When Transparency Really Means Tyranny

• Report rights infringement
• published: 19 Jun 2017
• views: 464451

When you hear the word "transparency," what comes to mind? Maybe words like openness and honesty. But David French, Senior Writer for The National Review, shows how progressive activists, under the guise of "transparency," are ruining the lives of many good Americans. Donate today to PragerU! http://l.prageru.com/2eB2p0h Have you taken the pledge for school choice? Click here! https://www.schoolchoicenow.com Get PragerU bonus content for free! https://www.prageru.com/bonus-content Download Pragerpedia on your iPhone or Android! Thousands of sources and facts at your fingertips. iPhone: http://l.prageru.com/2dlsnbG Android: http://l.prageru.com/2dlsS5e Join Prager United to get new swag every quarter, exclusive early access to our videos, and an annual TownHall phone call with Dennis Prager! http://l.prageru.com/2c9n6ys Join PragerU's text list to have these videos, free merchandise giveaways and breaking announcements sent directly to your phone! https://optin.mobiniti.com/prageru Do you shop on Amazon? Click https://smile.amazon.com and a percentage of every Amazon purchase will be donated to PragerU. Same great products. Same low price. Shopping made meaningful. VISIT PragerU! https://www.prageru.com FOLLOW us! Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/prageru Twitter: https://twitter.com/prageru Instagram: https://instagram.com/prageru/ PragerU is on Snapchat! JOIN PragerFORCE! For Students: http://l.prageru.com/2aozfkP JOIN our Educators Network! http://l.prageru.com/2aoz2y9 Script: When you hear the word “transparency,” what comes to mind? Chances are that you associate the word with a lot of good things, like “openness,” “honesty,” “accountability,” and maybe even “integrity.” In a better world, those associations would be accurate. But in the world of the progressive left, “transparency” means something very different. And you need to be aware of that meaning or you risk becoming a victim of it. Everybody – on the left and the right – agrees that transparency in government is a good thing. With the exception of issues involving national security, the government should be transparent in its dealings. The public has a right to know what the government is doing with your tax dollars. But transparency means something completely different when it comes to the private, non-government realm. Take, for example, where you choose to donate your money. Transparency in this case means that there is a public record of your donation. Now, this might sound okay, but it isn’t. Why? Because it puts you on the radar of your political opponents and makes you a potential target. Scott Eckern was a theatre director in Sacramento, California who gave a $1,000 donation to support the traditional definition of marriage. Maybe you don’t agree with Scott’s position. That’s your right. But the LA Times didn’t just disagree; they put every single donation made by people like Scott online. Scott Eckern lost his job, and others faced boycotts and blacklisting, all because of "so-called" transparency in an area of life that should be private. Through most of our nation’s history, what happened to Scott Eckern wouldn’t have happened: if you made a political donation, your identity was not exposed. But under pressure from the left, this is changing. In New York, for example, it’s now the law that if a non-profit organization advocates against a position taken by an elected official, it must disclose to the government the identities of all the organization’s significant donors. Faced with this prospect, most people would just as soon avoid the risk altogether. Safer, in other words, to keep your mouth shut and your checkbook closed. Even when state officials promise to keep this donor information confidential, you can’t trust them. In 2015, the California attorney general, Kamala Harris, now a U.S. Senator, demanded that nonprofits disclose their donor lists to the state, and then her office "accidentally" posted this private donor information online. But even if the government kept that information secret, it’s none of its business. Because while transparency is a government obligation, privacy is an individual right. How do we know? Because of the First Amendment. In the 1950s, the state of Alabama tried to force the NAACP to disclose its membership lists. This demand came at a time when civil rights activists faced physical threats and economic reprisals for standing up for basic human rights. Fortunately, the Supreme Court stepped in and ruled unanimously that the First Amendment protected their right of freedom of association, and that included protection from prying eyes. For the complete script, visit https://www.prageru.com/courses/political-science/when-transparency-really-means-tyranny

When Transparency Really Means Tyranny

• Report rights infringement
• published: 19 Jun 2017
• views: 464451

When you hear the word "transparency," what comes to mind? Maybe words like openness and honesty. But David French, Senior Writer for The National Review, shows how progressive activists, under the guise of "transparency," are ruining the lives of many good Americans. Donate today to PragerU! http://l.prageru.com/2eB2p0h Have you taken the pledge for school choice? Click here! https://www.schoolchoicenow.com Get PragerU bonus content for free! https://www.prageru.com/bonus-content Download Pragerpedia on your iPhone or Android! Thousands of sources and facts at your fingertips. iPhone: http://l.prageru.com/2dlsnbG Android: http://l.prageru.com/2dlsS5e Join Prager United to get new swag every quarter, exclusive early access to our videos, and an annual TownHall phone call with Dennis Prager! http://l.prageru.com/2c9n6ys Join PragerU's text list to have these videos, free merchandise giveaways and breaking announcements sent directly to your phone! https://optin.mobiniti.com/prageru Do you shop on Amazon? Click https://smile.amazon.com and a percentage of every Amazon purchase will be donated to PragerU. Same great products. Same low price. Shopping made meaningful. VISIT PragerU! https://www.prageru.com FOLLOW us! Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/prageru Twitter: https://twitter.com/prageru Instagram: https://instagram.com/prageru/ PragerU is on Snapchat! JOIN PragerFORCE! For Students: http://l.prageru.com/2aozfkP JOIN our Educators Network! http://l.prageru.com/2aoz2y9 Script: When you hear the word “transparency,” what comes to mind? Chances are that you associate the word with a lot of good things, like “openness,” “honesty,” “accountability,” and maybe even “integrity.” In a better world, those associations would be accurate. But in the world of the progressive left, “transparency” means something very different. And you need to be aware of that meaning or you risk becoming a victim of it. Everybody – on the left and the right – agrees that transparency in government is a good thing. With the exception of issues involving national security, the government should be transparent in its dealings. The public has a right to know what the government is doing with your tax dollars. But transparency means something completely different when it comes to the private, non-government realm. Take, for example, where you choose to donate your money. Transparency in this case means that there is a public record of your donation. Now, this might sound okay, but it isn’t. Why? Because it puts you on the radar of your political opponents and makes you a potential target. Scott Eckern was a theatre director in Sacramento, California who gave a $1,000 donation to support the traditional definition of marriage. Maybe you don’t agree with Scott’s position. That’s your right. But the LA Times didn’t just disagree; they put every single donation made by people like Scott online. Scott Eckern lost his job, and others faced boycotts and blacklisting, all because of "so-called" transparency in an area of life that should be private. Through most of our nation’s history, what happened to Scott Eckern wouldn’t have happened: if you made a political donation, your identity was not exposed. But under pressure from the left, this is changing. In New York, for example, it’s now the law that if a non-profit organization advocates against a position taken by an elected official, it must disclose to the government the identities of all the organization’s significant donors. Faced with this prospect, most people would just as soon avoid the risk altogether. Safer, in other words, to keep your mouth shut and your checkbook closed. Even when state officials promise to keep this donor information confidential, you can’t trust them. In 2015, the California attorney general, Kamala Harris, now a U.S. Senator, demanded that nonprofits disclose their donor lists to the state, and then her office "accidentally" posted this private donor information online. But even if the government kept that information secret, it’s none of its business. Because while transparency is a government obligation, privacy is an individual right. How do we know? Because of the First Amendment. In the 1950s, the state of Alabama tried to force the NAACP to disclose its membership lists. This demand came at a time when civil rights activists faced physical threats and economic reprisals for standing up for basic human rights. Fortunately, the Supreme Court stepped in and ruled unanimously that the First Amendment protected their right of freedom of association, and that included protection from prying eyes. For the complete script, visit https://www.prageru.com/courses/political-science/when-transparency-really-means-tyranny