1. More for the “Scared Yet?” Files; Many thanks to Michael R, in his comment on this post, for reminding me about the scary decision of the National Association of Realtors, one of the nation’s largest trade organization, to start trying to control members speech in and away from the workplace. This should be a stand-alone post, but I’m behind, so I’ll cover this revolting development now.
The NAR revised its professional ethics code to ban “hate speech and harassing speech” by its 1.4 million members. The new rules will allow investigations, fines or expulsion of real estate agents who insult, threaten or harass” people based on race, sex, or other legally protected characteristics. Of course, what is harassment or haye speech is in the eye of thebeholder, and all such rules potentially chill speech and expression by creating fear at the source. According to the group’s online training sessions, the sweeping prohibition applies to association members every minute of the day, covering all communication, private and professional, written and spoken, online and off. A maximum fine could be as high as $15,000.
Mary Wagner, a white, lesbian real estate agent, says the rule fits her vision for creating a fairer society, and she predicts predicts thousands of complaints this year. You know: fair. Want to wreck a competitor? Report a politically-incorrect joke someone claims the competitor made to a neighbor while walking his dog. Mary says she’s thrilled about the move….. because she’s a left-wing fascist. Res ipsa loquitur.
You can quote me on that.
NAR’s decision supports the growing societal effort by Biden voters—that’s fair, isn’t it?— to censor controversial or non-conforming political opinions, especially on race and gender. Will saying or writing “all lives matter” or belonging to a faith that objects to gay marriage get realtors fined? How many other association seeking to pander to the Left will follow the realtor into punishing WrongSpeak?
“The dam has broken and other organizations will look at this,” predicted Robert Föehl, a professor of business ethics and business law at Ohio University. “If this is good for real estate agents, why not attorneys, why not doctors?They’re going to be pressured to do what NAR has done. And that pressure is going to be very real, because what organization wants to argue they should allow hate speech by their members?”
NAR’s hate speech policy subjects 1.4 million people to an unethical “ethics” standard that violates core American values and rights by attempting to control limits on private speech. “It is taking something that’s been happening on a kind-of informal and occasional basis – indeed, people do sometimes end up losing jobs because of their political expression – and shifting it to something that’s institutionalized, that’s bureaucratized, and that’s being enforced through quasi-legal tribunals,” said Eugene Volokh, a UCLA law professor who specializes in the First Amendment. “What we’re talking about is a new blacklist. One of the things that’s troubling about the National Association of Realtors’ position is that it is trying to deploy the organized economic power of this group in order to suppress dissenting political views among members.”
This is a test of the NAR membership, their civic literacy and their patriotism. Stopping the NAR is easy: if enough members announce that they will quit the association if the rule isn’t eliminated by a date certain, the NAR will cave. I’ve worked for several big associations. The group’s president, who sound like major jerk, says, “We want being a Realtor to mean something and if somebody says, ‘I feel so strongly about continuing to have access to hate speech on demand that I don’t want to be a Realtor anymore’ – okay.” Right. If they lose half of their membership who don’t want being a Realtor to mean being a jack-booted agent of thought-control, I guarantee the NAR will find another president, and quick. They should lose all of their members over this, frankly. Are Americans ready to fight for their individual rights? (By the way, by “fight” I don’t mean “riot,” contrary to the ridiculous articles of impeachment now in the House.)
They better be.
2. More on “Fight”: Ann Athouse, perusing the text of the absurd article of impeachment, notes that the Trump quote the House Democrats used to demonstrate “incitement” was on that did not make her list “The 7 most violence-inciting statements in Donald Trump’s speech to the crowd on January 6th” She writes that “fight like hell” sounds too much like ordinary politics to make the list. Indeed, “fight” is such a context is such standard political rhetoric that it qualifies as a cliche. But if President Trump does anything, the AUC pronounces it sinister because he did it. This has been a theme since November 2016, the ultimate double standard.
Althouse writes, “Are we going to outlaw the word “fight”?! We’ll be descending into Newspeak.” No, Ann, it will only be a restriction on Republicans, conservatives, and political foes of the AUC using that words, as well as many others.
A. At the same time as confirming that he supports impeachment, Joe Biden (or his ventriloquist) tweeted:
Ethics Alarms verdict: Hypocrite, liar, phony.
B. Juliette Kayyem, a Harvard professor, a CNN Analyst, and a Former Department of Homeland Security, on the left, PBS principal counsel Michael Beller on the right…
Beller was videotaped-–unethically, but still—by Project Veritas saying, “Go to the White House and throw Molotov cocktails…Even if Biden wins, we go for all the Republican voters, Homeland Security will take their children away…”
Ethics Alarms verdict: Facists.