Brickbats

Brickbat: Some Rights Don’t Matter

|

Censorship
Marcos Calvo Mesa / Dreamstime.com

Alaska Gov. Mike Dunleavy has asked for an investigation after Marti Buscaglia, the executive director of the state Commission for Human Rights, posted a photo on Facebook of a bumper sticker on the back of a truck that read "Black Rifles Matter" and called the slogan racist. Buscaglia also left a note with her business card telling the owner of the truck not to park in the commission's parking lot again. The truck belonged to Brent Linegar, who owns a heating and plumbing business and was working in the building. After getting pushback in the comments thread, Buscaglia took down her post. "I think the line between being protected by the First Amendment and hate speech is very fine," she said. "And frankly I wasn't sure which one this was."

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

87 responses to “Brickbat: Some Rights Don’t Matter

  1. Sounds like a typical human right commission flunky, as in clueless and pig ignorant.

    1. Executive director of the state Commission for Human Rights

      Why does Alaska or any US state need to pay taxpayer money for some stupid office like this?

      A.fucking.waste.of.money.

      1. Thanks, I was going to post pretty much the same thing. As is University Deans of Diversity and Inclusion; a waste of resources and they don’t have an f’n clue.

        And as for anyone who thinks “Black Rifle” is a racist term, I can’t even.

        1. It’s a provocative statement meant to mock the value of a black person’s life.

          1. Was that your interpretation? Mine was that the bumper sticker was advocating for blacks to assert their 2nd amendment rights, and/or suggest that better armed blacks would be less vulnerable to having their rights or lives taken. I suspect most of the other readers here thought the same thing.

            1. And let me guess you interpreted kneeling during the pledge of allegiance as a fuck you to the soldiers.

              1. Ad hominem.

                Stop it.

            2. The bumper sticker is pointing out the socialists penchant to ban “assault rifles” because they look mean. It is this racism, banning rifles just because they are black, that is being publicized for ridicule.

          2. Are you implying that means it isn’t protected by the First Amendment?

            1. Fuck no man. It’s not even close. Definitely protected. The govt lady shouldn’t have bothered this guy. I think he’s an asshole or maybe not.

              1. 1. It is important that we protect assholes’ free speech rights. (I am not kidding.)
                2. I think the bureaucrat who hassled him is a bigger asshole.

          3. Yep, as long as you remember to take it personally and hate the person for it, you’ll be fine in life.

          4. Seriously? Do you even have any idea of what the term “black rifle” means?

            Sure, it’s a take off on “Black Lives Matter” but then that just begs for parody, which does not make it racist.

            Unless of course you just want it to be racist, but I suspect you do that quite often.

  2. In his most recent book, Thomas Sowell defined and used the terms “Discrimination 1” and “Discrimination 2” as part of an effort to necessarily highlight the fact that there are very different things with very different levels of morality being lumped together under the “discrimination” label.

    It would be tremendously useful if snappy labels were widely adopted for each of these separate concepts:

    1. 1. Stating non-pejorative, non-actionable facts. Example: “Michael Jordan is black.”
      2. Noting objective differences in non-pejorative ways. Example “There are no urinals in the women’s restroom.”
      3. Assuming non-pejorative stereotypes for convenience. Example: “I found a lost diamond earring. Does anyone know of any ladies on this floor who might have lost an earring?”
      4. Acting on objective differences in a way that does not violate rights. Example: Separate sports leagues for women.
      5. Talking about group differences without hostility. Example: “Women are generally more risk-averse than men, which results in fewer extreme life outcomes at both the high and low end.”
      6. Alluding to characteristics in a pejorative way, but not due to group bias. Example: (after an escalating argument over something else) “Get your fat ass out of my office!”
      7. Experiencing a negative consequence of a group characteristic, not due to any malevolent intent from anyone else. Examples: a) Being too fat to fit in an airline seat. b) Not being seen as easily in the dark due to dark skin. c) Woman gets asked on a date by a man she doesn’t like.
      8. Being wary of people who display known negative traits. Example: Hispanics dressed like MS-13 members.
      9. Actual bigotry, which may be conflated with #4 or #8.

      1. “4. Acting on objective differences in a way that does not violate rights. Example: Separate sports leagues for women.”

        We can’t talk about morality without addressing agency, and the motive behind people’s choices doesn’t necessarily give us the moral right to ignore people’s agency–which is what the laws prohibiting discrimination by private parties necessarily does. Before you tell me that it’s okay for individuals to act on objective differences in a way that does not violate our right to make choices for ourselves, Sowell needs to explain why it’s okay for the government to violate our right to make choices for ourselves on the basis of subjective differences.

        “8. Being wary of people who display known negative traits. Example: Hispanics dressed like MS-13 members.”

        Known negative traits and known positive traits are often the same thing cast differently.

        A common antisemitic stereotype says that Jews are rich and greedy. The Protestant work ethic has it that frugality and ambition are good things.

        In Latin American culture, family bonds are more important than anything. Strong families are widely considered a positive thing–and yet many companies have prohibitions against nepotism. In Latin culture, why would you hire a perfect stranger when you could hire a family member you know you can trust? Claiming to be able to tell the difference between good traits and bad traits in an objective way is dubious.

        1. Ken,

          Sowell needs to explain why it’s okay for the government to violate our right to make choices for ourselves on the basis of subjective differences.

          I lost you here. Can you elaborate?

          Known negative traits and known positive traits are often the same thing cast differently.

          True, but I think you’re making a distinction that doesn’t matter for Sowell’s purposes, right? He’s just saying, being wary of someone who displays a trait that one personally perceives as negative or risky. The trait doesn’t have to be uniformly perceived a particular way; if the observer sees it as threatening that’s sufficient.

          I ask because I think Sowell is an exceptionally clear and brilliant thinker and communicator, and if he missed a trick I’d like to understand what it was.

          1. “Before you tell me that it’s okay for individuals to act on objective differences in a way that does not violate our right to make choices for ourselves, Sowell needs to explain why it’s okay for the government to violate our right to make choices for ourselves on the basis of subjective differences.”

            He’s stealing a base.

            He’s making a moral distinction between those who act on objective differences (like restricting women’s leagues to women) with the implication being that those who act on subjective differences should be treated differently. Why should they be treated differently?

            We’re talking about the ethics of agency, here. What is it about people’s choices being based on subjective criteria that makes ignoring their agency morally acceptable? He needs to explain that before he make distinctions between choices made on basis of objective or subjective criteria.

          2. “Being wary of people who display known negative traits. Example: Hispanics dressed like MS-13 members.”

            I am not familiar with the context of the argument apart from what I’ve read here.

            If he’s saying that it’s not entirely unreasonable for some people to assume that those who dress like gang members may be gang members, then he’s barking up the right tree.

            However, we’re still talking about highly subjective criteria, here. If you live in Los Angeles, you know that lots of people dress like gang members for all sorts of reasons. You may know that while most everyone in a neighborhood is affiliated with a gang, that doesn’t make them members or soldiers.

            Some people dress up like bikers without riding a motorcycle. Some people dress up like cowboys when they go to country-western bars or the rodeo. His lines seem to be drawn between objective and subjective criteria, with his “known traits” at this point being on the objective side of the line. I’m not convinced these known traits aren’t highly subjective.

      2. What do MS-13 members dress like?? I usually look for the forehead tattoos with a big “13”, but wasn’t aware of the dress code.

        1. I think Sowell was trying to talk about big flowing shirts and big baggy pants, shaved heads, etc.

          That’s probably a bad example, by him, since those flowing shirts and baggy pants were meant to make it hard for police to tell if they were carrying a gun. If someone is wearing clothes mimicking people who dress that way to make it unclear whether they’re packing heat, someone might be excused for wondering if they might be carrying.

          1. Lefty: “You’re so racist, you’re afraid people might be gangbangers just because they dress like gangbangers.”

            Reasonable Person: “Huh?!”

  3. Buscaglia said the commission’s aim is to seek out and eliminate discrimination, and she considered the sticker to be a discriminatory statement. She said she never intended to step on anyone’s constitutional free speech or gun rights.

    She simply wanted the building owner to discriminate against this single sticker-bearer.

    1. Somebody really needs to tell her, “Sweeetie, all speech that isn’t a direct threat is free speech. If the sticker had said ‘N*ggers need leashes’ you’d STILL need to keep your paws off. That said, you can flap YOUR rachet-jaw as much as you please, as long as you don’t use your office to take any action.”

      Maybe tattoo it on the foreheads of all officials (in mirror writing) as they take office? “All speech is protected!”

      1. Correct. Disaffected right-wing bigots have rights, too.

        1. More to the point, the whole “Hate speech isn’t free speech’ nonsense newds to be killed dead, NOW. No matter whomis spouting it, or who it attacks.

          The inevitable problem with defending free speech is that if you wait until the speech being attacked is nice and reasonable, you’ve waited too long. You always end up defending the rights of bigots and slime. Like the American (gag!) Nazi Party or Larry ( wipe off hands) Flint.

  4. “I think the line between being protected by the First Amendment and hate speech is very fine,” she said. “And frankly I wasn’t sure which one this was.”

    1. I think the line between being an ignorant, arrogant asshole and merely a foolish dimwit is very fine…

      1. Indeed; they appear as identical.

    2. The line between being protected by the First Amendment and hate speech doesn’t exist. Whether you like it or not, hate speech is in fact free speech

      1. Do you think that you have the right, be free from persecution, to say anything at all?

        1. Good question.

          What speech should be prohibited?

          1. Icky speech that gets my panties in a bunch.

          2. It is important to first recognize if there is any speech not protected as a right free from persecution.

            If you end up with lists of right and wrong speech, the most important question becomes, what is the criteria that defines a right?

            Use logic and give it a shot.

            You’ll probably need to recognize some uncomfortable truths.

          3. Speech that violates someone else’s rights isn’t protected by the First Amendment.

            Threatening to shoot someone unless they give you their wallet isn’t protected by the First Amendment.

            The First Amendment is just like the Second Amendment in that the Second Amendment doesn’t protect the freedom to violate other people’s rights with a gun. It simply gives you the right to choose to own a gun. Violating other people’s rights with a gun is not protected by the Second Amendment. The First Amendment, similarly, let’s you choose what to say, but it doesn’t protect your from violating other people’s rights with your speech.

            Perjury during a trial isn’t protected by the First Amendment.

            Fraud isn’t protected by the First Amendment.

            Neither slander nor libel are protected by the First Amendment.

            Show me how hate speech violates someone’s rights, and I’ll start to consider whether it’s protected by the First Amendment.

            1. It’s true that valid rights can’t be in conflict. When they seem to be it indicates that one or both aren’t valid rights.

              To determine the validity of a right, one must know the criteria that makes something a right.

              Perjury, fraud, libel and slander are not the only derivatives of lying. All lying misinforms people to make decisions they wouldn’t if they knew the truth. This conflicts. With their pursuit of happiness. No lie is a protected right.

              Hate speech is vaguely defined today. In reality, hatered is defined by conflict. Hatred in speech is always based on a lie. Properly defined, hate speech is not a protected right.

              Try to find any example of hatred that isn’t based on a lie. It doesn’t exist.

  5. What a shit show. Even the Supreme Court is afraid of ruling on the discrimination hot potato.

    The reason is that the laws are intentionally vague and clarity demonstrates that we not only have the right to discriminate but also the responsibility.

    That fact doesn’t fly in this politically correct post truth society.

    Justice no longer needs the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. It has become untethered from reality.

    Now you will be persecuted for how I feel which requires no rational evidence at all.

    1. “Now you will be persecuted for how I feel which requires no rational evidence at all.”

      And that is pretty much the foundation of all grievance and victim identification.

      1. In a nutshell.

    2. discrimination hot potato

      Eh, close enough.

  6. It’s OK to be white.

    1. Clearly you have not been to a public school, college campus, or democratic party function in the last decade.

    2. It’s OK for a rifle to be owned by a black person, and for a black person to own a rile.

      “Black rifles matter”. (Rifle-owning blacks matter).

      Not apparently according to some assholes! Sad to say, many-many assholes exercise Government Almighty powers!!!!

      1. “…many-many assholes exercise Government Almighty powers!!!!”

        And many many more want to exercise it exponentially.

  7. These left wing loons are going to be the death of this country.

  8. Coming to a country near you.

    http://www.foxnews.com/world/c…..ists-child

  9. “I think the line between being protected by the First Amendment and hate speech is very fine,” she said. “And frankly I wasn’t sure which one this was.”

    Somebody get that woman involuntaried, she’s having trouble telling the difference between real and imaginary.

    1. She should move to the UK to be among her people.

      1. She’d rather bring the UK here, then she could go on a rampage of calling out her offenders.

        1. I don’t think that will work out like they want it to.

  10. In an interview Friday, Linegar, who said he had been doing general repairs at the building, said Buscaglia wrote the building owner asking that the company be banned from the property.

    Buscaglia acknowledges writing an email but said it included a number of complaints about Linegar or his employees. Buscaglia said she told the owner, who wasn’t sure how to respond, that they could hire a different heating and air company.

    This cunt is all butthurt that the ‘Black Lives Matter’ slogan was co-opted, immediately assumes a racist intent, then uses her position as a government official to seek punishment by inventing dubious complaints against the company. If the governor has any sense, she will soon be gone. There are hundreds of recently graduated and underemployed social workers that would gladly fill this position. If they’re smart, they will realize what a cushy gig it is and wont be resting their neck on the chopping block by organizing boycotts of companies on social media.

    1. Wait, I thought if it was black it was ok, and can’t ever be racist??

      1. But, GUNZ!!!!
        Racist, obv

    2. Buscaglia acknowledges writing an email but said it included a number of complaints about Linegar or his employees. Buscaglia said she told the owner, who wasn’t sure how to respond, that they could hire a different heating and air company.

      Lefties gotta left. Sounds like Buscaglia’s speech was not in fact free speech, but was instead tortious interference with a contract.

      Tortious interference with contract rights can occur when one party convinces another to breach its contract with a third party (e.g., using blackmail, threats, influence, etc.) or where someone knowingly interferes with a contractor’s ability to perform his contractual obligations, preventing the client from receiving the services or goods promised (e.g., by refusing to deliver goods).

  11. “The executive director of the state Commission for Human Rights, posted a photo on Facebook of a bumper sticker on the back of a truck that read “Black Rifles Matter” and called the slogan racist.”

    If the commission exists to police what people think and say, then the commission shouldn’t exist.

  12. Bigoted gun nuts have rights, too.

    This includes the right to park in a public lot.

    1. How is he bigoted? His AR type rifle (which is generally black) matters to him. Does he discriminate against blued and wood-stocked rifles?

      1. Kirkland is not a real person. It is jar full of the gall bladders of failed dictators that has somehow gained sentience.

        1. That is genuinely funny Chuck, and I suspect you are spot on.

          It does have gall if nothing else.

  13. “I think the line between being protected by the First Amendment and hate speech is very fine,” she said. “And frankly I wasn’t sure which one this was.”

    For a fascinating discussion of the limits of “free speech,” see Reason contributor Noah Berlatsky’s piece Is the First Amendment too broad? The case for regulating hate speech in America.

    #BringBackBerlatsky

    1. There’s something to be said for openly opposing the First Amendment. In some ways, it’s better than pretending it says whatever we want it to say. I feel that way about it in terms of religious rights, as well.

      “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech”

      No, those words don’t mean whatever you want them to mean, and if the left doesn’t like the First Amendment, they should say so.

      Same thing with the Second Amendment. If you don’t like the Second Amendment, don’t pretend it says something other than what it says, don’t pretend that its meaning wasn’t reinforced and clarified in the Federalist Papers, don’t try to make laws that change the Second Amendment. Why not fight to repeal it?

      That’s the way to get rid of First and Second Amendments. Repeal them. So why don’t the Democrats try that? Is it because the American people would punish them so severely at the polls for trying to repeal the First and Second Amendments that it might be the end of the Democratic Party forever?

      1. Incrementalism. Baby steps less you over step. Slowly boil that frog and he’ll never know what cooked him.

        1. Especially if you’re in charge of his education.

  14. Thank you for outing yourself as a complete moron Ms. Executive Director.

  15. Trump is worse than this human rights lady. Trump used his presidential platform to vicously attack black people for kneeling during the pledge. He did his best to get them fired. But y’all can’t see it apparently. Fucking sad.

    1. Your attempts to project collective guilt are not only ineffective; they also just make you look pathetic. And I mean that! I’m actually starting to feel sorry for you the way you make yourself look so bad.

      1. Huh?

      2. I am amused by his collective strawman approach to arguing against every reader of his posts.

        1. I’m attacking Trump supporters but more specifically the ones who supported Trump’s many attacks on the NFL players and teams. Trump didn’t just leave a note on a truck.

      3. Ken, bless your heart.

    2. This cunt tried to get a contractor fired, but you keep right on comparing her to a person actually just exercising their own free speech rights.

      1. I’m comparing her to Trump. Do remember when Trump attacked the NFL players for exercising free speech? Can you not see the parallel between what this nobody human rights lady did and what the President did? I’m attacking the people who supported Trump during that episode. I’m pointing out the hypocrisy. I’m saying that Trump was even worse than this lady because he wanted people fired.

        1. You are comparing what Trump said to what she did. Last time I checked the President didn’t give up his right to voice opinions when he takes the oath of office. He honored his oath to uphold the Constitution in not taking or causing others direct action against the NFL. She violated the law by writing a letter seeking to effectively nullify a legal contract by banning the contractor from the premises.

          Just because another’s opinion holds more sway than yours does not in any way diminish your free speech.

  16. If the executive director of the State Commission on Human Rights doesn’t understand that there is no “line” between free speech and hate speech, and that so-called hate speech is in fact still free speech protected fy the First Amendment nevertheless, she is not qualified to hold her office.

  17. Amnesty International has said more about Brett Kavanaugh than they have about the Muslim concentration camps in China. Nearly every single “human rights” and “civil rights” organization has been hijacked by totalitarian progressives obsessed with first world problems.

  18. The racist here is Marti Buscaglia.

  19. One time a cook showed up to work with a bumper sticker that said ‘KILL A QUEER FETUS FOR JESUS’ on his truck, and he was promptly fired by the gay manager. True story.

    1. I would have fired him as a straight manager.

    2. Obviously the gay manager was too stupid to realize the sticker was ridiculing anti-gay Christian fundamentalists.

  20. It’s true. Black rifles do matter. Black guns save Black lives. What the fuck is wrong with our society that our whitebread leaders insist on disarming victimized groups?

    I have a friend who is a member of the Pink Pistols. Their slogan is “Armed gays don’t get bashed”. And it’s true. What we need are more bumperstickers like that. “Armed Blacks don’t get lynched”. “Armed women don’t get raped”.

    Guns balance the power, and so are the perfect counter to a power imbalance.

  21. “I think the line between being protected by the First Amendment and hate speech is very fine,

    So fine that its nonexistent.

  22. re: “”I think the line between …”

    That’s easy. There is no ‘hate speech’ exception to the First Amendment. It’s protected. Absolutely. Full stop.

    The exceptions to First Amendment protection are few and narrow. They include true threats (this wasn’t) and imminent incitements to violence (wasn’t that either) and a few other categories (such as fraud) that are not relevant here.

    Buscaglia, a government employee, is fully limited by the First Amendment. Her actions were obviously and easily wrong. (For clarification, her decision to call the picture racist on Facebook was completely okay if done in her personal capacity on a purely personal account and wrong if done in her official capacity or from a government or mixed use account. Her attempt to attempt at censorship within the parking lot was clearly wrong.) She should suffer the full consequences and be required to personally pay the penalties and costs for her unconstitutional actions.

  23. So, she’s either:
    [A] Evil, or
    [B] Unable to recognize what human rights are, and is therefore incompetent to do her ONE JOB.

    Either answer should get her fired.

    1. [C]: C U in the N[orthwest] T[erritory]

  24. Hey something happened in Alaska

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.