bookmark_borderBullies protest against Confederate flag towel

I thought it was ridiculous when I heard that dozens of people in Minnesota decided to protest against a Confederate flag at their neighbor’s house. But then I saw a news article titled, “Protest calls out white silence after Confederate flag towel displayed on Evanston beach.” I did not think that such a thing was possible, but this towel protest reaches new levels of ridiculousness.

Reading the full story behind these events only makes this incident more appalling. The offending towel was first sighted on Wednesday at Lighthouse Beach in Evanston, Illinois, where a group of beachgoers had draped it over a fence. LaShandra Smith-Rayfield saw photos of the towel posted on social media and decided to drop what she was doing and drive to the beach to confront the towel owners in person. She posted a video of the confrontation on Facebook Live. In the video (since deleted) she reportedly told the towel owners, “I can’t feel comfortable in my own neighborhood. That flag right there is my swastika.” Then, a small group of protesters arrived at the beach and held Black Lives Matter signs until the towel owners left. Another small protest took place at the beach Thursday, followed by one on Friday which was attended by 300 people, including the mayor.

The Facebook event for that protest was titled, “No one is free until we are all free,” which is ironic because the protest seems to have been dedicated to taking away people’s freedom to go to the beach without being bullied and harassed.

Smith-Rayfield’s actions in instigating a confrontation with a group of beachgoers and then organizing a protest against them are utterly despicable. People have every right to possess and use any type of towel that they want. The group of people who hung the Confederate towel on the fence were doing absolutely nothing wrong whatsoever. Yet Smith-Rayfield chose to drop what she was doing and drive to the beach to verbally attack them. Then she and her supporters held not one, not two, but three protests against these people who were doing nothing wrong. In this time of relentless attacks on the Confederate States of America and its iconography, this is one of the most bigoted, intolerant, and aggressive instances of bullying I have heard of yet.

“Me speaking out against hatred does not make me anti-patriotic,” Smith-Rayfield told the Chicago Sun-Times. “It actually makes me patriotic… Every person on that beach walked past it. In my video, you can see people walk on past it. Why is it okay to walk on past it?”

This is one of the most preposterous questions I have ever heard. Not only is it okay to walk past a group of people minding their own business, it is an obligation. Unless, of course, one wants to compliment the towel or ask where the owners bought it, which would be totally justified because in my opinion, a Confederate flag towel is awesome. But when it comes to making negative or critical comments towards a person or people who are doing nothing wrong, that is morally impermissible because it is an act of aggression. For Smith-Rayfield to imply that bullying and harassing innocent people is not only acceptable but is morally required is preposterous. She is not “speaking out against hatred.” She is aggressing against innocent people.

Disgustingly, the mayor of Evanston, Steve Hagerty, praised Smith-Rayfield’s “courage and persistence.” But what Smith-Rayfield did was an act of cruelty, aggression, and bullying. This has nothing to do with courage or persistence, and it is disturbing that an elected official would praise such a thing.

Terri Turner, who attended one of the protests, said that she and her daughter were up till 2:30 a.m. “trying to process how heinous that was.” She was not referring to Smith-Rayfield’s decision to attack an innocent group of beachgoers; she was referring to the Confederate flag towel itself. This reaction is bizarre and incomprehensible. There is nothing “heinous” about a Confederate flag towel. It is a towel demonstrating pride in Southern heritage. Smith-Rayfield’s actions in instigating an argument with innocent people, as well as Turner’s own decision to attend a protest condemning these same people, are what is truly heinous.

People have a right to go to the beach and display any type of flag or towel they want without being insulted, yelled at, or harassed. If you think that disliking someone’s towel gives you the right to go up to them, berate them, and organize protests against them, you are not only 100% wrong but you are also a mean, nasty, intolerant bully.

One bright light in this dismaying series of events is that while Smith-Rayfield was verbally attacking the group of innocent beachgoers, an African-American veteran decided to intervene. According to a series of tweets describing the encounter, this man told Smith-Rayfield that “she’s the one causing the problem,” that the towel owners were “minding their business,” and that he “fought for their right to display that flag.” He is 100% right. Interviewed later by the Chicago Sun-Times, this brave veteran said that he personally believes the Confederate flag is wrong but also believes that people have the right to disagree and that he served in the military to protect that right. This guy showed true courage, tolerance, and empathy. If only more people behaved this way towards those with whom they disagree.

bookmark_borderBullies protest against Confederate flag at neighbor’s house

In Cold Spring, Minnesota, bullies are protesting against a homeowner’s decision to fly a Confederate flag.

The leader of the bullies, 20-year-old college student Jayda Woods, said of her neighbor’s flag: “To me, it just looks like a big thing that says ‘I hate you’ on it. ‘Stay away’ kind of thing, and just, ‘You’re not welcomed here.'”

“We’re not going to just stand by and have this flying in our neighborhood, right next to all of these kids, right next to the school where everyone’s driving by,” she added. “That’s just something I don’t want to live with for our town.”

Woods organized two protests, which involved dozens of people gathering with signs outside the offending house. She and her supporters have also written what she describes as “positive messages” in chalk on the sidewalk. These messages include “Black Lives Matter” and “Real Americans don’t fly traitor flags.”

To organize protests against a flag that a private citizen is flying on his/her own property displays a complete lack of tolerance and a complete lack of respect for the rights of one’s fellow citizens. First of all, Woods’s perceptions that the Confederate flag means “I hate you” and “stay away” are baseless. People fly Confederate flags for a variety of reasons, including pride in their Southern heritage or a belief in states’ rights or resistance to tyranny. Additionally, having negative feelings towards something (even if these feelings are valid and understandable, which is not the case in this situation) does not give a person the right to demand its removal, especially if it is located on another person’s private property. People do not have a right to never see anything they dislike while walking, driving, or jogging around town.

The homeowner who is flying the flag is doing absolutely nothing wrong. These attempts to pressure and browbeat this homeowner into stopping something that he/she has every right to do are acts of aggression and bullying. Woods says that she is not going to stand by and allow the flag to exist in her town. But that is exactly what she is obligated to do. What individuals do on their own property is none of her business; she and her supporters do not have the right to decide what other people in their town and neighborhood are and are not allowed to do.

Not to mention the fact that the Confederate flag is not a “traitor flag,” and calling it that is the exact opposite of a positive message.

“It is his First Amendment right, freedom of speech,” said Woods. “But what I would just like is at least a letter from the city of Cold Spring or from ROCORI High School, just asking him to take it down.”

This is contradictory. Woods is essentially admitting that the homeowner has a right to fly the flag while simultaneously asking the government to make him get rid of it!

To their credit, the city council responded to this request with the following statement: “The City of Cold Spring does not condone racial discrimination or the display of racist icons. The city strives to be a welcoming community for all persons regardless of race, color, ethnicity, religion, gender identification, age, ability, place of origin, citizenship status and veteran status. All citizens have the right to freedom of speech guaranteed by the first amendment to the Constitution. The right is fundamental to our democracy and protects us all against tyranny. For that reason, the city can make no laws that abridge any citizen’s right to freedom of speech regardless of how offensive the speech may be.”

Woods has even started a petition to ban display of the Confederate flag, in which she calls the flag “highly intolerable, especially flying next to a school where ALL students and staff should feel welcomed and safe. It is extremely important to me that ALL students and all people who enter the ROCORI community are treated with respect.”

But her attempts to force the removal of the Confederate flag are, ironically, disrespectful and intolerant towards those with different views from her. Do people who are proud of their Southern heritage not also deserve to feel welcomed and safe? Do people who see the Confederate flag as a positive symbol of rebelliousness and freedom not also deserve to be treated with respect? Anyone who truly believes in the values of diversity, inclusion, and tolerance would accept and celebrate the right of each person to fly the flag of their choice.

bookmark_borderDemocratic senators demand flag discrimination

A group of 34 Democratic Congressmen and Congresswomen are demanding that Defense Secretary Mark Esper explicitly ban the Confederate flag while allowing other flags, such as the Pride flag and Native Nation flags. Earlier this month, in response to intolerant bullies’ demands, Esper issued a policy banning the Confederate flag from being displayed on property controlled by the Department of Defense, including ships, aircraft, office buildings, porches of military housing, and common areas of barracks. But instead of singling out that flag, the language of the policy simply lists which flags are allowed, a category that includes state flags, the POW/MIA flag, military flags, and the flags of allied countries, effectively banning all other flags. Left off the list were not only the Confederate flag but also the Pride flag, Native Nation flags, the Jolly Roger, and sports teams’ flags.

“While we applaud the department for taking steps to remove the Confederate battle flag from our military bases, the action unnecessarily avoids a clear rebuke of this oppressive symbol while simultaneously limiting how service members can freely express themselves in line with our values,” the Representatives wrote. “We ask that you immediately revise the new policy on flag display, explicitly ban the Confederate battle flag, and ensure that service members can express support for diversity and inclusion through the display of sovereign Native Nations and LGBTQ Pride flags… The department must have the strength and courage to be able to simultaneously stand against a symbol of hate and oppression in the Confederate battle flag while allowing the display of support for civil rights, equity and justice. We do not honor or display the Parteiflagge of Nazi Germany on our military bases, and any decision on the Confederate battle flag must likewise be unequivocal: it must be banned outright.”

Contrary to what is claimed in the letter, the Confederate flag is not a symbol of hate or oppression. It is simply a symbol of the Confederate States of America. Some people fly it as an expression of Southern heritage and some people fly it as a symbol of individuality, freedom, and resistance to government authority. There’s nothing hateful or oppressive about that.

Ironically, banning the Confederate flag is hateful and oppressive. The letter expresses support for diversity and inclusion, but banning one flag while allowing others is the exact opposite of diversity and inclusion. It is particularly disturbing that the Representatives want soldiers to be able to “freely express themselves in line with our values.” The letter appears to be stating that soldiers should only be able to express themselves if their values are the same as those of the letter’s authors. That is not freedom of expression. True freedom of expression means having the right to express one’s views regardless of whether those who hold political power approve of them. Truly supporting diversity and inclusion means not only embracing differences in sexual orientation, gender identity, and race; it also means embracing differences in culture as well as in ideology. We cannot have an inclusive society when Native Americans are able to honor their heritage with flags while Southerners are not. We cannot have diversity without the Confederate flag.

These Democratic Representatives are demanding that only flags that are in line with their values should be allowed. This is the epitome of intolerance and bigotry, and to use the language of diversity and inclusion in the service of such a non-inclusive cause is a perversion of these words. To unequivocally condemn the flag of a small, agricultural nation that existed for four years in the 19th century and happens to be frowned upon by today’s political establishment, as the letter demands of Secretary Esper, is the exact opposite of “strength and courage.” It is bullying.

I believe that soldiers should be able to display any flag that they want, including the U.S. flag, the Confederate flag, the Gadsden flag, the flag of any nation, state, or city, the Pride flag, the pirate flag, or the flag of any sports team. But if the Confederate flag is going to be banned, it is only fair to ban flags favored by those on the left-hand side of the political spectrum as well. Let’s hope that Esper displays true strength and courage by standing up to the Democrats’ intolerant demands.

bookmark_borderPolitical correctness: where some people’s feelings matter more than others

A stereotype that one hears a lot when reading about and discussing political issues is that liberals and the politically correct crowd tend to place too much value on “feelings.” Those on the right-hand side of the political spectrum frequently accuse those on the left of being too quick to take offense, too obsessed with psychological comfort, and too concerned with making sure no one’s feelings get hurt. 

But I don’t really agree with this. In a way, feelings are the most important thing in the world. It makes sense to place great value on them. Whether a person’s life is happy or miserable is a function of what types of feelings he or she has the majority of the time. Every event or life circumstance is judged as good or bad based on what type of feelings it causes in the people affected. I’m opposed to the politically correct attitudes of what has been termed “cancel culture,” but not because this movement is too concerned with feelings. Rather, this movement is concerned with the feelings of some people, but not others.

When banning the Confederate flag, NASCAR stated that it wanted racetracks to be more welcoming and comfortable places for fans. But no regard was shown for those fans who cherish the Confederate flag as a symbol of Southern heritage, and whose experience at the track will now be diminished. The same goes for changing the names of military bases and streets that are named for Confederate generals, for banning controversial books, movies, and TV shows, for changing the logos of Aunt Jemima syrup and Uncle Ben rice, and for something as seemingly trivial as Disney World’s decision to change the Splash Mountain ride to something more politically correct. What about the feelings and preferences of those who like the Confederate names, who like the books, movies, and shows, who like the old logos, and who like the Splash Mountain ride as it is? Numerous cities and towns, when announcing their decisions to remove controversial statues, have cited the pain that the statues allegedly cause. But what about the pain that the removal causes for people who love those statues?

For example, after a despicable excuse for a human being decapitated the Christopher Columbus statue in Boston’s Christopher Columbus Park earlier this month, leaders of various left-leaning groups held a press conference in which they verbally bashed the statue, saying that they find it insulting and that it makes them feel unwelcome in the park. When I was working in my office downtown, I walked through that park nearly every day at lunch time. I chose this park as my walking destination not just because of its beautiful views and convenient location, but because I like Christopher Columbus and think it’s cool that the park is named for him. Seeing the statue brightened my day. Did the person who so cruelly vandalized him, or the leaders urging him to be removed permanently, ever take this into account? Does anyone care that I will likely not visit this park anymore if the statue is removed permanently? Or that my life will be made worse by the removal of the statue? Obviously not. Because to the devotees of the political correctness movement, my feelings do not matter, only theirs.

On a similar note, when San Francisco removed its Christopher Columbus statue, Catherine Stefani of the Board of Supervisors explained that the decision was “about showing love to our friends and neighbors who are hurting in this moment, to communities that have been hurting for centuries. It is about giving all of us the opportunity to heal.” Did she stop to consider the fact that removing the statue would cause hurt for those who appreciate the work of art and admire its subject, Christopher Columbus? Removing the statue shows “love” to some people while showing contempt and hatred for others. It might give some people the opportunity to heal but actively inflicts pain on other people. Why do those people, and their pain, not matter?

In an excellent article, Robby Soave of Reason Magazine calls this phenomenon “the 1793 project,” after the year when the Committee on Public Safety took over the French Revolution. He explains that many people on the left are so obsessed with emotional safety that they demand the firing of anyone who expresses an opinion with which they disagree. “Ironically, the same subset of people ostensibly exercised about emotional safety – the woke left – seem frequently inclined to level unsubstantiated accusations that inflict emotional harm,” he writes. “That makes it difficult to believe that these Twitter warriors’ true aim is the promotion of psychological comfort.”  

Indeed, the politically correct crowd has inflicted tremendous amounts of psychological distress on people who express views of which they disapprove, of which Soave gives several examples: They have caused a political scientist to be fired for suggesting that nonviolent protests are more likely to succeed than violent protests, the editor of the New York Times editorial page to lose his job because he allowed the publication of an op-ed by Sen. Tom Cotton, a lecturer to be suspended for not making a final exam “no harm” for students of color, and a journalist to be forced to apologize for interviewing a protester who criticized violent tactics. As Soave points out, “losing employment and social standing is no small matter… and being shamed online by thousands of people over a trivial offense is an unpleasant and exhausting experience, even if it doesn’t permanently impact your employment.”

Exactly. There’s nothing wrong with placing importance on people’s feelings. What is so objectionable about the cult of political correctness is that its followers only care about the feelings of themselves and those who are similar to them. Whether through online harassment, demanding that people be fired, banning flags, or tearing down statues, cancel culture sets out to make some people more comfortable while actively inflicting pain on other people. That is not fair, and it is not inclusive. People with dissenting views have feelings, too.

bookmark_borderRebels at Talladega standing up for Confederate flag

At yesterday’s race at Talladega Superspeedway, some brave, rebellious souls stood up to NASCAR’s decision to ban the Confederate flag.

A parade of vehicles proudly displaying Confederate flags of all shapes and sizes drove by the track. A plane towed a huge banner of a Confederate flag with the words “DEFUND NASCAR” overhead. And Confederate flags were flying off the shelves at retailers’ stands outside the track.

Pictures can be seen here and here.

If anyone is interested in donating to the organization behind the Confederate flag flyover, they are called the Southern Legal Resource Center, and their website is here: http://slrc-csa.org/

They also released the following statement on their Facebook page:

SONS OF CONFEDERATE VETERANS
Press release: Defund NASCAR

NASCAR’s banning the display of the Confederate Battle Flag by its fans is nothing less than trampling upon Southerners’ First Amendment Right of free expression. This un-American act shall not go unchallenged. Today members of the Sons of Confederate Veterans’ Confederate Air Force displayed its disapproval of NASCAR’s trampling upon the First Amendment Rights of Southerners. During and before the start of the NASCAR race in Talladega, Alabama race our plane flew a banner announcing a drive to “defund NASCAR.” It is the hope of the Sons of Confederate Veterans that NASCAR fans will be allowed the fundamental American right of displaying pride in their family and heritage. The Sons of Confederate Veterans is proud of the diversity of the Confederate military and our modern Southland. We believe NASCAR’s slandering of our Southern heritage only further divides our nation. The Sons of Confederate Veterans will continue to defend not only our Right but the Right of all Americans to celebrate their heritage. We trust NASCAR will do the same.

Paul C. Gramling, Jr.,
Commander-in-Chief Sons of Confederate Veterans

I salute these patriots for standing up for their flag and their heritage against the politically correct mob.

bookmark_borderBully attacks free speech in Watertown

This week, in one of the latest examples of Black Lives Matter supporters taking things too far, a woman named Mary Burns decided to bully and insult an innocent person who was cleaning up the sidewalk. 

On Tuesday, Burns was riding her bike through Watertown, MA and saw a man mopping away messages that had been written in chalk on the sidewalk. The messages expressed support for the Black Lives Matter movement. The man mopped away some of the messages and erased the word “black” from the phrase “black lives matter” so that it simply read “lives matter.”

Burns decided to accost the man and pick a fight with him, and then tweeted about the interaction:

Continue reading “Bully attacks free speech in Watertown”

bookmark_borderUCF Professor Charles Negy deserves to be promoted, not fired

An uproar is taking place at the University of Central Florida because a professor had the audacity to disagree with the prevailing, politically correct narrative on racism.

Psychology Professor Charles Negy, author of “White Shaming: Bullying Based on Prejudice, Virtue-Signaling, and Ignorance,” has been active on Twitter since the death of George Floyd and the resulting protests. A sampling of his tweets is as follows:

Continue reading “UCF Professor Charles Negy deserves to be promoted, not fired”

bookmark_borderFacebook employees stage walkout over lack of discrimination

Dozens of employees at Facebook refused to work on Monday in protest of CEO Mark Zuckerberg’s decision not to censor posts by President Trump. Employees have circulated petitions, threatened to quit, and publicly criticized the company, all because of the company’s decision to…allow freedom of expression and not discriminate against people based on their political views.

The offending post by President Trump is as follows:

“The hateful rhetoric advocating violence against black demonstrators by the US President does not warrant defense under the guise of freedom of expression,” wrote one employee on an internal message board. “Along with Black employees in the company, and all persons with a moral conscience, I am calling for Mark to immediately take down the President’s post advocating violence, murder and imminent threat against Black people.”

Twitter added a warning label to the equivalent Trump tweet and a fact-check label to a different Trump tweet, but Facebook opted to leave the post alone, stating that it does not violate Facebook’s rules prohibiting incitement of violence.

In my opinion, Zuckerberg was completely correct not to censor the post, because it does not incite or advocate violence. It simply states that if protests become violent, and people loot businesses, law enforcement will respond with lethal force. In other words, Trump is not advocating for initiating violence against anyone; he is advocating responding in kind to those who initiate violence. What is wrong with that? Does advocating enforcement of very reasonable laws protecting private property now constitute a threat of violence? Is the president required to allow people to engage in rioting and looting without doing anything about it? As for the employee who posted on the message board, how can Trump’s post be interpreted as “advocating violence, murder and imminent threat against Black people” if it does not even mention race?

Venture capitalist Roger McNamee criticized Facebook, saying: “In the U.S., Facebook has consistently ignored or altered its terms of service to the benefit of Trump. Until last week, Twitter did the same thing.”

According to the New York Times article, Zuckerberg is planning to hold a call with civil rights leaders who have criticized “Facebook’s protection of Mr. Trump’s posts.”

But there has been no protection of Trump’s posts. Facebook has not ignored or altered its terms of service to the benefit of Trump. It has simply enforced its terms of service consistently, treating Trump the same as it treats everyone else. Twitter, on the other hand, went out of its way to censor Trump, and the employees staging the walkout are demanding that Facebook do the same. They are demanding that their company take down posts that do not violate its rules, merely because they dislike the individual who made the posts and disagree with his political views. In other words, they are demanding that Facebook discriminate against Trump and treat his posts more harshly than the posts of someone on the opposite side of the political spectrum would be treated.

Now that is something that any person with a moral conscience should be against.

bookmark_borderIn defense of Patriots kicker Justin Rohrwasser’s tattoos and political views

With almost no sports happening at the moment, the NFL draft last month was a huge story. In New England, a large amount of attention has focused on kicker Justin Rohrwasser from Marshall University, who was drafted by the Pats in the fifth round.

According to a profile in the Boston Globe, Rohrwasser has numerous tattoos, including an American flag, one that reads “don’t tread on me,” another that reads “liberty or death,” and another that resembles the logo of a group called the Three Percenters. This group advocates for small government, freedom of speech, and gun rights. According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, the Three Percenters are an “anti-government group,” meaning that they “advocate or adhere to extreme anti-government doctrines.” The Three Percenters, however, have characterized themselves as “very pro-government, so long as the government abides by the Constitution.”

Additionally, on Twitter, Rohrwasser has expressed support for President Trump, Ayn Rand, and psychologist Jordan Peterson. According to one of his college coaches, Jim Fleming, Rohrwasser wore a red “MAGA” hat at school and expressed conservative beliefs, particularly about economic policies, in conversations.

What is wrong with this, you may ask? In my opinion… absolutely nothing!

Yet because of his political beliefs, Rohrwasser has been inundated with criticism online, accused of being a racist and a bigot. This is an example of self-proclaimed “liberals” displaying qualities that are the very opposite of the tolerance they pretend to espouse. Rohrwasser has done nothing wrong by having, and expressing, conservative (or libertarian, or however one wishes to characterize them) beliefs. He has every right to get a Three Percenters tattoo. He has every right to “like” and retweet whatever tweets he wants to. There is no rule that every person must have moderate, mainstream, middle-of-the-road, politically correct views. To condemn someone for having non-traditional views is the true bigotry here. This is bullying, plain and simple.

As Rohrwasser’s high school coach, John Barber, put it: “For him to be called a racist thug and a Nazi and Hitler, it just turns my stomach, because that’s not who he is. They don’t understand the full story of who he is, just want to take something out of context and destroy a kid, which wasn’t called for.”

Continue reading “In defense of Patriots kicker Justin Rohrwasser’s tattoos and political views”

bookmark_borderNo need for journalists to apologize for being journalists

I began this post a while ago and did not have a chance to finish it until now, so it’s a bit out of date. Despite this, I am still going to weigh in with my thoughts on a controversy in which student journalists at Northwestern University apologized for… practicing journalism.

This situation arose when former Attorney General Jeff Sessions visited campus, and many students decided to protest. Some of the protesters voiced their opinions peacefully, while others decided to climb through the windows of the lecture hall and forcibly push their way inside to disrupt Sessions’ speech. Two student reporters with the Daily Northwestern had the audacity to interview people in the crowd outside. Afterwards they also used a school directory to look up phone numbers of students involved in the protest and ask them if they would be willing to be interviewed. Additionally, during the protest, a student photographer took pictures of the clash between protesters and police and posted these to Twitter.

“I snapped into the journalistic response of making images,” the photographer, Colin Boyle, explained. “I was just trying to tell the story of what was going on… If something happened, God forbid, I was the only camera that was non-police-owned in that area, to my knowledge.”

Sounds reasonable to me.

However, student activists quickly began making a brouhaha, complaining that the publication of their names and identities might enable the university to punish them for their actions. As a result, the paper redacted a protester’s name from their story and Boyle deleted any tweets with photos showing protesters’ faces.

The Daily Northwestern‘s editorial board apologized in an editorial, which read,

We recognize that we contributed to the harm students experienced, and we wanted to apologize for and address the mistakes that we made that night. Some protesters found photos posted to reporters’ Twitter accounts retraumatizing and invasive. Those photos have since been taken down.

In my opinion, the newspaper has absolutely nothing to apologize for. They made no mistakes by covering the protest; the true mistake was to take down the content and to apologize.

When someone chooses to participate in a public protest, they are protesting, well, publicly. And integral part of participating in a protest is the fact that you are in public, and therefore will be seen and potentially photographed by people. It makes no sense for a protester to object to being photographed. If anything, protesters should want as much media coverage as possible, since drawing attention to one’s message and cause is the main purpose of a protest.

Additionally, the students who disrupted Sessions’ speech deserve to be punished, and anything that makes it easier for them to be identified and held accountable for their actions is a good thing, not a bad thing. Disrupting a speech is not OK. It is not fair to the speaker or to the people who have come to hear the speech. For a mob of people to drown out the views of a person with whom they disagree is bullying.

Contrary to the words used in the Daily‘s editorial, the anti-Sessions protesters did not experience any harm as far as I can tell, nor were they traumatized. How is it traumatizing that a person with whom you disagree is giving a speech? How does it cause harm? Anyone who did not wish to hear Sessions’ words could simply have chosen not to attend his speech. If anyone was harmed or traumatized, it would be Sessions and the people who went to the lecture hall hoping to hear him speak. The protesters went out of their way to cause a conflict. They are the aggressors in this situation, not the ones traumatized or harmed. They do not have a right to avoid punishment for their actions, and the newspaper and its reporters should not have modified, redacted, or taken down any of their reporting to accommodate them.