Naperville Councilman Josh McBroom has taken up another hot button. First it was migrant housing. Now it’s diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI).
DEI initiatives and the DEI director position were made part of City a few years back in the midst of nationwide civil unrest. George Floyd’s terrible death had been shown to the world. Locally we had the highly publicized Buffalo Wild Wings mess. There was a lot going on and there was a public mandate to try new things to improve fairness and help minorities in our country.
Hence DEI came and was unanimously passed by Council with virtually zero pushback from anyone. Mayor Chirico supported it. Hinterlong and Gustin supported it. Heck, even Right winger Kevin Coyne supported it.
A few years have now passed. The temperature gauge on the topic of race and race relations have cooled considerably since then. As has the popularity of DEI programs in our country.
As McBroom’s published letter correctly points out, companies have started to move away from DEI as it has become viewed by many as being as much about politics as progress. It’s contended that little can be pointed too as being achieved, with what is often considered controversial, DEI spending.
So should Naperville keep spending hundreds of thousands of tax dollars every year on these programs and personnel despite the lack of any clear mandate or practical reason for doing so?
The Watchdog says enough of DEI spending in Naperville. The Council tried something new during a time of great political upheaval. Little has been achieved by it and it’s time to move on. The City should focus on promoting our wonderfully diverse community from the bully pulpit …. not through wasteful (not to mention political) spending of other people’s money.
Josh McBroom for President!
Agreed. The time for DEI has come and gone. The country (world) has been sensitized to DEI to the extent that there will always be “watchful eyes” on the issue. There’s no need for paid watchdogs, especially taxes-paid watchdogs.
DEI is a democrat construct intended to destroy our culture and country. All plans, policies, and programs on DEI instituted by Naperville city council should be discontinued immediately saving our taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars. Start by firing our city’s DEI director! Good for Josh for having the guts to confront this nonsense!
A few companies are stepping back from DEI because of political pressure to do so. The only reason DEI is a political issue is that a few radicals have decided to make it one.
There have been many studies published that show DEI programs, when properly structured, have resulted in improvements, but people who want to continue to make race relations about politics consistently ignore these studies.
Have some DEI programs failed to deliver? Of course, DEI is not a one-size fits all program and organizations that have approached it this way have programs that are not delivered as expected. Like all programs, DEI programs need to be designed to work with an organization’s culture, hiring policies, promotion policies, etc.,
DEI, like all management programs, is just as susceptible to cookie-cutter, quick fix, put something – anything in place, thinking that has always led to management programs that fail to deliver.
Should Naperville cut its DEI program? Hard to say, since the consultant organizations usually hired to help evaluate management programs have not been utilized by Naperville government yet. Until this kind of review is completed, no real conclusions can be made about Naperville’s DEI program. All that can be provided is anecdotal stories, which prove nothing.
How do you measure the results of an implemented ideology ?
When you implement a management program like DEI it becomes measurable whether you consider it an “ideology” or a management tool.
Trying reading this – https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2023/05/17/diversity-equity-and-inclusion-in-the-workplace/
Wow, talk about “sugar-coating” something. The best way to look at DEI is as a form of Social/Cultural socialism, or Communism, marxism, Woke, whatever you want to call it. It’s the active belief system that the world is divided into Oppressors and their Victims. The “Oppressors” have rigged the game somehow all the way down, and the only way to show “care” and reduce “harm” for these “victims” – never identified as specific people, by the way, instead labelled groups (didn’t THAT used to be called stereotyping, or racism, or sexism, like just yesterday, if you judged not INDIVIDUALS, but groups as a monolithic whole!) – the only way to show YOUR morality, care, and harm reduction is to WAIT FOR IT, prevent certain groups from getting jobs, or talking, or a whole bunch of other classically illiberal stuff. THAT’S WHAT IT IS! Not only is it illiberal, it’s basically illegal, and at the end of the day, it’s immoral. And Naperville is PAYING PEOPLE TO DO THIS? Oh, they are just setting up a festival for certain favored groups; this isn’t that BAD other stuff! All of this follows the classical Leftist shell game: 1) NO, it’s not happening! That’s made up! 2) It’s GOOD that it’s happening, and 3) Oh, there’s a mess? It’s Republicans fault!
Why is Naperville wasting its time with this political divisiveness, potential lawsuits, and at the end of the day, immoral nonsense? End it! Don’t pay another dollar for this stuff!
Socialism? Communism? Really!!!?
It is a management policy, not a form of government. But not surprisingly, the majority of people against DEI and other management programs designed to provide equality and transparency in the workplace describe these programs using these terms. They are political buzzwords at best and a blatant attempt to turn any effort to improve equality and transparency in the workplace into a divisive political issue at worst.
Read this – https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2023/05/17/diversity-equity-and-inclusion-in-the-workplace/
Nice dodge on your part. The core of socialism/communism/marxism is, equity. You know, everything is “more equal” as enforced by a group in charge, of course. DEI is the cultural vanguard of the same “equity” concept. There is a “need” for a group of people to “even things up,” you know, “spread it all around.” All of this in the name of making things “more equal” and “reducing harm” for labelled victims. Sound familiar?
As I pointed out at the end, your move is standard – 1) Deny it’s happening, 2) Claim it’s good that it’s happening, 3) Blame any downside on anyone that dares question you.
As for the PEW article, it’s highly misleading and critics have pointed out that it failed to explain what the definitions are for each word of the DEI acronym. For those that think DEI means it’s okay to have people of diverse backgrounds and make them feel included, then sure “DEI” “sounds” good. But once it’s explained that “Diversity” means choosing some people over others intentionally based on their immutable characteristics, and that “Equity” means equal outcomes, and “Inclusion” means quelling speech deemed “harmful,” THEN the polling goes significantly in the other direction. People don’t want DEI once they see it in action. You knew that of course.
There has been far more studies that show how ineffective and divisive DEI is.
This is just one –
https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/dei-initiatives-not-supported-by-the-empirical-evidence-canadian-researcher-says
You’ve done this many times before: Dodge the main point, build a straw man on the other side, and then wave your hand and say whatever you want to do is “just harmless and for the good.”
You don’t have a leg to stand on with this one. People know what DEI means. It means illiberalism, illegality, quelling free speech, and the injections of left wing politics into everything.
No thanks.
As to dodge, you are doing a lot of that. Randomly and frequently throwing out labels like socialism, communism, straw man, etc to marginalize any position that does not agree with yours.
We can all see this is your “analysis” of the PEW report. Avoiding the real issue by shifting to a discussion of semantics and definitions. Looking at what you had to say about the PEW report makes me wonder if you actually read the article you linked to. It states in the first sentence there is not evidence DEI programs do any harm. As I stated before, Yes, some DEI programs have missed the mark. But as the PEW report shows, many others have hit the mark. So, condemning all DEI programs based on the shortcomings of a few, is like eliminating all high school athletic programs, because in some schools they never succeed, just losing season after losing season.
As to infringing free speech, study after study has shown conservatives are just as guilty as liberals in this area. In fact, many of the examples used of “quelling free speech” around the pandemic were actually done by the Trump administration.
Further, even the SCOTUS has ruled that the government (federal, state, local) is doing nothing illegal in acting to prevent the spreading of misinformation when it comes to public health and safety.
On the issue of injecting politics into everything, DEI is a classic example of conservatives doing this very thing. They do it with religion, women’s rights, gender choice, spousal choice and a long list of other issues that have nothing to do with politics. Conservatives don’t just politicize these things, but they make them divisive political issues. Conservatives care more about dividing this country (thus weakening it) then in uniting this country (thus making it stronger) because, as every significant leader in US history has said in one way or another, we are strongest together and weakest divided.
Jim Haselhorst, sigh. For you it’s all about Blue vs Red. There’s no progress in any discussion. It’s just a “What about me?/What about YOU?” comeback, or a “experts support my view.” Exhausting.
The best way to think of DEI is as one thing posing as another. What it REALLY is, is a politically motivated effort to get someone on the payroll to “Get you and those like you, out. And to get the people we like and want, IN.” Politics, power, control, and you are their front man making apologies for it and telling people to not look at that man behind the curtain.
This is EXACTLY why DEI is shameless politics in action and should go. Naperville should stay in its proverbial swim lane: PRO FAMILY AND PRO BUSINESS. The BEST way to do that is to STOP obsessing about everyone’s immutable characteristics. DEI must go!
Thx!
You are the one that started the comments of DEI being a blue vs red issue, not me. Don’t project your views and belief on me, I don’t see DEI as political. I have stated this repeatedly. Just because you can’t accept or understand this does not make this any less of a fact.
I repeat – DEI is not political, as I have said before. Just because you believe it is doesn’t make it so. DEI is not an attempt to “weaponize” government like you clearly believe. And trying to paint it as such so you can marginalize any opinion to the contrary is a radical fallacy verging on a conspiracy theory.
DEI is about making sure every one has equal opportunity, eliminating institutional barriers that make equal treatment, equal pay, equal access, etc. more difficult for some base on what they are not who they are. Its basic civil rights, which apply equally to all citizens.
DEI is nothing more then the continuing evolution of civil rights.
We don’t have any need for DEI, nor the consultants that DEI says we need to hire to validate their existence. Consultants to tell us that hiring consultants to identify a problem that can only be solved by other consultants is exactly the kind of “management evaluation” that does nothing more than waste a lot of time and money.
The world of business has learned that a narrow appeasement policy directed at encouraging an entitlement class is a fail. It is not ” a few companies stepping back” it is is in fact a tsunami of outright rejection of fake science and and a harsh end to the racist practices involved. Naperville needs to end this travesty immediately, name the perpetrators behind this fraud, and hold them personally accountable for this fleecing. Any candidate for public office who supported this is so clearly out of touch with reality that they have no legitimate claim to serve and will never be acceptable to any of us.
If Naperville doesn’t need this type of program how come they are getting sued so much lately for actions viewed as racist and prejudice?
The very fact Naperville government has these issues tells you some program like DEI is needed in city government.
Naperville is getting sued BECAUSE they have DEI department. It’s a racist entity and the more you swim in those waters, the more you will get lawsuits.
Moreover, there are DEI grifter lawyers out there. They’re going to sue no matter what. Thinking that having it will get you LESS sued is comical and not reality.
How long have you lived in Naperville? Because anyone that has lived here more than 5 years knows that Naperville has been facing suits on DEI related grounds since long before Naperville had a DEI program (not a department).
In fact, Naperville has been facing these kinds of suits since long before the term DEI became in vogue.
No street named after our families downtown, so I guess you got us with that “I’ve been here forever, so I know everything” ploy. In the past 25 years, a quick Lexis/Nexis on Naperville’s growing notoriety as THE best source of legal precedent on this side of the Great Divide shows only one partial DEI-involved issue at trial- the pumped up enhancements of the Civil Rights Violations in the Notorious Air Pod Alleged Theft Racism Episode, which is arguably just the aftershocks of the over-policing charge that sits at #9 on the Top 10 Suits Shaming Naperville. And while each of those is a ground breaking precedent, especially in shutting down that rampant ageist discrimination in selecting volunteers at the Settlement, and requiring adequate levels of transparency for a City Council that loves the backrooms and shadowy meetings, I think all Napervillians of good character can agree that 10% of our notable oopsies in Court does not a mandate make. DEI and all programs, efforts, agendas, critical thinking, time and money wasted on it is an utter waste of effort chasing a chimera of social correctness. The only issue here is how fast we can end this corrupt practice here in our town.
As to NCTV… we have proposed a very workable solution- could we have a moment for debate before we start the auto da fe around the heretics who don’t want to subsidize agit-prop agendas?
Just to be clear, current, ongoing legal cases do not constitute a history. History means past cases, those filed, settled, gone to trial and resulting in a verdict. There have been cases involving city employees (defendant & plaintiff) that were settled out of court.
Mcbroom is silent on cutting funding to NCTV17. Must have missed his opinion piece on that
Probably because NCTV brings real value and offers tangible service unlike the DEI horse hockey.
Real value? Nothing to show for
It. They need to fend for themselves. It’s an easy service to cut to save money, welfare time is over.
Anyone else on city council comment on NCTV funding in an opinion piece? Honestly don’t know. I do know McBroom hasn’t posted pics of himself bare chested or posted about his marriage publicly, so there’s that…………..
This video demonstrates the very lack of understand of the institutional and social biases that exist, which programs like DEI are aimed at removing. If everyone had the same chance to excel (did not face social, economic and institutional barriers that for generations have prevented equal opportunity) then the question being read at the start of this video would be moot.
You mean like Asians and Indians? Why do Asians and Indians excel in this country but not blacks? DEI is for blacks and you know it. You want a DEI candidate doing brain surgery on you or the surgeon with the most experience? How about an airline pilot? Personally I want the highest qualified person, male or female. I don’t care what color they are.
Again, your response and question demonstrate your lack of understanding of the objectives of DEI. DEI is not about who will do your brain surgery or be your pilot. It is about who gets the opportunity to get the education needed to become a brain surgeon or the training needed to become a pilot.
DEI does not lower any standard, it simply broadens the opportunity for more people to compete to meet a given standard.
Finally, the fact that some minority groups do well does not mean you ignore the needs of those not. The reality is that the barrier, generations of barriers, that blacks face are simply not faced by the majority of Asian and Indian minorities. So such comparisons are simply apples to oranges, red herring.
Yeah, Asians, Indians and Jews were never marginalized in America! Hahahaha! Funny how they all excelled in our society yet blacks can’t seem to. Why is that?
What you completely ignore and will not admit is it’s the culture NOT the lack of opportunity. No amount of DEI programs in Naperville will ever decrease the rate of out of wedlock births and fatherless homes in the black community. You know it and I know it.
Never claimed any minority group has not been marginalized in the US. What I am saying is that how they are marginalized makes a big difference in what barrier they have to overcome, and some barriers are easier to overcome than others. For example, no Asian or India community in the US has ever been attacked and destroyed for being successful. This, however, is exactly what happened to dozens of black communities across the US for decades, the most famous of these being in Tusla.
As to fathering children out of wedlock and fatherless homes, this is not a problem solely existent in black communities. I have seen this same thing in small towns in red states with a completely white population.
Your belief that fatherless homes only exist in black communities and that out of wedlock births only happen in black communities demonstrate your myopic view on these common social problems.
DEI isn’t going anywhere. Excellent counter opinion by Benny a white
“In a growing and increasingly diverse city like Naperville, diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives are vital for fostering a community that serves all its residents.
In 2000, the city’s population was 15% minority; today, that number has risen to 35%.
This shift is also reflected in the two school districts serving Naperville: Indian Prairie School District 204 now has a 66% minority student population, while
Community Unit School District 203 is 40% minority.
These changes underscore the need for continued DEl efforts, and it’s no wonder that our mission statement, passed unanimously by a politically diverse city council, commits to being “an inclusive community that values diversity.
Some claim there’s no public mandate for DEI, pointing to reduced corporate investment. However, these cuts often reflect economic pressures, not a diminished need or relevance for DEI. While companies may prioritize short-term profits, communities like Naperville cannot afford to overlook DEl, as its benefits extend beyond financial gains.
The idea that DEI divides people is simply false. DEl programs are not about creating division but about removing barriers that have long excluded certain groups. These initiatives foster unity by ensuring everyone has equal opportunities to succeed.
While some may argue that DEI stifles free speech, it actually encourages open, inclusive dialogue that helps us better understand and respect diverse perspectives. Critics who dismiss DEI as unnecessary spending overlook its broader societal value.
DEI isn’t about quotas or checking boxes; while its benefits may not always be immediately measurable in dollars, they are evident in reduced social tensions, increased community engagement and a stronger sense of belonging.
Finally, labeling DEI as political misses the mark. The real politicization occurs when DEI is used as a wedge issue in election campaigns, not when government works to ensure all citizens are treated equitably. Naperville’s DEl efforts aren’t about partisanship – they’re about building a community where everyone, from seniors to young people, LGBTQ+ residents, people with disabilities and all others, feel safe, valued and heard.
Benny White, City Councilman“
If Naperville demographics has shifted as the article states , then there is no need for a DEI program. Don’t people move to areas where they feel they are included ? Also Benny’s assertion that this is not political is nonsense. Imagine the outcry from the lefties if Naperville hired a Project 2025 director.
It’s even more reason for DEI. The political thing to do is to oppose it. Opposing DEI initiatives if very reactionary and is in line with reactionary politics. 2025 project is not
equivalent to DEI. You obviously don’t understand what DEI is.
“Don’t people move to areas where they feel they are included ?”. I can’t believe you would seriously ask this question! The reason Naperville had a sundown law was to keep people out of the community that weren’t welcome, but were coming into Naperville anyway.
It is a historical fact that black people moved into communities where they were not welcome because they provided advantages other communities did not have, like superior public schools, among other things.
The idea that people only move into communities where they will “feel included” is simply ludicrous.
Finally, the only reason DEI is in, anyway, political is because the right wants it to be and keeps claiming it is. They seem to believe if they say it enough times it will suddenly become true. Wishes are just wishes. They aren’t facts.
Naperville is no longer a cowtown, it’s 2024 not 1950.
Naperville’s sundown law was in effect throughout the 1960. MLK, when he spoke at North Central College, had to leave town by sunset and could not stay at any hotel or residence in the city.
Naperville has never been a “cowtown” since this term implies a city were the primary source of employment is the raising of cattle. If you are using this term in the sense of a small, isolated, or unsophisticated town, this description has not applied to Naperville since the early 1900’s
Reduced Social tensions? You mean like the ones stoked by Benny & Kim White? Easy for Benny to espouse spending more tax dollars on crap programs when he and Ian don’t have to pay for it. It’s hilarious to me that the White’s live a million dollar plus home, sent their kids to Ivy League schools and complain about how horrible Naperville is.
I’d suggest Benny and Kim look in the mirror and admit why they and their kids made it in Naperville. They stayed married. As Barack Obama has stated repeatedly the destruction of the black family is the most pressing issue facing black America today. Black immigrants from Nigeria, Uganda, etc. do well in this country. Learn a lesson from that. No amount of DEI is ever going to fix the black american family.
Haselhorst – What’s that line, “making sure.” Ouch. Remember, DEI is ideas so good they MUST be mandatory! Anywho….if you believe this line, then I have a bridge to sell you: “DEI is about making sure every one has equal opportunity, eliminating institutional barriers that make equal treatment, equal pay, equal access, etc. more difficult for some base on what they are not who they are. Its basic civil rights, which apply equally to all citizens. DEI is nothing more than the continuing evolution of civil rights.” Remember, the best way to think of DEI is as one thing posing as another.
Again, your belief that DEI is an attempt to “weaponize” the government clouds your view of the reality of DEI. You have presented no new facts, data, or even anecdotal stories to support your claims.
Read the posted statement by Benny, trying to keep an open mind, and you may gain some insight.
Jim Haselhorst – I wanted to address an earlier statement you made but only know I have the time so I apologize for the ‘lateness’.
Below is your statement that I want to respond to, if this case I mention is not the basis of your reply, please let me know. I am assuming you are referring the the SCOTUS ruling on Murthy v. Missouri (originally filed as Missouri v. Biden) om June 25, 2024.
“Further, even the SCOTUS has ruled that the government (federal, state, local) is doing nothing illegal in acting to prevent the spreading of misinformation when it comes to public health and safety.”
Your above statement is incorrect. As I am assuming that an intelligent man like yourself knows that the SC did not rule on the case details but only to rule that the current plaintiffs did not have “standing”, a very big difference! So your above statement is inaccurate, and you probably just made a mistake and your weren’t trying to mislead anyone. Correct?
The SCOTUS has made many rulings over the last century that touch on the issue of free speech and the government’s authority to limit free speech where public health and safety are concerned. None of the recent rulings (in the last 10 years) of the SCOTUS has changed any of the prior rulings placing limits on free speech (protected speech).
Yes, the development of internet outlets (websites) does present new challenges to the existing established precedence, but again, these have not been changed. Like it or not, the SCOTUS has made no ruling that determined the government did anything that violated the established standards for protected speech, was unconstitutional or, in any way, illegal or an abuse of authority.
Even the multiply, lengthy congressional hearings on this matter have not found any grounds to make a legal referral to the DOJ for a criminal investigation. Lots of politically motivated rhetoric, but no recommendation for legal action.
I admit I am not familiar with the many rulings that the SCOTUS has made over the last century as you stated:
“ The SCOTUS has made many rulings over the last century that touch on the issue of free speech and the government’s authority to limit free speech where public health and safety”
Please provide me with specifics so that I will know what you know.
In regards to your statement, “ Even the multiply, lengthy congressional hearings on this matter have not found any grounds to make a legal referral to the DOJ for a criminal investigation.”, I assume you are referring to the Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government that is still proceeding with the last hearing on
Tue, 07/09/2024 – 10:00 AM. So the ability to refer their findings to the DOJ is still in front of us. I will be candid with you, I don’t believe the Garland/Biden DOJ will bring charges for any of the House investigations.
I am more confident in the Judicial system with the Berenson v Biden case as Berenson indeed has ‘standing’ and appears to have been truly ‘harmed’ by Twitter and specific members of the Biden administration that censored him from the Twitter platform. BTW: Twitter settled with Berenson and is cooperating with the Plaintiff. More to follow. Please stay on top of that case as I will.
On SCOTUS rulings limiting free speech or more specifically ruling that free speech is not absolute the two main cases are Schenck v. United States and Brandenburg v. Ohio. There has also been roughly a dozen cases as well were people have tried to claim they were excising their constitutionally protected free speech (1st Amendment) right when criminal charged and convicted of making statements that lead to violate or illegal actions. In each case the SCOTUS rule their actions were not protect by the 1st amendment based on the precedence of these two cases.
In short the, in the Schenck v. United States, the majority ruling used the example of yelling fire in a crowded theater. There had been several high profile cases at the time were a person had actually done this resulting in mass panic leading to deaths and major injuries. This is the foundation of the principal of protected speech vs free speech. Hate speech, spreading false information, misleading information, etc is free speech but they are not protected speech under the first amendment.
I agree, that is also my understanding of our country’s (as established by SCOTUS rulings) acknowledgement of 1st Amendment speech protections. Another element of ‘not protected speech’ is related to the ‘timing’ of the speech which is potentially inciting the violent behavior. If it’s immediate it’s not protected. If not an immediate call to action it becomes more vague whether protected speech or not.
Thank you for the intelligent discourse. It is still possible to disagree but still be respectful of the other person.
Naperville libs need to stop bringing up sun down laws as though naperville had such policies last week. Is your point to continue racism division and cause angst. It was 100 flipping years ago! No one alive today was either involved in nor harmed by these laws from generations ago.
Clearly you need a refresher in US History. It is a well documented fact that when MLK came to Naperville to speak at North Central College he had to leave by sundown because of Naperville’s sundown law.
As a further lesson in US history I will point out that sundown laws did not exist in the US until the middle of the last century, i.e. there were no sundown laws “100 flipping years ago”
I admit I am not familiar with the many rulings that the SCOTUS has made over the last century as you stated:
“ The SCOTUS has made many rulings over the last century that touch on the issue of free speech and the government’s authority to limit free speech where public health and safety”
Please provide me with specifics so that I will know what you know.
In regards to your statement, “ Even the multiply, lengthy congressional hearings on this matter have not found any grounds to make a legal referral to the DOJ for a criminal investigation.”, I assume you are referring to the Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government that is still proceeding with the last hearing on
Tue, 07/09/2024 – 10:00 AM. So the ability to refer their findings to the DOJ is still in front of us. I will be candid with you, I don’t believe the Garland/Biden DOJ will bring charges for any of the House investigations.
I am more confident in the Judicial system with the Berenson v Biden case as Berenson indeed has ‘standing’ and appears to have been truly ‘harmed’ by Twitter and specific members of the Biden administration that censored him from the Twitter platform. BTW: Twitter settled with Berenson and is cooperating with the Plaintiff. More to follow.
On the issue of the United States House Judiciary Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government hearings.
There have been three hearings, none of which has yet to provide any evidence supporting any claim that any government official violated anyone’s protected speech rights or, in any way, abused the authority of their office.
The first hearing was a joke because they failed to produce the “whistleblower” witness they claimed would prove that government officials acted illegally. This failure left Jordan looking foolish.
The second hearing was solely about the testimony of two witnesses, who made many claims about what they believe was going on but provided zero actual documents, affidavits, or evidence of any sort to indicate criminal behavior.
The third hearing was about the testimony of three FBI “whistleblowers” whose actual testimony was underwhelming at best. Further, it has since been shown that one of these “whistleblower” was under investigation for leaking clasified documents and two others were paid for their testimony by Patel, a radical right supporter (think conservative – George Soros).
This committee, like so many of its predecessors, has failed so far to deliver anything but rhetoric. And will most likely, like its many predecessors, simply be allowed to fade away with conservative hopes it will be forgotten.
I admit I am not familiar with the many rulings that the SCOTUS has made over the last century as you stated:
“ The SCOTUS has made many rulings over the last century that touch on the issue of free speech and the government’s authority to limit free speech where public health and safety”
Please provide me with specifics so that I will know what you know.
In regards to your statement, “ Even the multiply, lengthy congressional hearings on this matter have not found any grounds to make a legal referral to the DOJ for a criminal investigation.”, I assume you are referring to the Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government that is still proceeding with the last hearing on
Tue, 07/09/2024 – 10:00 AM. So the ability to refer their findings to the DOJ is still in front of us. I will be candid with you, I don’t believe the Garland/Biden DOJ will bring charges for any of the House investigations.
I am more confident in the Judicial system with the Berenson v Biden case as Berenson indeed has ‘standing’ and appears to have been truly ‘harmed’ by Twitter and specific members of the Biden administration that censored him from the Twitter platform. BTW: Twitter settled with Berenson and is cooperating with the Plaintiff. More to follow. Please stay on top of that case.
Finally, on the Berenson case (who, by the way, was one of the two witnesses in the second hearing discussed in a previous reply to you).
This case was heavily dependent on the aforementioned Murphy case, which has been dismissed. Also, this case is not about the government’s efforts to moderate content on social media, but is about Twitter shutting down Berenson’s account and eventually banning him from the site. Twitter settled because one of its managers made a promise to deliver documents to the plaintiff without first seeking advice from counsel. This promise created a legal technicality that put Twitter in an undefendable position, resulting in their legal counsel forcing them to settle. So, this settlement was not based on the merits of the case but on the unfortunate legal mistake of a Twitter manager.
Berenson’s case basically claims he was banned because of government pressure on Twitter. Legal experts agree that since no one is claiming the government threatened legal or regulator action against Twitter if they did not comply with the government’s requests, this case has little chance of prevailing. In short, just because the government requests some action does not change the fact that the ultimate decision to honor that request was made by Twitter managers. Nor does is prove that the only one requesting action against Berenson was the government. It leaves open the possibility that many users also requested his banning based on violating Twitter’s Terms of Use, casting further doubt on any claim Twitter’s actions were based solely on any government request.
All of these cases involving content moderation brought against the current administration are considered by legal experts as having little chance of success, just like the election fraud cases. This is based on two factors:
First, the previous administration (Trump) had engaged in similar actions and none of these plaintiffs acted under this administration and have failed to include the Trump Administration’s actions in their suits. Failing to do this causes these to be examples of “capricious” legal actions, which is unconstitutional since it violates a major tenant of Due Process under the Constitution.
Second, none of the cases have shown that the government’s request was in anyway substantially different from the requests of other users seeking similar action by the site management for violation of the sites’ terms of use.
In short, these politically motivated cases are more about generating negative media attention toward the Biden administration then protecting anyone’s constitutional rights and, as such, should fail in court.
Didn’t Zuckerberg just send a letter to the judiciary committee acknowledging that the government did pressure Meta to remove content ? Now if the government pressured Meta, isn’t the probability high that they pressured Twitter as well ? Because of this letter Berenson is amending his lawsuit against the Biden administration.
Again, the Zuckerberg letter addressed his and Meta’s action with regard to the Hunter laptop. He apologized for downgrading (making the post not shareable) but it was not removed. Zuckerberg stated this was not done as the result of any government pressure or request. It was done based on an FBI report that this story was likely Russian propaganda.
The post was only downgraded long enough for Meta to do its own fact checking of the story. Once Meta determined it was unlikely to be Russian propaganda, the post’s full status was restored.
Nothing in the Zuckerberg letter indicates he or Meta were in anyway threatened with regulatory or legal action if they did not comply with the government’s request. At no point in this letter or during this testimony did Zuckerberg state he or Meta were coerced into granting the government’s moderation request.
Ultimately, in the absence of coercion or threats, the government can not be accused of forcing Meta (or Twitter) to grant their request. No matter how much pressure the government might have used, in the end Meta (Twitter) was not forced to act by the government.
It is important to remember that every time something happens (most recently the dismissal of the Murphy case), Berenson files a motion to amend this case. Berenson has done this roughly two dozen times in the last year, simply to keep his case “alive”.
Proving “standing” and “harm” is not enough to win this case, he must prove the “harm” was solely caused by the government’s actions and nothing said by Zuckerberg or anyone else demonstrated the government was at most anything other than one of several contributors (including Meta).
We’ll just have to watch how the Berenson case proceeds through the Justice system.
The Administration emails that have been received so far as a result of discovery seem strong that it was more than the government expressing their disagreement with the individuals’ contrary opinion.
If you are waiting for a Marion Barry videotape or a wiretap that states “you do this or else!” as evidence then this type of government censorship will never end. An old Mafia saying, “as long as we both understand, there’s no need to say anymore”. This is then followed by a wink and a nod.
The government has the bully pulpit. They can express their disagreeing opinion any where they want! Why do they have to tell the media outlet to censor?
Sorry folks Jim and I have steered way off course of the original post so this will be my last post here on this topic.
Jim- please take the last word if you would like.
The best way to think about DEI is as one thing posing as another. It is racial, sex, and sexuality preferences for preferred Left leaning activists. That’s what it is. Full stop. In practice it’s divisive, gets everybody obsessed with other people’s immutable characteristics, it’s illiberal (speech restrictions and anti-merticratic), and illegal (picking people because of race, sex, and sexuality is illegal).
But the worst thing about it is that to supporters it’s all rainbows and sunshine, just about “making things fair.” Oh, if we could ONLY understand how wonderful DEI is, then our ignorance would be vanished and utopia would be one step closer!! Cue the tears shed for the loss of this wonderful (“It’s the future!”), innocent, desire to “just give people a chance!!” You know, cookies and milk! Don’t mind that man behind the curtain!!! Nothing to see here!! And to think, all of this sunshine is available for just a few tax dollars!! Let’s not let our short-sidedness and, dare we say, greed, get in the way of this Benny White, Hasselhorst, you name the other apolitical supporters, teensy-weensy little job post!
Marginalizing the issue by using politically triggering labels, that’s the best you’ve got? As Clara Peller would say “Where’s the beef?”
This is just another one of your “the Leftists are weaponizing the government” posts crafted to use every variant phraseology that does not include any form of the word weapon.
Casting DEI as some kind of conspiracy theory with myself, Benny White and anyone that does not agree with your political views (“apolitical supporters”) as the masterminds is lame at best.
Well put Jim.