Let the silencing of free speech commence

freedom-of-speechBecause, after all, you didn’t think it would stop at the internet, did you?

Silly person.

From the WashingtonExaminer.com:

FEC Dems lay groundwork to ban Fox, WSJ political coverage

by Paul Bedard

In their biggest threat yet to conservative media, Democrats on the Federal Election Commission are laying the groundwork to bar companies with even the tiniest foreign ownership from American politics, a move that could ban Fox, the Wall Street Journal and even the New York Times from covering political races or giving endorsements.

In a last-minute submission Wednesday, a top Democrat on the evenly split FEC proposed that the Thursday meeting of the commission begin the process to prohibit companies with foreign ownership as small as 5 percent “from funding expenditures, independent expenditures, or electioneering communications.”

Democratic Commissioner Ellen Weintraub

Stop right there. Note: “Democratic Commissioner Ellen Weintraub.”

said in her submission, “Given everything we have learned this year, it blinks reality to suggest that that there is no risk of foreign nationals taking advantage of current loopholes to intercede invisibly in American elections. This is a risk no member of the Federal Election Commission should be willing to tolerate.”

Under Weintraub’s proposal, entities that reach her foreign ownership target would conceivably be banned from advocating for a candidate’s election or defeat.

Right. It’s okay if we sell most anything to foreign nationals but the precious press — it must be protected so that it may continue to be the pure, unvarnished and unbiased agent for the Left that it was and is. The Leftist bent of the American Media Maggots cannot be diverted for any reason. So, we’ll simply make up as much specious shite as possible since we already recognize the internet has been compromised.

Several media giants have at least 5 percent foreign ownership, some with as much as 25 percent. Included is News Corp, which owns Fox, the New York Post and the Wall Street Journal. The New York Times also has foreign ownership, as do many politically active firms like Ben & Jerry’s.

Oh no. American ice cream has been tainted by foreign ownership.

That prohibition could include Fox commentator Sean Hannity or Wall Street Journal editorials. And, according to one analysis, because foreign nationals also are prohibited from making electioneering communications, those media would not even be able to mention Donald Trump or Hillary Rodham Clinton, even if just covering them.

Democrats on the commission have been on a three-year campaign to limit the voice of conservative media, stopped by Republican commissioners who have warned that the First Amendment is under attack in the FEC.

Let us not forget that roughly two months ago the DNC was hacked and America learned the DNC was helping CBS to create the poll questions in a bias of clear and obvious proportions.

No. I’m not making this up.

Leftists, Demorats and Progressives really do wish to silence you — unless your speech, writings, opinions and thoughts are completely congruent with theirs. They will brook no opposition, no pushback, not even discussion.

The First Amendment is being attacked, openly, nakedly, right in front of our eyes, hiding in plain sight, because — guess who? — isn’t covering much of it at all.

This is orchestrated, this is purposeful, this is organized, this is an assault on your freedoms and my freedoms. Just wait a few minutes; the FCC will be piling on any moment now in the same manner.

America, are you listening? Are you seeing? Are you comprehending?

I fear you are asleep.



LEFTISTS determining to LIMIT free speech

Freedom of Speech StoppedAnd not a shock considering the history of Leftists insisting upon control — death-grip control — of speech across the globe.

Europe first.

From Bloomberg.com::

Tech Giants Vow to Tackle Online Hate Speech Within 24 Hours

by Stephanie Bodoni

U.S. Internet giants Facebook Inc., Twitter Inc., Google and Microsoft Corp. pledged to tackle online hate speech in less than 24 hours as part of a joint commitment with the European Union to combat the use of social media by terrorists.

Beyond national laws that criminalize hate speech, there is a need to ensure such activity by Internet users is “expeditiously reviewed by online intermediaries and social media platforms, upon receipt of a valid notification, in an appropriate time-frame,” the companies and the European Commission said in a joint statement on Tuesday.

But what is “hate speech”?  And who makes that determination?

As an American, I understand that Europe has no real First Amendment as do we.  There is no history, in Europe, of valuing true free speech.  As is commonly said in America, however, the First Amendment exists not for everyday or pablum-oriented speech, but challenging speech.

The code of conduct arrives as Europe comes to terms with the bloody attacks in Paris and Brussels by Islamic State, which has used the Web and social media to spread its message of hate against its enemies. The companies said it remains a “challenge” to strike the right balance between freedom of expression and hate speech in the self-generated content on online platforms.

“We remain committed to letting the Tweets flow,” said Twitter’s head of public policy for Europe, Karen White, in the statement. “However, there is a clear distinction between freedom of expression and conduct that incites violence and hate.”

But it looks like, when you get down to it, the objection by these large techies isn’t necessarily terrorism as in the standard definition of the word — specifically as with regard to the Brussels attacks.  Perhaps that was the original intent a month or so ago.

Read this, from the AP.org on the same topic:

“The internet is a place for free speech, not hate speech,” said Vera Jourova, the EU commissioner responsible for justice, consumers and gender equality. She added that the code of conduct, which will be regularly reviewed in terms of its scope and its impact, will ensure that public incitement to violence to hatred has “no place online.”

The firms themselves say there’s no conflict between their mission statements to promote the freedom of expression and clamping down on hate speech.

But again, WHO determines the definition of “hate speech”?  We already know that Facebook has been caught short-shrifting and minimizing stories involving conservative issues of import.  We already know that the IRS targeted conservative groups.  We already know that every newsroom in the US is 85% + Leftist.  We already know that Google, Facebook and Twitter are run by Leftists, and that Google, Facebook and Twitter have suspended the accounts of conservative persons for no stated specific reason whatsoever whilst simultaneously allowing the same behavior to occur on behalf of Leftists for Leftist causes.  Facts in evidence.

Obama Billionaire Corporate DemoratsWe already know that Obama and DC don’t hate all capitalists.  They love Leftist tech capitalists.  Just look above.

Now?  It would seem to me that the definition of “hate speech” is expanding.

What is “hate speech”?  Is it, “Allahu akhbar, slay all the infidels and behead the nonbelievers, run their parts through a wood chipper and set that liquid on fire”?

Is it “kill all the Jews, may their corrupt Zionist bodies be blown to bits and their children slaughtered in their beds with the sharpest of machetes”?

Or is it when BZ writes that “black lives don’t matter”?

Is it when BZ takes umbrage with the word marriage meaning one man and one man, one woman and one woman — even though BZ couldn’t care less that two gays or lesbians enjoy a “civil union” and should be afforded precisely the same benefits as one man and one woman?  That he just despises the meanings of words being hijacked?

Is it when BZ writes the word “trannies”?

Is it when BZ says that Leftists are every bit as hypocritical as everyone else and frequently more so, or that most Leftists have no concept of reality, or that Obama is one of the most dangerous persons to the United States ever installed in the White House?  Or that the electorate is increasingly brain dead for Free Cheese?

Is it when BZ writes emphatically that illegal Mexicans should not be allowed into the United States?

Is it when BZ writes that “Islam is as Islam does”?

I’m certain by now you see where I’m going with this.

LEFTIST WORD POLICEThe Dream Police are here.  So sayeth Cheap Trick.  The Word Police are setting up shop and already have a logo.  The Thought Police are deciding what color uniform to purchase.

Yes, ladies and gentlemen, the Thought Police.  You realize, of course, that technology is already being developed in order to truly read your thoughts?  For shame, if you think I’m writing out my ass.  Click the links here and here.

So I ask again:

Just what is “hate speech”?

Who gets to decide?

“It’s a beautiful thing, the destruction of words.” 

Eric Arthur Blair is shaking his head and saying “I told you so.”



Leftists suppress TRUTH and SPEECH

Freedom of Speech StoppedEverybody loves Facebook.  Wired.com’s Julia Greenberg says that “Facebook is killing it” whilst Twitter, Apple and Google are having tougher times.

Where Facebook apparently makes up the difference is in mobile ads.  Mobile advertising makes up 82% of Facebook’s total revenue.

Good to know, because Mark Zuckerberg is using this cash in order to suppress the truth and free speech.  Yes, your free speech, Millennials and Leftists.

And you’re just fine with that, you gibbering sycophant morons.  Good to know that if you click on a Facebook ad, or you even have Facebook, you’re contributing to the suppression of conservative speech, thought, even news.

From Gizmodo.com:

Former Facebook Workers: We Routinely Suppressed Conservative News

by Michael Nunez

Facebook workers routinely suppressed news stories of interest to conservative readers from the social network’s influential “trending” news section, according to a former journalist who worked on the project. This individual says that workers prevented stories about the right-wing CPAC gathering, Mitt Romney, Rand Paul, and other conservative topics from appearing in the highly-influential section, even though they were organically trending among the site’s users.

Of course, those of us on the right realize that Leftists consistently not only twist language, re-write language for purposes of control, but continuously quell the First Amendment for their purposes.  The ends of repression justify the means in their minds.  Just as Walter Williams asked:

“Are we headed towards more liberty, or are we headed towards more government control over our lives?”

We know the answer.

Fear.  Anyone remotely “conservative” who managed to squeak through at Facebook lived in fear of their jobs.

“Depending on who was on shift, things would be blacklisted or trending,” said the former curator. This individual asked to remain anonymous, citing fear of retribution from the company. The former curator is politically conservative, one of a very small handful of curators with such views on the trending team. “I’d come on shift and I’d discover that CPAC or Mitt Romney or Glenn Beck or popular conservative topics wouldn’t be trending because either the curator didn’t recognize the news topic or it was like they had a bias against Ted Cruz.”

It was a “chilling effect” on conservative news.

The former curator was so troubled by the omissions that they kept a running log of them at the time; this individual provided the notes to Gizmodo. Among the deep-sixed or suppressed topics on the list: former IRS official Lois Lerner, who was accused by Republicans of inappropriately scrutinizing conservative groups; Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker; popular conservative news aggregator the Drudge Report; Chris Kyle, the former Navy SEAL who was murdered in 2013; and former Fox News contributor Steven Crowder. “I believe it had a chilling effect on conservative news,” the former curator said.

Blocking the Drudge Report — which is nothing more than an aggregator of news and doesn’t really even write stories.  Simultaneously PROMOTING Black Lives Matter.

Think about this a bit as you jump on Facebook — and stay the hell off its ads.  You’re only contributing to your own demise if you have any conservative values whatsoever.



Leftist Google: coming for your First Amendment

Google Being EvilLorette Lynch, Obama, Demorats and Leftists want to come for your free speech and your First Amendment.

In the guise of curbing “hate speech.”

Who gets to determine what “hate speech” is?

Leftists, of course.

From QZ.com:

Google’s chairman wants algorithms to censor the internet for hate speech

by Hanna Kozlowska

In an op-ed for The New York Times (paywall), Eric Schmidt, the executive chairman of Google, inserted himself directly into the middle of a heated debate about the line between fighting terrorism’s online reach and internet censorship.

“It’s our responsibility to demonstrate that stability and free expression go hand in hand,” he writes. “We should build tools to help de-escalate tensions on social media—sort of like spell-checkers, but for hate and harassment.”

His words came just after Hillary Clinton, the frontrunner for the Democratic presidential nomination, called on Silicon Valley to “disrupt ISIL” last weekend in Washington DC. Clinton said it is crucial to “deprive jihadists of virtual territory” by shutting off their means of communication.

Isn’t that funny?  Hillary Clinton calls for “disrupting ISIL” and Leftists — GOOGLE — interpret that to mean curbing free speech for everyone on the internet.


Just whose speech do you suppose Google will attempt to curb, if you had to guess?

Michael Moore’s speech, or my speech?  Your speech?  How about the speech of Muslims?

Who gets to determine what is and is not “hate speech”?  Will Conservatives have any input?  I think not.  Leftists will determine those parameters.  Conservatives will be the target.

I think you have your answer.

With the proper Al-Gore-rhythm, I’m sure Google could do just that.


Freedom of Speech, Journalism ProfessorHERE is what Leftists think of your pissy little “freedom of speech.”

Freedom of Speech Removed By Leftists

Here’s your Leftist “freedom of speech”

Freedom of Speech, Journalism Professor

This Leftist loon “throwing out” a college journalist isn’t a fellow student.  This is college professor Melissa Click who teaches journalism.  Yep.  Figure that one out.

Ladies and gentlemen, here is your “freedom of speech” on US college campuses these days.  Translated: there is no freedom of speech on US college campuses these days.

That face, ladies and gentlemen, is the face of evil, the face of oppression, the raging and insane face of today’s Leftist on your taxpayer-funded college campuses.

It is the face of Melissa Click, assistant professor of mass media at University of Missouri.

She says:

“Who wants to help me get this reporter out of here? I need some muscle over here.”

From the NYTimes.com:

‘I Need Some Muscle’: Missouri Activists Block Journalists

COLUMBIA, Mo. — A video that showed University of Missouri protesters restricting a student photographer’s access to a public area of campus on Monday has ignited discussions about press freedom.

Tim Tai, a student photographer on freelance assignment for ESPN, was trying to take photos of a small tent city that protesters had created on a campus quad. Concerned Student 1950, an activist group that formed to push for increased awareness and action around racial issues on campus, did not want reporters near the encampment.

“You need to get out,” Click says.  “No I don’t,” says the male journalist, Mark Schierbecker, lawfully.

He is a student attending that college, on the college campus, on college property.  Just why is it, Leftists, that he needs to leave property that he can lawfully occupy by dint of his position as a student of same?

So here is your “freedom of speech,” Americans, on today’s college campuses.  Campuses that your tax dollars fund.  You pay for Leftists to impede actual freedom of speech.  You do.

He (David Kurpius, Dean of Journalism) also noted that Ms. Click is a faculty member of the communications department, which is separate from the journalism school. He said she holds a “courtesy appointment” with the journalism school that faculty members would take “immediate action” to review.

Even CNN wrote:

Media prof. asks for ‘muscle’ to block student journalist

A Missouri mass media professor is under scrutiny after calling for “muscle” to block out journalists on a public space.

Check their video.

The NY Post says the University of Missouri hosts the world’s worst journalism professor.

The dean of the Missouri School of Journalism on Tuesday lambasted an assistant communications professor and lauded a photojournalism student for their roles in Monday’s viral video showing a confrontation between that student journalist and protesters attempting to block him from shooting photos on a public quad.

The filmed confrontation appeared to show the University of Missouri protesters, including Assistant Professor Melissa Click, engaging in a clear violation of the First Amendment, since the incident occurred in a public space on the campus of a public university.

The truth will out, every once in a while however.

Video can be good or bad.  In this case, video is good.

Oh, one final point.

From the UKDailyMail.com:

Media professor who bullied journalists away from University of Missouri protests resigns from her ‘courtesy’ position at the prestigious journalism school

by Ashley Collman and Kiri Blakeley

  • Melissa Click, an assistant media professor at the University of Missouri, was caught trying to force journalists out of a public protest on Monday

  • On Tuesday, Click apologized for her actions and resigned from her ‘courtesy appointment’ with the School of Journalism

  • While she was previously affiliated with the journalism school, Click was on the faculty of the separate College of Arts and Sciences   

  • The video in question shows Click walking up to a cameraman and yelling that he get off the quad where a group of protesters had camped out

  • She tries to knock down his camera and then says: ‘Who wants to help me get this reporter out of here? I need some muscle over here’ 

  • Click has issued an apology for her behavior saying: ‘I regret the language and strategies I used’ 

Obviously, I am chagrined and disappointed.  I expected better from Leftists.

Uh, no.  I larfed my arse off when Click the Chick got kicked to the curb.