More First Amendment regulatory threats

Leftists and the Deep State can’t wait to continue pushing for the diminishment and possible erasure of your First Amendment rights.

The FEC has been after the Drudge Report for years. So has the FCC. This, on its face, is a ridiculous goal. Matt Drudge hasn’t actually written anything for years; his site is nothing more than a laughingly-simplistic point on the internet that does nothing more than aggregate stories from around the globe.

That’s right. All the Drudge Report does is re-package stories written entirely from external sources. His source material is frequently the New York Times, the Boston Globe, the Los Angeles Times, the Washington Post, Reuters, the AP, Slate, the Huffington Post, NPR, The Guardian — all bastions of Left-leaning journalism.

No matter; never allow facts, history, logic, rationality, proportion or common sense get in the way of a good fucked-up Leftist inclination, decision or bill. Not surprisingly, it’s a push from the FEC once again.

From the WashingtonExaminer.com:

Drudge, Facebook, NYT readers could face libel suits for sharing ‘fake news’

by Paul Bedard

Political content on the internet, paid or not, should face substantial federal regulation to eliminate undefined “disinformation,” and users of platforms and news feeds, from Facebook, to Twitter, to the Drudge Report and even New York Times, could be punished for sharing “fake news” from those sites, the former Democratic chair of the FEC is urging.

In a broad proposal that adds threatening libel suits to regulatory plans already pushed by Democrats on the Federal Election Commission, ex-chair Ann Ravel believes that there is support for expanded regulation in the wake of reports foreign governments spent $100,000 on 2016 political ads on Facebook.

At whom, potentially, is this proposal aimed? Correct: you and me. People interested in politics and have sites on the internet as well as a social media presence. People who conduct internet radio shows. Like me. That’s next. Make no mistake.

She would include “fake news,” not just paid ads, to be regulated, though it’s never defined other than the Democrat’s description of “disinformation.” And anybody who shares or retweets it could face a libel suit.

Friends, this is a page ripped from the former Soviet Union. Your gulag awaits you!

She would also use regulation to “improve voter competence,” according to the new proposal titled Fool Me Once: The Case for Government Regulation of ‘Fake News.’ Ravel, who now lectures at Berkeley Law, still has allies on the FEC who support internet regulation.

Berkeley, of course — the locus of free speech in America.

The proposal immediately came under fire from from the Republican FEC commissioner who for years has been warning of the left’s effort to regulate political talk they don’t like, especially on conservative newsfeeds like Drudge.

Lee Goodman told Secrets, “Ann’s proposal is full blown regulation of all political content, even discussion of issues, posted at any time, for free or for a fee, on any online platform, from Facebook to the NewYorkTimes.com.”

He was especially critical of the undefined nature of “disinformation” to be regulated and the first-ever call for libel suits to snuff out talk Ravel doesn’t like.

And just whom determines “disinformation”? Kompromat or disinformatzia, tovarisch? A panel of Conservatives or a panel of Leftists? Correct. Leftists. Conservatives won’t be allowed within ten miles of a determination.

In their proposal, the trio wrote, “after a social media user clicks ‘share’ on a disputed item (if the platforms do not remove them and only label them as disputed), government can require that the user be reminded of the definition of libel against a public figure. Libel of public figures requires ‘actual malice,’ defined as knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth. Sharing an item that has been flagged as untrue might trigger liability under libel laws.”

We already have Speech Crimes in LeftistLand. There may be ClickCrimes. MindCrimes are, of course, next.

Here is the full Ravel article for reference.

Then there is this from YahooNews.com, with John McCain in apparent agreement.

U.S. bill to regulate internet ads gains bipartisan support with McCain

by David Ingram

(Reuters) – U.S. legislation that would impose new disclosure requirements on political ads that run on Facebook and other websites received support on Wednesday from Senator John McCain, giving a bipartisan boost to a bill already popular among Democrats.

McCain, a longtime supporter of regulating campaign finances, and two Democratic senators, Amy Klobuchar and Mark Warner, plan to introduce the legislation on Thursday, according to a statement from their offices on Wednesday.

Good old John McCain. You can generally count on him to put his thumb in the eyes of freedom of speech any more. Or anything that he perceives President Trump might possibly support.

Online political ads are much more loosely regulated in the United States than political ads on television, radio and satellite services.

The lack of regulation was highlighted last month when Facebook Inc, Alphabet Inc’s Google and Twitter Inc said that they had found election-related ad buys on their services made by people in Russia in the run-up to last year’s U.S. presidential election. Non-Americans are generally not allowed to spend money to influence U.S. elections.

How about, instead of law after law, we just ask the social media to be more wary? Anyone think of that?

Speaking of Loving John, here is a bit of witty repartee between McCain and Fox’s Peter Doocey.

The question by Doocy was “has your relationship with the president frayed to the point where you’re not going to support anything that he comes to you and asks support for?”

McCain replies: “why would you ask anything that stupid? Why would you ask something that dumb? Huh? My job as a United States senator, as a senator from Arizona which I was just re-elected to, you mean that I’m somehow going to behave in a way that I’m going to block everything because of some personal disagreement? That’s a dumb question.”

Let’s see, John. Would that possibly be because you are in fact so vehemently opposed to most anything that President Trump has proposed, that you’ve worked hand-in-hand with the Demorats to slaughter the repeal of the ACA much less any replacement — you know, the very thing you ran on for eight years — as well as the slaughter of tax cuts? With regularity and consistency? John? Perhaps those things?

And John, while we’re at it, have you forgotten what you said in Philadelphia this Monday, October 16th?

PHILADELPHIA — An emotional Sen. John McCain on Monday leveled a blistering attack on what he called the “half-baked, spurious nationalism” that seems to have inspired President Trump’s administration to retreat from the world stage.

In a speech to accept the National Constitution Center’s Liberty Medal, McCain, R-Ariz., emphasized that the United States is “a land made of ideals, not blood and soil,” a rebuke to the Nazi slogan about bloodlines and territory chanted in August by White supremacists demonstrating in Charlottesville, Va.

An at-times raspy-sounding McCain drew applause and cheers at the Philadelphia event when he said:

“To fear the world we have organized and led for three-quarters of a century, to abandon the ideals we have advanced around the globe, to refuse the obligations of international leadership and our duty to remain ‘the last, best hope of earth’ for the sake of some half-baked, spurious nationalism cooked up by people who would rather find scapegoats than solve problems is as unpatriotic as an attachment to any other tired dogma of the past that Americans consigned to the ash heap of history.”

A reminder:

I value two things primarily: honesty and clarity. So let’s be clear: the only reason the FEC or the FCC wish to limit and regulate speech under the guise of “fairness” or “equanimity” is to limit the speech of only one side: the conservative side. To limit the dissemination of information which thusly informs voters and allows Conservatives to acquire facts, data and particulars on political issues.

Because, after all, everything is political now.

Finally: where are the Republicans on this? Why no public GOP umbrage over the issue? Statements? Decisions to oppose? Republicans taking a stand against this?

Another reason Conservative trust in the GOP has almost vanished. Another reason that Republican fundraising is down this quarter. Consequences for inaction? Gridlock? Failure to keep election promises? Failure to coalesce and utilize power the GOP possesses presently?

Not difficult to figure out.

BZ

P.S.

Great article on the Fairness Doctrine from 1993 is here.

 

FEC wants to remove your freedoms — again

First, from the WashingtonExaminer.com:

FEC Dems renew bid to regulate Internet, Drudge, ‘not done fighting’

by Paul Bedard

They’ve repeatedly tried and failed to impose regulations on Internet political communications, possibly even media sites like the Drudge Report, but congressional testimony that unnamed Russians spent $100,000 for politically themed ads on Facebook is sparking a new bid by Democrats on the Federal Election Commission.

You say the US government has tried on prior occasions to censor the Drudge Report? Yes. By the FCC as I wrote here on May 5th of 2015, and here on August 24h of 2015.

The FEC, specifically, tried back in 2014 as Paul Bedard, the author of this newest article above, documented here:

FEC chair warns that conservative media like Drudge Report and Sean Hannity face regulation — like PACs

by Paul Bedard

Government officials, reacting to the growing voice of conservative news outlets, especially on the internet, are angling to curtail the media’s exemption from federal election laws governing political organizations, a potentially chilling intervention that the chairman of the Federal Election Commission is vowing to fight.

The real truth is this — no more complicated.

“The right has begun to break the left’s media monopoly, particularly through new media outlets like the internet, and I sense that some on the left are starting to rethink the breadth of the media exemption and internet communications,” he added.

When you cannot win the war of ideas, that is to say “the message,” then your only alternative is to shut down “the messenger” which, in these cases, translates to the internet itself and some sites specifically, like Drudge. Mine is next. So is yours.

(FEC Chairman Lee Goodman) added, “Truth be told, I want conservative media to have the same exemption as all other media.”

That translates to, as I have said for quite some time: “No one is equal until everyone is equal.”

The history explained here, as well.

You can already see the Leftist social media giants shutting down free speech. But whose free speech? Those on the right. Leftist speech remains predominantly uninterrupted, undisturbed and inviolate unless it is so shockingly egregious that even the American Media Maggots begin to notice a bit. Even then, not consistently. Death threats against President Trump on Twitter, for example, tend to remain unless they are somehow brought to light. Massive light.

Then don’t forget about this aspect.

Liberals over the years have also pushed for a change in the Federal Communications Commission‘s “fairness doctrine” to cut off conservative voices, and retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens has delighted Democrats recently with a proposed Constitutional amendment that some say could force the media to stop endorsing candidates or promoting issues.

At one point the “fairness doctrine” — which is the precise opposite, of course — ruled in media. Its attempt, originally, was to actually ensure some semblance of “fairness” in broadcasting when media choices were extremely limited, the precise opposite of today.

See my previous posts about the so-called “Fairness Doctrine”:

I value two things primarily: honesty and clarity. So let’s be clear: the only reason the FEC or the FCC wish to limit and regulate speech under the guise of “fairness” or “equanimity” is to limit the speech of only one side: the conservative side. To limit the dissemination of information which thusly informs voters and allows Conservatives to acquire facts, data and particulars on political issues.

Because, after all, everything is political now.

Finally: where are the Republicans on this? Why no public GOP umbrage over the issue? Statements? Decisions to oppose? Republicans taking a stand against this?

Another reason Conservative trust in the GOP has almost vanished.

Not difficult to figure out.

BZ

P.S.

Great article on the Fairness Doctrine from 1993 is here.

 

TONIGHT in the SALOON

I’m back, ladies and gentlemen, and I am filled and buoyed by bucolic feelings of Lifting Liberty.

Yes, correct, after a full week in Las Vegas at the Paris Resort for the 2017 Freedom Fest’s gala 10th anniversary, BZ is back broadcasting behind enemy lines in Occupied Fornicalia, a mere three miles from the veritable Belly of the Beast, the proverbial Bill Mill itself, Leftist Central, Sacramento.

Featuring right thinking from a left brain and doing the job the American Media Maggots won’t, BZ is ensuring that safety pin manufacturers are running out of metal for the diapers of the Leftists nationally and globally.

Come listen to the radio show. Not just tonight, but every Tuesday and Thursday night on the SHR Media Network from 11 PM to 1 AM Eastern and 8 PM to 10 PM Pacific. Of course, you can always choose to listen to the podcasts later at your convenience. Want to? Go here. All it takes is a phone or a tablet and the buttery goodness of BZ’s Berserk Bobcat Saloon is yours whenever you choose.

BZ

P.S.

Sack Heads Shaun and ol’ BZ following their interview of Salem Radio’s Sage from South Central, Larry Elder. You can hear all of the SHR Media Network interviews from Freedom Fest right here on Spreaker.

 

Policing America: should the green shirts be exchanged for Brown Shirts?

Fascism-When-We-Do-ItI submit that is a question you need to ask.

First, watch this video, an excerpt from the John Stossel show “Policing America: Security vs Liberty” recently broadcasted on Fox News, July 26th, involving USBP checkpoints up to 100 miles inland from an American border:

I find this shameful and repulsive, personally and professionally.  As anyone in law enforcement (as I am) knows, there is the spirit or the law and the letter of the law.

A pastor had both of his vehicle windows broken and was Tazed from both sides when he refused to let USBP search his vehicle.  He is Caucasoid and spoke clear English.

The issue?  The federal law indicating “a reasonable distance from the border.”  Is 60 miles reasonable?  100 miles?  Yes, 100 miles.  As Stossel points out, that’s where most Americans live, when you consider our borders north and south, and our coastlines east and west.

Some persons are installing cameras in their cars to document these abrogations, God bless them.  This is pushback and they are patriotic for doing so.  Again, see the video above.

The SCOTUS said that travelers can be briefly detained for the purpose of conducting a limited inquiry into residence status, as per United States vs Martinez-Fuerte, 428 US 543 (1976).  Neither the vehicle nor its occupants can be searched, yet the video clearly shows that Americans are being told to submit to detentions, searches, and arrests resulting from non-cooperation when more than an ID check is demanded.

How does one conduct a brief check into residency status?  Speak to the individual stopped, see if they speak English, check for a driver’s license and/or other forms of identification.  Any prudent and reasonable LEO can tell you this readily.

What we see displayed above is what is known in law enforcement as “contempt of cop.”  As in: you have pissed me off because you have dared to challenge my authority, and I am now making it personal.

John Stossel says “big government creates problems,” and that is certainly the case here, involving the Fourth Amendment.  “It’s like living in occupied territory,” some lawful residents of the United States of America are saying.

More Americans, as Stossel says, are pushing back.  As I submit they should, particularly if they possess video evidence of their incidents.  Further, as an affected citizen in an incident similar to those above, I would be suing the federal agencies involved and then the individuals themselves because, as the agents themselves made it personal, perhaps they should take a helping of “personal” in return.

Let there be no mistake: I have been in law enforcement for 41 years.  I have worked in a LE capacity for the federal government and for local agencies, where I have worked now for 35 years.  I was a Field Training Officer (FTO) in Patrol and have been in training the bulk of my LE career.  I taught my trainees to respect the foundational documents and in fact they had not only to conform to my agency training regimen, but my personal training regimen as well, which included knowledge about the Bill of Rights and its applicable amendments.

I emphasized that arrests and detentions should be built but upon solid probable cause and reasonable suspicion, and that we do not bluff.  If the law is not on our side, then we don’t make a potential bad situation worse.  We know, I would literally say (and wrote in my own adjunct training manual that I would hand out to my charges), when to back down.

Let me submit this for your consideration: if the USBP were literally “striking it rich” from vehicle blockades many miles within the United States proper, they and the Obama Administration would be crowing about it from the tallest of spires, the mightiest hilltops, far and wide, proving the efficacy of these policies.  Not only that, the American Media Maggots, sycophants that they are, would plaster these statistics over TV screens and newspapers for days and days.

Except they aren’t.  Which tells me one very salient thing: the stats are not bearing out the efficacy of this policy.  Trust me, if these interior check points were literal gold mines of success and productivity you would know.

And as far as Representative Peter King (R) is concerned, he is wrong.  Open your eyes.  All you have to do, sir, is watch this video.

Big Brother is indeed watching.  But in this case, watching the wrong Americans — whilst purposely allowing illegal invaders easy passage through our southern border.

Big-Brother-BWThis makes absolutely no sense whatsoever to me.

This is not the America I remember from even, say, 30 years ago.

I still adhere to the age-old axiom and standard I was held to when I worked Detectives, in Theft, Child Abuse, Warrants, Robbery and Homicide: see below.

Come Back With a WarrantThat is how it is done in a free United States of America where the police respect the foundational documents, the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Should the USBP exchange their green shirts for Brown Shirts?

BZ