Where does the war on free speech end?

I would say, given the left’s obsession with total control of all people, it has no end. This is just a step in the destruction of free speech

A teenager who posted rap lyrics which included racist language on Instagram has been found guilty of sending a grossly offensive message.

Chelsea Russell, 19, from Liverpool posted the lyric from Snap Dogg’s I’m Trippin’ to pay tribute to a boy who died in a road crash, a court heard.

Russell argued it was not offensive, but was handed a community order.

Prosecutors said her sentence was increased from a fine to a community order “as it was a hate crime”.

She was charged after Merseyside Police were anonymously sent a screenshot of her update.

Liverpool Justice Centre, sitting at Sefton Magistrates’ Court, heard Russell posted the lyrics to her account after the death of a 13-year-old in a road accident in 2017, the Crown Prosecution Service said.

The words Russell used on her account contained a racial label which some people find extremely offensive.

The screenshot was passed to hate crime unit PC Dominique Walker, who told the court the term was “grossly offensive” to her as a black woman and to the general community.

Unbelievable, free speech is dead in the UK apparently. So what is the punishment for expressing oneself? 

She was given an eight-week community order, placed on an eight-week curfew and told to pay costs of £500 and an £85 victim surcharge.

Think it cannot happen here? It not only can, it will unless we vigorously defend free speech

The war on free speech roars forward

Ah Leftists, or Progressives, this is what they consider “progress”

Scottish YouTube personality Count Dankula — real name Mark Meechan — was found guilty at Glasgow Sherrif Court Tuesday of a hate crime, and potentially faces two months in prison after recording a video of his girlfriend’s dog doing Nazi salutes.

Reporting from inside the courtroom, journalist and street organiser Tommy Robinson said Meechan had been found guilty of being “Grossly Offensive” under the Communications Act of 2003. Meechan was due to be sentenced Tuesday afternoon but the judge decided to release him on bail, to return to court on the 23rd of April

The case is over a 2016 YouTube video made by Meechan and published on his comedy Count Dankula page of his girlfriend’s dog Buddha raising its paw in return for a treat, having been trained to respond to phrases.

Buddha’s owner Suzanne Kelly had previously said “He (Buddha) will lift his paw to virtually anything if he gets a treat for it. We have taught him to lift his paw to food, like ham or cheese,” and that her boyfriend had “never expressed anti-Jewish or anti-Semitic” views and has “always been very supportive towards minority groups”, reportedHerald Scotland before the trial.

Jokes may be funny, or not. That should be according to the ear of the listener, not the government.. The fact is Progressives love to say they champion free speech. But, what they really champion is the State elevated to the role of master. A state so powerful it can, and will dictate every last aspect of our lives

 

Thanksgiving Proclamation [New York, 3 October 1789]

.
Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor – and whereas both Houses of Congress have by their joint Committee requested me “to recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness.”

Now therefore I do recommend and assign Thursday the 26th day of November next to be devoted by the People of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being, who is the beneficent Author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be – That we may then all unite in rendering unto him our sincere and humble thanks – for his kind care and protection of the People of this Country previous to their becoming a Nation – for the signal and manifold mercies, and the favorable interpositions of his Providence which we experienced in the course and conclusion of the late war – for the great degree of tranquillity, union, and plenty, which we have since enjoyed – for the peaceable and rational manner, in which we have been enabled to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national One now lately instituted – for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed; and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and in general for all the great and various favors which he hath been pleased to confer upon us.

and also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech him to pardon our national and other transgressions – to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually – to render our national government a blessing to all the people, by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed – to protect and guide all Sovereigns and Nations (especially such as have shewn kindness unto us) and to bless them with good government, peace, and concord – To promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the encrease of science among them and us – and generally to grant unto all Mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as he alone knows to be best.

Given under my hand at the City of New-York the third day of October in the year of our Lord 1789. – Go: Washington

.

Hey, look kids, some statists want to punish news they deem unworthy

Via The Daily Wire

In a paper titled: “Fool Me Once: The Case for Government Regulation of ‘Fake News,’” former Federal Election Commission (FEC) head, Ann M. Ravel, as well as co-authors Abby K. Wood and Irina Dykhne, argue that news on social media should be closely monitored, and that users who share “an item that has been flagged as untrue” should be reminded that such actions could have legal consequences.

The paper focuses on several aspects regarding the regulation of “fake news” on social media, but the most disturbing are the recommendations concerning consumers:

Educate social media users. Social media users can unintentionally spread disinformation when they interact with it in their newsfeeds. Depending on their security settings, their entire online social network can see items that they interact with (by “liking” or commenting), even if they are expressing their opposition to the content. Social media users should not interact with disinformation in their feeds at all (aside from flagging it for review by third party fact checkers). Government should require platforms to regularly remind social media users about not interacting with disinformation.

Similarly, 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.

Nudge social media users to not view disputed content. Lawmakers should require platforms to provide an opt-in (or, more weakly, opt-out) system for viewing disputed content and periodically remind users of their options. We think the courts should uphold this as a constitutional regulation of political speech, but we acknowledge that it is a closer question than the more straightforward disclosure regulations above.

What could go wrong?

The implications of Ravel’s paper are so troubling that even George Washington University Law Professor Jonathan Turley — not a friend to conservatives — has voiced his concern, noting that Ravel “conspicuously fails to concretely define” the term “fake news.”

To combat “fake news,” Ravel and her co-authors would undermine the use of the Internet as a forum for free speech. The regulation would include the targeting of people who share stories deemed fake or disinformation by government regulators. The irony is that such figures are decrying Russian interference with our system and responding by curtailing free speech — something Vladimir Putin would certainly applaud. …

Without clearly defining “disinformation,” Ravel would give bureaucrats the power to label postings as false and harass those who share such information. Of course, this would also involve a massive databanks of collections ads and discussions by the government.

Of course any intrusion upon freedom of speech would be entirely “unintentional” right? If you believe that folks………..

University of Wisconsin passes new policy to protect freedom of speech, Leftist bullies hardest hit

If you want to see the mental depravity of Leftism, read The Root, and feel the hate. The Root is a place you can go and see how hateful and bigoted the Left is. It is a place you can go and discover what the Left really thinks of America, law enforcement, and individual liberty. Take for example how writer Angela Helm paints a policy to allow college speakers to, well, speak without being shut down by Brownshirt wearing thugs

The University of Wisconsin recently approved a policy that will suspend or expel students who disrupt campus speeches and presentations—because they are infringing on others’ free speech—an ironic and dangerous threat to the right to protest everywhere.

Apparently Helm cannot read, The policy would suspend or expel those that disrupt speeches or presentations. Or, I would imagine peaceful protests. In short it would prevent violent, threatening thugs like Antifa from crushing free speech. In fact the policy says (emphasis mine)

The Associated Press reports that the university’s board of regents adopted the language in a vote Friday. The policy states that students found to have twice engaged in “violence or other disorderly conduct” would be suspended. Three times and you’re out (expelled).

So, what is the problem here? We have seen that several events on campuses have drawn violent protests. Is Helm advocating for violence? Or does she just turn a blind eye when certain speech is silenced? Free speech is great, when it suits her ideological bent I suppose. Typical Leftist. Of course Helm is not the only one crying foul

State public schools Superintendent Tony Evers, on the board by virtue of his position, and a Democratic candidate running against Walker in next year’s gubernatorial election, cast the only dissenting vote.

“This policy will chill and suppress free speech on this campus and all campuses,” Evers said.

Uh, actually the only chilling of free speech now is being done be Antifa and like-minded fascists. this policy would hold those who are actually suppressing free speech accountable

“Who’s going to show up to a protest if they think they could be potentially expelled?” asked Democratic state Rep. Chris Taylor.

Apparent Taylor does not know what words like “violent” or “disorderly conduct” mean

A senior at the university, Savion Castro, accused the regents of “capitulating to a band of right-wing extremists.”

Sure Savion, sure, because allowing people you disagree with to speak is bad right? The policy would also protect people who agree with Savion from having their speeches attacked. See Savion, you ignorant, hateful little fuck, everyone has a right to speak, it is called liberty. And liberty trumps your over inflated sense of self-importance. And the most telling aspect of this discussion is this. Leftist speakers never seem to need any protection from violent thugs. But that does not go both ways. Hmmmmmm

*VIDEO* Joe Dan Gorman – Intellectual Froglegs: Tar & Feather (And Other Fun American Traditions)

.

.

*VIDEOS* Ben Shapiro And Adam Carolla Testify Before House Committee About Free Speech On Campus (07/27/17)

PART 1

.
PART 2

.
PART 3

.

.