Ken WhiteApr 23, 2023

FIRE notes that TPUSA targeted 61 professors in 2021. FIRE doesn’t note that it sponsored a TPUSA “free speech” event in 2017. One of my criticisms of FIRE is that it occasionally has difficulty distinguishing between free speech supporters and people who support speech they agree with.

https://www.thefire.org/news/report-scholars-punished-their-speech-skyrocketed-over-last-three-years

REPORT: Scholars punished for their speech skyrocketed over last three years

A new report from FIRE finds that attempts to punish college and university scholars for their speech skyrocketed over the past two decades, from only four in 2000 to 145 in 2022.

The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression
Show threadSapphic LawyerApr 23, 2023

@Popehat

It's a conservative org masquerading as a free speech org, and occasionally the mask slips.

Show threadKen White
@SapphicLawyer it’s litigation history doesn’t support that. But I believe it makes bad PR and emphasis choices sometimes.
Apr 23, 2023 at 2:25amWeb
Show threadSapphic LawyerApr 23, 2023

@Popehat

Straight from its Wikipedia page.

Show threadExtinction (our fate)Apr 23, 2023

@SapphicLawyer @Popehat

Yup, gotta follow the money.

Show threadKen WhiteApr 23, 2023
@SapphicLawyer I guess they’re confused https://www.thefire.org/news/victory-after-fire-lawsuit-court-halts-enforcement-key-provisions-stop-woke-act-limiting-how
VICTORY: After FIRE lawsuit, court halts enforcement of key provisions of the Stop WOKE Act limiting how Florida professors can teach about race, sex

A federal court halted enforcement of key parts of Florida’s “Stop WOKE Act” in the state’s public universities, declaring that the law violates the First Amendment rights of students and faculty.

The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression
Show threadSapphic LawyerApr 23, 2023

@Popehat

https://www.thefire.org/news/bloomberg-and-koch-wall-street-journal-stop-stifling-free-speech

Read that paragraph about safe spaces. Even if you agree with their position, they look at this stuff through a very conservative lens.

Bloomberg and Koch in ‘The Wall Street Journal’: ‘Stop stifling free speech’

The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression
Show threadKen WhiteApr 23, 2023
@SapphicLawyer I think they lean credulously in to right wing culture war talking points that are not genuinely pro free speech. But their legal record and record of defending speech on all sides simply doesn’t support the caricature you’re offering.
Show threadSapphic LawyerApr 23, 2023

@Popehat

I'll agree they often do good work, but they've leaned into the conservative stuff too often for me to trust them given the funding.

I respect you too much to make a spat over it though, so I'll drop it.

Show threadAri CohnApr 23, 2023

@SapphicLawyer @Popehat

Hi, worked at FIRE for ~6 years. Can tell you from personal experience, having been a department head who set priorities and managed case intake, that no donor ever influenced or shaped the work we did--it was never even a thought in anyone's mind.

If someone had tried, they'd have been rebuffed. Otherwise, I'd have resigned in protest (along with everyone else).

The argument that an org is conservative if some of its donors are is intellectually lazy.

Show threadKen WhiteApr 23, 2023
@AriCohn @SapphicLawyer well sure but you’re an arch-conservative
Show threadAri CohnApr 23, 2023
@Popehat @SapphicLawyer And somehow also a pinko libertarian communist
Show threadKevin LeecasterApr 25, 2023
@AriCohn @Popehat @SapphicLawyer
An organization that takes money from the Koch's cannot help to be tarnished by all the death and destruction that they have caused through their blocking of #ClimateAction or that's how it would be in a just world.
Show threadCorey Rayburn YungApr 25, 2023
@GreenFire @AriCohn @Popehat @SapphicLawyer Not specifically about TheFire, but I think that statement is too broad. It's almost impossible to fund efforts in the area of criminal justice reform without taking money from the Charles Koch Foundation. There simply aren't enough other donors.
Show threadKevin LeecasterApr 25, 2023
@coreyrayburnyung @AriCohn @Popehat @SapphicLawyer
I wish we could get away with using that argument defending the Soros and Bloomberg donations.
Show threadmichaellApr 23, 2023
@Popehat @AriCohn @SapphicLawyer I think that was supposed to be a secret.
Show threadRighteous HazardApr 23, 2023

@AriCohn @SapphicLawyer @Popehat Nope, it is a “facile conclusion”. You are right to cite your experiance to combat a simplistic implication.

But, since you brought it up, a failure to question a fairly obvious source of influence is “intellectually lazy”.

The fact that your experience cuts against the question is great, but asking questions is literally the opposite of “intellectual laziness”.

Show threadAri CohnApr 23, 2023
@bertwells @SapphicLawyer @Popehat There was no question asked. There was only a conclusion.
Show threadRighteous HazardApr 23, 2023

@AriCohn @SapphicLawyer @Popehat Honestly, not trying to debate or dispute your testimony. The whole internet debate team thing sucks, imo.

The best way outta that is good faith engagement. I know it isn’t easy to avoid making accusations like “intellectual laziness”, especially when you feel, from your POV, that you must defend against something that looks like facile analysis.

But I maybe people who point out financial influence are owed the benefit of the doubt in this oligarchic “pay to play” era?

Show threadRoarshackApr 23, 2023

@AriCohn @SapphicLawyer @Popehat

I don’t think it’s fair calling sapphic lawyer intellectually lazy. The argument also included the wiki statement that it is primarily a conservative org.

Show threadAri CohnApr 23, 2023

@Roarshack

@SapphicLawyer @Popehat

It actually doesn't say that at all. Read it again.

Show threadRoarshackApr 23, 2023

@AriCohn

When I clicked to respond, the quote disappeared. And now again (I’m still struggling figuring out mastodon). I left out libertarian. Although I’m not sure that is what you’re referring to. “doesn’t say that at all”?

Show threadAri CohnApr 23, 2023
@Roarshack
The Wikipedia screenshot does not say FIRE is "primarily a conservative organization."
Show threadRoarshackApr 23, 2023

@AriCohn

Did you not see my response?

Show threadAri CohnApr 23, 2023
@Roarshack
Yes and it was not responsive
Show threadRoarshackApr 23, 2023

@AriCohn

Ok. I see it was not just libertarian but also that it -supports- conservative and libertarian causes. There may be more that I missed but like I said I’m struggling. It would have been nice to be a bit more descriptive in your responses to me, but I’m not saying it’s your fault. In fact I’m sure you get lots bad faith questions and worse. But I believe I was discussing in good faith.

Show threadAri CohnApr 23, 2023
@Roarshack
No, it says that some of the foundations that *donate* to FIRE support conservative and libertarian causes.
Show threadRoarshackApr 23, 2023

@AriCohn

Indeed there was more I was missing. I appreciate you being clear.

Show threadArianityApr 23, 2023

@AriCohn @SapphicLawyer @Popehat i think the people who work at FIRE genuinely believe what they say. But at the same time, the donors know what the result they're getting is going to align with their partisan preference most of the time, just given the context of campus speech.

More 'cat's paw'/dupes than partisanship/maliciousness by the people who work there. The org ends up pushing conservative results even if it's employees are earnest and diverse

Show threadCorey Rayburn YungApr 25, 2023
@AriCohn @SapphicLawyer @Popehat Their odd decision to engage in Title IX litigation, particularly involving due process and gender discrimination claims of students punished for sexual assault at private schools, was also a notable move away from civil libertarianism (and toward core conservative cultural war issues). Thankfully, it seems to be less of an emphasis these days.
Show threadNicole ParsonsApr 25, 2023

@SapphicLawyer @Popehat

Scaife, Koch, & Bradley are all Claremont Institute donors, I believe.

John Eastman's patron...

Claremont Institute is the de facto legislative body for red state copy-paste legislation for trans rights, book bans, resegregated public schools, reproductive rights, and voter suppression.

Show threadVirginia MurrApr 23, 2023

@Popehat @SapphicLawyer

Likely because the dude who founded it is a Koch-branded Libertarian. Regretfully, I'm familiar with him and some of his cronies. But, don't take my word for it .... (see below, make sure to check the bottom of the image).

Show threadKen WhiteApr 23, 2023
@VirginiaMurr @SapphicLawyer is CATO supposed to scare me
Show threadVirginia MurrApr 23, 2023

@Popehat @SapphicLawyer

Oh, my ... no. I wasn't implying that at all.

I was (literally) noting it was there because of my claim about "Koch-branded" ... it was a citation proving my claim. That was all.

Whew. Social media is odd. There was nothing negatively intended toward you in my post. Not even a little.

Show threadArianityApr 23, 2023

@Popehat @SapphicLawyer not sure it's litigation history has to be black and white. There's value to having a reputation for consistency.

Even if it backfires occasionally, as long as the overall effect moves in one direction, it's a win