‘Offensive’ content

The Wall Street Journal reported last week that “tech companies, think tanks, activists and governments are pouring resources into new ways to fight back against violent propaganda washing over the internet, including hate speech from groups like Islamic organizations and far-right radicals.”

The move has led to Facebook offering free advertising to groups that fight back against online “hate speech.”

Back in May the social media giant said it would act to remove flagged content within 24 hours, CNN reported. “Social media is unfortunately one of the tools that terrorist groups use to radicalize young people and racists use to spread violence and hatred,” an EU official told the network.

Facebook, Twitter and other private operators are certainly free to regulate content. But it should raise a red flag when governments get in on the action.

In addition, the definition of “hate speech” or “inappropriate content” remains a moving target. In fact, content targeted by some social media sites extends well beyond pages designed to recruit or incite potential jihadists or Klansmen.

Consider Big B’s Texas Barbecue in Henderson. To promote her business, Natalia Badzjo created a Facebook page featuring photos of the restaurant’s fare. Review-Journal food writer Heidi Knapp Rinella reported in her Kitchen Confidante column last week that this prompted some carnophobes to complain — and Facebook promptly removed the page.

“Due to some really mean vegan fanatics reporting our BBQ restaurant page ‘offensive’ and ‘inappropriate’ Facebook has unpublished it,” Ms. Badzjo wrote on her personal Facebook page. “After two weeks trying to fight and appeal this ridiculous ... decision, I have decided to start over.”

Those who argue the world has gone completely bonkers can point to this incident as Exhibit 72.

I am incredulous at the fact that criminal defense lawyers are wearing pins stating “Black Lives Matter” in courts of law here in Las Vegas and around the country (“‘Black Lives’ Matter support swells among LV attorneys,” Thursday Review-Journal).

I do not disagree that black lives matter. They do matter — as do the lives of everyone else.

To make such a statement in a court of law, however, is highly inappropriate and misguided. The job of the court is to dispense justice, no matter whose life it is. The button statement suggests favoritism, leniency and preferential treatment and should not be in the courts.

I understand the frustration of these lawyers who represent a disproportionate number of black defendants. But I feel it is more appropriate for the Black Lives Matter movement to be in the grass-roots levels of society — in the families, communities and educational institutions with the goal of empowering and educating all young individuals to make better decisions in their lives.

This, in turn, should help keep them out of the courtroom in the first place.

Your Tuesday editorial “A false assumption,” reported on Canadian and British research studies finding a lack of drive and motivation in regular marijuana smokers.

Closer to home, a research study at the University of California, Davis medical school released in March found that regular marijuana smokers — defined as those who use the drug four times a week or more — ended up in a lower social class than their parents, with lowerpaying, less-skilled and less prestigious jobs than those who were not regular cannabis smokers. They also experienced more financial, work-related and personal relationship difficulties.

All the STEM education in the world will not solve the problem that marijuana saps smokers of drive and motivation. At a time when Nevada in pinning our economic hopes on a higher-skilled work-force, legalizing marijuana (Question 2) is the wrong path for our state.

With all the headlines regarding the shortage of teachers and substitute teachers in the Clark County School District, I thought I’d detail my experience.

I recently retired after 19 years as an elementary teacher in the district. I have a total of 32 years teaching experience. I just applied to the district for a subbing position. I was told I would have to renew my license before I would be considered. According to district rules, this should not apply to recently retired teachers.

Then I was told to supply references from my three supervisors. My school had only two supervisors (a principal and assistant principal). I was asked to supply new fingerprints (in case I had been placed on the FBI terrorist list in the past few months). They want to know where I went to high school, my father’s middle name and the name of my first dog. I am not exaggerating. They will allow someone off the street who has some college credits — not necessarily education credits — to be hired as a substitute teacher ahead of a qualified former teacher with years of experience.

I am still struggling to complete my application. I expect to be asked for my shoe size any minute now. By the way, all the info they are asking for is available in my file (evaluations, required Nevada tests, fingerprints).

Does the Clark County School District need help? Without a doubt.

I see the weak-kneed politically correct crowd is having a hissy fit over Wayne Allyn Root. The poor babies. Frankly, I find Mr. Root a breath of fresh air in a world of liberal nonsense.