Tag Archives: dream police

Is free speech moribund?

Posted on by

Cheap Trick sang of the Dream Police. We now have the Speech Police. Given technology it’s not unclear that we won’t, at some time in the near future, have the Thought Police.

From the Express.Co.UK:

PC GONE MAD: Criticising migration could become CRIMINAL offence under new plan

by Thomas Hunt

A leading MEP has warned EU citizens that they could be “jailed” for criticising migration policies if a new United Nations agreement is acted upon.

The United Nations Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration seeks to make immigration a universal human right. MEP Marcel de Graaff said: “I would like to say some words on the global compact on migration. On the 10th and 11th of December there will be an international congress in Marrakesh Morocco. The participating countries are set to sign this agreement and although this joint agreement is not binding it is still meant to be the legal framework on which the participating countries commit themselves to build new legislation.

What does this mean?

I will let MEP (Member of European Parliament, from the Netherlands) Marcel de Graaff speak for himself.

This is not a joke.

“One basic element of this new agreement is the extension of the definition of hate speech.

“The agreement wants to criminalise migration speech. Criticism of migration will become a criminal offence.

“Media outlets that give room to criticism of migration can be shut down.”

I repeat, at the risk of proffering something from the Department of Redundancy Dept: this is not a joke. Quote: “You will be jailed for hate speech.”

For those of you in the UK, you can rest easy knowing that Prime Minister Theresa May plans to sell you completely down the river, prioritizing immigrants legal or otherwise over you.

International Development Minister Alistair Burt said the UK “is supportive” of the UN’s Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration document which is the subject of a major UK meeting next week.

Mr Burt said: “The UK Government is supportive of the UN’s Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration, both as a step forward in international co-operation to tackle irregular migration and as a framework to help us deliver our commitments under the sustainable development goals.

Perhaps it’s time to insert this timely graphic.

Some European nations are not so keen on the UN compact.

The document, to be signed in Morocco, seeks to make immigration a universal human right and has been met with fury by Italy, a nation that took in the second highest number of asylum seekers behind Germany last year. Italy is boycotting the meeting.

The United States via President Trump has an opinion. From FoxNews.com:

US leading the charge in pushing back against UN’s migration agenda

by Adam Shaw

Under the Trump administration, the U.S. is leading the charge in pushing back against the U.N.’s migration agenda — a move that is picking up support from other countries and giving political cover to those seeking to join them.

The Trump administration announced last December that it would withdraw from the U.N.’s Global Migration Compact — due to be adopted by an intergovernmental conference in Morocco next month. Then-Secretary of State Rex Tillerson argued last year that the compact could undermine America’s right to enforce its immigration laws and secure its borders.

“The United States supports international cooperation on migration issues, but it is the primary responsibility of sovereign states to help ensure that migration is safe, orderly, and legal,” Tillerson said.

The U.S. was the first country to withdraw, but it was soon followed by a stream of other countries pulling out of the non-binding compact, officially called the “Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration.” Hungary, Poland, Austria, Australia and Israel have all since announced they will not sign the accord, citing concerns that it will limit the ability of countries to set and enforce their own immigration policies.

I have five words: God bless President Donald Trump. And thank God that Hillary Clinton or some other politically-correct Leftist Demorat ass-kisser wasn’t anointed.

The UN and the EU don’t care about borders or a nation’s given ability or inability to absorb anyone and everyone they demand be taken. Not assimilated. Taken. There is a massive, massive difference. Perhaps a Teddy Roosevelt quote is appropriate here.

Europe: be afraid. Be very very afraid. Your ruination is in progress, abetted by the guilty, the ignorant, the historically illiterate.

BZ

PS:
Why not a little rock and roll?

 

 

 Share

LEFTISTS determining to LIMIT free speech

Posted on by

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.”

BZ

IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

 Share

Narcing for insults

Posted on by

SNITCHES GET STITCHES“narced” and “narcing” (verb)

To have previously been a ‘narc’ and basically ‘tattled’ on someone

Ex: “That bitch narced on me…not cool.”

At one time, according to Leftists, an extremely uncool thing to do.

Now, it’s a good thing if it involves snitching on people who may have “insulted” someone in college, or an institution of “higher” (particularly in Colorado or Washington) yearning.

Now, from the NationalReview.com:

University Launches Insult-Reporting System That Records Offenders’ Social Security Numbers

by Katherine Timpf

It’s for students’ ‘safety.’

The University of Colorado-Boulder has launched an online system where students can report people who make “hurtful statements” — and it’s so intense that it even asks for offenders’ Social Security numbers. This “Bias Incident Reporting” system is intended to “address the impact of demeaning and hurtful statements as well as acts of intolerance directed towards protected classes,” according to the school’s website.

What did I tell you?  This example hails from Colorado.

Bias reports are evaluated by the school’s “Bias Incident Response Team” which includes representatives from the office of the dean of students, the Office of Victim Assistance, and even the campus police. The reporting form asks for the meanie-head’s name, gender (better get it right!), e-mail, address, date of birth, phone number and student ID number (if the meanie-head is a student) or a Social Security and/or driver’s license number (if the meanie-head is someone else). It includes a link for “pre-authorized users” to obtain this information if they don’t have it, and the school promises to “track” and “document” all of the reports.

Only the BIRT knows.

But wait; what do we know about social security numbers?  Oh yes, that’s right.  Control a SSN and you control or rewrite that person’s life for life.

As in: Identity Theft.

Let us continue, shall we?

The reporting form asks for the meanie-head’s name, gender (better get it right!), e-mail, address, date of birth, phone number and student ID number (if the meanie-head is a student) or a Social Security and/or driver’s license number (if the meanie-head is someone else). It includes a link for “pre-authorized users” to obtain this information if they don’t have it, and the school promises to “track” and “document” all of the reports.

Meaning: we know who you are and where you’ve been and now we know what you say and, moreover, what you think.

The Dream Police are finally here.

And here’s the deal:

UC – Boulder defines a “bias incident” as “any conduct or expression in which an individual or group is intentionally targeted and that demeans, degrades or harasses an individual or group based on the actual or perceived basis of race, color, national origin, sex, pregnancy, age, disability, creed, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, veteran status, political affiliation, or political philosophy of another individual or group of individuals.”

Narc your friend, narc your chick, narc your buddy, narc your partner, narc your carpet-muncher, narc anyone.  Destroy on sight.

Then, of course, go back to your dope.

Good luck investigating this bullshit, UoC.

“Proclaimed in the fog of dope, it was.”

Just remember: thousands upon thousands of your darker brethren have been shot and killed for much less.

But hey, who cares?

BZ

 

 Share

Department of the Internet

Posted on by

Net Neutrality GraphicThe US Department of the Internet is here, in all its chewy, buttery, governmental goodness.  And you can bet the DOI will be jam-gepacked with all the efficiency, thrift, cheer, good will and responsiveness as your local DMV.  Or, uh, any other federal government function.

Like Congress.

Net Neutrality BootFrom APNews.com:

Regulators OK ‘net neutrality’ rules for Internet providers

by Anne Flaherty

WASHINGTON (AP) — Internet service providers like Comcast, Verizon, AT&T, Sprint and T-Mobile now must act in the “public interest” when providing a mobile connection to your home or phone, under rules approved Thursday by a divided Federal Communications Commission.

The plan, which puts the Internet in the same regulatory camp as the telephone and bans business practices that are “unjust or unreasonable,” represents the biggest regulatory shakeup to the industry in almost two decades. The goal is to prevent providers from slowing or blocking web traffic, or creating paid fast lanes on the Internet, said FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler.

The 3-2 vote was expected to trigger industry lawsuits that could take several years to resolve. Still, consumer advocates cheered the regulations as a victory for smaller Internet-based companies which feared they would have to pay “tolls” to move their content.

On its face, hey, “net neutrality,” what’s not to love about “neutrality,” right?

After all, it’s about “fairness.”  Air quotes.  “Fair” – “ness.”

But then there’s this:

Opponents, including many congressional Republicans, said the FCC plan constitutes dangerous government overreach that would eventually drive up consumer costs and discourage industry investment.

Initially, one can rest assured there will in fact be a new department created by the federal government (why not the Department of the Internet?), with its concomitant bloated bureaucracy, profligate spending, unfettered reach and brain-glazing indifference.

And as I wrote earlier, if the internet wasn’t broken, why the stultifying alacrity to allegedly “repair” it?

But here’s the real truth to the situation, and what these rules will have wrought:

Michael Powell, a former Republican FCC chairman who now runs the National Cable and Telecommunications Association, warned that consumers would almost immediately “bear the burden of new taxes and increased costs, and they will likely wait longer for faster and more innovative networks since investment will slow in the face of bureaucratic oversight.”

It’s not true that consumers would see new taxes right away. The Internet Tax Freedom Act bans taxes on Internet access, although that bill expires in October. While Congress is expected to renew that legislation, it’s conceivable that states could eventually push Congress for the ability to tax Internet service now that it has been deemed a vital public utility.

And why wouldn’t states do this, when they are actively seeking new cash sources for in-state Free Cheese programs?

Bottom line?

“Read my lips. More Internet taxes are coming. It’s just a matter of when,” Commissioner Pai said.

O joyous day.  A more regulated and less responsive internet, uninterested and unmotivated in technological innovation, for which we’ll all be paying more money.

Run by the same people who brought you ObamaCare and the healthcare.gov website that was the epitome of productivity, coherence and budgetary frugality.

BZ

 

 Share

332 pages of regulations — why can’t we see them?

Posted on by

Internet - Keep It FreeUsing Europe as a model, we can see that throttling the internet via “net neutrality” results in fewer innovations and fewer choices.  All in the interest of “fairness,” you see.

“Net neutrality distorts competition to benefit one group and disadvantage another—the very definition of crony capitalism.” ~ JeffEisenach

Demorats haven’t seen the rules for the FCC’s “net neutrality” proposal — all 332 pages of them — but they’re applauding the rules anyway.  In just the fashion they did with ObamaKare, passed in the dead of night, unilaterally, and unable to see the bill itself — just like the FCC.

Essentially, the US controls the internet.  We could cede power of course, but why would we?  Oh right.  It’s not “fair” for the US to actually have power, according to Mr Barack Hussein Obama.  Again, it is all about his background, his raising and education.  You need to read this to understand Mr Obama.

332 pages of regulations — why can’t we see them?

From the NationalReview.com:

FCC Chair Refuses to Testify before Congress ahead of Net Neutrality Vote

by Andrew Johnson

Two prominent House committee chairs are “deeply disappointed” in Federal Communications Commission chairman Tom Wheeler for refusing to testify before Congress as “the future of the Internet is at stake.”

Wheeler’s refusal to go before the House Oversight Committee on Wednesday comes on the eve of the FCC’s vote on new Internet regulations pertaining to net neutrality. The committee’s chairman, Representative Jason Chaffetz (R., Utah), and Energy and Commerce Committee chairman Fred Upton (R., Mich.) criticized Wheeler and the administration for lacking transparency on the issue.

“So long as the chairman continues to insist on secrecy, we will continue calling for more transparency and accountability at the commission,” Chaffetz and Upton said in a statement. “Chairman Wheeler and the FCC are not above Congress.”

If that isn’t bad enough, does anyone consider what I term “logical extensions” — ?

Who physically controls the internet?  Who controls the tap, the faucet, the “shut-off” if you will?  And how can this power be transferred?

Check your six, I always say.

From the NationalJournal.com:

Republicans Fear Net Neutrality Plan Could Lead to UN Internet Powers

by Brendan Sasso

The U.S. government’s plan to enact strong net neutrality regulations could embolden authoritarian regimes like China and Russia to seize more power over the Internet through the United Nations, a key Senate Republican warned Wednesday.

Senate Commerce Committee Chairman John Thune of South Dakota argued that by claiming more authority over Internet access for net neutrality, the Federal Communications Commission will undermine the ability of the U.S. to push back against international plots to control the Internet and censor content.

Countries like Russia already have made it clear that they want the International Telecommunications Union or another United Nations body to have more power over the Internet, Thune said.

“It seems like reclassifying broadband, as the administration is doing, is losing a valuable argument,” Thune said at his panel’s hearing on Internet governance. “How do you prevent ITU involvement when you’re pushing to reclassify the Internet under Title II of the Communications Act, and is everyone aware of that inherent contradiction?”

Excellent questions but won’t be answered.

I have but one logical question:

If these regulations are so wonderful, so beneficent, then why the complete opacity?  Why the stonewalling?  Why the refusal to embrace transparency upon which, after all, Mr Barack Hussein Obama said his entire administration is based?

Easy answer: the FCC and Mr Obama want no pushback and NO, the regulations will NOT be beneficial for Americans.

Finally: the internet is NOT broken.  Why are you insistent upon “fixing” it?

Simple as that.

BZ

Net Neutrality Graphic

 Share