Be seeing you
Posts Tagged ‘free speech’
UK Riots: The Agenda Becomes Clear…
Posted by M. C. on August 5, 2024
by Tyler Durden
Monday, Aug 05, 2024 – 02:00 AM
Authored by Kit Knightly via Off-Guardian.org,
Whatever the truth of this latest incident, and whatever long term aims it might be used to further, this “strategy of tension” has an immediate political agenda already becoming clear – and it’s as predictable as ever.
- Further limit social media/free speech
- Normalise constant surveillance
Attacking free speech is the ever-present, eternal agenda that comes before everything else and it’s been a real pile-on the last few days.
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/uk-riots-agenda-becomes-clear
Those outside the UK might not have heard, but it’s been a violent week in the UK. Here’s a quick rundown of the official story so far:
Four days ago a 17-year-old allegedly walked into a children’s “Taylor Swift dance class” (whatever that might be) in Southport and started stabbing little girls, wounding 10 and killing 3.
It was initially reported the boy was a muslim immigrant.
This story was, however, reversed within hours, the new story “revealing” that he was actually born in Cardiff, the son of Rwandan immigrants. He was named as “Axel Muganwa Rudakubana” late yesterday.
His religious affiliation, if any, seems not to have been firmly established.
Another young man was, allegedly, arrested later while in possession of a machete and balaclava at a vigil for the victims. He was, again, reportedly Muslim.
This, allegedly, resulted in what are described as protests and riots, the destruction of a brick wall outside a mosque and the burning of a police van.
Further alleged riots subsequently sprang up in London and Hartlepool.
This is the current narrative. None of the details has been substantiated as yet, so how much you decide to believe is your personal preference at this point.
At OffG we reserve the right to be sceptical. Of everything.
There are a lot of unanswered questions, and the current level of “mourning” by government institutions and groups in no way directly affected by the tragedy always has a taint of the performative that shouldn’t be too quickly conflated with insincerity or worse.
And, of course, all of this is coming hot on the heels of the Manchester Airport incident, where police officers and Muslim youths allegedly clashed violently in as yet obscure circumstances.
Plus the violence in Whitechapel and Leeds a couple of weeks ago.
Then, as now, both sides were provided with adequate rage-bait to get them worked up.
Whatever the truth of this latest incident, and whatever long term aims it might be used to further, this “strategy of tension” has an immediate political agenda already becoming clear – and it’s as predictable as ever.
- Further limit social media/free speech
- Normalise constant surveillance
Attacking free speech is the ever-present, eternal agenda that comes before everything else and it’s been a real pile-on the last few days.
The Hill headlines “Misinformation floods social media in wake of breakneck news cycle”, Sky News went with “Southport attack misinformation fuels far-right discourse on social media”
ABC News reports: “Online misinformation fueled tensions over the stabbing attack in Britain that killed 3 children”
The Byline Times collectively scolds society’s negligence: “‘We All Need To Consider Our Role in the Wild West of Social Media Hypercriminality’”
The Institute for Strategic Dialogue (an NGO funded by the usual suspects) has timelined it all for our convenience: From rumours to riots: How online misinformation fuelled violence in the aftermath of the Southport attack
The BBC asks “Did social media fan the flames of riot in Southport?” and Telepgraph answers very much in the affirmative, cutting right to the heart of the matter [emphasis added]:
Unregulated social media disinformation is wrecking Britain – Free speech must come with accountability
The Times skips past establishing the problem right to apportioning blame: “Who is behind Southport social media storm — and can they be stopped?”
Be seeing you
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: free speech, Surveillance, UK Riots | Leave a Comment »
Did the Supreme Court Really Rule Against Free Speech?
Posted by M. C. on July 11, 2024
by Tom Woods
“I can tell you that on social media today you can see people saying things like, “The government has an interest in preventing the spread of misinformation during a deadly pandemic.”“
“If you’re like me, that kind of language makes your skin crawl.“
I think privately owned news entities can do what they want with what they own as long as they don’t violate the non aggression principle. It is up to the user to understand what they are dealing with. Can we say the same about publicly traded companies?
That said you have to be an idiot not to understand social media and main stream news media make “adjustments” to the truth.
https://libertarianinstitute.org/articles/did-the-supreme-court-really-rule-against-free-speech/
The Supreme Court just ruled in the case of Murthy v. Missouri, in which plaintiffs (including Jay Bhattacharya, who wrote the foreword to my Diary of a Psychosis) argued that the federal government unconstitutionally outsourced restrictions on speech to third parties, namely Twitter and Facebook, and prevented dissenting views on Covid from receiving a fair hearing.
The Court ruled that the plaintiffs lacked “standing” to sue, so the merits of the case took a back seat.
Jenin Younes, an attorney who has argued her share of COVID cases and has appeared on the Tom Woods Show, offered her initial thoughts:
As many have likely seen, the Supreme Court found that plaintiffs in Murthy v Missouri lack standing, reversing the Fifth Circuit, with Alito, Thomas and Gorsuch dissenting. While disappointing, the decision is not devastating. It is premised on the fact that a preliminary injunction isn’t warranted because plaintiffs can’t show likelihood of future harm. The majority specifically said they weren’t expressing a view as to whether the Fifth Circuit correctly articulated the standard for when private conduct [e.g., suppression of speech at government behest] is turned into state action.
Thus, the underlying case WILL continue. Alito’s dissent is excellent, showing far more familiarity with the record and explaining that the majority opinion will permit an unlawful censorship campaign to operate so long as it’s carried out with enough sophistication.
This fight is not over!!
Jay himself seems less hopeful:
The Supreme Court just ruled in the Murthy v. Missouri case that the Biden Administration can coerce social media companies to censor and shadowban people and posts it doesn’t like. Congress will now need to act to enforce the Constitution since the Supreme Court won’t.
This now also becomes a key issue in the upcoming election. Where do the presidential candidates stand on social media censorship? We know where Biden stands since his lawyers argue that he has near monarchical power over social media speech.
The court ruled that the plaintiffs (Missouri and Louisiana, as well as me and other blacklisted individuals) lacked standing to sue. This means that the Administration can censor ideas & no person will have standing to enforce the 1st Amendment. Free speech in America, for the moment, is dead.
And since it was petty bureaucrats doing the censoring at the behest of elected officals, voters should ask every candidate for office down to dog catcher where they stand on the power of government to censor. Let’s make it a political liability to favor censorship.
Friends familiar with the court proceedings told me the plaintiffs’ case was poorly argued—an inexcusable failing, given the strength and importance of the case.
Be seeing you
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: free speech, Murthy v. Missouri, Supreme Court | Leave a Comment »
Government’s Usual Habit — Don’t Change The Bad Policy Being Protested, But Attack Free Speech
Posted by M. C. on May 2, 2024
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: Bad Policy, free speech, Government | Leave a Comment »
Seditious Conspiracy: A Fake Crime and a Danger to Free Speech
Posted by M. C. on April 22, 2024
Contrary to what a naïve reading of the First Amendment might suggest, the federal government has never been especially keen on respecting the right to free speech.
In real life, people can be found guilty of conspiring with people with whom they have never been in the same room, or with whom the “conspirator” expressed any actual violent intent.
A presentation from “Censorship and Official Lies: The End of Truth in America?” This event was co-hosted by the Mises Institute and the Ron Paul Institute, and recorded in Lake Jackson, Texas, on April 13, 2024.
Full Written Text (Audio link is above):
Over the past three years, the word “sedition” has again become popular among regime agents and their friends in the media. It’s certainly not the first time the word has enjoyed a renaissance. It’s frequently employed whenever the ruling class wishes us to become hysterical about various real and imagined enemies, both domestic and foreign.
This time, the regime’s paranoia about sedition was prompted by the Capitol Riot in January 2021, when we were told that Trump supporters nearly carried out a coup d’etat. Since then, regime operatives have frequently referred to Trump supporters and Trump himself as seditionists.
Yet, out of the approximately 850 people charged with crimes of various sorts, only a very small number have been charged with anything even close to treason or insurrection. Rather, most charges are various forms of infractions related to vandalism and trespassing. However, because these charges have to do with the regime’s sacred office buildings, the penalties are outrageously harsh compared to similar acts, were they to occur on private property.
For a small handful of defendants, however—the ones the Justice Department has most enthusiastically targeted—the federal prosecutors have brought the charge of “seditious conspiracy.”
Why not charges of treason, rebellion or insurrection? Well, if federal prosecutors though they could get a conviction for actual rebellion, insurrection, or treason for the January 6 riot, they would have brought those charges.
But they didn’t.
What they did do is turn to seditious conspiracy, which is far easier to prove in court, and is—like all conspiracy charges in American law—essentially a thought crime and a speech crime. Seditious conspiracy is not actual sedition, or rebellion, or insurrection. That is, there is no overt act necessary, nor is it necessary that the alleged sedition or insurrection actually take place or be executed. What really matters is that two or more people said things that prosecutors could later claim were part of a conspiracy to do something that may or may not have ever happened.
Moreover, the regime now routinely employs other types of conspiracy charges for prosecuting Americans supposedly guilty for various crimes against the state. At the moment, for example, Donald Trump faces three different conspiracy charges for saying that the 2020 election was illegitimate.
As we shall see, purported crimes like seditious conspiracy are crimes based largely on things people have said. They are a type of speech crime.
Now, some may ask how that is even possible if there is freedom of speech in this country.
Contrary to what a naïve reading of the First Amendment might suggest, the federal government has never been especially keen on respecting the right to free speech.
Be seeing you
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: Fake Crime, free speech, Seditious Conspiracy | Leave a Comment »
Defining the Boundaries of Free Speech: Threats, Libel, and Blackmail in Society
Posted by M. C. on March 20, 2024
Jack Benny was once “threatened” on his program with the statement: “Your money or your life.” Urged on by the “criminal” of the piece for an answer, Benny replied, “I’m thinking, I’m thinking.”
https://substack.com/inbox/post/142785947
It is difficult to overestimate the importance of free speech. It is imperative for society and even more important on campus. After all, the latter is the place where ideas and the search for the truth are held to be particularly precious. Without untrammeled free speech, it is difficult to see how this mission can even begin to be accomplished.
Is there any sort of speech that ought to be banned anywhere at all, whether at any of our institutions of higher learning or in civil society as a whole? Yes, there is one. It is the only exception to this general rule. In mentioning it, being an absolutist on free speech is not the correct position. The exception? Threats of physical violence. “If you don’t shut up, I’ll punch you in the nose.” “If you don’t give me your money and your automobile,” says the carjacker, “I’ll shoot you.” Unless these sorts of statements are part of a movie or a play or mentioned in the present context as part of a philosophical discussion, they are criminal acts.
Jack Benny was once “threatened” on his program with the statement: “Your money or your life.” Urged on by the “criminal” of the piece for an answer, Benny replied, “I’m thinking, I’m thinking.” Apart from considerations of this sort, the university should be a bastion of free speech. And so should be our general society.
But what about libel and slander? I now falsely claim that Jones is cheating on his wife. As a result, Jones loses his marriage, his job, his children, and his friends. I just ruined his reputation. Presumably, what the general public thinks of Jones is more valuable to him than his house and his car. If I stole those items from him, surely I would be a criminal. But by using my speech to make slanderous statements of him, I besmirched his reputation, and did him even more severe harm. Should I not be incarcerated, and should my “free speech” be prohibited by law? No.
He is the rightful owner of his home and automobile but not, paradoxically, of his reputation.
Be seeing you
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: blackmail, free speech, libel, threats | Leave a Comment »
Free Speech on Campus on the Israel-Palestinian War
Posted by M. C. on December 9, 2023
We are now talking about real censorship and real infringements on the fundamental, God-given rights of freedom of speech and private property. How a university runs its affairs is no more the business of Congress (or the rest of the federal government) than how a church runs its affairs.
What gives Congress the authority to censor, insult, abuse, humiliate, question, and pressure college presidents on any campus policy? The answer is that such authority comes from the schools’ decision to go on the government dole through the receipt of taxpayer-funded grants and subsidies from either the state or federal governments. Thus, the dole gives Congress the authority to control, manage, and supervise these institutions of higher learning.
The issue of free speech on U.S. college campuses has reappeared big time with the Israel-Palestinian war.
Ross Stevens, a big donor to the University of Pennsylvania, is asking for the return of his $100 million donation unless the university fires its president Liz Magill. Stevens got angry when Magill answered a question before a congressional committee in which she did not unequivocally state that calling for the genocide of Jews would necessarily violate the school’s code of conduct on bullying and harassment. Jonathan Greenblatt, the CEO of the Anti-Defamation League, described Magill’s testimony as “catastrophic and clarifying.”
Meanwhile, large donors to other major universities are terminating their support because of the failure of school administrators to condemn, punish, or suppress any speech on campus that does not unequivocally side with the Israeli government. Donors claim that permitting anyone on campus to openly sympathize or side with Palestinians or issue any critique of the Israeli government automatically means that the school is “anti-Semitic.”
Not surprisingly, mainstream commentators are framing the issue in the context of “free speech.” Actually, except as noted below, the controversy has nothing to do with the right of freedom of speech.
As the owners of their establishments, colleges and universities have the right to set whatever policies they want on their campuses. If they want to prohibit students and teachers, for example, from questioning the Holocaust, they have the right to do that. By the same token, if they decide to have a course taught that questions the Holocaust, they have that right as well.
If students don’t like the school’s policy, they don’t have to attend that school. They can go elsewhere. By the same token, if donors don’t like a particular policy of the school, they can take their money elsewhere.
This is the way that things are handled in a free society. It’s not always an easy issue for school administrators. On the one hand, they might see university life as one of being exposed to all sorts of ideas, concepts, positions, policies, and philosophies, including some that people might find offensive, in order to have students figure things out for themselves. On the other hand, school administrators might not want the students to be exposed to concepts that are considered to violate moral or ethical principles of the school. While the issues might present school administrators with difficult choices, the idea is that it’s best to have them sorted out and resolved within the voluntary actions of the participants.
But a question naturally arises, one that no one in the mainstream press asks: Why is this controversy any business of Congress?
Be seeing you
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: College campuses, free speech, Israel-Palestinian War, University of Pennsylvania | Leave a Comment »
Rumble Stands Up For Free Speech Against Tyrannical UK Censorship
Posted by M. C. on September 28, 2023
The Ron Paul Liberty Report
Be seeing you
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: free speech, Rumble, UK Censorship | Leave a Comment »
Rowan Atkinson on free speech
Posted by M. C. on September 15, 2023
The Christian InstitutePosted in Uncategorized | Tagged: free speech, Rowan Atkinson | Leave a Comment »
TGIF: Free Speech Affirmed — Pretty Much
Posted by M. C. on September 15, 2023
The judges’ panel recapped the findings:
For the last few years—at least since the 2020 presidential transition—a group of federal officials has been in regular contact with nearly every major American social-media company about the spread of “misinformation” on their platforms. In their concern, those officials—hailing from the White House, the CDC, the FBI, and a few other agencies—urged the platforms to remove disfavored content and accounts from their sites. And, the platforms seemingly complied.
https://libertarianinstitute.org/articles/tgif-free-speech-affirmed/
The preliminary injunction against federal censorship of social-media users has survived the Biden administration’s appeal and, despite a 10-day hold, will essentially continue. Next stop: the Supreme Court.
The latest ruling, 78 pages long, by a panel of Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals judges, affirmed the core of District Judge Terry Doughty’s July 4 preliminary order, but the revised order has two big differences. The appellate judges exempted some defendants and narrowed Judge Doughty’s list of prohibited actions to just one modified but broad prohibition. We’ll have to see how that works out, but the court has certainly admonished Biden officials for censoring Americans’ speech by systematically leaning — sometimes very heavily — on the social-media companies.
The New Civil Liberties Alliance (NCLA), which represented some of the plaintiffs, commented, “Today’s order should stop that conduct.”
Recall that Judge Doughty’s ruling in the suit filed by Missouri and Louisiana on behalf of its residents, along with several private individuals, including COVID-19 dissident Drs. Jay Bhattacharya and Martin Kulldorff. Doughty had agreed that the plaintiffs had shown that the federal government, through repeated contacts with social-media personnel, had perpetrated “arguably the most massive attack against free speech in United States history.” He likened the Biden administration’s efforts to “an Orwellian Ministry of Truth.”
The upshot of the ruling is that when the government “suggests” to Facebook or X that certain posted material is, well, unhelpful, concerning, or even dangerously misleading, it constitutes implicit censorship in violation of the First Amendment. Why? Because some government officials are in a position to punish (through antitrust action, civil-liability rules, or regulation) uncooperative parties. Therefore, even recommendations or pleas to remove or suppress posts necessarily carry a veiled threat. In the present case, the appellate judges write, the threats were sometimes stark naked.
It is well-established in law that what the government may not do directly — say, block expression — it may not do indirectly, such as by pressuring private companies to in effect censor.
The judges’ panel recapped the findings:
For the last few years—at least since the 2020 presidential transition—a group of federal officials has been in regular contact with nearly every major American social-media company about the spread of “misinformation” on their platforms. In their concern, those officials—hailing from the White House, the CDC, the FBI, and a few other agencies—urged the platforms to remove disfavored content and accounts from their sites. And, the platforms seemingly complied. They gave the officials access to an expedited reporting system, downgraded or removed flagged posts, and deplatformed users. The platforms also changed their internal policies to capture more flagged content and sent steady reports on their moderation activities to the officials. That went on through the COVID-19 pandemic, the 2022 congressional election, and continues to this day.
Enter this lawsuit. The Plaintiffs—three doctors, a news website, a healthcare activist, and two states—had posts and stories removed or downgraded by the platforms. Their content touched on a host of divisive topics like the COVID-19 lab-leak theory, pandemic lockdowns, vaccine side effects, election fraud, and the Hunter Biden laptop story. The Plaintiffs maintain that although the platforms stifled their speech, the government officials were the ones pulling the strings—they “coerced, threatened, and pressured [the] social-media platforms to censor [them]” through private communications and legal threats.
The judges pointed out in great detail that the “platforms were apparently eager to stay in the officials’ good graces” and did not just wait for suggestions about stifling dissent. That sounds like the Stockholm syndrome. But their efforts to please their overseers weren’t always enough: “The officials were often unsatisfied. They continued to press the platforms on the topic of misinformation throughout 2021.” A powerful thirst can be hard to quench.
Be seeing you
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: censorship, deplatformed, free speech, NCLA, New Civil Liberties Alliance, social-media | Leave a Comment »
MCViewPoint 
