August 25, 2017 by
Every Thursday between 1972 and 2001, the oil and gas giant Exxon Mobil Corp. ran an advertorial in the New York Times.    When these ads — which were aimed at swaying public opinion and appeared in other publications as well — covered the science and policy debate surrounded global warming, they emphasized the uncertainty of the science and the difficulty of solving the problem, if it existed at all.  Yet at the same time, inside the company, Exxon Mobil's own scientists and officials were taking the threat of climate change seriously and viewed it as a potential roadblock to its business. People protest outside Congress on Jan. 11, 2017. A new study published on Wednesday adds to what we know about Exxon Mobil's "say one thing, research another" approach to the climate issue, which has put the company in legal jeopardy.    The first-ever peer-reviewed analysis of Exxon's private and public climate communications, published in the journal Environmental Research Letters, found that Exxon followed a public relations strategy of sowing doubt regarding climate science findings while quietly hewing to mainstream scientific conclusions internally.  Stacks and burn-off from the Exxon Mobil refinery. The study is the first to classify the positions taken in Exxon's internal documents as well as its public statements on climate change, and it bolsters the recent work of investigative journalists at Inside Climate News, the Columbia Journalism School, and Los Angeles Times.     "Our study is the first peer-reviewed, academic analysis of Exxon’s 40-year history of climate change communications," said co-author Geoffrey Supran, a science history postdoc at Harvard University, in an email.  "Our results show that Exxon has misled the public about climate change. It did so, we have shown, by contributing quietly to climate science and loudly to raising doubts about it." The research is likely to play into investigations by multiple state attorneys general, aimed at determining whether Exxon Mobil purposefully misled the public and shareholders about the reality and seriousness of global warming. Such activities may have violated multiple statutes.  The Securities and Exchange Commission has initiated a separate but similar investigation regarding the company's disclosure of investment risks. Together, these investigations are known on social media by the hashtag, #ExxonKnew. The new study, by Supran and the well-known science historian Naomi Oreskes, could bolster the legal cases currently being explored, though it is not explicitly aimed at making any legal judgements, the authors state.   Supran and Oreskes chose to undertake this study in part because of how Exxon Mobil has sought to defend itself from the allegations. The company has published a list of more than 50 peer-reviewed articles on climate research and policy from 1983 to the present day, and denied that it "suppressed climate change research."  New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman is one of the state attorneys general investigating Exxon Mobil. The company has also made some internal documents public in the wake of the investigative reporting during the past two years.    "Read all of these documents and make up your own mind," the company has said.  So, Supran and Oreskes did just that, approaching it from an academic perspective so they could classify each document's position on whether human-caused climate change is real, a serious threat, and solvable.  The analysis of 187 documents found a consistent discrepancy between the company's public and private communications about climate change. The external documents focused on doubt about climate science, while internal communications acknowledged the risks of human-caused global warming. Notably, the researchers found that ExxonMobil's scientists were aligned with mainstream climate experts in acknowledging human-caused climate change as real and human-caused, and even projected more significant global warming than other assessments in the peer-reviewed scientific literature.  "On the question of whether ExxonMobil misled non-scientific audiences about climate change, our analysis supports the conclusions that it did," the study states.  "Exxon Mobil contributed to climate science — by way of its scientists’ academic publications — but promoted doubt about it in public, through advertorials," Oreskes said. Climate deniers have spent years criticizing Oreskes' previous work that quantified the agreement within the scientific community on global warming, and she and Supran are ready for whatever Exxon throws their way this time. 2016 was the warmest year on record for the globe. "Exxon may say that these are just our opinions, but they’re not — these are our evidence-based conclusions, which have passed the peer-reviewed scrutiny of anonymous experts in the field. Our methods and evidence are transparent and audit-able," Supran said.   Interestingly, the study found that the company is also paying acute attention to the potential problem of stranded fossil fuel assets. Right now, the company assumes that its massive fossil fuel reserves will be burned to generate electricity and power cars and trucks. However, if world leaders enact limits on carbon emissions that prohibit the burning of Exxon Mobil's reserves, presumably the company's value would tumble.  This topic is of particular interest to company shareholders and financial regulators. "... We found that Exxon discussed the topic of stranded fossil fuel assets in no less than 24 documents, but never in advertorials," Supran said in an email.  "To me it’s noteworthy that Exxon didn't just vaguely or qualitatively refer to this risk. In at least five cases, they actually quantified how much carbon dioxide we can afford to burn before we blow the 2-degree Celsius [or 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit] guardrail. And they were accurate — within a factor of two of contemporary estimates," he said.  "This may be relevant to ongoing investigations into whether Exxon has properly disclosed the risks of its assets becoming stranded by climate policy." ExxonMobil did not respond to a request for comment about this study.  source

August 22, 2017 by
In what may be the largest award so far in a lawsuit tying ovarian cancer to talcum powder, a Los Angeles jury on Monday ordered Johnson & Johnson to pay $417 million in damages to a medical receptionist who developed ovarian cancer after using the company’s trademark Johnson’s Baby Powder on her perineum for decades. Eva Echeverria, 63, of East Los Angeles is one of thousands of women who have sued the consumer products giant Johnson & Johnson claiming baby powder caused their disease, pointing to studies linking talc to cancer that date to 1971, when scientists in Wales discovered particles of talc embedded in ovarian and cervical tumors. Only a few lawsuits have gone to trial, but so far most of the decisions have gone against the company. In May, a Missouri jury awarded $110 million to a Virginia woman, a year after Missouri juries awarded $55 million to one plaintiff and $72 million to a woman who died before the verdict. Another woman, Deane Berg of Sioux Falls, S.D., won a lawsuit, but the jury did not award damages. In March, a St. Louis jury rejected a Tennessee woman’s claim that Johnson & Johnson’s powder caused her ovarian cancer, and a New Jersey judge dismissed two talcum powder lawsuits against the company, a company spokesman said. Many women sprinkle baby powder on their inner thighs to prevent chafing, or use it on their perineum, sanitary pads or underwear for its drying and freshening effects. Continue reading the main story       Ms. Echeverria, who was too sick to testify in court and gave a videotaped deposition, started using Johnson’s Baby Powder when she was 11 and continued after being diagnosed with ovarian cancer in 2007, unaware that some studies had linked talc to cancer, said her lawyer, Mark Robinson. She stopped using it after hearing news reports of a verdict in another lawsuit against Johnson & Johnson, he said, and now wanted to warn other women. “She told me, ‘I’m not doing this for myself,’” Mr. Robinson said. “She knows she’s going to die. She’s doing this for other women. She wants to do something good before she leaves.” A spokeswoman for Johnson & Johnson, Carol Goodrich, said the company would appeal the verdict handed up by a jury in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County and was preparing for additional trials. The company “will continue to defend the safety of Johnson’s Baby Powder,” she said. “Ovarian cancer is a devastating diagnosis and we deeply sympathize with the women and families impacted by this disease,” Ms. Goodrich said in a statement. But she added, “We will appeal today’s verdict because we are guided by the science, which supports the safety of Johnson’s Baby Powder.” The company statement pointed to a National Cancer Institute report in April that said, “The weight of evidence does not support an association between perineal talc exposure and an increased risk of ovarian cancer.” But elsewhere, the cancer institute uses more ambivalent language, saying “it is not clear” if talcum powder increases the risk of ovarian cancer. Though numerous studies have linked genital talc use to ovarian cancer, the research findings have not been consistent. They consist mostly of epidemiological or population studies, which cannot conclusively prove a cause-and-effect relationship between an exposure and later development of cancer. But scientists have hypothesized that talc might lead to cancer because the crystals can move up the genitourinary tract into the peritoneal cavity, where the ovaries are, and may set off inflammation, which is believed to play an important role in the development of ovarian cancer. The International Agency for Research on Cancer in 2006 classified talcum powder as a possible human carcinogen if used in the female genital area, but no federal agencies have acted to remove talcum powder from the market or add warnings. Talc is a naturally occurring clay mineral composed of magnesium and silicon that is mined in proximity to asbestos, a known carcinogen, and the Food and Drug Administration asks manufacturers to take steps to avoid contamination with asbestos. Talc is used in many cosmetics products, including one formula of Johnson’s Baby Powder; another formula uses cornstarch, which has not been implicated in any studies or lawsuits about ovarian cancer. source

August 21, 2017 by
There are those who say that comparing President Donald Trump’s rhetoric to that of Adolf Hitler is alarmist, unfair and counterproductive. And yet, there has been no dearth of such comparisons since the 2016 presidential election. Many commentators have also drawn parallels between the conduct of Trump supporters and Holocaust-era Nazis. Protesters with opposing views face off at a ‘Free Speech’ rally in Boston. The comparisons continue today, and Trump’s comments in the wake of the Charlottesville attack show why. The president’s reference to violence on “both sides” implies moral equivalence, which is a familiar rhetorical strategy for signaling support to violent groups. His comments give white supremacists and neo-Nazis the implied approval of the president of the United States. Many of these groups explicitly seek to eliminate from the U.S. African-Americans, Jews, immigrants and other groups, and are willing to do so through violence. As co-directors of Binghamton University’s Institute for Genocide and Mass Atrocity Prevention, we emphasize the importance of recognizing and responding to early warning signs of genocide and atrocity crimes. Usually, government officials, scholars and nongovernmental organizations look for these warning signs in other parts of the world – Syria, Sudan or Burma. Has the time come to watch for these warning signs in the United States? Is it possible in the US? The term “genocide” invokes images of gas chambers the Nazis used to exterminate Jews during World War II, the Khmer Rouge killing fields of Cambodia and thousands of Tutsi bodies in the Kagera River in Rwanda. On that scale and in that manner, genocide is highly unlikely in the United States. But genocidal violence can happen in the U.S. It has happened. Organized policies passed by elected U.S. lawmakers have targeted both Native Americans and African-Americans. The threat of genocide is present wherever a country’s political leadership tolerates or even encourages acts with an intent to destroy a racial, ethnic, national or religious group, whether in whole or in part. The Holocaust took the international community by surprise. In hindsight, there were many signs. In fact, scholars have learned a great deal about the danger signals for the risk of large-scale violence against vulnerable groups. In 1996, the founder and first president of the U.S.-based advocacy group Genocide Watch, Gregory H. Stanton, introduced a model that identified eight stages – later increased to 10 – that societies frequently pass through on the way to genocidal violence. Stanton’s model has its critics. Like any such model, it can’t be applied in all cases and can’t predict the future. But it has been influential in our understanding of the sources of mass violence in Rwanda, Burma, Syria and other nations. The 10 stages of genocide The early stages of Stanton’s model include “classification” and “symbolization.” These are processes in which groups of people are saddled with labels or imagined characteristics that encourage active discrimination. These stages emphasize “us versus them” thinking, and define a group as “the other.” The 10 stages of genocide According to one model, societies frequently pass through these stages on the way to genocidal violence. Stage Name Description 1 CLASSIFICATION The differences between people are not respected. There’s a division of ‘us’ and ‘them.' This can be carried out through the use of stereotypes, or excluding people who are perceived to be different. 2 SYMBOLIZATION This is a visual manifestation of hatred. Jews in Nazi occupied Europe were forced to wear yellow stars to show that they were ‘different.' 3 DISCRIMINATION The dominant group denies civil rights or even citizenship to identified groups. The Nuremberg Laws of 1935 in Nazi Germany stripped Jews of their German citizenship and prohibited their employment by the government and by universities. 4 DEHUMANISATION Those who are perceived as ‘different’ are treated with no form of human right or personal dignity. During the Genocide in Rwanda, Tutsis were referred to as ‘cockroaches’; the Nazis referred to Jews as ‘vermin.' 5 ORGANIZATION Genocides are always planned. Regimes of hatred often train those who are to carry out the destruction of a people. 6 POLARIZATION Propaganda begins to be spread by hate groups. The Nazis used the newspaper Der Stürmer to spread and incite messages of hate about Jewish people. 7 PREPARATION Perpetrators plan the genocide. They often use euphemisms to cloak their intentions, create fear of the victim group and build armies, buy weapons and train their troops and militias. 8 PERSECUTION Victims are identified and separated out because of their ethnic or religious identity and death lists are drawn up. People are sometimes segregated into ghettos, deported or starved and property is often expropriated. Genocidal massacres begin. 9 EXTERMINATION The hate group murders their identified victims in a deliberate and systematic campaign of violence. Millions of lives have been destroyed or changed beyond recognition through genocide. 10 DENIAL The perpetrators or later generations deny the existence of any crime. The Conversation, CC-BY-ND Source: Based on Gregory H. Stanton’s 10 stages of genocide   As Stanton makes clear, these processes are universally human. They do not necessarily result in a progression toward mass violence. But they prepare the ground for the next stages: active “discrimination,” “dehumanization,” “organization” and “polarization.” These middle stages may be warning signs of an increasing risk of large-scale violence. Where are we now? Trump’s political rhetoric helped propel him into office by playing on the fears and resentments of the electorate. He labeled out-groups, hinted at dark conspiracies, winked at violence and appealed to nativist and nationalist sentiments. He has demanded discriminatory policies including travel restrictions and gender-based exclusions. Classification, symbolization, discrimination and dehumanization of Muslims, Mexicans, African-Americans, the media and even the political opposition may be leading to polarization, stage six of Stanton’s model. Stanton writes that polarization further drives wedges between social groups through extremism. Hate groups find an opening to send messages that further dehumanize and demonize targeted groups. Political moderates are edged out of the political arena, and extremist groups attempt to move from the former political fringes into mainstream politics. Do Trump’s implied claims of a moral equivalence between neo-Nazis and counterprotesters in Charlottesville move us closer to the stage of polarization? Certainly, there are reasons for deep concern. Moral equivalence – the claim that when both “sides” in a conflict use similar tactics, then one “side” must be as morally good or bad as the other – is what logicians call an informal fallacy. Philosophers take their red pens to student essays that commit it. But when a president is called on to address his nation in times of political turmoil, the claim of moral equivalence is a lot more than an undergraduate mistake. We suggest this is a deliberate effort to polarize, and an invitation to what comes after polarization. Responding and preventing Polarization is a warning of the increased risk of violence, not a guarantee. Stanton’s model also argues that every stage offers opportunities for prevention. Extremist groups can have their financial assets frozen. Hate crimes and hate atrocities can be more consistently investigated and prosecuted. Moderate politicians, human rights activists, representatives of threatened groups and members of the independent media can be provided increased security. Encouraging responses have come from the electorate, business leaders, government officials and the international community. Individuals and groups are following the recommendations for action presented in the Southern Poverty Law Center’s guide to combating hate in supporting victims, speaking up, pressuring leaders and staying engaged. Business leaders have also expressed their discontent with Trump’s polarizing statements. Local governments are declaring themselves sanctuary cities or cities of resistance. At the national level, strong statements have been made by leaders of all of the military branches. Several international leaders have also spoken up. German Chancellor Angela Merkel condemned the racist and far-right violence displayed in Charlottesville, and U.K. Prime Minister Theresa May harshly criticized Trump’s use of moral equivalence. In our assessment, these actions represent essential forms of resistance to the movement toward polarization, and they reduce the risks of genocide. source    

August 20, 2017 by
The ACLU positioned itself to lead the resistance. Now its deepest traditions could be at stake. “The ACLU has blood on its hands.” It was a not-uncommon sentiment in the wake of last week’s Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, in which 32-year-old Heather Heyer was killed (allegedly at the hands of white supremacist James Alex Fields Jr.) and far-right activists assaulted and intimidated counterprotesters. The ACLU had sued the city of Charlottesville to allow the Unite the Right rally to happen downtown. And now, it had happened, and blood had been spilled. The ACLU’s been through this cycle before. When the ACLU famously defended the rights of a Nazi group to march through a largely Jewish neighborhood in Skokie, Illinois, in the 1970s — a case that’s set the parameters of First Amendment protections for protests for the last 50 years — it lost thousands of members and faced bitter questions from liberal American Jews about how it could defend the group that had killed their relatives (and in some cases tortured them) just a few decades before. But these aren’t the same Nazis who marched through Skokie, and this isn’t the same progressive movement — and it isn’t the same ACLU, either. The backlash has already spurred other ACLU chapters to declare that they don’t believe free-speech protections apply to events like the one in Charlottesville, and led the ACLU’s national director, Anthony Romero, to declare the group will no longer defend the right to protest when the protesters want to carry guns. The ACLU’s response didn’t resolve the underlying problem. It didn’t fully address a criticism put forward everywhere from Twitter to the New York Times, which published a column from former ACLU volunteer K-Sue Park on Thursday called “The ACLU Needs to Rethink Free Speech.” And with city governments already moving to restrict future far-right rallies to prevent a recurrence of what happened in Charlottesville — the city of Berkeley just passed an emergency ordinance allowing the police to dissolve gatherings that don’t have permits, for example, in anticipation of a forthcoming “alt-right” rally there — the ACLU is going to have to make some very quick decisions about when and how it will defend the far right in 2017. The ACLU seemed like it was in the midst of a partial reinvention as an explicitly progressive organization for the Donald Trump era. It was one of the biggest beneficiaries from the #resistance groundswell of small donations and grassroots interest after the 2016 election, and it’s leaned into the idea of itself as a movement organization rather than just the country’s most powerful public-interest law firm. But the Charlottesville rally called attention to an important fault line between the ACLU’s traditional vision of justice and the way the progressive grassroots movement sees justice in 2017: a fight over whether the best way to protect the powerless is to stand against the principles that could be used to crush them, or simply to stand on the side of people seeking social equality by whatever means are necessary. The ACLU’s new line post-Charlottesville: firearms and free speech don’t mix In the days before the Unite the Right rally, it became clear that Charlottesville would be a gathering point for both right-wing rallygoers and left-wing counterprotesters. The city of Charlottesville attempted to defuse the situation by moving the Unite the Right rally away from its original location — Lee Square, in downtown Charlottesville, featuring the statue of Robert E. Lee that was the ostensible cause of the rally — to a location farther away from the center of the city. The city argued it was trying to prevent confrontation. But to free-speech activists — including the ACLU of Virginia — it was a pretty standard attempt to use a rally permit to marginalize unpopular speech. So the organizers of the rally sued, with the ACLU’s support, and won the right to keep the rally downtown. You know what happened next. The Unite the Right rally was disbanded before it had officially begun, after the hours before the rally were marked by clashes between rallygoers and counterprotesters. The bulk of the violence was initiated by rallygoers, and as counterprotesters marched down a street hours after the rally, a car (allegedly driven by Fields, who had attended the rally carrying a shield with the logo of white-supremacist group Vanguard America) killed Heyer and injured 19 other counterprotesters. Almost immediately, some progressives began to ask why the ACLU had fought to allow this to happen. ACLU of Virginia board member Waldo Jaquith resigned, alleging on Twitter that the organization ignored signs that rally organizers were encouraging violence — and that “what is legal is not always right.” With more “alt-right” rallies planned for the weeks after Charlottesville, and mounting pressure on the ACLU to stop “defending Nazis,” the ACLU’s California affiliates issued a statement on Wednesday declaring, “We review each request for help on a case-by-case basis, but take the clear position that the First Amendment does not protect people who incite or engage in violence. If white supremacists march into our towns armed to the teeth and with the intent to harm people, they are not engaging in activity protected by the United States Constitution.” At first, it seemed like the California affiliates were subtweeting, or even splitting with, their Virginia counterpart. But on Thursday, the national organization appeared to side with the Californians — and draw a new line that would have prevented them from defending Unite the Right. ACLU director Anthony Romero told the Wall Street Journal: “If a protest group insists, ‘No, we want to be able to carry loaded firearms,’ well, we don’t have to represent them. They can find someone else.” The ACLU’s apparent shift of position angered some of the civil-libertarians who’d been defending it most forcefully early in the week. “Until now,” lawyer and blogger Scott Greenfield wrote, the ACLU has “never quite come out and announced that they will refuse to defend a constitutional right. This announcement says that when someone seeks to exercise two rights at the same time, the ACLU is outta there.” At the same time, though, it’s not clear that Romero’s statement is enough to appease the progressives who believe that the ACLU has blood on its hands for Charlottesville. Because not only is what’s legal not always the same as what’s right (as Waldo Jaquith said), but in this case, the answers to both of those questions are hotly contested. Legally, the relationship between the 1st and 2nd Amendments is complicated — and the ACLU stepped in it In practice, freedom of speech isn’t exactly absolute: “Government may not censor speech because of its viewpoint,” says former ACLU director Nadine Strossen, “but it may censor speech because of its effects.” To be specific, government can prevent speech in the case of an “emergency” — when it’s clear that there’s no other way to prevent or protect against violence. But for more than a century, the courts have wrestled with what responsibility someone has when their speech results in violence — and when it’s okay to outlaw the former to prevent the latter. One speech emergency is a “true threat” — speech that is intended to provoke a “reasonable fear that you are going to be attacked or harmed by the person engaging in the expression.” Another (the one that the ACLU’s California affiliates appeared to be invoking in their statement) is incitement: as defense lawyer and blogger Ken White puts it, “Is it intended to, and likely to, cause imminent lawless action?” The “imminent” is important. “Speech about why it’s morally appropriate to do lawless things is not incitement,” White says. An earlier legal standard held that the government could prohibit speech that had a “bad tendency” to result in lawless action down the road — a standard that was used to censor Communists and antiwar protesters, among other groups. But in 1969, the Supreme Court ruled that the state of Ohio couldn’t prosecute speakers at a KKK rally simply for advocating for “reveangeance” against “n*****rs” and “Jews.” The reason, as Strossen puts it: “They were having a rally just for themselves. There was nobody else there, and nobody could see it,” so there wasn’t an imminent danger. (The KKK, in that case, was represented by the ACLU.) But as that case makes clear, incitement isn’t just about what someone says but the context in which they say it. The same is true for “true threats” — the question is what about the context in which the speech is offered makes it clear that it’s reasonable for someone to feel afraid of harm. And in the 21st century, the context in which this sort of speech is being delivered as part of a public protest is different for one big reason: guns. “The cases acknowledging an individual right to bear arms are very recent,” White points out. After decades of maintaining that the Second Amendment applies to groups of people (a “well-organized militia”) instead of individuals seeking to own and carry guns, the Supreme Court sided with the “individual right” in the 2008 case Heller v. District of Columbia. That puts it “like 50 years behind where the First Amendment is,” White says, in terms of case law about what that right actually means: who it refers to, when it applies, and what if any “emergencies” justify the government curtailing it. In other words, when groups of people decide to rally at a location for political purposes, and many of those people decide to bring guns, they’re sitting at the intersection of two different rights. And, White says, “I don’t think that we’ve really developed the law yet very well on the connection between” them. And there isn’t an obvious bright line about what kind of speech is turned into a threat or an incitement when there’s a gun involved. “I can certainly imagine if I were for example a counterdemonstrator, and I’m demonstrating against people who are there brandishing firearms, I think I would feel very frightened and I think that would be a reasonable fear,” says Strossen. “Even as I’m describing it, I think my imagination’s pretty good, because I’m feeling a little chill go down my body.” But White is adamant that “carrying weapons isn’t in itself incitement,” and that someone can’t argue they face “reasonable fear” from a demonstrator simply carrying a weapon in a place where it’s legal to do so. “Combine open carry with a statement like ‘we are coming for you,’ and you've got something,” he says. “But you still need a threat.” In other words, all of these cases are inevitably going to come down to the details of who said what and when — details that are hard enough to figure out in advance, when the question is whether government will allow a future event to happen, and that are certainly not easy to draw a general principle on. Strossen interprets Romero’s statement of the ACLU’s new policy as a commitment to “look even closer at the facts” before deciding which cases to take on. But “at a time when legal specificity is needed,” says White, “they’re being dangerously vague about what they think the law is.” He points out that the California affiliates’ statement “was issued in the context of imminent (right-wing) marches in California. Are they saying it isn’t constitutionally protected? Are they saying it shouldn’t be?” And are they saying that the real problem is the guns, or that the people holding them are white supremacists? The people mad at the ACLU don’t believe there’s an easy distinction between speech and violence Without being vague enough to drive lawyers like Ken White crazy, though, the ACLU’s statements would have seemed totally tone-deaf and non-responsive to the controversy raging around them. Because the question that’s engulfed the progressive movement in the week after Charlottesville is whether the mere existence of outspoken white supremacy, in public performance, is an existential threat. From a leftist perspective, there’s more to violence than physical aggression — it’s also violent to promote ideas that see other groups of people as less than human, marginalize them, or prevent them from speaking. Those are the people who believe that “hate speech” either isn’t protected as free speech, or that it shouldn’t be — because in the case of “hate speech,” speech and violence are the same thing. The NYU law professor Jeremy Waldron laid out this case in a 2012 book, The Harm in Hate Speech. He argued that the message sent by “hate speech” was “to negate the implicit assurance that a society offers to the members of vulnerable groups — that they are accepted” and that they can go about their day “with no need to face hostility, violence, discrimination or exclusion by others.” To Waldron, that’s an assurance the government is obligated to provide to all people equally, and if hate speech undermines it then hate speech ought to be curtailed. Even some progressives who don’t believe in outlawing “hate speech” in general believe that white supremacy and Naziism are inherently violent ideologies, and therefore that adhering to them is a call for violence in its own right. The debate isn’t over punching Nazis with guns, it’s over punching Nazis. But the ACLU has built its reputation, for decades, on the idea that there is no ideology so dangerous it doesn’t deserve vigorous First Amendment protections. “Going back to the organization’s founding in 1920,” says Strossen, “it was defending freedom of speech for anti-civil-libertarians, everybody from fascists to communists.” (This is something of a whitewash of the ACLU’s institutional history — like a lot of other establishment liberal organizations in the 1950s, it was too afraid of McCarthyism to defend Communists and even required members to abjure Communism in an oath — but it’s a decent account of its impact on the current state of free-speech law.) From the perspective of civil libertarians, those cases — and the Skokie Nazi case — prevented a dangerous slippery slope: any legal precedent that gets set restricting speech because of what it says can easily be turned against any other speech the government doesn’t favor. If the paradigmatic free-speech cases of 50 years ago protected racist right-wingers, the precedents they overturned had prosecuted communists, pacifists, labor unionists, and civil-rights and racial-justice advocates. It’s mind-boggling to civil libertarians like Strossen and White that any progressive, in the Trump era, would be okay with the government deciding what speech is inherently hateful or violent and what isn’t. “If people understood that US law draws very sensible lines between punishable and protected speech,” says Strossen, “I think they would have a lot more confidence that current law is the way to go.” The unspoken counterpart: if people tried to move those lines, they wouldn’t end up being able to control where the law ended up. Civil libertarians see a bright line in terms of law — they have to protect a particular legal principle unconditionally, because otherwise the principle will disappear. Meanwhile, their critics see a bright line in terms of power. To many progressives, the question of who needs to be protected is much more important than the ideas being used to justify it — and they feel it’s simply not all that difficult to step in when a principle is being used to benefit the powerless, and step back when it’s used to benefit the powerful. This won’t be the last time the ACLU comes under fire for whose rights it chooses to defend In retrospect, it’s a little surprising that the ACLU wasn’t better prepared to come under fire from the left over Charlottesville; after all, it had just survived another progressive uproar about taking on a right-wing client. The week before the Charlottesville rally, the national ACLU and the DC and Virginia affiliates announced that they were suing the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, which regulates the Metro subway system in DC, for rejecting ads deemed “political.” The group of rejected advertisers represented by the ACLU included a women’s-health network that specializes in contraceptives and abortion — but it also included right-wing firebrand Milo Yiannopoulos, who’s managed to squeeze 15 minutes of fame out of saying inflammatory things and being protested on (and banned from) college campuses because of them. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the headline became “ACLU defends Milo.” And several progressives were annoyed at best and outraged at worst — not because they were particularly invested in keeping Yiannopoulos’ ads off the DC Metro, but because they didn’t understand why the ACLU was choosing to take him on as a client (especially when they could have taken a lower-key approach, like filing a brief on his behalf). This is the root of the progressive objection to the ACLU: not that the things it is doing are legally wrong, but that by picking battles that don’t always align with progressive objectives it’s missing the forest of justice for the trees. “The danger that communities face because of their speech isn’t equal,” K-Sue Park wrote in her Thursday New York Times column. “The A.C.L.U.’s decision to offer legal support to a right-wing cause, then a left-wing cause, won’t make it so.” It’s a charge that’s been leveled against the ACLU since Skokie and earlier. In a post-Skokie debate between the ACLU’s then-director and a leftist lawyer from the National Lawyers Guild, the leftist lawyer opened with: “The law is not neutral. The courts are not neutral. The A.C.L.U. is not as neutral as it pretends.” American Nazi Party leader Frank Collins (front left) and other members commenting on the court case in Skokie, where they ultimately prevailed with the help of the ACLU. But the progressive critique now, as articulated by Park, is actually that the ACLU is neutral, and reality isn’t. It’s an argument progressives also made in 2010, when the ACLU supported the Supreme Court’s controversial decision in Citizens United, which struck down restrictions on campaign finance as a First Amendment violation. Park writes that power determines whose speech matters, and that a real defense of “free speech” would “imagine a holistic picture of how speech rights are under attack right now” — for everything from corporations to criminal law and voting restrictions — “not focus on only First Amendment case law.” From this perspective, allowing the government to pick and choose whose speech is protected isn’t a slippery slope — it’s already happening. (The fact that state legislatures in Tennessee and Florida considered bills in 2017 that would give immunity from civil lawsuits to drivers who ran into protesters blocking streets was used both by Ken White in arguing for “viewpoint-neutral” free speech protection, and by Park in her op-ed arguing against it — with both of them using the example to make the case that the current power structure is biased against left-leaning dissent.) The difference is that it’s happening in ways that they allege are too subtle for the ACLU’s current strategy. The ACLU rebranded itself for the resistance. And now it’s reaping the backlash. What’s odd about Park’s critique is that the ACLU is involved in many, if not most, of the issues she thinks are posing a more urgent threat to free speech than attempts to restrain Nazis from marching on Lee Square. The contemporary ACLU has whole divisions dedicated to voting rights, criminal justice, and LGBTQ rights. It consistently advocates for affirmative action. It’s poured millions into an effort to protect immigrant rights at the state level. It has become, in many ways, enmeshed with the rest of the progressive movement. But that’s also what makes Park’s critique, and the critique of others who agree with her, hit so close to home. Because the ACLU does look like a progressive organization right now, it’s particularly striking when it disagrees with the rest of the progressive movement. This was true before the 2016 election (it’s why the ACLU took so much heat for Citizens United). But in the wake of the election of Donald Trump, it really looked like the ACLU itself was embracing an identity as a leader of the progressive movement. In the immediate aftermath of the election, the ACLU became a touchstone organization for progressives (from people on Twitter to celebrities) to broadcast their support for and call for donations to. After all, it was an umbrella organization working on a range of issues that tracked with the people most likely to be made vulnerable under a Trump administration, but the fact that it was not explicitly on the Democrats’ “side” made it look like a symbol of the transpartisan decency that the country had lost by electing Trump. By February, the organization had raised $79 million since the election (from 1 million donors). Its membership had more than doubled. But along with that flood of support came the expectation that the ACLU actually do something with it, and become a #resistance leader. Grassroots movement-building wasn’t the organization’s traditional strength, but it became a new focus. Visit the ACLU’s website today, and this is the banner you’ll see, above a picture of Trump and the headline “THE FIGHT IS ON”: Screenshot of And they’ve used that network to mobilize on progressive economic issues beyond the organization’s traditional mission — during the fight over Congressional repeal of the Affordable Care Act, for example, the ACLU fought hard to resist cuts to Medicaid. If someone didn’t know anything about the ACLU before the election — or if they believed, with some reason, that the group was remaking itself for the Trump era — it makes sense they’d be alarmed to see the ACLU defending Trump allies like Milo Yiannopoulos, or helping the white supremacists who Trump was excoriated for calling “very fine people” in Charlottesville. That doesn’t seem like resistance, it seems like helping the people trying to crush the resistance. As far as the ACLU’s traditional values are concerned, resistance is what you do, not the side you’re on. And they’re used to members not agreeing with everything they’re working on: “no thinking person could possibly agree with every single thing that the ACLU does,” says Strossen. But she hastens to add, “I think it’s essential that there be at least one organization that is striving to do what our government is required to do, which is to defend all fundamental freedoms for all people regardless of the color of skin and regardless of the color of your ideology.” Traditionally, that principle has been immune to pressure from members. But with more members — and members with higher expectations, than ever before — it’s not yet clear whether the post-Charlottesville reset the ACLU’s attempting is a way to smooth over the difference between their vision of justice and many of their members’ — or a step to bring themselves in line with the progressive resistance group members may want them to be. source  

August 19, 2017 by
“The denial of first amendment rights…led to the political violence that we saw yesterday.” That was how Jason Kessler, who organized last weekend’s far-right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, explained the actions of an extremist who rammed his car into a crowd of counter-protesters, killing one of them. Like many on the far right, Kessler was claiming that displays of hate needed to be protected as free speech—or else. The right to hate. The US constitution’s first amendment protects free speech much more strongly than in most democracies—a German-style law against holocaust denial would never stand in the US, for example—and Americans support the right to say offensive things more strongly than other nations, a Pew survey found last year. But for a long time, free speech was a core concern of the left in America, not the right. “When the National Review [a leading conservative magazine] was first published in the 1950s, the vast majority of articles addressing free speech and the first amendment were critical of free expression and its proponents,” says Wayne Batchis, a professor at the University of Delaware and author of The Right’s First Amendment: The Politics of Free Speech & the Return of Conservative Libertarianism. “Today, review of its contents reveals the precise opposite.” Political correctness What prompted the shift, Batchis says, was the rise of a concept that quickly became a favorite target of the right: political correctness. As Moira Weigel wrote in The Guardian last year, the concept rose to fame in the late 1980s. After existing in leftist circles as a humorous label for excessive liberal orthodoxy, it was co-opted by the right and framed as a form of limitation of free speech. In 1990, New York Times reporter Richard Bernstein (paywall) used “political correctness” to refer to what he perceived as a growing intolerance on university campuses for views that diverged from mainstream liberalism. In a span of only a few months, stories about political correctness (some even deeming it a form of fascism) became commonplace in columns and on magazine covers. Before the 1990s, Weigel reports, the term was hardly ever used in the media; in 1992, it was used 6,000 times. The idea became a centerpiece of right-wing theory, eventually leading to the popularity of the Tea Party and the election of a president, Donald Trump, who made the shunning of political correctness a political trademark. The money in freedom But fighting political correctness wasn’t the only thing that encouraged conservatives to embrace free speech. Money was also an incentive. Over the past decade the party has increasingly opposed any form of campaign-finance regulation, arguing that political donations are a form of free speech. Its reward came in the 2010 Supreme Court decision Citizens United, which allowed companies and trade unions to give unlimited donations to political causes. Liberals commonly oppose this view on the grounds, Batchis says, “that spending money should not be treated as a form of speech.” In the event, both Republicans and Democrats have benefited from that ruling. Indeed, in last year’s election, Hillary Clinton raised $218 million from super PACS, the fundraising organizations that sprang up in the wake of Citizens United—nearly three times as much as Donald Trump. During the primaries, though, the candidates for the Republican nomination collectively raised close to $400 million (paywall) from super PACs. Uncomfortable vs unsafe Conservatives have supported freedom of speech more consistently than liberals, even when it’s speech that goes against their views, according to Batchis. “My research does suggest that even on hot-button issues like patriotism and traditional morality, many on the right have moved in a more speech-protective direction,” he says. By contrast, progressives have been more likely to advocate constraints, particularly on speech “that was seen as harmful to racial minorities and women,” he says. Still, there are exceptions to this rule on both sides. “Many liberals still hold to the ACLU-style civil libertarian tradition even in the face of hate speech,” says Batchis, while moralistic conservatives have advocated limitations on free speech such a ban on flag burning. In the wake of Charlottesville, the California branch of the American Civil Liberties Union declared that “the First Amendment does not protect people who incite or engage in violence. If white supremacists march into our towns armed to the teeth and with the intent to harm people, they are not engaging in” protected free speech. And indeed, direct threats aren’t protected (pdf, pp. 3-4) by the first amendment. But to count as a threat, speech has to incite “imminent lawless action,” in the words of a 1969 Supreme Court ruling; merely advocating violence is allowed. That is why neo-Nazis are allowed to march, and to cast themselves as free-speech champions. source

August 17, 2017 by
It has been a difficult week in American history, and a lot of educators have been wondering how to speak to their students about the white supremacist rally that took place on August 12 in Charlottesville, Virginia, and the violent aftermath. JSTOR Daily, which offers scholarly context to the news, seems well-positioned to provide help in this regard. Here, we often find ourselves telling origin stories or pointing out historical precedent to current events. That’s because we believe, we hope that there are lessons in the past. We trust in the peer-reviewed, fact-based, careful thinking and writing that scholars do to help us understand everything beautiful and ugly about our world. A spectrogram of the white supremacist rally in Charlottesville, VA resembles a distorted American flag The essays and articles below, published over the course of JSTOR Daily's first three years, demonstrate this. We join in the tradition of N. D. B. Connolly & Keisha N. Blain's “Trump Syllabus 2.0” in seeking to illuminate the cultural, economic, and political currents that led to the present moment. As Audre Lorde wrote in 1991: “Racism cuts a wide and corrosive swath across each of our lives.” This small selection of articles reminds us of the complexity of this statement. As always, free access to the underlying scholarship cited in the stories is available to everyone. The Legacy of Slavery: Institutionalized Racism and American Culture The History of the KKK in American Politics So-called white nationalists have long been involved with mainstream American politics. In the 1920s, during what historians call the Ku Klux Klan’s “second wave,” Klan members served in all levels of government. Ossian Sweet's Black Life Mattered One man's life shines a light on issues still facing black Americans today: not just segregation (prescribed or by default), but also injustice at the hands of those meant to keep the peace. The Psychological Power of the Confederate Flag An experiment in political psychology points to just how powerful the Confederate flag continues to be in stirring up racist attitudes among whites. The Devastation of Black Wall Street Despite racial discrimination and Jim Crow segregation, the Greenwood district in Oklahoma offered proof that black entrepreneurs were capable of creating vast wealth. For those who supported black subjugation, witnessing blacks thrive and defy the stereotypes of black inferiority was too much. The Lasting Fallout of the Tuskegee Syphilis Study Decades after the Tuskegee Syphilis Study, health statistics continue to illustrate the lack of trust black Americans have for healthcare professionals. Why Racism is Bad for Everyone's Health Racism has shaped American health care policy since our very first forays into creating a social safety net. Anti-Semitism Henry Ford's Anti-Semitism The industrial giant distributed anti-Semitic articles throughout the 20s, and later expressed regret for the screeds. The Deafening (((Echoes))) of Marked Language Even in ordinary, everyday language use, the very words and expressions we use are already marked for our cultural and social biases. How Hitler Played the American Press By regurgitating pieces of “news” planted by Nazi press agents, the American press got duped into acting as a megaphone for Nazism. How the Word "Shoddy" Became an Anti-Semitic Slur Gary L. Bunker and John Appel detail how “shoddy” also came to have anti-Semitic connotations during the Civil War. The Displacement and Genocide of Native American Peoples The Little Known History of Forced Sterilization Of Native American Women The Indian Health Service in the 1960s and 1970s is thought to have performed the procedure on one out of every four Native American women at the time, against their knowledge or consent. Remembering Wounded Knee at Standing Rock Elizabeth Rich explains the connections between the 1890 Wounded Knee Massacre, the 1973 protests, and the contemporary protests at Standing Rock.   Andrew Jackson and the Trail of Tears The seventh President ushered in an era of more expansive American democracy. In recent years he has become an icon of populism, and a symbol of hands-off federal government that promotes states’ rights. He was also a slave-holder and an “Indian fighter” responsible for the Indian Removal Act of 1830, which forced removal of Native Americans from their homelands in the southeastern United States. More than 4,000 died along their journey west, via the “Trail of Tears.” The Truth Behind Buffalo Bill's Scalping Act Cody’s gruesome act is the first thing that won him widespread fame, and it was so popular that he included a reenactment of it in most of his early Wild West shows.   Fascism and Neo-Nazism Defining Fascism What is fascism? You might think you know it when you see it, but a generic definition of this 20th-century-born totalitarianism is actually difficult to pin down. The Pledge of Allegiance's Creepy Past A few decades after the Bellamy Salute made its debut, fascists in Italy and Germany started doing one just like it. Old English Has a Serious Image Problem The American neo-Nazi movement that calls itself the “alt-right” is resurrecting medievally tinged celebrations of “European heritage” as part of its racist agenda. Sophie Scholl and the Legacy of Resistance How did a young woman named Sophie Scholl become the face of resistance to Nazism? The Historic Echoes of Trump's Immigration Ban Discriminatory citizenship restrictions were abolished in 1965, but a complex quota system remains to this day. A Nation of Immigrants The 1917 Immigration Act That Presaged Trump's Muslim Ban In 2017, debates over who belongs and does not belong in America, and who is “worthy” of admission, still employ ethnic, racial, and religious terms. The Making of Asian America Morrison G. Wong has found that an increased Asian immigration has more of an effect on the state level than on the national level. When Mexico Was Flooded with American Immigrants One early complaint of Mexican officials was that many of the settlers came without passports and were from the uneducated classes in the U.S. Immigration and National Security in George Washington's Day Both the British Parliament and the colonies actively tried to attract foreign immigrants to North America. Migrants, Refugees, and Expats: How Humanity Comes in Waves How has the word migrant, which once simply referred to a person who moves from one place to another, acquired a negative connotation? The Italian-American Immigration Experience Historically, Americans have been opposed to each major wave of immigration while it is happening. Later, though, we look back on the newcomers as having contributed greatly to our nation. How the Chinese Fought Discrimination in 19th Century Arizona Anti-Chinese sentiment resulted in discriminatory legislation throughout the American West during the second half of the 19th century. Lessons from a Japanese Internment Camp Trump ally Carl Higbie recently cited Japanese internment camps during World War II as a “precedent” for a proposed registry of Muslims in the U.S. The "Model Minority" Myth and the Hidden Discrimination of Asian Americans Asian-Americans have long held a complex place within the American racial hierarchy, writes researcher David Quan. Race in American Education Can College Cure Racism? New reading requirements at Harvard have added fuel to an ongoing debate about diversity in curricula. At HBCUs these fights had a different dimension. Little Rock, Then and Now Segregation and inequality are still major issues in Little Rock today. Though the laws that held the institution in place have been repealed, corrupt housing policies and the creation of expensive, predominantly white private schools have kept many of those structures in place. Constructing the White Race In his critical review of “the new history of race in America,” Peter Kolchin says that “at best these works have underscored the historical process of racial construction, showing how assumptions about race and races have changed over time and exploring human agency in the making of race." Project Implicit Reveals Your Hidden Prejudice The Implicit Association Test demonstrates that the majority of people are at least a little bit racist. Can anything be done to counter this? The Rise of the Crowd-Sourced Syllabus The rise of the crowd-sourced syllabus is an important leap in both disseminating and gathering knowledge and in shaping active learners, no matter their age or location. source Read More: Charlottesville Syllabus — Zine #1 for August 12, 2017

August 12, 2017 by
The home of the University of Virginia, Charlottesville, has become a particularly quiet and progressive college town in recent years. In fact, 80 percent of the voters in the small city voted for Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton during the 2016 election. So why would the left-leaning town, where roughly 47,000 people currently live, be chosen for white nationalist rally headed by the alt-right? Charlottesville city council in April voted to remove a statue of Confederate leader Robert E. Lee, one of the last standing Confederate monuments in the state. The statue stands in a park that was also recently renamed from Lee Park to Emancipation Park. Although the removal of the statue is still pending litigation, white nationalists are opposing the decision in an effort to cling on to their white history. White rights activist Jason Kessler, a Charlottesville resident who organized Saturday’s “Unite the Right” protest, blamed all "the anti-white hatred that's coming out of the city" as the reason for the rally, CNN reported. White nationalists carry torches on the grounds of the University of Virginia, on the eve of a planned Unite The Right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, U.S. August 11, 2017. Picture taken August 11, 2017. “This entire community is a very far left community that has absorbed these cultural Marxist principles advocated in college towns across the country, about blaming white people for everything," Kessler told CNN on Friday. However, the tearing down of the monument may not be the only reason why Charlottesville became a prime location for alt-right leaders to hold a rally. The small city’s history is muddled in racism. The town, considered a community of the Jim Crow South back in the early 1900s, was the last in America to desegregate schools following the Supreme Court’s ruling on Brown v. Board of Education, which allowed black children to attend historically white-only schools. Despite ordering desegregation with “all deliberate speed,” in 1955, Virginia strongly resisted the ruling. Some schools even shut down in Charlottesville before finally allowing integration in 1958. In 2015, Charlottesville was under fire for racist behavior following the violent arrest of Martese Johnson, a third-year student at the University. Johnson, a black man, was confronted by three white police officers who, after asking for identification, assumed he was holding a fake I.D.. and beat him before throwing him in cuffs. A video of the altercation went viral, sparking a nationally trending hashtag #JusticeForMartese on Twitter and bringing attention to the aggressive force law enforcement enacted on blacks in the community. Virginia overall also has longstanding ties to the Ku Klux Klan. In a study released in 2015, researchers from Virginia Commonwealth University discovered there had been more than 2,000 KKK klaverns established in the U.S. between 1915 and 1940, 132 of which had been spread across the state of Virginia. Just in July, Klansmen held a rally of their own at Emancipation Park, similarly protesting the removal of the statue. About 30 Klansmen attended that particular rally and were met by nearly 1,000 counter protesters. The rally on Saturday, however, is expected to see a much bigger turnout. The Southern Poverty Law Center, which monitors “hate groups and other extremists,” estimated as many as 2,000 to 6,000 people may show up at the protest. source Read More: Car mows down at least a dozen protesters in Virginia at tumultuous white supremacist rally White nationalist rally in Virginia sparks violent clashes, emergency declaration State of Emergency Declared in Charlottesville After Protests Turn Violent Torch-wielding white nationalists march at U.Va.  

August 8, 2017 by
No contract? No problem. A new petition from, #NoKaepernickNoNFL, asks fans to boycott the NFL if Colin Kaepernick doesn’t play this season. The NFL preseason is underway and Kaepernick is still without a job but some fans are still rooting for the former 49ers quarterback. The name that used to fill up stadiums is now filling a petition calling for the boycott of the National Football League. The petition is a call to inaction: no watching any NFL games, no posting about games or teams on social media, no attending games, and no buying any NFL merchandise until Kaepernick is signed to an NFL team. Former San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick walks out of a tunnel before an NFL football game he petition emphasizes the racial divide that exists within the NFL given that 70 percent of players in the league are African-American. It also asks both the commissioner and owners to stand in solidarity with Kaepernick as he continues to champion various causes. The hashtag, #NoKaepernickNoNFL, ignited a conversation centered around systemic racism that has taken over the twitter world and has caught the attention of some other big names. Most notably, film director Spike Lee, who tweeted that he would be holding a support rally at the NFL’s headquarters in New York City on August 23. The petition has set its goal at 150,000 and has already amassed over 90,000 signatures. Once the petition hits 100,000 signatures it will be delivered to NFL commissioner Roger Goddell and all 32 NFL team owners. Kaepernick’s NFL career has been under the scope ever since he took a knee during the national anthem in a 2016 preseason game. Many people felt it was inappropriate for Kaepernick to kneel as the anthem played while others felt he was justified in doing so after he explained why he did it. It was Kaepernick’s way of protesting the oppression of marginalized communities and the killing of unarmed black people. Colin Kaepernick kneels during the national anthem before an NFL football game. Despite boasting impressive performance numbers Kaepernick has been unable to land a spot on an NFL roster. "This situation really shines a light on how much the NFL really cares about its Black athletes. It's pretty much: Play for us, entertain us, make us money, and shut up," the petition states in part. Many believe he’s been blackballed by coaches and owners alike for his public stance on social issues. Other notable players including Richard Sherman, Michael Bennett, and Malcolm Jenkins have spoken on Kaepernick’s situation. In a recent interview Jenkins called teams that wouldn’t sign Kaepernick “cowards.” Richard Sherman also had this to say, “It’s not about football or color...It’s about, ‘Boy, stay in your place.'” The former Super Bowl starter may be having trouble finding work on the field but it hasn’t stopped him from doing work off the field. In 2016, Kaepernick pledged to donate $1 million to different organizations working in oppressed communities. And he has made good on his promise donating $100,000 for 10 months to 10 different organizations. source

August 4, 2017 by
We Need to #FireHannity Sean Hannity is a Fox News anchor and radio personality. He consistently spews hateful and bigoted rhetoric, endorses regressive policies, and defends right-wing conspiracy theories and propaganda. (Read: 25 things to know about Sean Hannity). Recently, Hannity called for a boycott of MSNBC's Rachel Maddow. So we're countering with a boycott of him! Below is a list companies that advertise on Hannity's Fox News and radio show with links to tweet at them, email and call. Green advertisers have pulled their ads from Hannity's show thanks to your efforts. Red advertisers have reinstated ads on Hannity's show since our efforts began. Remember to use the #fireHannity hashtag. You have a voice everyday with your spending power. Hit these companies where it hurts most - their profits. Let them know you will never be a customer as long as they continue to support Hannity! source Read More: Fire Hannity Effort Intensifies

August 4, 2017 by
We Need to #FireHannity Sean Hannity is a Fox News anchor and radio personality. He consistently spews hateful and bigoted rhetoric, endorses regressive policies, and defends right-wing conspiracy theories and propaganda. (Read: 25 things to know about Sean Hannity). Recently, Hannity called for a boycott of MSNBC's Rachel Maddow. So we're countering with a boycott of him! Below is a list companies that advertise on Hannity's Fox News and radio show with links to tweet at them, email and call. Green advertisers have pulled their ads from Hannity's show thanks to your efforts. Red advertisers have reinstated ads on Hannity's show since our efforts began. Remember to use the #fireHannity hashtag. You have a voice everyday with your spending power. Hit these companies where it hurts most - their profits. Let them know you will never be a customer as long as they continue to support Hannity! source Read More: Fire Hannity Effort Intensifies