Chris has the correct response
Please do not adjust your set, state-run media will tell you everything you need to know. Bloggers?We’re the enemy. Your president said so today.
… now that the government has reopened and this threat to our economy is removed, all of us need to stop focusing on the lobbyists, and the bloggers, and the talking heads on radio …
Spoken like a true Marxist there Mr.President, but i echo what Mr. Wysocki says
You don’t get to supercede the First Amendment. Not today. And not tomorrow. I don’t care how much of a dictator you fancy yourself to be. In the immortal words of Ronald Reagan, I paid for this microphone. And no pissant community organizer is gonna take it away from me.
And this one is a curse
One Duval County parent tells WOKV his son doesn’t even know what his constitutional rights are, so he’s shocked a teacher told the ten-year-old to write a letter on his willingness to give them up.
“That sentence talking about giving away freedoms for safety and security- that bothers me,” says Aaron Harvey.
He tells me his 4th grade son was told to write a note reading “I am willing to give up some of my constitutional rights in order to be safer or more secure” following a lesson led by a guest speaker at Cedar Hills Elementary School. The lesson itself was taught at the end of last year, but Harvey didn’t find the note until about 1 1/2 weeks ago.
I obtained the guide for that lesson, which was apparently aimed to “create an awareness of the five rights contained in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution” and help students “determine their opinions on which rights they value most and least.” The lesson included a visiting constitutional lawyer, which the district tells me is a partnership used specifically for these civics-based lessons.
The lesson itself isn’t in question, but rather what Harvey says the teacher did after.
He says the teacher selected several students out of the class to write that statement and sign it. It’s the same story he’s hearing from other parents with children in the class.
Where the Hell is the ACLU? Oh that’s right, instead of doing something worthwhile, they are busy trying to run God out of schools. This is what bugs me about this. What an opportunity for a teacher to talk about the Founders, and natural rights, the Constitution, and of course the famous Ben Franklin quote about those who would give up liberty for security. Instead, it would seem this teacher saw only an opportunity to indoctrinate.
Stacy McCain has the scoop on the newest Victicrats, the Internet Trolls as it were. They have jumped aboard the “Feel Sorry for Me Train” and are whining to beat the band. Because, apparently harassing people online is a civil right in their world
“Arrogant sociopathic punks think they can go around threatening people and if you dare say a word back to them, you’re the bad guy.”
– Robert Stacy McCain, Sept. 4, 2012
Donald Douglas at American Power reminds me of the deranged cyberstalker’s irrational grievance: “Troll rights.”
A basic problem of online life: People Who Don’t Understand How the Internet Works, No Matter How Often You Try to Explain It to Them.
Back in the day you could – and, in many places on the Internet, you still can — say anything you want to say in the comments. People who habitually frequent such places become accustomed to unleashing their idat will, and believe that this a basic First Amendment freedom, which it is — as long as the proprietors of the site don’t care what people say in the comments. But one way or another, that online space is owned by someone, and the proprietor makes the rules.
Try going over to Democrat Underground or Daily Kos, spewing out GOP talking points, and see how long it takes them to ban you.
Trolls don’t understand this. They believe that having access to the Internet confers on them the inalienable right to say anything they want anywhere they want to say it, and any site operator who refuses to acknowledge that right is a fascist totalitarian.
To which I customarily reply: Get your own damned blog.
Lots more to read over at The Other McCain who has been dealing with some of these “oppressed Internet Trolls” and their cyberstalking ways.
Premier Mayor Michael Nutter who is not down with that whole freedom of the press thing
The Philadelphia Human Relations Commission has launched an investigation at the request of the mayor after a well-known magazine published an essay that explored perspectives of white citizens on the issue of race relations.
Mayor Michael Nutter called on the commission to consider rebuking both Philadelphia Magazine and writer Bob Huber noting that “the First Amendment, like other constitutional rights, is not an unfettered right.”
Nutter’s fury was directed at a cover story titled, “Being White in Philly.” The story included conversations with mostly anonymous residents who detailed race relations in the City of Brotherly Love.
Go read it all. This is a great example of Liberal hypocrisy. Liberals love to say we need an “open discussion” on race in America. A discussion where no one holds anything back. That is what they say. What they mean is we need to have Liberals lecture us on how racism is inherent in America, and that racial injustice is rampant, and anyone holding a differing view is welcome to shut up! Obviously Mayor Nutter is eager to unleash his thought police on to those who do not know when to shut up.
Comes from JWF the topic is the Left’s intent to be our National Nanny!
Is it just me or is the left interested in banning pretty much everything these days?
Ah yes, the Left is a movement about control!
A Democratic state legislator in Georgia is pushing to make inappropriate use of Photoshop a crime and he was made the victim of such a prank in retaliation.
State Representative Earnest Smith was one of two co-sponsors of a bill tomake it a crime if someone Photoshops a person into an obscene picture.
He pushed forward with the plan in spite it’s the obvious interference with First Amendment rights, and an internet prankster made him the latest target in response.
One of his constituents took a picture of a nude porn star and put Mr Smith’s head on top.
‘Rep. Smith needs to grow some thick skin if he’s going to be an elected official. Trust me when I say the altered photograph shown above was not the worst I could have done,’ prankster Andre Walker said on his blog where he claimed responsibility for the image.
If Smith, and co-sponsor Pam Dickerson, have their way then such an action would result in a $1,000 fine.
Their proposed law would be broken when any ‘person commits defamation when he or she causes an unknowing person wrongfully to be identified as the person in an obscene depiction’.
The fact is this. In a free society, everyone is going to see, and hear things that offend them. DEAL WITH IT! It is far better for me to be occasionally offended than to live in a nation where Mommy and Daddy Government control everything we say, read and write!
Smith sees this differently
“It’s clear that we need to do something,” he said.
Smith said Monday that he learned last week that someone had digitally pasted his head on the body of a nude man, but he doesn’t know who did it.
“I could not venture to give you an answer,” he said.
The bill received no action last year, but Smith hopes this year will be different, perhaps because the picture targeting him illustrates how vulnerable all politicians are.
“It can be done to anyone at any time,” he said.
So far, he has heard no objections from free-speech advocates defending the Constitution’s First Amendment.
“No one has a right to make fun of anyone. You have a right to speak, but no one has a right to disparage another person. It’s not a First Amendment right,” he said.
Well if no one has that right we better tell every stand up comic to cease and desist I guess. And I do not have a right to slander someone, and there are laws against harassment. But, yes, Mr. Smith I certainly DO have the right to make fun of you. For instance, I am free to call you a bottom-feeding Statist. Or I can call you, sir, an overly sensitive Liberal whiner. See, we are FREE to express opinions. And when we disagree with someone, we are free to criticize them. And why do I imagine that a law, such as you are sponsoring would be used by Liberal politicians and organizations to silence criticism? Maybe because that is what Leftists ass hats like you SIR have engaged in for decades now.
Comes a story from Michigan, where an ad that questions the existence of God is OK, but an ad questioning the existence of Muhammed, not so much. Zion’s Trumpet has it
This ad ran on Detroit SMART buses here
Crains Business wrote this:
While the ads may offend some, SMART’s Beth Dryden tells Shea they met the system guidelines and were vetted by their legal department.
March 3, Crain’s: Additionally, because the ads are what SMART considers “viewpoint-neutral content” the agency can’t reject them, she said. That’s because a government agency cannot censor such content, which is protected by the First Amendment.
Got that? Good.We submitted the ad below to this same transit agency in Detroit/Dearborn, SMART, and we were DENIED. This ad was rejected:
Here’s what SMART said:
The proposed advertisement submitted by Pamela Geller has been reviewed under SMART’s content policy. SMART, consistent with its review process, also reviewed the referred-to website:thetruthaboutmuhammed.com. Consistent with its policy, with the Sixth Circuit opinion in AFDI v SMART, and consistent with other law, SMART declines to post the advertisement.
Our message parallels the atheist ads. Since they were accepted, I modeled this ad after theirs, to see if the freedom of speech applied to criticism of Islam in our cowardly and politically correct age. This is the same government agency that refused to run our “Leaving Islam?” ads that were designed to help Muslim girls who wanted to lead more Western lives escape dangerous devout households. SMART refused. My legal team, David Yerushalmi and Robert Muise of the American Freedom Law Centerand I sued. We won. They appealed to the 6th circuit court (a sharia-sensitive court). The Sixth Circuit said that the ad was a political ad — SMART doesn’t run political ads. So in my quest to fight on, I wanted to point out their hypocrisy as we go back to court. This rejection does just that. We fight on.
More at Atlas Shrugs, where Pam Gellar fights constantly against the evil of radical Islam
Tis the Season for OUTRAGE over everything that honors a traditional American Christmas
Via Fox News Radio:
A North Carolina community college has been accused of violating the First Amendment rights of students after they told a club they could not use the word “Christmas” to promote a Christmas tree sale.
“It’s ridiculous that anyone would have to think twice about using the word ‘Christmas’ as part of a Christmas tree sale,” said Matt Sharp, an attorney with Alliance Defending Freedom.
The student club, called the BEST Society, was planning to sell the Christmas trees to raise money for Angel Tree, an organization that provides Christmas presents to children.
Club members followed college protocol and submitted forms to promote the sale. The proposed text read, “The BEST Society will be selling Christmas Trees…”
But when the announcement appeared on the college’s website and in other venues – it had been altered. Ever reference to “Christmas Trees” had been replaced with “holiday trees.”
I cannot comment here, i would use way too many bad words.