Censorship

In early June, the New York Times ran a piece by Michael Powell entitled “Once a Bastion of Free Speech, the ACLU Faces an Identity Crisis.” So what’s new? The author claims that there is a schism in the American Civil Liberties Union whereby the old or “classic” civil libertarians stand up for free speech, no matter the content of that speech, while the younger or more “woke” activists want to see the organization focus on anti-racism action.

Roman Polanski does not deserve to be vilified or cancelled, despite his conviction of sexual assault of a 13-year-old in 1978, and more recent allegations by women who state that he sexually abused them when they were minors. 

I don’t know about you, but I am not fond of humour that is aimed at humiliating or degrading individuals, even if those individuals are public figures. It is one thing to point out the foibles of people’s actions and another to make fun of someone’s appearance or other characteristics that are immutable. I am truly over racist, sexist, and body-shaming humour.

It’s a 44-year-old story that no self-respecting news organization anywhere would publish today—certainly not in the form it took.  And is that a good thing?

Well, hello again. Having ended last month's column with a candid appeal for readers to "talk back" about free speech, I was grateful to those who took me at my word. They made me think new thoughts, which is, of course, the whole idea.

France’s obsession with depicting cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad is back in the news following the murder of middle school teacher, Samuel Paty last month for showing his students a cartoon of the Prophet Muhammad from the French magazine Charlie Hebdo.  Following the gruesome murder by an 18 year old Russian immigrant, French President Emmanuel Macron called the incident “a typical Islamist terrorist attack” and praised Mr. Paty as the "face of the republic" and a person who "believed in knowledge."