Posted: Thu Apr 23, 09 5:24 pm Post subject: The War on Free Speech
_________________ True scientists don't manipulate complex data to get a simple answer they wanted to achieve from the start. That's not science.
TimeVirus Galactic Overlord
Posts: 26138
Posted: Thu Apr 23, 09 5:51 pm Post subject:
BBC reporter for Newsnight, Paxman grills the UK Ambassador on the walk-out. This video wasn't available for anyone outside the UK, and after a few hours, even they couldn't watch it anymore! It is an incredibly important excerpt of a document on the nature of what the journalist clearly recognises as a "stunt" and the Ambassador insists upon calling a "protest", fallling all over his own rhetoric in the process.
_________________ True scientists don't manipulate complex data to get a simple answer they wanted to achieve from the start. That's not science.
TimeVirus Galactic Overlord
Posts: 26138
Posted: Thu Apr 30, 09 8:57 am Post subject:
Think What We Think...Or Else: Thought Control on the American Campus
_________________ True scientists don't manipulate complex data to get a simple answer they wanted to achieve from the start. That's not science.
While America slept on Wednesday April 25 we woke up to find headlines about how Michelle Obama likes to sneak out and eat at fun restaurants. Not so well covered by the media was the passage of the Hate Crimes bill re-introduced and passed in committee by John Conyers. (D-MI) What does it mean?
The bill co-sponsored along with 42 other representatives and crafted by openly gay Congressmen Barney Frank is riddled with gay agenda politics and disregards the will of the people. It was introduced between sessions when little attention is being paid to discussions or votes in the house and is riddled with skullduggeries. Have legislators now come to the place where their own personal lifestyles can get some lawful credence if they think it deserves it? Let's see.
Books have been written and a few movies made when ordinary citizens undertook to get a law enacted or changed in America. Years of legal battles, hearings, evidence and impassioned testimonies resulted in landmark legislation that changed the very civil landscape of the nation. In the end a 'wrong was righted' and America was made the better for it.
Today we may have come to the place where America is being asked to 'wrong a right' with Congressmen Barney Frank's H.R. 1913. Similar bills such as H.R. 1592 were struck down by Presidential veto in 2007.
With much of the nation distracted by the financial crisis and the new almost patronizing concern for gays fostered by the Obama administration added to the latest trend of representatives voting for anything but the will of the people the stage may be set for the passage of this potentially dangerous bill.
The dangers of the bill are inherent in its very premise and it could serve to become the first bill in our history that guarantees freedoms to one group of citizens at the expense of freedoms to another.
For the best point by point breakdown of the problems with H.R 1913 I would refer anyone with nominal intelligence to the Tony Perkins' article 'Why Congress Should Reject Federal Hate Crimes Bill' posted on the Christian Post April 21, 2009. Perkins shows how the bill comes into conflict with the 14th amendment which guarantees all Americans 'equal justice under the law."
more...
_________________ True scientists don't manipulate complex data to get a simple answer they wanted to achieve from the start. That's not science.
TimeVirus Galactic Overlord
Posts: 26138
Posted: Fri May 01, 09 8:17 am Post subject:
Federal Felony To Use Blogs, the Web, Etc. To Cause Substantial Emotional Distress Through "Severe, Repeated, and Hostile" Speech? http://volokh.com/posts/1241122059.shtml
That's what a House of Representatives bill, proposed by Rep. Linda T. Sanchez and 14 others, would do. Here's the relevant text:
Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication, with the intent to coerce, intimidate, harass, or cause substantial emotional distress to a person, using electronic means to support severe, repeated, and hostile behavior, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both....
["Communication"] means the electronic transmission, between or among points specified by the user, of information of the user's choosing, without change in the form or content of the information as sent and received; ...
["Electronic means"] means any equipment dependent on electrical power to access an information service, including email, instant messaging, blogs, websites, telephones, and text messages.
1. I try to coerce a politician into voting a particular way, by repeatedly blogging (using a hostile tone) about what a hypocrite / campaign promise breaker / fool / etc. he would be if he voted the other way. I am transmitting in interstate commerce a communication with the intent to coerce using electronic means (a blog) "to support severe, repeated, and hostile behavior" -- unless, of course, my statements aren't seen as "severe," a term that is entirely undefined and unclear. Result: I am a felon, unless somehow my "behavior" isn't "severe."
2. A newspaper reporter or editorialist tries to do the same, in columns that are posted on the newspaper's Web site. Result: Felony, unless somehow my "behavior" isn't severe.
3. The politician votes the wrong way. I think that's an evil, tyrannical vote, so I repeatedly and harshly condemn the politician on my blog, hoping that he'll get very upset (and rightly so, since I think he deserves to feel ashamed of himself, and loathed by others). I am transmitting a communication with the the intent to cause substantial emotional distress, using electronic means (a blog) "to support severe, repeated, and hostile behavior." (I might also be said to be intending to "harass" -- who knows, given how vague the term is? -- but the result is the same even if we set that aside.) Result: I am a felon, subject to the usual utter uncertainty about what "severe" means.
4. A company delivers me shoddy goods, and refuses to refund my money. I e-mail it several times, threatening to sue if they don't give me a refund, and I use "hostile" language. I am transmitting a communication with the intent to coerce, using electronic means "to support severe, repeated, and hostile behavior." Result: I am a felon, if my behavior is "severe."
5. Several people use blogs or Web-based newspaper articles to organize a boycott of a company, hoping to get it to change some policy they disapprove of. They are transmitting communications with the intent to coerce, using electronic means "to support severe, repeated, and hostile behavior." Result: Those people are a felon. (Isn't threatening a company with possible massive losses "severe"? But again, who knows?)
6. John cheats on Mary. Mary wants John to feel like the scumbag that he is, so she sends him two hostile messages telling him how much he's hurt her, how much she now hates him, and how bad he should feel. She doesn't threaten him with violence (there are separate laws barring that, and this law would apply even in the absence of a threat). She is transmitting communications with the intent to cause substantial emotional distress, using electronic means "to support severe, repeated, and hostile behavior." Result: Mary is a felon, again if her behavior is "severe."
The examples could be multiplied pretty much indefinitely. The law, if enacted, would clearly be facially overbroad (and probably unconstitutionally vague), and would thus be struck down on its face under the First Amendment. But beyond that, surely even the law's supporters don't really want to cover all this speech.
What are Rep. Linda Sanchez and the others thinking here? Are they just taking the view that "criminalize it all, let the prosecutors sort it out"? Even if that's so, won't their work amount to nothing, if the law is struck down as facially overbroad -- as I'm pretty certain it would be? Or are they just trying to score political points here with their constituents, with little regard to whether the law will actually do any good? I try to focus my posts mostly on what people do, not on their motives, but here the drafting is so shoddy that I just wonder why this happened.
_________________ True scientists don't manipulate complex data to get a simple answer they wanted to achieve from the start. That's not science.
What is it about the human being that has become convinced they will never have to go through life without someone else offending them? Why do people demand protection from a system that can only show up late and draw the chock line around the victim? It never ceases to amaze me the level of stupidly from our fellow citizens and governing body of legislators which brings this post smack dab into the latest Orwellian Thought Crime bill that is heading to Obama's desk and will undoubtedly be signed into law. It is a Federal power grab pure and simple so please, look at what it does, and I quote:
more...
_________________ True scientists don't manipulate complex data to get a simple answer they wanted to achieve from the start. That's not science.
BRITAIN appears to be evolving into the first modern soft totalitarian state. As a sometime teacher of political science and international law, I do not use the term totalitarian loosely.
There are no concentration camps or gulags but there are thought police with unprecedented powers to dictate ways of thinking and sniff out heresy, and there can be harsh punishments for dissent.
Nikolai Bukharin claimed one of the Bolshevik Revolution's principal tasks was "to alter people's actual psychology". Britain is not Bolshevik, but a campaign to alter people's psychology and create a new Homo britannicus is under way without even a fig leaf of disguise.
The Government is pushing ahead with legislation that will criminalise politically incorrect jokes, with a maximum punishment of up to seven years' prison. The House of Lords tried to insert a free-speech amendment, but Justice Secretary Jack Straw knocked it out. It was Straw who previously called for a redefinition of Englishness and suggested the "global baggage of empire" was linked to soccer violence by "racist and xenophobic white males". He claimed the English "propensity for violence" was used to subjugate Ireland, Scotland and Wales, and that the English as a race were "potentially very aggressive".
more...
_________________ True scientists don't manipulate complex data to get a simple answer they wanted to achieve from the start. That's not science.
A national hate law would shatter Americans’ First Amendment rights, which are now sadly unique among Western democracies. We would lose our precious freedom to express politically incorrect ideas, moral judgments, or whatever personal convictions the reigning thought police deem “hateful.”
Think this can’t happen in America? Think again. Hostile work environment law and campus speech bans already severely curtail free expression in American workplaces and universities. A US federal hate law would follow the examples of Europe, Canada, and Australia where Christian pastors have been indicted simply for quoting politically incorrect Scripture in their sermons. Iceland’s Orwellian hate law, for example, promises two years’ jail if you verbally “insult” a person on the basis of their nationality, skin color, race, religion, or sexual orientation.
Here are some of the most powerful, bipartisan reasons to fight this legislation.
more...
_________________ True scientists don't manipulate complex data to get a simple answer they wanted to achieve from the start. That's not science.
TimeVirus Galactic Overlord
Posts: 26138
Posted: Sat May 02, 09 11:30 pm Post subject:
I can't see this ending well...
Protection for pedophiles but not haters of pedophiles.
_________________ True scientists don't manipulate complex data to get a simple answer they wanted to achieve from the start. That's not science.
FCC anoints 'diversity' panel with 'Fairness Doctrine' mission
The Federal Communications Commission has announced the roster of a new advisory committee on "diversity" in communications, a move many critics have warned would mark the beginning of government regulation of talk radio and a reinstallation of the "Fairness Doctrine" by another name.
As WND reported, a think tank headed by John Podesta, co-chairman of Obama's transition team, mapped out a strategy in 2007 for clamping down on conservative talk radio by requiring stations to be operated by female and minority owners, which the report showed were statistically more likely to carry liberal political talk shows.
Therefore, the report concluded, the best strategy for getting equal time for "progressives" on radio lies in mandating "diversity of ownership" without ever needing to mention the former FCC policy of requiring airtime for liberal viewpoints, known as the "Fairness Doctrine."
Now, Michael J. Copps, acting chairman of the FCC has announced that the "Commission's Advisory Committee on Diversity for Communications in the Digital Age" will meet at the FCC headquarters on May 7 with a purpose closely paralleling step one of Podesta's plan for "balancing" talk radio.
The mission of the new diversity committee, according to the FCC website, is to "make recommendations to the FCC regarding policies and practices that will further enhance the ability of minorities and women to participate in telecommunications and related industries."
more...
_________________ True scientists don't manipulate complex data to get a simple answer they wanted to achieve from the start. That's not science.
WASHINGTON, May 3 (UPI) -- There has been a global decline in freedom of the press, with journalists facing less access in every region of the world, a U.S. study concludes.
Voice of America reported Sunday that a report by Freedom House, a Washington organization, found that in its three decades of rating global press freedom, 2008 marked the first year it found declines in every region of the world.
"Declines have been registered in established democracies, as well as partly free countries, and the most repressive regimes have continued to tighten their grip in order to control the information flows that have become increasingly globalized and out of their control," said Freedom House Executive Director Jennifer Windsor.
Of the 195 countries covered in the study, 36 percent were rated as having a free press.
The group said gains in press freedoms in some countries were overshadowed by intimidation of independent media, particularly in the former Soviet bloc countries, the Middle East and North Africa.
"We found that only 17 percent of the world's population lives in countries that enjoy a fully free press. While 41 percent live in partly free media environments and 42 percent, a significant percentage, live in countries with a not-free press," said Karin Karlekar, managing editor of the report.
_________________ True scientists don't manipulate complex data to get a simple answer they wanted to achieve from the start. That's not science.
Banned by U.K., Savage hits back
Radio talk star blocked from visits, along with terrorists, neo-Nazis
Talk radio host Michael Savage is considering legal action against Britain's top homeland security official after she released today a list grouping him with terrorists and neo-Nazi murderers banned from entry because the government believes their views might provoke violence.
In a telephone interview with WND, Savage said he is still waiting to hear back from attorneys, but he noted Britain has very strict anti-defamation laws.
Home Secretary Jacqui Smith said she decided to publicize the list of 16 people banned since October to show the type of behavior Britain will not tolerate, according to U.K. news reports.
Don't be silent! Sign the petition to block government attacks on freedom of speech and freedom of the press.
Savage's immediate reaction upon hearing the news was typically wry.
"Darn! And I was just planning a trip to England for their superior dental work and cuisine," he recalled thinking.
"Then it sank in," he told WND, "and I said, 'She said this is the kind of behavior we won't tolerate? She's linking me with mass murderers who are in prison for killing Jewish children on buses? For my speech? The country where the Magna Carta was created?'"
Smith explained to Britain's GMTV that she believed it was "important that people understand the sorts of values and sorts of standards that we have here, the fact that it's a privilege to come and the sort of things that mean you won't be welcome in this country."
"Coming to this country is a privilege," she said. "If you can't live by the rules that we live by, the standards and the values that we live by, we should exclude you from this country and, what's more, now we will make public those people that we have excluded."
Savage said he wants top First Amendment attorneys to represent him "in a major international case."
More...
_________________ "Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like force, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." - George Washington
GAYS have had the word homosexual banned by the Government because they say it is offensive.
Ministers want it written out of their vocabulary after complaints that it was outdated.
Instead they will refer to those with an "orientation towards people of the same sex".
Homosexual, coined 130 years ago, will be ditched under anti-discrimination laws drawn up by equality minister Barbara Roche.
Whitehall officials will be told not to use the term in official documents, speeches, press releases or white papers.
Last night a spokesman for Mrs Roche, 48, denied the move was political correctness.
He said: "There was a strong feeling that homosexual wasn't the way forward in defining sexual orientation. There were various concerns."
Gays' objection to the word homosexual was revealed while mum-of-one Mrs Roche was doing a consultation exercise last year.
The paper, called Towards Equality and Diversity, contained the Government's plans to tackle sexual and religious discrimination.
For decades homosexual was regarded as a non-discriminatory alternative to words like queer, fairy and poof.
But since gay took over as the most popular description in the 1960s, homosexual is seen by some as a term of abuse.
-----------------
This whole issue is a bit queer.
What a bunch of fags.
_________________ "Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like force, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." - George Washington
TimeVirus Galactic Overlord
Posts: 26138
Posted: Wed May 06, 09 10:44 am Post subject:
That'll prolly be a federal felony in a few weeks.
_________________ True scientists don't manipulate complex data to get a simple answer they wanted to achieve from the start. That's not science.
NukeDaddy Infinity Agent
Posts: 2608
Posted: Wed May 06, 09 10:57 am Post subject:
TimeVirus wrote:
That'll prolly be a federal felony in a few weeks.
You can't call someone a cigarette?
_________________ "Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like force, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." - George Washington
Hannigan Reality Coordinator
Posts: 1028
Posted: Wed May 06, 09 11:04 am Post subject:
I thought a fag was a bundle of sticks.
NukeDaddy Infinity Agent
Posts: 2608
Posted: Wed May 06, 09 11:21 am Post subject:
Pointed sticks?
_________________ "Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like force, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." - George Washington
Hannigan Reality Coordinator
Posts: 1028
Posted: Wed May 06, 09 11:29 am Post subject: Weapon Shop
My enigmatic music group, Weapon Shop, was denied an account on face book because of the word Weapon. good golly
TimeVirus Galactic Overlord
Posts: 26138
Posted: Fri May 15, 09 10:34 am Post subject:
Rep. Louie Gohmert (TX-R) Explains Why 'Hate Crimes' Bill is Dangerous
_________________ True scientists don't manipulate complex data to get a simple answer they wanted to achieve from the start. That's not science.
All times are GMT - 7 Hours Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4Next
Page 1 of 4
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Register
Profile
Log in
