But the prospect that Yiannopoulos stands to profit from a boycott
should trouble his opponents less than the chilling effect of consumer
book boycotts on speech. As the National Coalition Against Censorship
points out, boycotts like this are increasingly familiar: ‘We are aware
of at least seven other similar situations involving threats or fears of
boycotts, four of which were successful in having books withdrawn,
delayed, revised, or not reprinted.’ As boycotts become more common,
corporate media may become less willing to publish controversial books,
right and left. Simon & Schuster’s entire publishing enterprise, not
just the Yiannopoulos screed or the imprint publishing it, is being
targeted, which means that Yiannopoulos could prosper while the company
and other authors suffer.
Of course, boycotts are themselves a protected form of speech in the
US. Accusing boycotters of censorship confuses private protests of
speech with state actions (like hate-speech bans) against it. As private
citizens, consumers have obvious rights to organise against books they
disdain and the companies that disseminate them. Besides, consumer
preferences have always determined what and who gets published or aired
in commercial marketplaces. You might say that when consumers boycott
media companies they’re hoisting them with their own petards.
Boycotts present political, not legal issues, and they require sober
political judgements, often absent from our battles over allegedly
harmful speech. ‘If there were ever a man whose book should be treated
as a weapon, it’s Milo Yiannopoulos’, Sady Doyle proclaims in Elle,
referencing a familiar, false equation between speech and action,
between advocacy and incitement. The ‘harassment’ his speech encourages
is actually ‘a violent assault’, she asserts, warning that publishing
his rants will ‘endanger human lives’. Yiannopoulos must revel in this
rhetoric, as Doyle acknowledges. He calls his forthcoming book Dangerous, exploiting the sensational reputation that outraged critics have helped him establish.
People who fear that books can kill are unlikely to be persuaded that
metaphoric ‘violence of the word’ is not, in fact, the equivalent of
actual violence, and a book is not a weapon, unless you plan on hitting
people over the head with it. They will not accept the narrow,
constitutional definition of incitement as speech intended and likely to
cause imminent violence. (At most, Yiannopoulos has been accused of
advocacy that effectively encourages other people to threaten violence.)
Showing posts with label censorship. Show all posts
Showing posts with label censorship. Show all posts
Thursday, December 7, 2017
Thursday, March 23, 2017
Tuesday, March 7, 2017
Sunday, March 5, 2017
Tuesday, February 21, 2017
Tuesday, January 17, 2017
Speech isn't Dangerous but Censorship Is.
Milo isn’t dangerous, but censorship is
The equation of words and violence harms open debate.
An open marketplace of ideas has always been an ideal. In practice, the marketplace has been partly controlled by wealth and corporate power. But even in the wake of late 20th-century media conglomeration it was still a serviceable, functional ideal and a foundational one for free speech. Does it remain so?
The 21st-century marketplace seems increasingly dysfunctional, posing a primary challenge to free-speech advocates today. The dysfunction will only become more acute as America’s incoming tweeter-in-chief continues lashing out at critics to his nearly 20million followers. Remember the 18-year-old girl who asked candidate Trump a question about abortion rights and equal pay during a forum? He described her as an ‘arrogant’, ‘nasty’ young woman in a tweet, and his fans responded by threatening to brutalise her. Who can blame her for being scared (‘I didn’t really know what anyone was going to do’, she said), and how can we convince her not to retreat from a raucous, sometimes vicious marketplace to ‘safe spaces’ of like-mindedness?
That’s one question at the heart of our debates about speech. We can at least assure her that she has a right not to be targeted with explicit threats of violence. Actual threats, narrowly defined, forfeit constitutional protection, although, as a practical matter, they can be difficult to control.
But we can’t assure her that she won’t be excoriated for her views; we can’t protect her from feeling demeaned or intimidated. There’s no avoiding the hard fact that freedom of speech, like freedom generally, requires considerable fortitude. Safe spaces for speech aren’t free. Free speech isn’t safe.
Is Milo Yiannopoulos dangerous? He’d like us to think so. But he depends on the outrage he provokes, which his offended listeners have the power to withhold. We can speak and act against bigotry without engaging directly with bigots who won’t reason with us, and without trying to silence them. Yiannopoulos’s rants, epithets and insults aren’t threats; they’re taunts and demands for attention. Let’s not give it to him.
Wendy Kaminer is a lawyer and writer, and a former national board member of the American Civil Liberties Union. She is the author of several books, including: A Fearful Freedom: Women’s Flight from Equality (1990); I’m Dysfunctional, You’re Dysfunctional (1992); and Worst Instincts: Cowardice, Conformity and the ACLU (2009).
This article was first published in the Boston Globe on 10 January 2017.
Wednesday, December 7, 2016
How Long Before This Tool to Censor Images from Terrorists Gets Misused?
How Long Before This Tool to Censor Images from Terrorists Gets Misused?
Amid European calls for speech crackdown, social media companies introduce tool for easier deletions.Scott Shackford|Dec. 6, 2016 3:15 pm
Imagine China/Newscom
Four major tech and social media companies—Twitter, YouTube, Google, and Facebook—are combining to censor the internet! But they're doing it for a good cause (and because of government pressure), they say. We're going to have to see what actually comes of it.
The four companies announced that they're working together on a tool that will help them prevent imagery or content produced by terrorists from spreading online. Google in Europe explains:
Starting today, we commit to the creation of a shared industry database of "hashes" — unique digital "fingerprints" — for violent terrorist imagery or terrorist recruitment videos or images that we have removed from our services. By sharing this information with each other, we may use the shared hashes to help identify potential terrorist content on our respective hosted consumer platforms. We hope this collaboration will lead to greater efficiency as we continue to enforce our policies to help curb the pressing global issue of terrorist content online.
The four companies announced that they're working together on a tool that will help them prevent imagery or content produced by terrorists from spreading online. Google in Europe explains:
Starting today, we commit to the creation of a shared industry database of "hashes" — unique digital "fingerprints" — for violent terrorist imagery or terrorist recruitment videos or images that we have removed from our services. By sharing this information with each other, we may use the shared hashes to help identify potential terrorist content on our respective hosted consumer platforms. We hope this collaboration will lead to greater efficiency as we continue to enforce our policies to help curb the pressing global issue of terrorist content online.
Our companies will begin sharing hashes of the most extreme and egregious terrorist images and videos we have removed from our services — content most likely to violate all of our respective companies' content policies. Participating companies can add hashes of terrorist images or videos that are identified on one of our platforms to the database. Other participating companies can then use those hashes to identify such content on their services, review against their respective policies and definitions, and remove matching content as appropriate.
As we continue to collaborate and share best practices, each company will independently determine what image and video hashes to contribute to the shared database. No personally identifiable information will be shared, and matching content will not be automatically removed. Each company will continue to apply its own policies and definitions of terrorist content when deciding whether to remove content when a match to a shared hash is found. And each company will continue to apply its practice of transparency and review for any government requests, as well as retain its own appeal process for removal decisions and grievances. As part of this collaboration, we will all focus on how to involve additional companies in the future.
To start with the obvious response: There's nothing inherently wrong or inappropriate about the companies working together and censoring violent content or declining to host it on their platforms.
Ultimately, though, how this tool gets used is what matters. Once a tool can be used to censor, en masse, a violent photo from some terrorist of the Islamic State, that tool can be used to censor anything in similar broad strokes. Recall that Facebook recently had an odd little controversy when it temporarily censored a well-known, historically significant photo from the Vietnam War because it contained nudity.
Leaders in European countries, where they don't have nearly the level of commitment to free speech when people say things that those in power deem to be bigotry or hate speech, are pushing social media platforms to engage in wider forms of censorship of content.
As Andrea O'Sullivan noted earlier today, social media companies are beginning to embrace a "gatekeeper" mentalityafter previously marketing themselves as free-wheeling communication platforms. Will they resist the pressure to use this technology to censor other forms of content at the request of governments?
As we continue to collaborate and share best practices, each company will independently determine what image and video hashes to contribute to the shared database. No personally identifiable information will be shared, and matching content will not be automatically removed. Each company will continue to apply its own policies and definitions of terrorist content when deciding whether to remove content when a match to a shared hash is found. And each company will continue to apply its practice of transparency and review for any government requests, as well as retain its own appeal process for removal decisions and grievances. As part of this collaboration, we will all focus on how to involve additional companies in the future.
To start with the obvious response: There's nothing inherently wrong or inappropriate about the companies working together and censoring violent content or declining to host it on their platforms.
Ultimately, though, how this tool gets used is what matters. Once a tool can be used to censor, en masse, a violent photo from some terrorist of the Islamic State, that tool can be used to censor anything in similar broad strokes. Recall that Facebook recently had an odd little controversy when it temporarily censored a well-known, historically significant photo from the Vietnam War because it contained nudity.
Leaders in European countries, where they don't have nearly the level of commitment to free speech when people say things that those in power deem to be bigotry or hate speech, are pushing social media platforms to engage in wider forms of censorship of content.
As Andrea O'Sullivan noted earlier today, social media companies are beginning to embrace a "gatekeeper" mentalityafter previously marketing themselves as free-wheeling communication platforms. Will they resist the pressure to use this technology to censor other forms of content at the request of governments?
Wednesday, November 30, 2016
Journalists held hostage inside Dakota Access Pipeline protest camp
No matter what your view on the pipeline, this incident is a disturbing example of the thuggish behavior of some on the Progressive left to shut down free speech on public land. From the spinning on social media, this incident generated a huge response from people across the political spectrum.
Sunday, November 20, 2016
Tuesday, November 1, 2016
YouTube vs. Conservative Speech
YouTube vs. Conservative Speech
Dennis Prager
|
Posted: Oct 25, 2016 12:01 AM
Share (6K) Tweet
YouTube restricting access to 16 videos -- down from 21 -- that were created and posted online by my nonprofit educational organization, Prager University. The subheading read, "YouTube thinks Dennis Prager's videos may be dangerous." The Journal said:
"Tech giants like Google and Facebook always deny that their platforms favor some viewpoints over others, but then they don't do much to avoid looking censorious. ... Dennis Prager's 'PragerU' puts out free short videos on subjects 'important to understanding American values' -- ranging from the high cost of higher education to the motivations of Islamic State.
"The channel has more than 130 million views. ... As you might guess, the mini-seminars do not include violence or sexual content. But more than 15 videos are 'restricted' on YouTube ... This means the clips don't show up for those who have turned on filtering -- say, a parent shielding their children from explicit videos. A YouTube spokesperson told us that the setting is optional and 'based on algorithms that look at a number of factors, including community flagging on videos.'
"PragerU started a petition calling for YouTube to remove the restriction, and more than 66,000 people have signed. YouTube is free to set its own standards, but the company is undercutting its claim to be a platform for 'free expression.'"
It is a good sign that YouTube's censorship of respectful and utterly nonviolent and nonsexual videos made it to The Wall Street Journal editorial page. It is a very bad sign that it had to. And it is a very bad sign that it made the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal but not that of The New York Times, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times or any other mainstream newspaper that still purports to support the classic liberal value of free speech.
To understand what YouTube, which is owned by Google, has done, it is necessary to briefly describe what it has restricted access to.
Every week, PragerU (the generally used name for Prager University) posts at least one 5-minute video presentation online. These presentations are on just about every subject and are given by important thinkers -- some very well-known, some not. The list includes dozens of professors at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Notre Dame, Princeton, Dayton, Boston College, Stanford, UCLA, Harvard, and West Point, among other universities; a black member of South African Parliament; comedians Adam Carolla and Yakov Smirnoff; two former prime ministers (one of Spain, and one of Denmark); Pulitzer Prize winners George Will, Bret Stephens and Judith Miller; Mike Rowe of "Dirty Jobs"; Ayaan Hirsi Ali; Arthur Brooks; Jonah Goldberg; Alan Dershowitz; Nicholas Eberstadt; Larry Elder; Steve Forbes; Walter Williams; Christina Hoff Sommers; George Gilder; Victor Davis Hanson; Bjorn Lomborg; Heather Mac Donald; Eric Metaxas; Amity Shlaes; Col. Richard Kemp, former commander of British troops in Afghanistan; and many others. I also present some videos.
Any responsible person, left-wing or right-wing, would have to acknowledge that this is a profoundly respectable list of non-bomb-throwing presenters. It's hardly conducive to censorship.
YouTube placed restrictions on the following videos.
--Two videos on race: "Are The Police Racist?" and "Don't Judge Blacks Differently."
--Six videos on Islam: "What ISIS Wants," "Why Don't Feminists Fight for Muslim Women?" "Islamic Terror: What Muslim Americans Can Do," "Pakistan: Can Sharia and Freedom Coexist?" "Radical Islam: The Most Dangerous Ideology" and "Why Do People Become Islamic Extremists?"
--Two videos on abortion (the only two offered): "Who's More Pro-Choice: Europe or America?" and "The Most Important Question About Abortion."
--Two videos on Israel: "Israel: The World's Most Moral Army" and "Israel's Legal Founding" (the latter video, presented by Harvard professor Alan Dershowitz, was reinstated after much publicity).
--Three videos on America: "Why Did America Fight the Korean War?" "Did Bush Lie About Iraq?" and "What is the University Diversity Scam?"
--One on politics: "Who NOT to Vote For."
--And one on men and women: "He Wants You" (a video I present about men and women).
Think of these topics, and consider the list of presenters. Do you see any violent content or sexual content? Do you see anything you wouldn't want your minor child to view? The only possible "yes" might be to the video titled "He Wants You." Though void of any explicit content, it deals with the subject of men looking at other women yet most still wanting their own wives. It has almost 4 million views and has helped a lot of couples.
Obviously, then, the explanation is not that "algorithms" catch violence and sex. Rather, YouTube doesn't want effective conservative videos to be posted (each video has at least 1 million views). Does that mean that it has left-wing censors looking for every widely viewed conservative video? If so, it doesn't have to. Left-wing viewers simply flag our videos and others' as inappropriate, and YouTube does the rest.
I have never devoted a column to PragerU. But I have done so today because if YouTube gets away with censoring as big a website as PragerU -- after a major editorial is published in The Wall Street Journal, after coverage in the New York Post, The Boston Globe, Fortune, National Review and many other places, and after a petition signed by over 70,000 people (which is on the PragerU website) -- what will happen to other conservative institutions?
For the probable answer, see your local university.
The question, then, is this: Will YouTube do to the internet what the left has done to the university?
Dennis Prager
|
Posted: Oct 25, 2016 12:01 AM
Share (6K) Tweet
YouTube restricting access to 16 videos -- down from 21 -- that were created and posted online by my nonprofit educational organization, Prager University. The subheading read, "YouTube thinks Dennis Prager's videos may be dangerous." The Journal said:
"Tech giants like Google and Facebook always deny that their platforms favor some viewpoints over others, but then they don't do much to avoid looking censorious. ... Dennis Prager's 'PragerU' puts out free short videos on subjects 'important to understanding American values' -- ranging from the high cost of higher education to the motivations of Islamic State.
"The channel has more than 130 million views. ... As you might guess, the mini-seminars do not include violence or sexual content. But more than 15 videos are 'restricted' on YouTube ... This means the clips don't show up for those who have turned on filtering -- say, a parent shielding their children from explicit videos. A YouTube spokesperson told us that the setting is optional and 'based on algorithms that look at a number of factors, including community flagging on videos.'
"PragerU started a petition calling for YouTube to remove the restriction, and more than 66,000 people have signed. YouTube is free to set its own standards, but the company is undercutting its claim to be a platform for 'free expression.'"
It is a good sign that YouTube's censorship of respectful and utterly nonviolent and nonsexual videos made it to The Wall Street Journal editorial page. It is a very bad sign that it had to. And it is a very bad sign that it made the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal but not that of The New York Times, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times or any other mainstream newspaper that still purports to support the classic liberal value of free speech.
To understand what YouTube, which is owned by Google, has done, it is necessary to briefly describe what it has restricted access to.
Every week, PragerU (the generally used name for Prager University) posts at least one 5-minute video presentation online. These presentations are on just about every subject and are given by important thinkers -- some very well-known, some not. The list includes dozens of professors at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Notre Dame, Princeton, Dayton, Boston College, Stanford, UCLA, Harvard, and West Point, among other universities; a black member of South African Parliament; comedians Adam Carolla and Yakov Smirnoff; two former prime ministers (one of Spain, and one of Denmark); Pulitzer Prize winners George Will, Bret Stephens and Judith Miller; Mike Rowe of "Dirty Jobs"; Ayaan Hirsi Ali; Arthur Brooks; Jonah Goldberg; Alan Dershowitz; Nicholas Eberstadt; Larry Elder; Steve Forbes; Walter Williams; Christina Hoff Sommers; George Gilder; Victor Davis Hanson; Bjorn Lomborg; Heather Mac Donald; Eric Metaxas; Amity Shlaes; Col. Richard Kemp, former commander of British troops in Afghanistan; and many others. I also present some videos.
Any responsible person, left-wing or right-wing, would have to acknowledge that this is a profoundly respectable list of non-bomb-throwing presenters. It's hardly conducive to censorship.
YouTube placed restrictions on the following videos.
--Two videos on race: "Are The Police Racist?" and "Don't Judge Blacks Differently."
--Six videos on Islam: "What ISIS Wants," "Why Don't Feminists Fight for Muslim Women?" "Islamic Terror: What Muslim Americans Can Do," "Pakistan: Can Sharia and Freedom Coexist?" "Radical Islam: The Most Dangerous Ideology" and "Why Do People Become Islamic Extremists?"
--Two videos on abortion (the only two offered): "Who's More Pro-Choice: Europe or America?" and "The Most Important Question About Abortion."
--Two videos on Israel: "Israel: The World's Most Moral Army" and "Israel's Legal Founding" (the latter video, presented by Harvard professor Alan Dershowitz, was reinstated after much publicity).
--Three videos on America: "Why Did America Fight the Korean War?" "Did Bush Lie About Iraq?" and "What is the University Diversity Scam?"
--One on politics: "Who NOT to Vote For."
--And one on men and women: "He Wants You" (a video I present about men and women).
Think of these topics, and consider the list of presenters. Do you see any violent content or sexual content? Do you see anything you wouldn't want your minor child to view? The only possible "yes" might be to the video titled "He Wants You." Though void of any explicit content, it deals with the subject of men looking at other women yet most still wanting their own wives. It has almost 4 million views and has helped a lot of couples.
Obviously, then, the explanation is not that "algorithms" catch violence and sex. Rather, YouTube doesn't want effective conservative videos to be posted (each video has at least 1 million views). Does that mean that it has left-wing censors looking for every widely viewed conservative video? If so, it doesn't have to. Left-wing viewers simply flag our videos and others' as inappropriate, and YouTube does the rest.
I have never devoted a column to PragerU. But I have done so today because if YouTube gets away with censoring as big a website as PragerU -- after a major editorial is published in The Wall Street Journal, after coverage in the New York Post, The Boston Globe, Fortune, National Review and many other places, and after a petition signed by over 70,000 people (which is on the PragerU website) -- what will happen to other conservative institutions?
For the probable answer, see your local university.
The question, then, is this: Will YouTube do to the internet what the left has done to the university?
The Dark Art of Political Intimidation
Sunday, June 12, 2016
Online anonymity is for Wimps
Gavin McInnes of The Rebel.media says: I feel sorry for people who feel the need to be anonymous online. They are so scared of getting in trouble, they self censor. The thought police don’t even have to show up to work. We’re doing their jobs for them by hiding in the shadows.
What’s really amazing about these cowards is how arrogant they are. They relentlessly call non-anonymous people cowards and mock them from afar like it means anything to be insulted by a fictional character. They also believe their irrelevant comments are making a difference. They’re not.
We have people losing their jobs for making a donation. They are going to jail for refusing to marry homosexuals. We have soldiers in the Middle East dying for their country without questioning any orders. Housewives are getting arrested for letting their kids walk home alone from the park. Then, they do it again and get arrested again, on purpose. When the government tried to evict Cliven Bundy, men grabbed their guns and formed a line in front of the police. These people are making a difference.
If you’re hiding, the only cause you’re helping is political correctness. Don’t be cowed. Be a bull. Be yourself.
Saturday, April 23, 2016
Marinwood CSD votes to Censor Public Comment
Marinwood CSD board unanimously approve a rule change requiring public commentary on government business BEFORE the issue is revealed or the directors make commentary. This joins another rule that the public submit letters BEFORE the agenda is published. This effectively is censorship of the public and illegal under the Brown Act and the First Amendment.
Stay tuned..
Monday, February 29, 2016
Free Speech (Sort Of), But Not Political Correctness
Is it possible to agree with both of them? To me, Ayers makes a case for "politeness" not censorship. I agree.
Tuesday, February 16, 2016
Keeping you Safe from this website. Bruce Anderson's censorship policy.
 |
| Drink cool, fresh Marinwood Plaza spring water. Don't worry it's safe and has the government seal of approval I guarantee it! |
_________________
Do you need this man telling you what is acceptable to read? He has banned posting of health information on the toxic waste, important community meetings, informative videos all because he considers me politically "dangerous". It is pretty sick but he likes his soft tyranny and censorship power. Sticks and stones.
There have been many complaints to NextDoor.com to have him removed. They refuse to get involved.
Editor's note: Moments after posting this he banned me from Nextdoor.
 |
| It's local and fresh from the Springs under Marinwood Plaza! |
Monday, February 1, 2016
I wonder if the Nextdoor moderator in Flint Michigan removes posts on lead in the water?
I posted two educational videos on the watershed and the Toxic waste in Marinwood. Bruce Anderson, former Marinwood politician and "consultant" for developers removed them. I did not post my website www.savemarinwood.org but merely posted youtube links.
The information is scientifically accurate and informative.
Here are the two links. Please post them on your nextdoor neighborhood and be certain it reaches the Marinwood neighborhood. The only way we combat censorship is to persist with the truth.
https://youtu.be/nyro8Gt8zq4 Anatomy of a Dry Cleaner Spill (1 minute 30 sec )
https://youtu.be/guqinVOHTqc How an Aquifer works ( 6 minute 30)
 |
| Former Marinwood CSD Politician Bruce Anderson and part time "consultant" to developers now is a full time CENSOR on Marinwood/Lucas Valley NextDoor. He is intentionally telling people that the toxic waste at Marinwood Plaza is a "few pounds" and "probably safe" in direct contradiction to the truthful record published on Geotracker. His does not want people to know the truth. Tell Bruce Anderson, Liz McCarthy and Geoff Mack that you believe in open, respectful dialogue. Censorship is not "neighborly"   |
Sunday, January 24, 2016
Keep Marinwood Stupid! The Thought Police of Marinwood NextDoor
All of these changes are imminent and will have a profound effect on our schools, traffic, pollution, taxes, government services, crime and urban problems in Marinwood/Lucas Valley and Marin County. Why should you worry?
On top of this the Merry Three Censors have determined that posting of a link to unedited video of Marinwood CSD meetings is too much truth for you to bear. Marinwood is one of the LAST communities not to videotape meetings in Marin. All discussion of the broadcast of Marinwood CSD meetings will be banned on Nextdoor since the broadcasts are exclusively available on this subversive website . They want to protect you for your own good. After all, isn't this what a good neighbor does? Guard you from exposure from unpleasant reality?
Fortunately Bruce Anderson, Geoff Mack and Liz McCarthy save you from such propaganda. I understand Liz McCarthy runs Marinwood Moms to boost her real estate business. Happy Moms shouldn't ask about anything on this website. It does not exist. Shut your eyes.
Saturday, January 23, 2016
I confess.
Those with unchecked power will use it.
Above post was removed from Nextdoor by the "Merry Censors of Marinwood", Bruce Anderson, Geoff Mack and Liz McCarthy
For more on abuse of power see the Stanford Prison Experiment and Abu Ghraib
.
Friday, December 25, 2015
Spiked's Brendan O'Neill: "The Real Threat To Free Speech Now is Conformism and Cowardice"
"The real threat to free speech now is conformism and cowardice," says Brendan O'Neill, editor of Spiked and a columnist for Reason.com.
The 41-year-old Londoner has similarly blunt and outspoken views about "left-wing environmentalism," which he calls "an apology for poverty" and simply the latest iteration of religious "end-of-worldism" in which "we will be judged for our sins."
O'Neill is also a critic of European policies that he says marginalize religious and ethnic minorities even as they "protect" immigrants by passing hate-speech laws and banning burqas. "In their efforts to enforce Enlightenment values," he says, policymakers "actually undercut them."
O'Neill got his start at the defunct Living Marxism, the publication of Britain's Revolutionary Communist Party, and these days he sometimes calls himself a "Marxist libertarian." "It seems like a contradiction in terms," he acknowledges, "but that's because people haven't read the original Marx and Engels, the early stuff...if you read the early stuff it's all about liberating humanity from poverty and from state diktat and allowing them to have as free a life as possible."
In this lively, wide-ranging interview with Nick Gillespie, O'Neill also defends consumerism and explains that Spiked's mission is to deliver on Trotsky's belief that "we want to increase the power of man over nature and decrease the power of man over man."
Thursday, April 30, 2015
The Housing Revolution Will Not Be Televised
The Housing Revolution Will Not Be Televised
The housing revolution will not be televised: You will wake up in your Eichler or single family home to find the single family home in the lot next door being replaced by an apartment block.
The Housing Revolution Will Not Be Televised
The housing revolution will not be televised - if developers have anything to do with it there will be no communications occurring at all. You will wake up in your Eichler or single family home to find the single family home in the lot next door to you being demolished, to be replaced by an apartment block. You will say in exasperation "no one ever told me" and "how do I complain?" but all modes of communication and channels of input will have been cut off.
Yes. We have a perfect storm. Developers are joining forces with transportation advocates fixated on "transit oriented development" (apartment blocks near transit) and the social equity lobby (everyone has the right to a home in Marin). Then there's HUD - the US Department of Housing and Urban Development which is looking at counties like Marin and Westchester, NY with an aim to address a perceived racial imbalance caused by over-building of single family homes (amongst other factors).
Why is this Happening?
Yes. We have a perfect storm. Developers are joining forces with transportation advocates fixated on "transit oriented development" (apartment blocks near transit) and the social equity lobby (everyone has the right to a home in Marin). Then there's HUD - the US Department of Housing and Urban Development which is looking at counties like Marin and Westchester, NY with an aim to address a perceived racial imbalance caused by over-building of single family homes (amongst other factors).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)