“Hate Speech” is in the eye of the beholder, and the beholder is now your Federal Government

Free Speech - NoneProve you’re not insane.

Go ahead, prove it.  Organically and via whatever means testing is available, prove it.

Oh, and by the way, also prove you’re not a racist.

Prove anything involving a “not.”

The most difficult thing imaginable is to disprove a negative.

Yet, here we go again on the heels of “rampant racism” in America via Ferguson – the new “Hate Speech” buzzphrase meme.

From the WashingtonFreeBeacon.com:

Feds Creating Database to Track ‘Hate Speech’ on Twitter

$1 Million study focuses on internet memes, ‘misinformation’ in political campaigns

by Elizabeth Harrington

The federal government is spending nearly $1 million to create an online database that will track “misinformation” and hate speech on Twitter.

The National Science Foundation is financing the creation of a web service that will monitor “suspicious memes” and what it considers “false and misleading ideas,” with a major focus on political activity online.

The “Truthy” database, created by researchers at Indiana University, is designed to “detect political smears, astroturfing, misinformation, and other social pollution.”

There you go.  Just what you need.  The federal government monitoring your writings and deciding, in the proverbial vacuum, just what is proper and just what isn’t.  In direct contravention of the First Amendment.  Please allow me to remind:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Frankly, this “hate speech” tracking sounds like Stalin to me, and Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez.  Like some Third World tin-pot dictator.  Except that this is a LAW proposed in the United States of America.

Via now, Mr Barack Hussein Obama.  Another tin pot dictator who is clueless, rife with NPD, and unable to manage the most basic of businesses for a profit.  He would first classify profit as “evil.”  Then he would drive any and said business into the ground. I suspect he couldn’t run a lemonade stand for a profit, much less our country.

Remember when Mr Obama attempted to call out those sites that were deemed to be “fishy”?  From FoxNews.com:

Obamacare_Flag_Poster_telephoneWhite House Draws Fire for Requesting ‘Fishy’ Information From Supporters on Health Reform

by Molly Henneberg

The White House is under fire for a blog post asking supporters to send “fishy” information received through rumors, chain e-mails and casual conversations to a White House e-mail address, flag@whitehouse.gov.

Conservatives have pounced on the request, accusing the White House of acting Orwellian.

“If you get an e-mail from your neighbor and it doesn’t sound right, send it to the White House?”said Sen. John Barasso, R-Wyo. ” People, I think all across America are going to say is this 1984? What is happening here? Is big brother watching?”

“Social pollution.”  Really?  As if the meme of unhindered and unrestrained government handouts aren’t social pollution for the stupid amongst us?  As if there are no limits to the depth and breadth of government largesse?  Sustainability?  Societal lampreys?

Possible air strike in Syria?

Sorry.  Shouldn’t have mentioned that.


Surrender Your Dignity, Forward

Danes: there can be “free speech” as long as there is no pushback

Freedom Go To HellThere is in fact, something rotten in Denmark.

It appears to be from the Danes themselves.

From Pamela Gellar’s Atlas Shrugs:

Danish magazine for lawyers: Free speech is only democratic as long as it does not provoke violent people

By Nicolai Sennels, Jihadwatch, June 20, 2014

Recently the UK Law Society introduced a guide to sharia law. And in Denmark, law professor Trine Baumbach attacks the freedom of speech in the latest issue of Juristen (The Lawyer). Via 10news.dk, translated from Uriasposten:

Freedom of expression can be seen as an expression of democracy — but only to the extent that free speech is used for the benefit of a democratic society and its citizens. … Freedom of expression is one of the foundations of democratic societies, but only to the extent that freedom of expression is not misused to violate the rights of others or used in a way that society risks being plunged into social unrest and civil peace being threatened.

Of course.  We “like” free speech until free speech conflicts with something else that is politically incorrect or sensitive or impolitic or requires courage, which is something Lefitsts clearly do not possess.

In other words: when there is pushback — in this case, something involving Islam and Sharia Law — “freedom of speech” is merely an old, volatile and hackneyed phrase.  And one that must be kicked to the curb.  There can be no courage in the face is Islam vs Westernized Nations.  The West must inherently lose, according to the GOWPs of the West.  The Guiilty Overeducated White People.

But I say this:

There must be a REASON that our Founding Fathers decided to place freedom of speech on “front street” in terms of our Bill of Rights, which states:

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

I don’t suppose there can be a more clear and simple delineation of a basic freedom than the First Amendment.

But here’s the “rub.”  There will be greater conflicts when so-called “free speech” comes into conflict with “tolerance” and “cultural acceptance.”

What happens when you place Sharia objections of free speech under the guise of “tolerance,” then?

I submit: you lose your free speech.

As Pamela Geller clearly states and I obviously embrace, it is a characteristic of religious barbarians vs the common sensical.

When you embrace the consideration of Sharia Law as opposed to actual western rules of law, you ask for “civilizational suicide.”

“The political function of ‘the right of free speech’ is to protect dissenters and unpopular minorities from forcible suppression.”

Pamela Geller writes:

Abridging this most crucial freedom so as not to offend savages is civilizational suicide. It is the death knell for the modern enlightenment.

I couldn’t agree more.

Guess what, Denmark?  You’re about to LOSE your country.  Get prepared.



What Happens When One Parent Speaks Out at a School Board Meeting About a Controversial Book Assigned to His Daughter

From TheBlaze.com:

by Oliver Darcy

A New Hampshire parent was arrested at a Monday night school board meeting after he voiced outrage his ninth grade daughter was assigned a book that contains a page detailing a graphic sexual encounter.

Frankly, let me state this up front:

In my opinion  this is a completely unnecessary display of force by a small-town police department.  I am a cop.  I state that up front.  I have worked in LE for 40+ years.  But I expect my fellow officers to follow the foundational documents to include the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights.  I do not expect them to abrogate — primarily — our First and Second Amendment rights.

The Gilford Police Department embarrasses me.  In my opinion they will be sued and deservedly so.

Watch the video:

Gilford school officials claim the book, “Nineteen Minutes” by Jodi Picoult, contains important themes about a school shooting. But some parents believe a scene described in the book is inappropriate for their children.

According to WCVB-TV, the book contains a graphic description of rough sex between two teenagers, which parents were unaware of until the book had already been distributed to their kids.

That passage includes, in part:

“‘Relax,’ Matt murmured, and then he sank his teeth into her shoulder. He pinned her hands over her head and ground his hips against hers. She could feel his erection, hot against her stomach.

” … She couldn’t remember ever feeling so heavy, as if her heart were beating between her legs. She clawed at Matt’s back to bring him closer.

“‘Yeah,’ he groaned, and her pushed her thighs apart. And then suddenly Matt was inside her, pumping so hard that she scooted backward on the carpet, burning the backs of her legs. … (H)e clamped his hand over her mouth and drove harder and harder until Josie felt him come.

“Semen, sticky and hot, pooled on the carpet beneath her.”

Why yes, that would be precisely what I would want my daughter to read as an ASSIGNED BOOK in her high school.  Wouldn’t you?

He (William Baer) went to the school board meeting to express his objections.

“It’s absurd,” he told the school board.

“Sir, would you please be respectful of the other people?” a school board member responded.

“Like you’re respectful of my daughter, right? And my children?” he countered.

America, get ready for the rest of this story:

A police officer then arrived at the scene, instructing Baer to leave with him.

Moments later, Baer was escorted outside and placed in handcuffs. According to WMUR-TV, he was charged with disorderly conduct because he did not immediately leave when asked by an officer.

Fine.  First question: why were police officers there in the first place?  Do you, in your school meetings, customarily have LE officers assigned there?

A second video:

So speaking your mind constitutes a threat.  And going over your allotted time constitutes a threat.

“Many people in education and government truly believe our children are theirs,” William Baer told EAG News. “That parents are only the custodians who feed them and put a roof over their head. These school incidents are a byproduct of this ‘we know best’ philosophy. They believe they have the authority to do this. If people were more complacent, which is hard to imagine, it’d be even worse.”

But even further, into the insidious abrogation that occurred:

Understandably, Baer doesn’t want his daughter exposed to this kind of material, and says the school “has no business introducing such themes” to his daughter.

He’s also disturbed by school officials’ failure to notify parents that this novel was assigned, and there was no opportunity to “opt out.”

Baer, who is an attorney, believes that if someone stood outside the school and handed out copies of the novel’s sexually charged passage to students, he would likely be arrested and prosecuted.

He questions why it’s acceptable for “the state, through its schools and agents,” to mandate reading and discussing this same material.

In a written response to an EAGnews inquiry, Gilford school leaders admit they didn’t warn parents of the book’s controversial nature like they have in previous years, and promised to send a letter to the home “of all students who are currently assigned the book.”

I have re-written this final paragraph, because I believe the videos above speak for themselves.  This is sad, embarrassing, and unfortunately indicative of the path that many departments have chosen to take regarding personal freedoms.

I suspect that department will be sued in short order.



A ray of hope for US freedom — “Court: Bloggers have First Amendment protections.”

First Amendment FlagFrom the Associated Press:

GRANTS PASS, Ore. (AP) — A federal appeals court ruled Friday that bloggers and the public have the same First Amendment protections as journalists when sued for defamation: If the issue is of public concern, plaintiffs have to prove negligence to win damages.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ordered a new trial in a defamation lawsuit brought by an Oregon bankruptcy trustee against a Montana blogger who wrote online that the court-appointed trustee criminally mishandled a bankruptcy case.

At first blush, good news for our First Amendment overall.  I have had concerns for quite some time, relating to our foundational freedoms — most recently by writing this post regarding Demorats wanting to expand so-called “hate speech” — and their ability to thrive and continue in a “Progressive” and “politically correct” world.

Gregg Leslie of the Reporters Committee for the Freedom of the Press said the ruling affirms what many have long argued: Standards set by a 1974 U.S. Supreme Court ruling, Gertz v. Robert Welch Inc., apply to everyone, not just journalists.

“It’s not a special right to the news media,” he said. “So it’s a good thing for bloggers and citizen journalists and others.”

Is it possible the nation is beginning to realize that “breaking news” is no longer continuously and regularly broken by staid and old media outlets but, occasionally, by those persons and concerns who have an immediate and compelling presence in the blogosphere and the internet in toto?

“It makes clear that bloggers have the same First Amendment rights as professional journalists,” he (UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh) said. “There had been similar precedents before concerning advocacy groups, other writers and book authors. This follows a fairly well established chain of precedents. I believe it is the first federal appeals court level ruling that applies to bloggers.”

This is the same Eugene Volokh of the Volokh Conspiracy site, an older and respected blog in the digital ether with millions of hits extant.

A plus for bloggers; like myself and my cohorts.

One win this week.  Is it enough?



13 House Democrats offer bill demanding government study on Internet hate speech

Muzzling Free SpeechOnce again, the Demorats are going after our freedoms.  It is clear they do not understand the foundational documents of this nation.

The First Amendment was crafted not to protect speech of Jello, but challenging speech.

From TheHill.com:

by Pete Kasperowicz

Thirteen House Democrats have proposed legislation that would require the government to study hate speech on the Internet, mobile phones and television and radio.

The bill, sponsored by Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) and 12 other House Democrats, would look at how those media are used to “advocate and encourage violent acts and the commission of crimes of hate.”

The Hate Crime Reporting Act, H.R. 3878, is meant to update a 20-year-old study from the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA). That study, delivered to Congress in 1993, looked at hate speech on radio, TV and computer bulletin boards.

Let me state the obvious, if I might refer to a phrase used in another venue, applicable here: “One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.”

As in: “one man’s hate speech is another man’s freedom of expression and opinion.”

Any fool can see that.

Texas Fred recently wrote about the corrupting and acidic nature of political correctness.

That and the push to eliminate so-called “hate speech” is a push to eliminate and cast aside the very freedoms that make us the most sought-after nation on the planet.  But those freedoms are dwindling monthly and yearly.

I submit we need to be reminded, again, of what hate speech laws have done to the United Kingdom, as I wrote here on December 27th, one mere month ago:

That said, can you imagine this in the United States:

  • A man given four months in prison for a “racist rant” on a commuter train;
  • 54 days in prison for “racist Tweets”;
  • 21 weeks in prison for a “racist rant” on another train;
  • 18 months in prison for singing a “racist song”;
  • 8 months in prison for sending four “racist texts”;
  • 4 months in prison for posting “Islamophobic remarks” on Facebook;
  • 16 weeks for more “racist” texts;
  • Prison time for being “Islamophobic” on the internet;
  • 8 months for inciting “hatred” of Catholics on Facebook;
  • 15 months in prison for uploading “racist” clips on YouTube;
  • 2 weeks in jail for shouting at some “foreign people” on a commuter train;
  • A man slammed in a cell for having a “potentially racist” ring-tone;
  • A man got jail time for revving his car in a “racist” manner;
  • A male who got three months in prison for “impersonating a monkey” in the direction of a Senegalise soccer player;

If Americans were locked up for any of these alleged “violations,” what would you think or do?

Please allow me to make three immediate observations:

1) “Racism” and “offense” can easily exist in the mind of the beholder and nowhere else in reality;
2) The day that the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights is abrogated in any fashion to the above, predicated upon #1 — that is the day that this country is lighted aflame.  Trust me on this.
3) Certain groups can never commit “hate” crimes or speech or thoughts or acts?  That is hypocritical and offensive and wrong.  Racism CAN come in the color of dark and terrorism CAN come from Islam.  I say again and again: “Islam IS as Islam DOES.”

You think this kind of thing can’t happen here in America?  You’re quite wrong.

The push is here.  The push is now.