https://www.realclearpolicy.com/articles...65568.html

"...The Court’s opinion in 303 Creative v. Elenis is textbook recitation of free speech jurisprudence. But that didn't stop President Biden from condemning the Court’s vindication of the First Amendment, claiming in a White House Statement that the decision “weakens long-standing laws that protect all Americans against discrimination in public accommodations – including people of color, people with disabilities, people of faith, and women.”

Inevitably, Biden was joined by a posse of “civil rights” organizations. “The Court’s decision opens the door to any business that claims to provide customized services to discriminate against historically-marginalized groups,” asserted the ACLU in a press release. The group was quick to remind the press that, along with its Colorado affiliate, it had “filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to reject the First Amendment challenge to a Colorado civil rights law requiring businesses open to the public to treat customers equally.” So much for that organization’s founding commitment to defending “the rights enshrined in the US Constitution.”

Maya Wiley, president and CEO of The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, a coalition of over 200 national civil rights organizations, was even more inflammatory....

A second religion-related case reviewed by the Court this term involved Gerald Groff, a Sabbatarian Christian who asked that he not be scheduled to work on Sundays. Groff’s employer, the US Postal Service, tried to weasel its way out of the obligation of Title VII, the federal law prohibiting discrimination in the workplace, to accommodate the religious practices of employees unless doing so would create an “undue hardship” on the operation of business. The Biden administration defended the postal service, rather than counsel them to live up to its obligations under this key part of the Civil Rights Act.

What about the civil rights organizations that fought so hard to pass this crucial legislation? None of these groups filed amicus briefs before the Court. None issued press releases after the Court unanimously vindicated Title VII. Not one...."

https://www.racket.news/p/where-have-all...erals-gone

Similarly, Matt Taibbi asks where all the liberals have gone who used to support the first amendment, but now the left supports government censorship.

https://www.thefp.com/p/trans-activists-...ific-paper

And of course they want to silence inconvenient truths in science.

"...But I have never had an article retracted. Until now.

On March 29, I published an article in the prestigious academic journal Archives of Sexual Behavior. Less than three months later, on June 14, it was retracted by Springer Nature Group, the giant academic publisher of Archives, for an alleged violation of its editorial policies.

Retraction of scientific articles is associated with well-deserved shame: plagiarism, making up data, or grave concerns about the scientific integrity of a study. But my article was not retracted for any shameful reason. It was retracted because it provided evidence for an idea that activists hate.

The retracted article, “Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria: Parent Reports on 1655 Possible Cases,” was coauthored with Suzanna Diaz, who I met in 2018 at a small meeting of scientists, journalists, and parents of children they believed had Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria (ROGD).

ROGD was first described in the literature in 2018 by the physician and researcher Lisa Littman. It is an explanation of the new phenomenon of adolescents, largely girls, with no history of gender dysphoria, suddenly declaring they want to transition to the opposite sex. It has been a highly contentious diagnosis, with some—and I am one—thinking it’s an important avenue for scientific inquiry, and others declaring it’s a false idea advocated by parents unable to accept they have a transgender child...."