UN Secret Meeting Set to Capture Internet Control (““If freedom of speech is taken away, then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.” ― George Washington”) – Patriot Update
Well, here they come again. The UN has devised yet another plan to strip away a little more freedom from those who use the Internet. This time they come to seize more control of the online experience. They want to decide who has the right to see what’s on the Internet. And here’s a shocker. There may be some taxes involved.
Another disturbing aspect of the Summit is that it will be held in secret sessions. The meeting itself is, of course, public knowledge, but what will take place behind closed doors is not.
The summit supposedly is focused on revising an older treaty that was approved in 1988 called the International Telecommunications Regulations (ITRs). This was ratified before the Internet became what it is today.
CNSNews.com – Rep. Hank Johnson D-Ga. says, “corporations control the patterns of thinking” in the United States and that the Bill of Rights to the Constitution should be amended so that the government is given the power to restrict freedom of speech.”We need a constitutional amendment to allow the legislature to control the so-called free speech rights of corporations,” said Johnson.“These corporations, along with the people they support, other millionaires who they’re putting into office, are stealing your government.
They’re stealing the government and the U.S. Supreme Court was a big enabler with the Citizens United case,” Johnson said at the Annesbrooks HOA candidate Forum in Georgia in October.“They control the patterns of thinking,” said Johnson. “They control the media. They control the messages that you get. So, you are being taught to hate your government–don’t want government, but keep your hands off of my Medicare by the way.
I mean, we are all confused people and we’re poking fingers at each other saying, well you’re black, you’re Hispanic, immigration, homosexuals. You know, we’re lost on the social issues, abortion, contraception.
“And these folks,” Johnson said, “are setting up a scenario where they’re privatizing every aspect of our lives as we know it. So, wake up! Wake up! Let’s look at what’s happening. We need a constitutional amendment to allow the legislature to control the so-called free speech rights of corporations.”
Oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America.
Should the Constitution of the United States of America be amended to only allow those who have taken a oath to defend the Constitution to vote including citizens ?
The American Left used to champion free expression. We were lectured — correctly — that the price of being repulsed by occasional crude talk and art was worth paying. Only that way could Americansensure our daily right to criticize those with greater power and influence whom we found wrong and objectionable.
When 1950s comedian Lenny Bruce titillated his audiences with the F-word and crude sex talk, liberals came to his defense. They reminded us that vulgar speech is not a crime: The First Amendment was not just designed to protect uplifting expression, but also rarer blasphemous and indecent speech.For liberals…………..
Just as our elected officials create convenient areas of privilege which absolve them from obeying laws which are so enthusiastically applied to the rest of us, so Muslims are seeking to become a privileged class with the exclusive right to decide what offends their religious sensibilities and what level of punishment must be meted out for the particular affront.
“Have patience awhile; slanders are not long-lived. Truth is the child of time; erelong she shall appear to vindicate thee.” – Immanuel Kant.
“A public can only arrive at enlightenment slowly. Through revolution, the abandonment of personal despotism may be engendered and the end of profit-seeking and domineering oppression may occur, but never a true reform of the state of mind. Instead, new prejudices, just like the old ones, will serve as the guiding reins of the great, unthinking mass.
All that is required for this enlightenment is freedom; and particularly the least harmful of all that may be called freedom, namely, the freedom for man to make public use of his reason in all matters. But I hear people clamor on all sides: Don’t argue! The officer says: Don’t argue, drill! The tax collector: Don’t argue, pay! The pastor: Don’t argue, believe!” – Immanuel Kant.
There once was a Constitution in this country.
There once was free speech in this country.
No longer. Shari’a is the new law of our land, and Barack Obama has brought it to us.
Serious efforts are speeding down the political pike from leftists, to curtail the free political speech of businesses. They are trying to pass laws and regulations that limit or eliminate a business’ or corporation’s ability to contribute to political candidates or PACs that support candidates. The left frets and whines about evil businesses trying to “buy” elections, yet it’s OK with them if unions do the buying. Huh? Say again?Let’s start with what the U.S. Constitution and the highest court in the land say about this issue.
Was this an isolated event, or an indication that Americans have finally reached the tipping point where they will actively begin to take America back?
The popularity of new homes of only 500 square feet, 500-million-year-old bacteria and Barack Obama telling those with successful businesses, “You didn’t build that.”
Now website organizers are trying to raise a few thousand dollars to pursue arguments in a court case that would solidify the foundation for Internet free speech in Canada, a case they won at the trial court level but saw reversed on appeal because the judges wanted to address “a number of public interest and legal issues.”
GyG READER RESPONSE:(See also: article, responses, etc @ Link…)
BLOGGER SILENCE HELL !!!!!!!!!!
BLOGGERS SHOULD BE ROARING FROM THE ROOFTOPS !!!!!!!!!!
Who Will Protect the Freedom to Blog?
Townhall.com ^ | June 8, 2012 | Michelle Malkin
Posted on Friday, June 08, 2012 7:38:57 AM by Kaslin
Free speech is under fire. Online thugs are targeting bloggers (mostly conservative, but not all) who have dared to expose a convicted bomber and perjuring vexatious litigant who is now enjoying a comfy life as a liberally subsidized social justice operative. Where do your elected representatives stand on this threat to our founding principles?
On Wednesday, U.S. Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-GA, bravely stepped forward to press this vital issue. In a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder, Chambliss decried the “harassing and frightening actions” of Internet menaces who recently have gone after several conservative new media citizen journalists and activists.
GOP Rep. Kenny Marchant of Texas added his voice, telling Holder in a statement that he is “very afraid of the potential chilling effects that these reported actions may have in silencing individuals who would otherwise be inclined to exercise their Constitutional right to free speech.” And the American Center for Law and Justice, a leading conservative free speech public interest law firm, announced it was providing legal representation to the National Bloggers Club — a new media association that has provided support and raised funds for targets of this coordinated harassment. (Full disclosure: I volunteer on the National Bloggers Club board of directors.)
The ACLJ described the importance of the case very simply: “Free speech is under attack.”
In many countries, though not in the United States, laws prohibit “hate speech.” Those who, in Jeremy Waldron’s opinion, uncritically elevate the benefits of free speech over competing values oppose hate-speech laws; but Waldron thinks that a strong case can be made in their favor.
Memo to Albany Republicans: All things being equal, the First Amendment covers anonymous speech — and it applies to the Internet, too.
Even if that speech doesn’t reflect well on incumbent state legislators.
No, make that especially speech that doesn’t reflect well on incumbent state legislators.
That is exactly the claim made by the North Carolina Board of Dietetics/Nutrition. In December 2011, diabetic blogger Steve Cooksey started a Dear Abby-style advice column on his popular blog (www.diabetes-warrior.net) to answer reader questions.
One month later, the State Board informed Steve that he could not give readers advice on diet, whether for free or for compensation, because doing so constituted the unlicensed, and thus criminal, practice of dietetics. The State Board also told Steve that his private emails and telephone calls with readers and friends were illegal, as was his paid life-coaching service. The State Board went through Steve’s writings with a red pen, indicating what he may and may not say without a government-issued license……..
A Miami-Dade County firefighter under investigation by his department for a controversial posting he reportedly made on his personal Facebook page about the Trayvon Martin case has been demoted, Local 10 has learned.
The controversial post read, “I and my co-workers could rewrite the book on whether our urban youths are victims of racist profiling or products of their failed, (expletive), ignorant, pathetic, welfare dependent excuses for parents.”
The post caused a firestorm of controversy. Locally, black civic activists staged protests, demanding that Beckmann be fired. Some called him a racist and questioned his ability to serve the community.
ANN ARBOR, MI – In the middle of an event to extol the virtues of the U.S. Constitution and “American Laws For American Courts,” the audience learned first-hand how easy it is to lose their freedom of Speech and Assembly.
Amid shouts of “What about free speech?” from the audience, the Allegan Police Department ordered the event shut-down. School officials notified police that they had received a letter complaining about the event from Dawud Walid, Executive Director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR-MI). The letter asked the school to disallow the event despite an existing contract.
Let me be the first to say, congratulations, Mr. Stein! One of the best things that could ever happen to you was made official Wednesday. After you violated the Pentagon’s rules banning free speech (itself a violation of the 1st Amendment protections to the same) the Marine Corps unceremoniously discharged you.
ACLU Blasts ‘Electronic Harassment‘ Bill; Says It Criminalizes Free Speech … The American Civil Liberties Union of Connecticut is blasting a bill proposed by state prosecutors that would make “electronic harassment” a crime — including such acts as posting information on the Internet that “has the effect of causing substantial embarrassment or humiliation to [a] person within an academic or professional community.”
The bill, which comes up for a public hearing by the legislature’s judiciary committee Thursday, “criminalizes speech that is protected by the First Amendment of the Constitution,” said Sandra Staub, legal director for the state ACLU. “It’s vague. It’s overbroad.” For example, Staub said, it contains “no standards for substantially interfering with someone’s academic performance.” – N Hartford Courant
Dominant Social Theme: Now SOPA moves to the states. Good.
Free-Market Analysis: These bills are all about the criminalizing of the Internet. Now that SOPA has been pushed back on the federal front, the action is turning to the states. The idea, in our view, is to whittle away at the Internet bit by bit. Create precedent at the state level and then move in again at the federal level.
The powers-that-be don’t like the Internet or what we call the Internet Reformation that has changed the context of the power debate in the US and throughout the world.
The Internet has exposed the memes of the elite, the dominant social themes that are used to promote world government by scaring people into cooperating with internationalist facilities like the UN.
The powers-that-be are using the same strategies as regards the Internet. They are trying to convince people that a series of organized electrons are as a dangerous as a dark alley on a bad side of town. The Internet needs to be seriously policed and criminalized.
SAN DIEGO — The Marine Corps on Wednesday notified a sergeant who has been openly critical of President Barack Obama that he is violating Pentagon policy barring troops from political activities and that he faces dismissal.
Camp Pendleton Marine Sgt. Gary Stein started a Facebook page called Armed Forces Tea Party to encourage fellow service members to exercise their free speech rights.
This fact keeps the vast majority in self-induced incarceration. Nearly half of potential voters never cast a ballot. It is reasonable to conclude the tired old cliché that it does not matter to vote because there is no a difference between the parties, is accurate. Nonetheless, dissent is far more profound than being a duped victim to a rigged voting system. Dissent requires total emersion into the entire political process.
Lobbying officials and confrontation with bureaucracies are necessary elements that every citizen has a duty to engage. Yet, the lesson of history is that only the few ever risk being burned by challenging the status quo. Well, that kind of resignation will never defeat a coercive political dynasty bent on expanding an ever-greater diabolical regime.
The Sheeple mentality produces walking zombies. You know the type. They are your neighbors and relatives. They come from ever kind of background or employment. Most just are afraid to get involved. They are the first to wave the flag, but will never attend a government public hearing, much less express their discontent. Their motto, “go along to get along” symbolizes the decay of the nation.
Add in the legions of public employees with their union entitlement extortion demands and you have a formula for a terminable society.
Our natural tendency is to trust authority provides a feeble excuse into the dysfunctional Sheeple DNA. Only the conclusion “Our tendency to trust authority is allowing mentally incompetent people to remain as leaders in government, universities, business, and news reporting” provides the accurate insight.
Below is a lits of companies who are pulling ads from Rush. I could easily go on a rant here about the feckless left, but we’ll save that for this weeks PBN Live broadcasts .
I do want to say however, how important we freedom embracing lovers of America MUST focus and finish this fight by wholly destroying and utterly anhiliating while humiliating the left.
They are trying to get Rush off the air, they have been waiting for this opportunity… Not Happening! These little fat rats are abandoning a ship of free speech. Boycott them.
The Bush administration gutted free speech rights by limiting protesters to “free speech zones” which were often miles away from the meetings or conventions being protested, and well away from the media spotlight.
This is pure insanity:
Below is a recording of the court transcript. The judge dismissing the case after lecturing the victim for insulting the Islamic prophet Muhammad starts at 28:30, in case you don’t have time to listen to the entire 36 minutes.
Update: (Thanks, wtd) Perce, the victim in this case, is being threatened with jail time for posting the audio of his trial. This is pure sharia in America, where the victim is punished and the perpetrators are freed, and where the judge ignore human rights in favor of Islamic superiority.
This is truly frightening, friends.
Partial transcript (from Opposing Views) is below the fold. Also below the fold is video of the actual attack, which the judge refused to allow.
Judge’s comments from ruling:
“Having had the benefit of having spent over 2 and a half years in predominantly Muslim countries I think I know a little bit about the faith of Islam. In fact I have a copy of the Koran here and I challenge you sir to show me where it says in the Koran that Mohammad arose and walked among the…..
According to the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), there is a grave threat to America that must be suppressed at all costs. The threat is that Lieutenant General William “Jerry” Boykin might be allowed to exercise his constitutionally guaranteed right to free speech.
This proposition is bizarre on multiple levels. For one, General Boykin, who is a friend and greatly admired colleague of mine, is one of the United States’ most accomplished and decorated military heroes.
(“Can Congress make legal something that is inherently wrong, and can Congress take a freedom that is a part of our humanity and make its exercise criminal?”) The Government as Lawbreaker, ~ Again Judge Andrew Napolitano (SEE READER COMMENTS)
The Government as Lawbreaker, Again
Townhall.com ^ | December 15, 2011 | Judge Andrew Napolitano
Posted on Thursday, December 15, 2011 5:42:24 AM by Kaslin
Can Congress make legal something that is inherently wrong, and can Congress take a freedom that is a part of our humanity and make its exercise criminal?
If there were no First Amendment, would we still have the freedom of speech? The answer, like many in the law, depends on what values underlie the legal system. If the government is the source of our rights, then without the First Amendment’s guarantees of free speech, any government could legally punish you for saying words and expressing thoughts it hated or feared; and it could even silence you before you spoke.
On the other hand, if our rights come from our humanity and our humanity is a gift from God, then we would still enjoy the freedom of speech, whether it is insulated from government interference by the First Amendment or not. The wording of the First Amendment itself gives us a peek at what its authors thought. They wrote: “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech.” It doesn’t say that Congress shall grant freedom of speech; rather, it prohibits Congress from interfering with it. And by referring to free speech as the freedom of speech, the drafters recognized that the freedom of speech already existed before the country that they were founding even came to be.
Why is the Obama Administration Giving the OIC a Say in Our Right to Free Speech?
The Legal Project ^ | 12-10-11 | Ann Snyder
Posted on Monday, December 12, 2011 7:06:06 PM by bayouranger
Starting on December 12th in Washington, DC, a meeting is being held that jeopardizes freedom of speech as we currently understand it in the United States. The Obama Administration has invited the 57-member Organization of Islamic Cooperation (“OIC,” formerly, The Organization of the Islamic Conference) to a meeting of “experts” to discuss the implementation of a UN resolution ostensibly targeting “religious intolerance.” Now, even if by combating “religious intolerance” the resolution were just targeting actual violations of freedom of religion (READ: violating rights, not hurting feelings), it still should raise a few eyebrows that the OIC is behind the resolution and was invited as a partner to these meetings. The Jeddah-based OIC includes as its members such “champions” of human rights and religious freedom and tolerance as Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan, and Iran.
The Hill.com ^ | 12-12-11 | Bill Wilson
Posted on Monday, December 12, 2011 4:03:33 PM by thouworm
Proposed federal legislation purporting to protect online intellectual property would also impose sweeping new government mandates on internet service providers – a positively Orwellian power grab that would permit the U.S. Justice Department to shut down any internet site it doesn’t like (and cut off its sources of income) on nothing more than a whim.
tomwoods.com ^ | Thomas E Woods
Posted on Tuesday, November 29, 2011 12:41:04 PM by don-o
Retired chemistry professor Julian Heicklen is facing imprisonment for advocating jury nullification to passersby, following an indictment by federal prosecutors last year, according to the New York Times. He stood on a plaza outside the United States Courthouse in Manhattan and handed out brochures on the subject.
According to prosecutors, Heicklen’s “advocacy of jury nullification, directed as it is to jurors, would be both criminal and without Constitutional protections no matter where it occurred….
The Washington Times Communities ^ | 11/08/2011 | Gabriella Hoffman
Posted on Wednesday, November 09, 2011 3:26:44 AM by gabriellah
There is an all-pervading problem going unnoticed by many in the United States. Although wasteful spending, big government policies, and corruption have exhausted and equally crippled our economy, this problem poses a greater threat to our livelihood. That problem is political correctness.
A recent Rasmussen Report poll revealed that 79 percent of Americans think political correctness is problematic in America.
What is political correctness, and who is responsible for it?
(Excerpt) Read more at communities.washingtontimes.com …
Democrats Say Free Speech Undermining Democracy
A Semi-News/Semi-Satire from AzConservative ^ | 5 Nov 2011 | John Semmens
Posted on Monday, November 07, 2011 1:18:57 PM by John Semmens
“Political speech in this country has gotten so far out of hand that democracy itself is endangered,” Merkley contended. “Right now, anyone who wants to can say anything he wants about any public figure. The only constraint is whether he has the means to get his message out. Even this constraint is melting away. With the Internet, any boob can get an audience of millions if he’s clever enough.”
“If Not for PC, Barack Would No Longer be in Office” ~ Crucify Political Correctness on the Altar of Freedom of Speech
If Not for PC, Barack Would No Longer be in Office
It is obvious that Obama has received many kudos for being the first true minority elected president. Yet, it is also doubtless that he gathers enormous sympathy and pity for this status, as well.
Yet, if we are honest, we must admit that another president would not have received the same support and forgiveness for his many mistakes. So, since Barack is destroying America through ignorance, laziness or even ill-will, the PC movement is likewise dissolving the US.
Therefore, we must destroy PC before it destroys us. And the only way to eviscerate this intellectual parasite and moral blight is to demand Free Speech be regarded as more important than PC and its countless restrictions. Further, that PC is the mortal enemy of Free Speech and only one of them can survive. These leftist codes must be permanently dismissed in favor of our ancestral liberties and rights, or bondage will be established as surely as night follows day.
The West will either reject the logic of Political Correctness or suffer a catastrophic failure of vision, will, power and influence, destroying civil society as we know it. This may sound drastic, and of course it is. But why is it being claimed here? Because the ideas in the doctrines of Political Correctness and related notions like Multiculturalism are so destructive that—much like magma—these cannot long be held safely before spilling over and causing tremendous damage, chaos and destruction of our society.
The reason it must be eliminated is because Political Correctness is a Trojan horse for Marxism, which always destroys everything it touches. PC is a curse which must be denounced before it mangles its host society, especially since it is the very opposite of Free Speech. More importantly, individual responsibility is eliminated by PC standards which make irrelevant personal morality. This is the subject of this essay.
I. Definition of Political Correctness
Political Correctness (PC) is shorthand for an ideology which implies ethical or moral superiority for various positions which challenge traditional morality. The Freedictionary.com defines PC as
1. Of, relating to, or supporting broad social, political, and educational change, especially to redress historical injustices in matters such as race, class, gender, and sexual orientation.
PC has become, in practice, a set of standards by which communication is purified from unacceptable content. But PC has also deeply affected public policy and law, and ultimately ideas about morality, itself. For example, against the longstanding notion of the right of free expression, even thinking many forbidden thoughts would break PC norms. And for this reason, PC has evolved from being rules for “sensitivity” training into a set of un-breachable social mores.
One author sums up this idea:
I have to say that I share most — if not all — the goals of the honest Left, which would be embodied in a constantly rising standard of living for the lowest economic classes. I often find myself watching Democracy Now for its antiwar, free-speech, and anti-death-penalty stances. But the big problem with the honest Left is their absolute and obstinate refusal to learn the most basic economic principles. The “Occupy Wall Street” movement is no different, and it is a real pity that all this energy and frustration can’t be put to use toward achieving their goal.
Many demands are being made, but sadly, if these were ever implemented, they would make problems worse by lowering the standard of living for all — especially for the poor! I will proceed to address some of the demands in plain English, hoping to reach out to them…..
There is nothing that strikes deeper at the heart of the American experiment than a test of our liberties — the right to free speech, and the right of religious freedom. It was because of these liberties that Islamist terror struck on September 11th, 2011, costing thousands of lives and bringing the realities of the world a bit closer to home.
10 years later, the Islamist threat remains.
Yet the tactics have changed. Rather than planes, Islamists use mosques as nerve centers for resistance. Rather than terrorists, Islamists use imams and lawyers to drive the point home. Rather than bombs, Islamists use deceit and deception to say one thing while the realities on the ground are far different.
Take for instance Imam Feisal Rauf, the presumed leader of the Islamist faction in the United States. At a March 2011 panel at Georgetown University in Washington, D.C. it was Rauf who opened up a direct attack on America’s foundational constitutional protections and rights. Rather than allowing Islam to be engaged in the public square critically, Rauf considers any criticism of Islam as “libel” — a hate crime.
When I watched this in the audience, I sat there outraged. I could see the writing on the wall.
Now we know the brazen truth. Rauf opened the Islamist playbook and removed any doubts about the true nature of the Islamist agenda. In short, while keeping up an ecumenical front, Rauf and other Islamists intend to openly use American laws to crush dissent, demanding our laws silence any criticism, concerns, or questions about the Islamist threat.
The list doesn’t stop there. The so-called Cordoba Mosque at Ground Zero? Keep in mind that the Moors, when they conquered Cordoba in the 7th century, converted the Christian cathedral into an Islamic “victory” mosque. For Islamists to spike the football in New York City at Ground Zero with a victory mosque of their own is outrageous enough.
But to be condemned as inciting “hate crimes” by questioning the prudence of such a move? Westerners may consider this to be offensive. Islamists have another term for such a struggle: jihad.
This jihad is being waged on multiple fronts, whether it is in chicken processing plants in Tennessee or in “no go” zones in Dearborn, Michigan. This jihad is cultural, legal, spiritual, and as we saw 10 years ago on September 11th, 2001 — manifests itself in violence.
America is not the first nation to be confronted with the Islamist threat. Ironically, it was Thomas Jefferson who inaugurated the first pre-emptive war against Islamist terror, then in the form of the Barbary Pirates. “Millions for defense, but not one penny for tribute” was our battle cry then. With a firm reliance upon God, we should be willing to meet the forces of Islamist terror fearlessly, and without shame.
Much has happened since my last visit. In the Netherlands we were able to achieve many amazing things. We have successfully started to roll back the process of Islamization in the Netherlands. We have done so in a peaceful way and through the democratic process. Recently, a deranged narcissistic psychopath from Norway committed a horrible crime. In cold blood he murdered nearly eighty innocent fellow citizens. The assassin pretended to be a concerned European. He said that he had committed his atrocity because “It is meaningless to participate in the democratic process.” But he is wrong! The mass murderer from Oslo murdered and maimed, and he justified his heinous crime by denying – I quote – “that it is remotely possible to change the system democratically.” – end of quote. But he is wrong! The Oslo murderer falsely claims to be one of us. But he is not one of us. We abhor violence. We are democrats. We believe in peaceful solutions.
The Roberts court is very carefully, across the Constitution, laying the groundwork for a return to original intent, and this is just one of many blocks in the foundation they are building.
Last year it was gun rights and the Second Amendment. There have been a series on free speech, notably in this year’s overturning of California’s restrictions on violent video game sales to minors, and regarding political speech both last term with Citizens United and this term with the overturning of Arizona’s public financing of elections.
(Excerpt) Read more at punditpress.blogspot.com …
Obama’s Latest Assault On The First Amendment
Obama’s Latest Assault On The First Amendment
Posted on Tuesday, May 24, 2011 4:10:58 PM by Starman417
Obama is desperate, public opinion is turning against him and he is running out of time. These little machines and the internet are allowing the public to think without direction from the propaganda bureaus and to voice their opinions with others. Obama’s world of state controlled media is disintegrating, the truth is ravaging his media empire like a steak knife ripping through a ripe tomato.
To stop the hemorrhaging of popular support through alternative media, Obama has appointed a Director of ‘Progressive’ Media & Online Response, within the communications department. We are now paying to end our freedom of speech and the press.
This latest position doesn’t compose propaganda, he merely controls negative press. It is a position we as Americans are now paying for: a position that is designed to limit our Free Speech, unless it casts positive light on Obama. In Obama’s relentless attacks on the very freedoms that define us, this is just one more step meant to assure his control. We have become the protagonists of the Obama legend and he is feeling threatened; therefore, we must be silenced, if he is to win reelection.
The White House has named Jesse Lee to a new position within its communications department titled Director of Progressive Media & Online Response. Lee will essentially be responsible for building up Obama’s online presence as he prepares for his reelection bid, and squashing any negative stories:
(Excerpt) Read more at floppingaces.net…
Copenhagen was smoking for an entire week due to several hundred of fires, and the police and firemen trying to calm the situation down were also attacked. A big part of the rioters ended up in the prison where I worked, and I therefore I had the chance to talk with them.
Almost all of them were Muslims, and they all claimed that what they have done – starting fires, attacking the police etc. – was justified since Danish society, through its pressure on integration and through reprinting the Mohammed cartoons, has proven itself to be racist and against Islam and Muslim culture.
The few Danish people among the rioters were completely different. Their explanation of their actions was predominately a search for adventure or excitement.EuropeNews:
The fourth myth is that poverty among immigrants leads to their bad social situation. In your book, you tell us that the opposite is true……………….
Where should the nation draw the line on free speech?
The 8-1 decision found that the fringe church’s hate-filled picketing at the funeral of a Marine corporal killed in Iraq qualified as public discourse protected by the First Amendment.
Church members claim soldiers’ deaths are God‘s punishment for U.S. tolerance of homosexuality.Dissenting Justice Slams ‘Brutalization of Innocent Victims’ Kris Connor, Getty Images Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito Jr. was the lone dissenter in Snyder v. Phelps.
However hurtful and abhorrent, the church members’ railings…yadda yadda…But in staking out his lone dissent, Alito suggested that when publicly offensive speech is also — and perhaps primarily — personally painful, the Constitution doesn’t protect it.
“Our profound national commitment to free and open debate is not a license for the vicious verbal assault that occurred in this case,” Alito wrote.”Mr. Snyder wanted what is surely the right of any parent who experiences such an incalculable loss: to bury his son in peace,” he added. “
But respondents, members of the Westboro Baptist Church, deprived him of that elementary right.”
Excerpt Read more at aolnews.com …
by C.J. Maloneyby CJ Maloney
Recently by CJ Maloney: On Boycotting Chinese Goods Truth is the foundation on which the power of the press stands and falls, and our only demand of the press, also the foreign press, is that they report the truth about Germany.
~ Otto Dietrich, Reich Press Chief, 1934Democracy is under assault! To the bulwarks! Quick, load the catapult with our freedom of speech and shoot it over at the enemy; it’s our only hope! So says Harvard professor Cass Sunstein in his On Rumors: How Falsehoods Spread, Why We Believe Them, What Can Be Done.
More an 88-page gab session than a structured book, On Rumors makes me wonder if this is how Professor Sunstein sounds at the chalkboard…placid, scattershot and above all, repetitive. The villain of his piece is the Internet – a fertile breeding ground for “false” rumors – and his knight in shining armor the government censor.
The book starts off with, ends, and endlessly repeats a trumpet blast sure to grab the modern American ear – democracy is in peril. Sunstein, 3, 10, 65, 85, etc. The culprit? Free speech – a protective shield for the “false” rumors so hated by the author, all running amok and unfettered via the Internet highway, a regulatory void with no political infringements whatsoever.
The Internet is, to the author, a dagger pointed at the very heart of democracy.Sunstein puts forth two goals of his effort.
First, to study how and why rumors spread, where he attempts to use social cascades and group polarization to paint the obvious with an intellectual varnish, a collegiate effort to erect something as earthy as “telegraph, telephone, tell a friend” into a three-month long lecture that costs $17,000 to hear at Harvard…………………………….
As Secretary of State Hillary Clinton gave her speech at George Washington University yesterday condemning governments that arrest protestors and do not allow free expression, 71-year-old Ray McGovern was grabbed from the audience in plain view of her by police and an unidentified official in plain clothes, brutalized and left bleeding in jail.
She never paused speaking. When Secretary Clinton began her speech, Mr. McGovern remained standing silently in the audience and turned his back.
Mr. McGovern, a veteran Army officer who also worked as a CIA analyst for 27 years, was wearing a Veterans for Peace t-shirt.Blind-sided by security officers who pounced upon him, Mr. McGovern remarked, as he was hauled out the door, “So this is America?” Mr. McGovern is covered with bruises, lacerations and contusions inflicted in the assault.
The Wrong Kind of Climate Control
By Kieran Manjarrez
Global Research, January 11, 2011
As sure as rain follows upon dark clouds, the cry has gone up to “do something” about so-called hate speech. Fairly typical of the reactions to the shooting of Congreswoman Gifford and several others by Jared Loughner was ‘ Tikkun’s’ Rabbi Michael Lerner, who rhetorically intoned: “Isn’t it time for us to demand that our government investigate the violence-generating discourse of the racists and the haters?”
The Constitutional answer is: absolutely not! Lerner and those of like mind need to read — thrice and slowly — the words of James Madison on this very issue:
What Lerner is urging, in modern form, is the revival of laws against sedition. The “protected values” (or in modern legal lingo, the “cognized groups”) may be different but the principle is the same: words which have a “tendency” to incite violence and/or threaten the security or wellbeing of … [insert your cherished value-of choice here]… need to be outlawed and criminally punished.
Whether enacted in 1789, 1918 or 2011, laws against sedition are inimicable to a free society; and no amount of spurious sociological “impact studies” (so-called) can change that constitutional fact.
What does it actually mean to call for government “investigation” of “violence-generating” speech?
The investigation part is fairly easy to answer: it means police and FBI agents keeping tabs of what you say, interviewing your neighbors about what do, getting warrants to poke into your reading habits and ultimately detaining you for further questioning. Such investigations inevitably entail what the Nazis called “block wardens” — neighbors and other snitches who make it their business to overhear your chat and take note of the books and guests you bring home. Already both the government and various interest groups have set up networks and web pages to recruit security-volunteers to poke around and keep an ear out for terrorism- or racist- generating violence.
What then is to be the casus for such inquisitions? What exactly is ‘violence-generating’ speech?
During an appearance Monday on Fox News’ “O’Reilly Factor,” Juan Williams said: “When I get on the plane, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they are identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous.
“National Public Radio has fired Mr. Williams for making this statement. And while I do not share Mr. Williams sentiments, so what?
Posted on Friday, October 08, 2010 11:58:05 AM by EternalVigilance
Video interview with the father HERE.
From the founder of Oath Keepers:—–
Here is my statement for now:We are doing all we can to confirm and document this. But if is IS accurate, and a newborn child was ripped from her mother’s arms because the parents were “associated” with Oath Keepers by simply being members of our online ning discussion forum, then this is a grave crossing of a very serious line, and is utterly intolerable. It cannot be done. It cannot be allowed to stand. if it is true, then I will do all in my power to stop it. We will pull out all the stops, every lawful means of seeing that this child is returned to her parents and that all persons responsible are held accountable to the fullest extent of the law.
There can be no freedom of speech, no freedom of association, no freedom to even open your mouth and “speak truth to power,” no freedom AT ALL, if your children can be black bagged and stolen from you because of your political speech and associations – because you simply dare to express your love of country, and dare to express your solidarity and fellowship with other citizens and with active duty and retired military and police who simply pledge to honor their oath and obey the Constitution.
It was to prevent just such outrageous content based persecution of political dissidents that our First Amendment was written. If true, then this is as bad, and in fact worse, than any of the violations of liberty that our Declaration of Independence lists as the reasons for our forefathers taking up arms in our Revolution and for separating from England.
We no longer have freedom at all if this is allowed to be done. And we will not let it stand.
Founder of Oath Keepers
04Army Airborne School, 83
Internet entrepreneurs are in a panic over a Senate bill they say will censor the Web, stifle Silicon Valley startups, damage the United States’ credibility on free speech and ultimately trigger the creation of an alternate-universe Internet. The West Coast engineers say they were blindsided last Monday when the Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act was introduced in the Senate Judiciary Committee.
The bill has a bipartisan roster of co-sponsors who say it will be a tool for stopping the worst offenders in the world of online piracy. The bill would give the attorney general new powers to shut down websites deemed dedicated to counterfeit material — by going through the courts and by encouraging service providers to go after sites the Justice Department puts on a public blacklist.
According to the bill, a website would have to be “dedicated to infringing activities” to trigger the enforcement.
Full article here
“When someone destroys a bible, US government officials don’t line up to attack him. President Obama bowed lower than a fawning maitre d’ before the King of Saudi Arabia, a man whose regime destroys bibles as a matter of state policy, and a man whose depraved religious police forces schoolgirls fleeing from a burning building back into the flames to die because they’d committed the sin of trying to escape without wearing their head scarves.
If you show a representation of Mohammed, European commissioners and foreign ministers line up to denounce you. If you show a representation of Jesus Christ immersed in your own urine, you get a government grant for producing a widely admired work of art. Likewise, if you write a play about Jesus having gay sex with Judas Iscariot.”So just to clarify the ground rules, if you insult Christ, the media report the issue as freedom of expression: A healthy society has to have bold, brave, transgressive artists willing to question and challenge our assumptions, etc. But, if it’s Mohammed, the issue is no longer freedom of expression but the need for “respect” and “sensitivity” toward Islam, and all those bold brave transgressive artists don’t have a thing to say about it.”