"We’re committed to calling balls and strikes in a non-partisan way, just like we always have for the last 25 years. That’s why we’re defending the Iowa pollster Ann Selzer against Trump's speech-chilling SLAPP suit and keeping a close eye on the actions of his administration for potential First Amendment concerns.
We were encouraged when Trump signed his executive order on free speech and when he restored crucial due process rights to college students, but we’ll remain vigilant in holding the administration to its commitments."
Reread the above paragraphs, please, because it in no way reads to me as 'non-partisan'. You're only marginally short of the absurdity that was the WaPo "Democracy dies in darkness" here. You start with an example of opposition to Trump rather than support, that opposition is given without caveat, whereas the 'encouraged' paragraph implies that his good actions came as a surprise to you (despite this literally being an issue that he ran on) and is IMMEDIATELY caveated WITHIN THE SAME SENTENCE with a reassurance that you'll be "holding" him to it (showing that you're assuming bad faith of the administration). In those two short paragraphs you essentially gave ONE reluctant positive (we're encouraged) for Trump and THREE negatives (we're defending against, keeping a close eye on, remaining vigilant). That's not a ratio that supports the claim of being non-partisan. By the methodologies of most media bias studies I've read, you'd be categorized as strongly partisan against Trump based on the way you're talking here.
Thank You. I love FIRE but I might unsubscribe. They are clearly partisan against Trump, which I understand given their class circumstances. I have lost faith that FIRE will truly fight for Free Speech in a non partisan way, which - after a decade of brutal censorship from the Left - is a real loss.
Please don't unsubscribe. I push back when they cross the line like this and it's 'encouraging' to me that I'm not alone in 'holding' THEM to account for their given commitments.
I’d suggest that for an organization like FIRE that is committed to protecting civil liberties, the default stance should ALWAYS be a healthy skepticism to whoever is in power.
I would agree with that statement. OTOH, there is a meaningful difference between a healthy skepticism and being reluctant to give credit where it's due, assuming bad faith, and disproportionate treatment. The way FIRE talks about Trump doesn't align with just a healthy skepticism neutrally applied.
I would likewise suggest to you that default stance should always ALSO include a healthy support to whomever is actually advancing Freedom of Speech.
President Trump HAS done so, to a frankly unprecedentedly degree of any President in my lifetime, yet as the example shows those two suggestions are not both being followed equally by FIRE where Trump is concerned. They've shown more support for literal terrorist sympathisers on campus who disrupted classes and threatened fellow students than for our President. There's a number of ways I can describe that dichotomy, of those ways "partisan" is the the kindest.
I like FIRE. I've been following their work for a long time. I use their data in arguments online frequently. I have tremendous respect for Greg. Part of that respect comes from knowing that he is sometimes willing to admit that he's made the wrong call before because of his own biases. So I stick around and call it out when I see FIRE making what looks like another bias-driven mistake. After all, isn't hearing opposing arguments one of the main purposes of Free Speech?
Is this the Justin Amash who was too principled to remain a member of the Republican Party over their shenanigans and then decided, "Whoops, guess I am a Republican after all." when a Senate seat opened in Michigan and he showed all of us that the only principle he has is the pursuit of power?
"[G]iving parents more information or mechanisms to supervise their kids’ Internet use" is simply silly as a means of "restricting content that 'promotes or glorifies' targeted behaviors." Parents are either going to ban their kids from the Internet (hardly practical in an era of iPhones) or not; they aren't ever going to preview the kids' websites to choose a few to allow (obviously too restrictive) or a few to disallow (obviously not restrictive enough) or both (both).
Thanks for the shout-out, Greg. You, Nico, and the whole FIRE team are indispensable bulwarks against the enemies of free speech.
“Media outlets must now cave to Trump’s lawfare by Will Creeley”
Bit of a consequential typo there : )
Ha! Now I kinda wanna keep it!
"We’re committed to calling balls and strikes in a non-partisan way, just like we always have for the last 25 years. That’s why we’re defending the Iowa pollster Ann Selzer against Trump's speech-chilling SLAPP suit and keeping a close eye on the actions of his administration for potential First Amendment concerns.
We were encouraged when Trump signed his executive order on free speech and when he restored crucial due process rights to college students, but we’ll remain vigilant in holding the administration to its commitments."
Reread the above paragraphs, please, because it in no way reads to me as 'non-partisan'. You're only marginally short of the absurdity that was the WaPo "Democracy dies in darkness" here. You start with an example of opposition to Trump rather than support, that opposition is given without caveat, whereas the 'encouraged' paragraph implies that his good actions came as a surprise to you (despite this literally being an issue that he ran on) and is IMMEDIATELY caveated WITHIN THE SAME SENTENCE with a reassurance that you'll be "holding" him to it (showing that you're assuming bad faith of the administration). In those two short paragraphs you essentially gave ONE reluctant positive (we're encouraged) for Trump and THREE negatives (we're defending against, keeping a close eye on, remaining vigilant). That's not a ratio that supports the claim of being non-partisan. By the methodologies of most media bias studies I've read, you'd be categorized as strongly partisan against Trump based on the way you're talking here.
Thank You. I love FIRE but I might unsubscribe. They are clearly partisan against Trump, which I understand given their class circumstances. I have lost faith that FIRE will truly fight for Free Speech in a non partisan way, which - after a decade of brutal censorship from the Left - is a real loss.
Please don't unsubscribe. I push back when they cross the line like this and it's 'encouraging' to me that I'm not alone in 'holding' THEM to account for their given commitments.
They try to hide their ideological bias, but it’s obvious.
I’d suggest that for an organization like FIRE that is committed to protecting civil liberties, the default stance should ALWAYS be a healthy skepticism to whoever is in power.
I would agree with that statement. OTOH, there is a meaningful difference between a healthy skepticism and being reluctant to give credit where it's due, assuming bad faith, and disproportionate treatment. The way FIRE talks about Trump doesn't align with just a healthy skepticism neutrally applied.
I would likewise suggest to you that default stance should always ALSO include a healthy support to whomever is actually advancing Freedom of Speech.
President Trump HAS done so, to a frankly unprecedentedly degree of any President in my lifetime, yet as the example shows those two suggestions are not both being followed equally by FIRE where Trump is concerned. They've shown more support for literal terrorist sympathisers on campus who disrupted classes and threatened fellow students than for our President. There's a number of ways I can describe that dichotomy, of those ways "partisan" is the the kindest.
I like FIRE. I've been following their work for a long time. I use their data in arguments online frequently. I have tremendous respect for Greg. Part of that respect comes from knowing that he is sometimes willing to admit that he's made the wrong call before because of his own biases. So I stick around and call it out when I see FIRE making what looks like another bias-driven mistake. After all, isn't hearing opposing arguments one of the main purposes of Free Speech?
You’re nuts if you think fire is actually biased against Trump in any significant way
I provided an argument and evidence for my claim.
You didn't engage the argument.
You didn't engage the evidence.
You didn't make an argument.
You didn't provide any contrary evidence.
The only thing you've actually done is commit a fallacious ad hominem (insult the speaker).
It doesn't seem to me that you have any ground to stand on regarding telling other people how or what to think.
Is this the Justin Amash who was too principled to remain a member of the Republican Party over their shenanigans and then decided, "Whoops, guess I am a Republican after all." when a Senate seat opened in Michigan and he showed all of us that the only principle he has is the pursuit of power?
"[G]iving parents more information or mechanisms to supervise their kids’ Internet use" is simply silly as a means of "restricting content that 'promotes or glorifies' targeted behaviors." Parents are either going to ban their kids from the Internet (hardly practical in an era of iPhones) or not; they aren't ever going to preview the kids' websites to choose a few to allow (obviously too restrictive) or a few to disallow (obviously not restrictive enough) or both (both).