Is Free Speech Under Attack in this Country?
- Thread starter sturg33
- Start date
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
bad
i think we should have affirmative action based upon whether a student comes from a disadvantaged background but we should not use race and ethnicity to make that determination
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
i don't post when eating a messy sandwich...i still have a class today and don't want to go in looking like i lost a fight with a slice of pizza
Wow - Progress.
We have benefits for kids from disadvantaged backgrounds if they have the grades and overall achievement. Are you saying we need more? I grew up on the border of being poor and without a mother. What benefits should I have got or the fact of me being white eliminate that?
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
i think so...there are lots of applicants who look similar in terms of grades or test scores...the idea is to give some brownie points to qualified applicants who have overcome some disadvantages...such as poverty or not having a family member who previously went to college
Last edited:
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
Speaking of dissenting views within groups thought to be bastions of conformist orthodoxy, here's an interesting WaPo piece about dissent wracking the NYTimes over its coverage of transgender youth.
https://wapo.st/3kqMHMq
The New York Times is racked with internal dissent over internal dissent — a development stemming from multiple open letters sent last week to newspaper management taking issue with the paper’s recent coverage of transgender youth. The uproar reflects the pressures of managing coverage of a sensitive topic at a time when media criticism is flourishing everywhere.
“As thinkers, we are disappointed to see the New York Times follow the lead of far-right hate groups in presenting gender diversity as a new controversy warranting new, punitive legislation,” reads one of those open letters, from multiple Times contributors and five employees. The polemic slams the Times for spilling much ink on trans youth even though it has published “no rapt reporting on the thousands of parents who simply love and support their children, or on the hardworking professionals at the New York Times enduring a workplace made hostile by bias.” (GLAAD and other organizations wrote another letter expressing similar objections.)
In response, New York Times Executive Editor Joe Kahn and Opinions chief Kathleen Kingsbury defended the coverage and deplored staffers’ involvement in the protest: “We do not welcome, and will not tolerate, participation by Times journalists in protests organized by advocacy groups or attacks on colleagues on social media and other public forums,” their letter reads.
The NewsGuild of New York, which represents Times journalists, tells the Erik Wemple Blog that Times employees have been called into “investigatory meetings” related to their participation as signatories. An informed source says that disciplinary actions are underway.
The tough talk from management prompted a rebuke from Susan DeCarava, president of the NewsGuild, which is in the midst of contentious collective bargaining negotiations with the Times. The coherence of the don’t-attack-your-colleagues rule is questionable, noted DeCarava, since the paper in 2020 published a critique by op-ed columnist Bret Stephens of the Times’s own 1619 Project.
What’s more, the employees’ activity is protected by law, argued DeCarava: “As you know, employees have a right under federal law to engage in protected concerted activity to address workplace conditions. It is a violation of federal law for The New York Times to threaten, restrain or coerce employees from engaging in such activity. Employees are protected in collectively raising concerns that conditions of their employment constitute a hostile working environment. This was the concern explicitly raised in the letter at issue here.”
Hold on a second: Was the union chief arguing that Times content itself — the gist of its stories; the reportorial choices in investigative pieces, for example — constituted “workplace conditions” that employees have a right to address? That was the takeaway of approximately 100 Times journalists who signed yet another letter — this one bashing DeCarava’s logic. “Factual, accurate journalism that is written, edited, and published in accordance with Times standards does not create a hostile workplace,” reads their letter. “Every day, partisan actors seek to influence, attack, or discredit our work. We accept that. But what we don’t accept is what the Guild appears to be endorsing: A workplace in which any opinion or disagreement about Times coverage can be recast as a matter of ‘workplace conditions.’”
Bill Baker, unit chair of the Times guild, said the employee letter attacking the guild was an interpretive “error” and that DeCarava’s message had “nothing to do with journalism and editorial content.” And Jenny Vrentas, a Times sports reporter, says she read the DeCarava letter “differently” than some of her colleagues had. In a guild town hall meeting on Tuesday, DeCarava defended her response to Times management, saying repeatedly that those who saw a threat to editorial independence had “misread” her words, according to several attendees. A guild spokesperson told the Erik Wemple Blog that DeCarava’s letter “made no assertion that editorial content was a workplace condition.”
Yet it’s hard to misread a comment from guild rep Claire Hirschberg, who recently told Times employees in the guild’s Slack channel: “I just want to be 100% clear as your guild rep that you are protected in participating in concerted collective activity and speaking out about your working conditions, including speaking out about things like NYT’s coverage of trans people. your union will protect and enforce your rights!” Asked whether that statement was a mistake or an expression of union policy, the guild spokesperson responded that it was “not a comment on editorial content or editorial policy.”
https://wapo.st/3kqMHMq
The New York Times is racked with internal dissent over internal dissent — a development stemming from multiple open letters sent last week to newspaper management taking issue with the paper’s recent coverage of transgender youth. The uproar reflects the pressures of managing coverage of a sensitive topic at a time when media criticism is flourishing everywhere.
“As thinkers, we are disappointed to see the New York Times follow the lead of far-right hate groups in presenting gender diversity as a new controversy warranting new, punitive legislation,” reads one of those open letters, from multiple Times contributors and five employees. The polemic slams the Times for spilling much ink on trans youth even though it has published “no rapt reporting on the thousands of parents who simply love and support their children, or on the hardworking professionals at the New York Times enduring a workplace made hostile by bias.” (GLAAD and other organizations wrote another letter expressing similar objections.)
In response, New York Times Executive Editor Joe Kahn and Opinions chief Kathleen Kingsbury defended the coverage and deplored staffers’ involvement in the protest: “We do not welcome, and will not tolerate, participation by Times journalists in protests organized by advocacy groups or attacks on colleagues on social media and other public forums,” their letter reads.
The NewsGuild of New York, which represents Times journalists, tells the Erik Wemple Blog that Times employees have been called into “investigatory meetings” related to their participation as signatories. An informed source says that disciplinary actions are underway.
The tough talk from management prompted a rebuke from Susan DeCarava, president of the NewsGuild, which is in the midst of contentious collective bargaining negotiations with the Times. The coherence of the don’t-attack-your-colleagues rule is questionable, noted DeCarava, since the paper in 2020 published a critique by op-ed columnist Bret Stephens of the Times’s own 1619 Project.
What’s more, the employees’ activity is protected by law, argued DeCarava: “As you know, employees have a right under federal law to engage in protected concerted activity to address workplace conditions. It is a violation of federal law for The New York Times to threaten, restrain or coerce employees from engaging in such activity. Employees are protected in collectively raising concerns that conditions of their employment constitute a hostile working environment. This was the concern explicitly raised in the letter at issue here.”
Hold on a second: Was the union chief arguing that Times content itself — the gist of its stories; the reportorial choices in investigative pieces, for example — constituted “workplace conditions” that employees have a right to address? That was the takeaway of approximately 100 Times journalists who signed yet another letter — this one bashing DeCarava’s logic. “Factual, accurate journalism that is written, edited, and published in accordance with Times standards does not create a hostile workplace,” reads their letter. “Every day, partisan actors seek to influence, attack, or discredit our work. We accept that. But what we don’t accept is what the Guild appears to be endorsing: A workplace in which any opinion or disagreement about Times coverage can be recast as a matter of ‘workplace conditions.’”
Bill Baker, unit chair of the Times guild, said the employee letter attacking the guild was an interpretive “error” and that DeCarava’s message had “nothing to do with journalism and editorial content.” And Jenny Vrentas, a Times sports reporter, says she read the DeCarava letter “differently” than some of her colleagues had. In a guild town hall meeting on Tuesday, DeCarava defended her response to Times management, saying repeatedly that those who saw a threat to editorial independence had “misread” her words, according to several attendees. A guild spokesperson told the Erik Wemple Blog that DeCarava’s letter “made no assertion that editorial content was a workplace condition.”
Yet it’s hard to misread a comment from guild rep Claire Hirschberg, who recently told Times employees in the guild’s Slack channel: “I just want to be 100% clear as your guild rep that you are protected in participating in concerted collective activity and speaking out about your working conditions, including speaking out about things like NYT’s coverage of trans people. your union will protect and enforce your rights!” Asked whether that statement was a mistake or an expression of union policy, the guild spokesperson responded that it was “not a comment on editorial content or editorial policy.”
Last edited:
sturg33
I
I would have thought child mutilation would have been a 100% common cause among leftists and conservatives... But my experience on this board proves that ideology will trump children's health on this issue
57Brave
Well-known member
BREAKING: This morning Governor DeSantis officially signed into law the removal of Walt Disney’s special tax district.
This move isn't happening because DeSantis thinks it's best for the state, but instead it's best for his political ambitions after Disney decided to speak out against the bigoted laws that he supports, which harm the LGBTQ+ community.
Now instead of Disney taking care of 25,000-acres of land and 175 miles of roadways in Central Florida, it will be up to the state to do that.
What's best for DeSantis isn't what's best for Florida, and what's best for America isn't a Fascist form of government where corporations are penalized for speaking out for what they believe in.
Republicans want "Free Speech" only when it helps their own cause.
This move isn't happening because DeSantis thinks it's best for the state, but instead it's best for his political ambitions after Disney decided to speak out against the bigoted laws that he supports, which harm the LGBTQ+ community.
Now instead of Disney taking care of 25,000-acres of land and 175 miles of roadways in Central Florida, it will be up to the state to do that.
What's best for DeSantis isn't what's best for Florida, and what's best for America isn't a Fascist form of government where corporations are penalized for speaking out for what they believe in.
Republicans want "Free Speech" only when it helps their own cause.
zitothebrave
Connoisseur of Minors
Florida releases a list of "approved" books for their students to read and sturg is upset about Matt Walsh events being cancelled by a private company.
sturg33
I
So you believe the private corporation is better suited to manage itself than the government?
sturg33
I
Sounds like an argument for private and school choice to me
But I'm fine with the state banning porn in their schools. Are you not?
zitothebrave
Connoisseur of Minors
So you're willing to make it the hill to die on that every banned book in Florida is for Porn?
Can you provide one example of an 'unapproved' book and explain why it was inappropriately included on that listing?
sturg33
I
Please send me the list of books that I cannot purchase in the state of Florida.
zitothebrave
Connoisseur of Minors
I mean if we're going with the Duval list? Or you want me to go off any book aside from like the 350 florida approved?
There was an approved listing announced which means that certain books were certainly removed from the library or were previously in the curriculum. If the law was so outrageous I'm just asking for one example where a book was improperly excluded from the approved listing and why their omission is egregious.
zitothebrave
Connoisseur of Minors
Ok let's go off books not included in the guidelines from FLorida.
Lord of the Rings - Maybe the greatest literary fantasy achievement. I started reading the books in 3rd grade.
The hobbit - Not banned but not recommended until 8th grade. Holy ****, my mom read that book to me when I was like 6 or 7. ANd I read it on my own in 2nd grade. The standard accepted age is around 10. Which would be 5th*6th.
Harry Potter - I mean this will be approved as JK Rowling is now beloved by the right because her stance against trans rights. But yeah it's simple young reading that I feel like was standard grades 3+
these are just going off things that were staples to me and others I know growing up.