National Coalition Against Censorship

................................................................

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

To: ncac@ncac.org

Cc: Justin Silverman; charles.brownstein@cbldf.org; pen@pen.org; mickey@projectcensored.org; dan@bookweb.org; info@abffe.org; bstripli@syr.edu; info@publishers.org; ftrf@ala.org; madler-kozak@nacs.org; dangelo@nacs.org; info@cbldf.org; oif@ala.org; jlarue@ala.org; dstone@ala.org

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

To: ncac@ncac.org

Cc: charles.brownstein@cbldf.org; pen@pen.org; mickey@projectcensored.org; dan@bookweb.org; info@abffe.org; bstripli@syr.edu; info@publishers.org; ftrf@ala.org; madler-kozak@nacs.org; dangelo@nacs.org; info@cbldf.org; oif@ala.org; jlarue@ala.org; dstone@ala.org; justin@nefirstamendment.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

To: ncac@ncac.org

Cc: charles.brownstein@cbldf.org; pen@pen.org; mickey@projectcensored.org; dan@bookweb.org; info@abffe.org; bstripli@syr.edu; info@publishers.org; ftrf@ala.org; madler-kozak@nacs.org; dangelo@nacs.org; info@cbldf.org; oif@ala.org; jlarue@ala.org; dstone@ala.org; justin@nefirstamendment.org; pamelageller@gmail.com

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?  

Glenn Cummings

..............................................................

The following email correspondence regarding the "hate crime" illustrates the horrendous scorn for vigorous debate, cornerstone of democracy, by USM students, as well as the editors of The Press Herald, which refused to respond...

  

From: Krysteana Scribner

Sent: Saturday, January 14, 2017 3:14 PM

To: George Slone

Subject: Re: A free speech poem and... The In-Lock-Step Press

Hello,

We will no longer be responding to your commentary. Do not reach out to us again, we only publish student work.

Thanks,

Krysteana

On Sat, Jan 14, 2017 at 9:39 AM, George Slone <todslone@hotmail.com> wrote:

To Humza,
Several points are made in that poem, which does not constitute a hate crime… not yet.  I suspect you might have missed all of them.  So, I delineate them here, and again it is sad that these things will not be debated at your public university because of its ban on outside criticism.  The Free Press?  What an odd misnomer for University of Southern Maine’s student newspaper!  If it were honest, it would be called The In-Lockstep Press.      

1.  Free speech is fundamental to democracy.

2.  In its current form, Islam and free speech are NOT compatible.  Why not?  Because, as you surely must know, Islam prohibits free speech that criticizes Islam.  

3.  In order for democracy and free speech to survive, citizens must build spine and not  be easily offended by opinions they do not like.  

4.  In essence, Deus Vult is an expression of free speech and should be treated that way.  In essence, it should not be viewed as a vandalism crime because of that.  Yet it will likely be treated as a crime.

5.  Hate speech is NOT illegal in America, though it is in Europe.  Why not?  Well, HATE for you might be REASON AND FACT for me, and vice versa.  Sadly, many American universities attempt to treat it as a crime and have been taken to court by, for example, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, AND have lost!  

6.  Many universities, like yours, for example, seem to be heading in the direction of totalitarian entities and thus increasingly stand in contradiction to democracy and its prime cornerstone, free speech.  Thus, in essence, holding a placard might actually be treated as a hate crime at such institutions, even though legally it is not.  

G. Tod

From: USM Student Body President <muhammad.khan@maine.edu>

Sent: Friday, January 13, 2017 4:21 PM

To: George Slone

Subject: Re: An Islamophobiamania Cartoon and an Open Poem to the University of Southern Maine

Thank you for the poem. 

On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 2:18 PM, George Slone <todslone@hotmail.com> wrote:

Yes, you might wish to pass this poem around at your next student senate meeting:

Devious Islamophobiamaniacs

And here I thought graffiti was a mere misdemeanor!  

Well, apparently it is, but misdemeanors are crimes.

Graffiti is vandalism, which constitutes criminal mischief.

So, the college student who wrote DEUS VULT on a desk 

at the University of Southern Maine, a public institution,

might be charged of committing not only a crime, 

but because the term was the rallying cry 

used by medieval Christian crusaders against Muslim invaders,

student Muslims might be offended and/or intimidated,

so the graffiti guy might be arrested and cuffed, 

and otherwise shamed and branded as a criminal hate writer.

Now, if that student had written DEUS VULT on a placard

and brandished the placard during a student senate meeting,

whose very senate president was an easily offended Muslim,

likely causing even greater offense and greater intimidation;

in theory, he could not be charged as a criminal hate writer

because brandishing a placard is not a crime in America, not yet…

G. Tod

From: USM Student Body President <muhammad.khan@maine.edu>

Sent: Wednesday, January 4, 2017 10:49 PM

To: George Slone

Subject: Re: An Islamophobiamania Cartoon and an Open Poem to the University of Southern Maine

Dear George, 

I sincerely apologize for not responding. We are certainly on vacation from the University and I have not been able to make it to the office lately mainly focusing on my job. :) Trying to work as many hours as possible. I will respond shortly. I apologize once again for not responding. 

On Sun, Dec 18, 2016 at 11:35 AM, George Slone <todslone@hotmail.com> wrote:

To Humza,

So, after giving me a mini-lecture on dialogue (i.e., debate), you decide to kill the dialogue?  Perhaps the reality is that you really prefer monologue.  Hopefully, you are not as easily offended as I suspect. 
Sincerely,

G. Tod

From: George Slone

Sent: Monday, February 20, 2017 8:49 AM

To: USM Student Body President

Subject: ISLAM HATES THE FIRST AMENDMENT!!!

Salut Humza,

So, that was quite a dialogue you and I had, after your mini-lecture on dialogue.  Are you, by chance, a fake?  In any event, to keep you updated, my voice was not permitted into the debate on Islam at USM.  So, you can be happy about that!  The Portland Press Herald (at least it’s not called Portland Free Press) would not permit my commentary in its pro-Islam pages.  And so Islam continues its ALLAHU VULT.  But I and others shall continue fighting against its forward push and its hatred for FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION.  

Au plaisir,

G. Tod

From: George Slone

Sent: Monday, February 6, 2017 7:44 AM

To: ngallagher@pressherald.com

Subject: USM Hate Crime Incident

To Noel K. Gallagher, Portland Press Herald:

No new news on the USM hate-crime incident?  If no news occurs, then one has to suspect it might have been overinflated.  I tried to penetrate into the student newspaper bec. of the incident's educational potential regarding the First Amendment.  Sadly, the paper would not permit my comments.  The cartoon I sketched, which I assume you ignored because of lack of courage, highlighted the educational aspect and the need for vigorous debate, as opposed to cries of shut-the-conversation-down islamophobia, especially at a public university.  Alas...

G. Tod Slone, Ed.

The American Dissident

[No response from Gallagher.]

Noah Feldman

Peter Hart

...........................................................

From: George Slone
Sent: Friday, March 25, 2016 5:40 PM
To: ncac@ncac.org
Cc: charles.brownstein@cbldf.org; pen@pen.org; mickey@projectcensored.org; dan@bookweb.org; info@abffe.org; bstripli@syr.edu; info@publishers.org; ftrf@ala.org; madler-kozak@nacs.org; dangelo@nacs.org; info@cbldf.org; oif@ala.org; jlarue@ala.org; dstone@ala.org; justin@nefirstamendment.org; pamelageller@gmail.com
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?  

Kareem Abdul-Jabbar

Alan Levine

Cancer in the Heart of Free Society:  the Freedom-of-Expression Hating “Hate Speechers”

The revolution cannot be made without killing and, to kill, it is best to hate.

—Che Guevara

Unlike un-privileged me, Civil Rights Attorney Alan Levine got to publish a letter in the New York Times on the near Muslim massacre in Garland, Texas.  The letter was highly deceptive, and thus provoked me to sketch a satirical cartoon, which no doubt would constitute an example of “hate speech” in Levine’s perverted thinking.   

          The Southern Poverty Law Center, which Levine cited favorably, is a self-anointed determiner of purported hate-speech offenders, who have not been tried for hate speech because, well, hate speech is not yet a crime in America, though it is in Canada and Europe.  The Center is hardly at all neutral, but far-left socialist.  If Che Guevara were an American living in America today, he certainly would not be on its list.  In essence, one must take the SPLC hate-speech offender list with a grain of salt.  And how not to think of McCarthy’s infamous blacklist or Stalin’s or Castro’s or Hitler’s or Mao’s?

The fundamental fault with “hate speech” is its highly subjective nature, which is the prime reason why it is protected speech in America.  Truth and fact can easily be deemed as “hate speech.” Proponents of “hate speech” regulations, the hate speechers, would certainly opt for burying any truth and fact that offend them.  That is the crux of the problem.  

As for Pamela Geller, who staged the Texas cartoon event, she was pejoratively described by Levine as “wrapping herself in the mantle of the First Amendment.”  Yet thanks to that “mantle” We, the People can still openly express our opinions even when they counter those of civil-rights lawyers like Levine.  Contrary to the Levine’s assertion and that of the kill-the messenger dhimmi media, both right and left-wing, she has made a useful contribution to a public dialogue about Islam. For example, she helped expose Islamist propagandists in America, who seek to spread the false narrative that somehow Islam, which means submission, is a religion of peace and that jihad is somehow a touchy-feely kind of thing.  She has also helped expose stealth jihad at work in America.  Her cartoon contest helped expose that images of Muhammad were not always frowned upon by Islamists and that persons creating those images were not always butchered by them, as in the grotesque Muslim massacre of the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists.  She also helped expose that the media, both left and right, have largely been suckered in by stealth jihad and do not really support freedom of expression, despite the claims to the contrary.  Furthermore, she helped keep the Ground Zero mosque, the one Obama favored, from becoming a horrendous reality.  So, if Geller’s is “hate speech,” then Levine is clearly wrong to stipulate that “the sole purpose of such speech is to inflame bigotry and to inflict injury.”  Speech does not “inflict injury.”  Islamist butchers inflict injury.  Somehow “hate-speechers” like Levine cannot seem to grasp that simple premise, for somehow they’ve been blinded.  They need to ask themselves how that happened. 

Levine mentions how he first came to truly hate Geller, who had denounced one of his clients, Ms. Almontaser, who he described as “a respected educator and community leader.”  As an educator, however, I am quite aware that far too many educators parade around as “respected” when also intellectually bankrupt and outright cowardly conformists.  So I would have to question the description, though I do not know the person.  Levine notes Geller had released a “hate-filled barrage of false and Islamophobic accusations about Ms. Almontaser,” yet fails to evoke just one such accusation.  Moreover, Islamophobic has become an idiot’s term today, used to dismiss any uncomfortable truths about Islam and Muhammad.  Levine should know better than to resort to such base ad hominem, which is normally used to divert attention away from facts that one does not like and cannot disprove.  So, city officials forced Almontaser to resign… all because of Geller’s purported “false accusations”?  Only a severely indoctrinated person could believe that.  

Finally, the real haters are the ones who kill people for drawing cartoons, the ones whose  religious book demands apostates, Jews, and kuffars be treated as inferiors and even murdered.  How can Levine and others NOT understand that?  How much money has he made from CAIR and other Islamic front groups, even if indirectly?  How else to explain the blindness?  Now, I do not know Levine.  I do not know Geller.  However, I have certainly “heard” a hell of a lot more reason from her, than from him.  The problem with ideology is that reason ineluctably becomes its enemy… 

Cornel West

Chris Hedges

Mark Gonzales