The following three emails were sent to the NCAC, which chose not to respond... in the name of free speech and vigorous debate, cornerstones of democracy.
From: George Slone
Sent: Saturday, February 6, 2016 9:15 AM
Cc: Justin Silverman; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com
Subject: Intrinsic intellectual corruption in the heart of the NCAC
To Joan Bertin, Exec. Dir, National Coalition Against Censorship:
Why not publish (on your website) the essay I recently wrote highly critical of the NCAC? The Global Free Press just published it here: http://www.globalfreepress.org/contributors/usa/g-tod-slone/3936-15-threats-to-free-speech-2015-an-egregious-and-purposeful-omission). I've also attached it to this email. I'd be highly interested in your take on my take of your apparent egregious intellectual corruption. Publishing the essay might actually spark a little debate exterior to the PC-limits of free speech acceptability. Thanks for your attention.
From: George Slone
Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2016 5:08 PM
Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org
Subject: Intellectual fraud et al
To Joan Bertin, Exec. Dir. NCAC:
Was there a reason why you decided to ignore the egregious fault that I underscored regarding your "15 Threats to Free Speech 2015" report? Might that reason simply be that you and NCAC cannot bear criticism? In every issue of The American Dissident, I not only encourage hard-core criticism of me and the journal but publish the harshest received. You should have published my critical essay on your website! It likely would have provoked a little much needed vigorous debate, cornerstone of democracy.
Why did you choose to ignore the Garland, TX near massacre and the San Bernardino massacre in your report? And what about the effort made by so many Democrat-Party congressmen in 2015 to try to pass HR 569, an anti-blasphemy law regarding specifically ISLAM, a law that would directly contravene the First Amendment, something you are purportedly interested in? Why the silence? Are you getting money from CAIR and the Muslim Brotherhood? If so, you need to take a long look in the mirror.
See attached for the front cover of the next issue of The American Dissident, featuring the sponsor of HR 569 and members of CAIR. ISLAM should have made your 15 THREATS. We've seen it in action in Paris and now in Bruxelles. Will it make your next report? As a cartoonist, I know damn well that criticizing ISLAM is the most risky of subjects I can sketch. It is far more threatening to free speech than anything else I can think of. Cartoonist Molly Norris, wherever she's hiding, would surely agree with me on that!
And yes, I still do not have my civil liberties here in my town of Barnstable on ole Cape Cod where I am not permitted to attend any political or cultural events held at my neighborhood library. And yes, neither you nor Karen Wulf of PEN New England nor the ACLUM give a damn about that!
From: George Slone
Sent: Friday, March 25, 2016 5:40 PM
Cc: email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org
Subject: Att: Peter Hart and NCAC hypocrisy
To Peter Hart, NCAC Communication Director,
A cartoon I just sketched with your regard, highlighting your bias against free speech, was just posted here: http://wwwtheamericandissidentorg.blogspot.com/2016/03/peter-hart.html.
Will you respond? Likely not because likely you will not be able to offer a cogent counter argument to the message in the cartoon. All you will likely have in your arsenal is ad hominem or thinly-disguised ad hominem, as in “looking to cause controversy”… BTW, in case Joan Bertin kept it from you, my critical essay regarding NCAC’s “15 Threats to Free Speech 2015” is located here:
http://www.globalfreepress.org/contributors/usa/g-tod-slone/3936-15-threats-to-free-speech-2015-an-egregious-and-purposeful-omission. It features a nice photo of Molly Norris. Have you ever heard of her?
On another note, though really the same note, I’ve come to conclude that far too many proponents of free speech are ideologically bound (i.e., blinded) to the extent they are not really proponents of free speech. Karen Wulf of PEN New England is an example. Charles Brownstein of CBLDF serves as another example. You can read my dialogue de sourds with him here: http://wwwtheamericandissidentorg.blogspot.com/2016/01/comic-book-legal-defense-fund.html. Or perhaps, like Joan, you too are not curious and abhor criticism when it concerns you and your pals.
If you are into the HATE SPEECH mantra, then why the hypocrisy and need to pretend to be into FREE SPEECH?