossen- 'Fight Hate Speech With More Speech, Not Censorship'

Source:Reason Magazine- Author Nadine Strossen. 

“Reason’s Nick Gillespie talks to former president of the ACLU Nadine Strossen about the importance of free speech.”

From Reason Magazine 

"The updated paperback edition of HATE dispels misunderstandings plaguing our perennial debates about "hate speech vs. free speech," showing that the First Amendment approach promotes free speech and democracy, equality, and societal harmony. As "hate speech" has no generally accepted definition, we hear many incorrect assumptions that it is either absolutely unprotected or absolutely protected from censorship. Rather, U.S. law allows government to punish hateful or discriminatory speech in specific contexts when it directly causes imminent serious harm. Yet, government may not punish such speech solely because its message is disfavored, disturbing, or vaguely feared to possibly contribute to some future harm. "Hate speech" censorship proponents stress the potential harms such speech might further: discrimination, violence, and psychic injuries. However, there has been little analysis of whether censorship effectively counters the feared injuries. Citing evidence from many

countries, this book shows that "hate speech" are at best ineffective and at worst counterproductive. Therefore, prominent social justice advocates worldwide maintain that the best way to resist hate and promote equality is not censorship, but rather, vigorous "counterspeech" and activism." 

Source: NPR News- Good book!

From Amazon

To paraphrase USA Today political columnist and CNN political analyst Kirsten Powers, I'm a free speech nut. Meaning I don't put many limits on what free Americans can say about anything in America or anywhere else. Other than what Nadine Strossen said in this interview where she says you can't incite violence and call for harm against personal property and individuals. You can't falsely accuse someone without consequences. You can't harass someone and leave horrible messages on their phone without consequences, or get in their face after the individual made it clear to you that they don't want to talk to you and have already moved to get away from you. You're free to yell at that person as they move away from you, but you can't try to force anyone to listen to what you have to say about them or anyone else.
But when you live in a liberal democracy and you know what liberal democracy is actually about, you know you're going to be living in a country where some people there at least aren't very bright. Perhaps they flunked out of junior high, perhaps they're one beer short of a keg, got kicked out of every mental institution that tried to help them or simply simply escaped from every mental institution known to man. They're people out there that are simply stupid or crazy, or a combination of those things and view some humans as animals that deserved to be treated as such. Or that women should be slaves to men, at least Caucasian men. Or gays are really just mental patients, or perhaps don't even deserve to be alive. You're going to be sharing a free society with people who believe that only they the hateful nuts, deserve to live in freedom.

Americans simply have the right to make assholes out of themselves, except for the exceptions I've already laid out and when you live in a country of 320 million people you're going to have a lot of assholes. Especially when that country is a liberal democracy and broader free society. The way you combat hate speech is the same way you combat ignorance which is through education. You teach the ignorant or at least try to and explain why the asshole is an asshole and has views that could have only been dreamed up in the greatest pot fantasy in the history of the universe. And is so out-of-touch with reality that they live in a different universe mentally.

I'm in the camp that I'll fight to death every American's right to free speech even if I disagree with it and will fight to the death to preserve some asshole's right to free speech, because I don't want some other asshole ( especially elected assholes ) trying to shut me up either civilly or through government force when I say something that may tend to offend someone else. Once you pass laws that offensive speech is now illegal, you've just created a new highway of potential new offensive speech laws that now anyone could create or use to fight free speech that they disagree with. Which could include laws passed against racial and ethnic minorities when they say offensive things and do offensive things against majorities in America. Which is something the so-called political correctness warriors on the Far-Left haven't thought through or even considered which is political correctness laws could be used against them. Free speech and education, are always the answers to ignorance. 

You can also see this post on WordPress. 

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

The Economist: 'Liberalism- Where Did it Come From and Are its Days Numbered?'

Source:The Economist- Lady Liberty!

"Liberalism has been the dominant political philosophy in the West for more than 200 years. Populists say liberals are too elite and are out of touch with ordinary people. Here's what you need to know about liberalism and its place in modern society." 

From The Economist

On this overcast, ugly, cool Memorial Day in the nations capital just outside of Washington, I thought as we celebrate as a country the lives of the people who died for our freedom, I would explain how we got that freedom as a country and the philosophy that our freedom and individual rights is based on. Whether you want to call it classical liberalism or as I prefer just liberalism, liberalism is what our individual freedom and individual rights are actually based on. No other political philosophy has given us that. As well to speak to The Economist piece, do I believe liberalism is in trouble in America and around the world or not.

Source: Tedfri Teff- Great definition of Liberal and liberal democracy

Liberalism is based off of liberal democracy and the principles of what's called classical liberalism. Representative democracy where the people elect their leaders and politicians. But what also comes with liberal democracy is individual rights and things like separation of powers. A free press for example so government can't control both their own operations and enforcement, as well as the information that the people receive in the country. As well as free speech for individuals so people aren't arrested or detained simply for disagreeing with the government or anyone else. And that right to express themselves so long as they aren't falsely accusing, harassing people, or inciting violence. And that even covers offensive and hate speech. ( Sorry, political correctness warriors )

Source: My English Teacher- Good definition of Liberal

But not just a constitutional right to free speech which is a liberal right to free speech which covers a lot of ground, but individual rights, freedom, self-determination in general, that comes with limited government with again separation of powers, as well as the rule of law. People have the freedom over their own lives in a liberal democracy, but not the freedom to take someone else's freedom away from them, especially the right to life ( another liberal individual right ) unless it's in self defense. Our Founding Fathers ( our Founding Liberals ) didn't create America because they wanted to bring the British authoritarian monarchy here, but because they wanted to get away from it and create a liberal free society based off of self-determination, individual rights, and limited government.

Do I believe liberalism is in trouble in America and around the world? Yes, but because you have two competing authoritarian populist factions that don't believe in freedom and see it as dangerous. The Nationalists on the Far-Right, who don't believe in immigration, integration, multiculturalism, the rule of law, a free press, would like to see views that are critical of them be outlawed and the people who express those views be jailed. We see this with the Donald Trump movement in America, but also with Nigel Farage Nationalists in Britain.

And we see it with young people in America and in Europe on the Far-Left. Who have more respect for Karl Marx and Che Guevara and see Communists and Socialists as their pop culture icons as well as ideological heroes. And look down at people like Jack Kennedy, Tom Jefferson, and other Liberals who gave us our liberal democracy and freedom. They see Liberals as corrupt and bigoted, but Communists as great people who should be celebrated. it's not just the Bernie Sanders social democratic wing ( or Democratic Socialists ) that young people in America and in Europe are in love with ideologically and culturally, but authoritarians who are even further left of the Democratic Socialists in America and in Europe.

As long as you have these two growing political factions in America and in Europe, that see political diversity as a dangerous thing and that the other side aren't just political opponents, but enemies, with both major political parties in America expecting their political party to nominate someone from their fringe wing or they won't bother voting in the general election, liberalism and liberal democracy will be in danger in America. You'll always have a President who believes that anything critical of him should be punished and not allowed to get out in the public, especially if it's true. And an opposition party that believes they should not only defeat the party in power, but replace it with their own fringe and replace the Nationalists with Socialists and Communists, the people who believe in liberal democracy and freedom in general, will suffer. 

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

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

Notes on Liberty: Bruno Gonclaves Rosi: ‘Communism/Socialism is Rubbish'

Source: Slide Player- Communism & socialism-

Source:The New Democrat

Before someone argues that of course socialism works, just look at Britain, France, Scandinavia, and perhaps Europe in general, this is not about socialism at least in the democratic sense. This is about communism, which is different and is the authoritarian wing of socialism. Every social democratic or democratic socialist country in the world, has a capitalist economic system. Their capitalist system is just different than America’s and even Canada’s and even Germany’s. And socialism along with communism, aren’t just economic theories and systems, but political ideologies and governmental systems as well. So Europe with their social democratic/democratic socialist economies as well as forms of government, of course look different from America, which is a liberal democratic federal government, with governmental power is spread out and where individualism is rampant and encouraged.

Source: Brainy Quote- Soviet Union President Vladimir Lenin, on communism

People on the Far-Left everywhere and not just in America, argue that we don’t know if communism and socialism have failed or not, because they’re never in accurately put into practice. But we know that is simply not true. We know that social democracy/democratic socialism, have been put into practice and we know the results from that economic system and form of government. And we know that communism has been put into practice and the results of that economic system and form of government. How we know this? Because the people who advocate for communism are actually talking about Europe and other social democratic countries around the world like Japan, Australia, Canada. That wealth should be highly taxed and spread out. That no one should have to go without the basic necessities of life regardless of their education and production levels. That you should have a big centralized welfare state to provide people with the insurances that they need to live well. That is the economic system of Western Europe, Canada, and Australia, Japan as well.

Source: IZ Quotes- UK Prime Minister Winston Churchill, on socialism

What Communists do is make the same arguments that Democratic Socialists do, but take it further on both economics and expand their ideology to how government should operate and the role of state and and people in society. That the state should be put in charge of the people to serve the people on their behalf and meet everyone’s needs for them. That people sacrifice choice and freedom, for economic and physical security. And as long as everyone cooperates and doesn’t oppose the state, they would live in prosperity. That is always the promise of communism and the contract that Communists propose when they run for office. Whether they officially label themselves as Communists like in Cuba, or are dishonest with their ideologically and govern as closeted Communists, like what we see in Venezuela. Where the party in power there is actually called the Socialist Party, but they effectively at least govern as Cuban Communists. With a little more media, opposition, and freedom for the people.

Why Communism fails is because people, human beings in general tend to want freedom and be able to make their own decisions and self-determination. Wherever they live in the world, at least when they’re being honest. And that includes the social democratic/democratic socialist countries of Europe ( with the key word being democratic ) and when you take that freedom away and you take competition away, you also take away individualism and creativity, the incentive for people to improve and be productive, because they’ve been promised that whatever happens with them and however they perform in life at whatever they do, that big government no matter what will always be there to take care of them.

People all over the world tend to operate from fear. That if they don’t succeed and do well in life, bad things will happen to them that government won’t be able to bail them out and make it all better again for them. Which tends to be all the incentive that most people need to succeed and be productive in life. Because people tend not to want to live on Welfare and be able to do well in life so they don’t need Welfare to support themselves. In a communist system and I would argue at least even in a democratic socialist system, that fear is taken away. Because social welfare benefits from those countries at least in those developed countries, are so generous, that people know if they fail, they’ll always have big government there to bail them out. With our more liberal capitalist economic system, we don’t have that generous taxpayer funded insurance system to ball us out when we fall on hard times or even fail. Which gives us all the incentive in the world to succeed in life.

Seriously, if you don’t believe communism is a failure both as an economic and governmental system, spend some time in Cuba or North Korea. People don’t flea from countries that are doing well and are prosperous. And take long dangerous boat rides from Cuba to Florida, to escape the authoritarianism of Cuba and try to live in freedom of America. Americans don’t escape America to go live in Cuba or China, because they can’t handle personal decision-making anymore and want to go live on Welfare in Cuba, the Communist Republic of Korea, ( which is actually North Korea really is ) or China. During the height of the Cold War, about half of the world live under one authoritarian government or another, including Europe. Now most of the world especially in the West, no longer lives under communism or another form of authoritarianism.

Source: The School of Life: Karl Marx- Political Theory- Communist hero, Karl Marx

Jane Fonda: 1976 TV Interview

Source:Marmar- Hollywood Goddess Jane Fonda, in 1976.

“Jane Fonda interview – 1976.”

From Marmar

You can't sum Jane Fonda up as a Hollywood actress or a left-wing ( to be kind ) political activist. She's both of those things. She's one of the best actresses of her generation at least and I would put her in the top of her generation with women like Elizabeth Taylor, Natalie Wood, and many others. But she's also one of the most famous political activists ever and one of those people from the New-Left ( socialist movement of the late 60s and 1970s ) who actually survived that period and went on to have a very successful life. 

Not ending up in prison doing long stretches because she attempted to rob a bank and give all that money to poor people or blow up a bank.

Things that The Weather Underground and Students For a Democratic Society, the Symbionese Liberation Army, did. She managed to stay away political criminal activity and instead just use her free speech rights to express her own political views and campaign for people who think like her and want the same things in society. And whatever you think of her politics and I'm not a fan of her Far-Left socialist politics, I believe in free speech that free speech applies to everyone including to radical on the Far-Left and radicals on the Far-Right. One of my core beliefs as a Liberal.

That free speech isn't just for centrists who don't know what they believe, or Center-Right Conservatives or Center-Left Liberals. But when I think of Jane Fonda, I prefer to look at her as the great Hollywood actress that she's always been really since the late 1950s or early 1960s. And not as someone who has argued that America are the real murderers, the real evil empire. And that we're not just a racist, selfish society.  

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

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

The New Yorker: Will Storr: 'How Millennials Became The Selfie Generation'

Source:The New Yorker- Narcissism on display.

"We look at how society became fascinated with its own image, and try to find the truth behind selfie-taking. How Millennials Became the Selfie Generation | Annals of Obsession"

Source:The New Yorker

Just on a personal I note: I'm really glad I went to and graduated high school in the early and mid 1990s and not today with the personality I have then and now. Going to high school today must feel like you're on a reality TV or daytime talk show or something. With practically every teenager in school feeling the need to talk, look, and act like they're favorite celebrity that they saw or read about online the previous night. Social media narcissism and faddism is in and individualism is dying with the Millennials and we'll see what Generation Z is like when they're out of high school and college as well.

Selfies similar to coffee house cups and smartphones, are props. People use them to tell everyone else that they're up to date and in style with whoever is cool or awesome at the time. And I'm willing to bet a lot of times when you see someone walking doing a street or out of a building looking down at their phone and holding a coffee house cup, the cup is probably empty and they're just looking at their phone. And that draw dropping OMG expression that you see, is just that. But there probably isn't actually anything extraordinary going on with that person at that time because again they're just looking at their phone because they want people to think they're just as cool or awesome and in as the people that see them.

Well, selfies are props as well for people who feel the need to be seen doing whatever they're doing that day and being at whatever the trendy place is and that place will probably be a coffee house or some trendy cafe and they'll feel the need to get those pics up on Facebook ( or whatever they're favorite social network is ) almost as soon as their pics are taken. The need to feel cool by the people they believe are cool and who they want to be seen with. Faddism is in with young adults today and the need to be seen like their favorite celebrities and individualism and risk in life is out. Because if people act like themselves the person they talk to in their head and see in the mirror when they're just being them self in private, they're worried that person might not be seen as cool with the in crowd.

I'm all in favor of self-esteem and people feeling good about themselves, as long as it's deserved. When someone fails at something whether it's in school or at work, the first reaction shouldn't be it will get get better. Doesn't mean it won't get better, but that shouldn't be the automatic first reaction. The first reaction should be a self-examination and be a question which is why did you fail. Failing and screwing up should be opportunities for self-improvement. "This is why I failed and this is what I can do to prevent future failures and be successful in the future." Instead of, "that is just a onetime thing and it will automatically get better in the future." Because if you don't fix what went wrong the last time, it won't get better until you do.

Self-esteem, the so-called self-esteem movement of the 1990s, was the start of the rise of narcissism in America. With people feeling the need to be seen and be seen being cool and hanging out with cool people and feeling like if something went wrong in their life it wasn't because of them and it wasn't a personal failure on their part. And we see that with selfies today with people feeling the need to be liked and popular and be told they're great, oh I'm sorry awesome and doing awesome things and being around awesome people and feeling the need to be associated with whatever the popular trend is. And the internet and social media today have just taken those issues in American culture to extreme levels, along with celebrity culture and how important that seems to be with so many Americans.

You can also see this post on WordPress. 

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

Mariah Riley: '48 Hours Mystery-Vanity Fair Hollywood Scandal- Natalie Wood'

Source: Mariah Riley- Natalie Wood & Robert Wagner.

“48 Hours Mystery – Vanity Fair Hollywood Scandal – Natalie Wood”

Source:Mariah Riley

I don't see much of a mystery here and certainly no foul play, at least no evidence of any foul play. We know that Robert Wagner and Natalie Wood, had a fight about Christopher Walken on their boat the night that Natalie drowned, but then they separated and went to different rooms on the boat. And Natalie for some reason by herself goes up on deck on their boat. We also know that they were both drunk and that Natalie not only couldn't swim, but was scared of water and didn't want to be in it.

So that might pose the question what was she doing up there and did someone force her to go up there. The problem with that is that she was drunk. Not that I know this from personal experience having never been drunk in my life, but from what I've seen with intoxication is that people don't think as well when they're drunk, as when they're sober. When you're drunk you just lost some braincells and the consequence of that is that you're not as sharp and aware of what's going on around you and you also don't have complete control of your movements.

You do and say silly things and perhaps eve stupid things when you're drunk. Walking around on the deck of a boat on a cold November evening even in Catalina California and getting close to the freezing water, would qualify as stupid. Especially in the dark and being there all by yourself. Especially when you can't swim and are afraid of the water, at least when you're sober.

This wasn't suicide or murder, but a woman who accidentally killed herself. Similar to a driver losing control of their car and being the only person in their car and crashing the car and dying instantly with no one else being there during the crash. Which happens with drunk driving accidents. This to me looks like a self-drowning accident. Perhaps the deck of the boat was wet and she was too close to the edge. Maybe she saw something and reached over to try to pick it up and lost control and fell in the water. With the other passengers on the boat away from her and no aware of what's going on.

I'm going off the available evidence that has been made public about this case that is now over 36 years old in late 1981. If someone wants me to believe something else, show me some actual evidence. Not a conspiracy theory and arguing well this happen or that happen and Robert Wagner really didn't love his wife and was jealous and saw this way to get back at Natalie because of her affection for Chris Walken. Even if that were true that still doesn't put Wagner with Natalie when she died or right before she died. Instead all you have is a decent fictional mystery story. Perhaps a tabloid story but nothing with anyway real evidence to it.

You can also see this post on WordPress.

A&E Biography: Ava Gardner

Source:A&E Biography- Hollywood Goddess Ava Gardner.

"Gardner was born in Grabtown, North Carolina, on December 24, 1922. She was her parents' seventh child. When Gardner was 2 years old, she and her family were forced to leave their tobacco farm. Her father then worked as a sharecropper, while her mother ran a boardinghouse. The family always struggled financially, a situation that worsened when Gardner's father died when she was 16.

Gardner was studying to be a secretary when her photographer brother-in-law sent pictures of her to Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer. A striking beauty with dark hair and green eyes, Gardner's photos convinced the studio to give her a screen test. This led to her signing a seven-year, $50/week contract with MGM in 1941 when Gardner was 18 years old.

Ava Gardner signed a contract to be an actress with MGM in 1941, but it wasn't until her appearance in 1946's The Killers that she became a star. Gardner's off-screen life was often as dramatic as the roles she played, with marriages to Mickey Rooney, Artie Shaw and Frank Sinatra. Gardner died on January 25, 1990, at age 67, in London, England. 

Actress Ava Gardner was a sultry beauty famous for playing femme fatale roles, and for her marriages to Frank Sinatra, Artie Shaw and Mickey Rooney."  

From A&E Biography 

"Ava Gardner Documentary"  

Source:All Things- Hollywood Goddess Ava Gardner.

From All Things

The way I feel about Ava Gardner is similar to how I feel about Lauren Bacall. And I put both Ava and Lauren in the top class of both Hollywood actresses and Hollywood Goddesses of all-time and I’ll explain what I mean about Hollywood Goddess later.

There are actresses in Hollywood that become famous simply because they’re famous. They’ve overly sexual and perhaps overly attractive as well and seem to need to be to be successful in life. Who are known for their personality and doing wild things, for using catch phrases that become famous and popular. Who fit imperfectly with the current pop culture scene and how people are acting and communicating. But aren’t in Hollywood either on TV or in the movies because they’re great actresses and highly intelligent. They get seen because of their appearance and their personality and become popular for those reasons.

With agents, producers, directors, and executives, thinking we can make a stars of these women simply because they’re popular, even though they can’t remember their lines and struggle at just showing up for work. But directors in Hollywood thinking they’re worth the extra work and trouble, because of their popularity and makes shows and films that are passable as far as material and the work, but are known for the lead actresses appearance and personality. Not because of the work that was put into the production or professionalism of it. Lindsay Lohan comes to mind and you can probably name other actresses and actors light that yourself from every era.

And then there are Hollywood Goddesses, gorgeous women, who can be both little girl adorable and highly sexual but without overdoing it, but the most important thing once and if you can get pass their Goddess appearance is they’re great entertainers. They have great personalities, but they’re great actresses and entertainers as well. And they’re all very funny and interesting and are just women you want to hang out with and get to know, because you’ll never have a boring time with them. You can’t stop looking at them or wanting to talk to them. That is where both Lauren Bacall and Ava Gardner come in and fit into. Great looking women, but also great entertainers as well.

They’re prettier actresses than Ava Gardner. They’re even cuter actresses then Ava Gardner. (Short list there) And they’re sexier actresses then Ava Gardner. There might even be better actresses than Ava Gardner. Extremely short list on the last two points when you’re talking about a women with both great comedic timing and a great comedic wit in Ava Gardner, as well as great dramatic appeal and affect as well as Ava Gardner.

But similar to Sophia Loren, you’ll have a hell of a time finding an actress who is prettier, cuter, sexier, more entertaining, smarter, and more honest, and funnier than Ava Gardner. She wasn’t a total package, she was the total package, at least of her generation. Sophia Loren is better looking, sexier and prettier, but Ava, Lauren Bacall, and Rita Hayworth, are the Hollywood Goddesses of their generation. Incredibly stunning and adorable women, who are all great actresses. And it’s just a damn shame that we couldn’t get another 10-15 years of the great Ava Gardner. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

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