Home » Posts tagged 'freedom of speech'

Tag Archives: freedom of speech

Olduvai
Click on image to purchase

Olduvai III: Catacylsm
Click on image to purchase

Post categories

Post Archives by Category

Ex-Manchester City Player’s Police Visits: Joey Barton’s Troubling Encounters Raise Questions About UK Speech Police

Ex-footballer Joey Barton criticizes police visits over Twitter posts, drawing parallels to North Korean intimidation.

Joey Barton, the former Manchester City and Newcastle footballer, has been experiencing incessant police visits as a result of his Twitter posts, creating what he describes as an uncomfortable atmosphere of intimidation akin to North Korean strong-arm tactics.

Barton, who has risen to prominence as a controversial figure in the sporting world, reported three visits from the UK police in just four days, aimed at “intimidating” his family and him.

On social media platform X, Barton opened up about his experience, detailing the instances of police disruption. He stated that he had shared his lawyer’s information with the police in response to their requests for a voluntary interview—a discussion regarding the content of his tweets.

One of his posts highlighted a disconcerting incident when, at 9:30 pm, two officers knocked at his door.

Barton’s situation spurred a public response, prompting a follower to question the waste of police resources investigating tweets while street crimes continue unabated. In acknowledgment, Barton expressed similar concerns. He decried the use of taxpayer money for social media policing while urgent criminal matters seemed to be neglected.

Barton, however, remains a target of condemnation due to his tweets about women’s roles in men’s football.

His online tweets often criticize some female pundits’ lack of knowledge about the sport.

Joey Barton’s unsettling encounters with the police raise concerns about the measures taken by authorities, which seem close to police-state tactics. While attempts to set up a voluntary interview between Barton and the police are yet to be successful, the matter certainly hints at the chilling threat to the freedom of speech that is now pervasive in the UK.

Inside the UN Plan to Control Speech Online

Inside the UN Plan to Control Speech Online

A powerful United Nations agency has unveiled a plan to regulate social media and online communication while clamping down on what it describes as “false information” and “conspiracy theories,” sparking alarm among free-speech advocates and top U.S. lawmakers.

The U.N. Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) outlined a series of “concrete measures which must be implemented by all stakeholders: governments, regulatory authorities, civil society, and the platforms themselves.” in a 59-page report released this month.

The approach includes the imposition of global policies, through institutions such as governments and businesses, that seek to stop the spread of various forms of speech while promoting objectives such as “cultural diversity” and “gender equality.”

In particular, the U.N. agency aims to create an “Internet of Trust” through a focus on what it calls “misinformation,” “disinformation,” “hate speech,” and “conspiracy theories.”

Examples of expression flagged to be stopped or restricted include concerns about elections, public health measures, and advocacy that could constitute “incitement to discrimination.”

 Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg testifies remotely during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on "Censorship, Suppression, and the 2020 Election," in Washington on Nov. 17, 2020. (Bill Clark-Pool/Getty Images)
Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg testifies remotely during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on “Censorship, Suppression, and the 2020 Election,” in Washington on Nov. 17, 2020. (Bill Clark-Pool/Getty Images)

Critics have warned that allegations of “disinformation” and “conspiracy theories” have increasingly been used by powerful forces in government and Big Tech to silence true information and even core political speech.

Just this month, the U.S. House Judiciary Committee released a report blasting the “pseudoscience of disinformation.”

Among other concerns, the committee found that this “pseudoscience” has been “weaponized” by what lawmakers refer to as the “Censorship Industrial Complex,” the goal of which is to silence constitutionally protected political speech, mostly by conservatives.

…click on the above link to read the rest…

The Costs and Casualties of Government’s Information Total War

censorship of the people

The Costs and Casualties of Government’s Information Total War

“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it,”

This phrase, misattributed to Voltaire, has largely come to dominate—and confuse—our understanding of the importance of free speech in a free society. That misunderstanding seems to be at the heart of the very lukewarm response elicited by the exposure of “the most massive attack against free speech in United States’ history” unearthed through discovery in Missouri v. Biden now before the Supreme Court.

The trouble with this framing of free speech is that it focuses on hateful speech, framing the imperative to defend the utterance of hateful speech as a form of polite, reciprocal tolerance, necessary for the smooth functioning of a liberal society. If ever there were a framing that caused one to miss the forest for the trees, this is it.

The primacy free speech enjoys here in the US has nothing whatever to do with some dewy-eyed ideal of tolerance. Rather, it owes its primacy to pragmatism. Freedom of speech is the best tool we have to ascertain the truth of any given matter. Like a sculptor transforming a shapeless piece of marble into a work of art, free and open debate chisels away at the falsehoods and misapprehensions in which the truth lays embedded. Restrict debate, and the gradual emergence of that truth will be delayed or deformed, with the result imperfect at times to the point of monstrosity.

The reason we must “defend to the death” the right to utter “intolerable speech,” is that failure to do so results in the swift and certain condemnation as “intolerable” all speech that diminishes the power or legitimacy of those in power…

…click on the above link to read the rest…

Comer Launches Probe into State Department’s Alleged Funding of Group Blacklisting Conservative Media ‘Under the Guise of Combatting Disinformation’

Comer Launches Probe into State Department’s Alleged Funding of Group Blacklisting Conservative Media ‘Under the Guise of Combatting Disinformation’

House Oversight Chair James Comer (R-Ky.) sent a letter on Thursday to the U.S. State Department demanding records and a briefing by the agency regarding its alleged funding of a “disinformation tracking group” that is blacklisting conservative-leaning news outlets.

The letter (pdf) cites as evidence the Washington Examiner’s series of investigative reports uncovering the State Department’s alleged partnership with activist organizations, specifically one “foreign organization,” to “suppress lawful speech and defund disfavored news outlets under the guise of combatting disinformation.”

“The Committee is disturbed by recent reporting that taxpayer money ended up in the hands of a foreign organization running an advertising blacklist of organizations accused of hosting disinformation on their websites, including several conservative-leaning news organizations,” Comer wrote.

The letter goes on to detail the Washington Examiner’s findings.

According to the outlet, major ad companies look to “nonpartisan” groups that claim to detect and fight “disinformation” online to help determine which news outlets and websites they should avoid.

Some of these “disinformation monitors,” the Washington Examiner went on to explain, “are compiling secret blacklists and feeding them to ad companies, with the aim of defunding and shutting down disfavored speech.”

One such group is British Global Disinformation Institute (GDI), which has compiled a “dynamic exclusion list” of 2,000 websites and rates those outlets based on their “alleged disinformation ‘risk’ factor,” according to the Washington Examiner.

GDI’s website further explains its purpose. Calling itself an “independent, non-profit, open source, intelligence hub,” GDI “tracks disinformation and extremism across platforms online” to “serve a broad array of governments, NGOs [non-governmental organizations], online platforms, and media.”

…click on the above link to read the rest…

Say Only What We Want to Hear, or We Will Take Away Your Livelihood

Say Only What We Want to Hear, or We Will Take Away Your Livelihood

The attacks on free and open discussion are becoming more and more widespread. Now, as Toby Young explains in an article this morning, the payment service PayPal has closed the accounts of the Daily Sceptic, which often publishes criticism of the government policy in various matters.

PayPal has also closed the account of the Free Speech Union, which provides support to people whose freedom of opinion is under attack, for example those fired from their jobs because of their opinions. PayPal has even gone as far as to close the rarely used personal account of Toby Young, who is in charge of both the Daily Sceptic and the Free Speech Union, and is also associate editor of The Spectator, one of the world’s most respected newspapers.

As Toby reports in his article, the company has offered no explanation for this move.

When payment services or banks begin to act in this way, it should dawn upon us what a serious threat to free and open exchange of opinions we are facing. Not only can you be fired from your job, your very possibility to make a living will be taken away also.

Now, there is little doubt that many people think that as long as their own opinions are allowed, everything is fine, even if other opinions are forbidden. But that position, apart from being morally wrong, is based on an utter lack of understanding of the threat we face; the question is not if, but when it will be your own opinions that are censored, your own livelihood taken away.

…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…

Leftists Hate Free Speech Because They Fear Dissent, Not “Disinformation”

Leftists Hate Free Speech Because They Fear Dissent, Not “Disinformation”

I think one of the most bizarre social developments of the past 10 years in the US has been the slow but steady shift of the political left as supposed defenders of free speech to enemies of free speech. The level of mental gymnastics on display by leftists to justify their attacks on freedom and the 1st Amendment is bewildering. So much so that I begin to question if liberals and leftists ever actually had any respect for 1st Amendment rights to begin with? Or, maybe the only freedom they cared about all along was the freedom to watch pornography…

One can see the steady progression of this war on speech and ideas, and the end game is predictable: Is anyone really that surprised that the Biden Administration is implementing a Ministry of Truth in the form of the DHS Disinformation Governance Board? Can we just accept the reality at this point that leftists are evil and their efforts feed into an agenda of authoritarianism? Is there any evidence to the contrary?

Before I get into this issue, I think it’s important to point out that it’s becoming tiresome to hear arguments these days suggesting that meeting leftists “somewhere in the middle” is the best and most desirable option. I see this attitude all over the place and I think it comes from a certain naivety about the situation we are facing as a country. Moderates and “normies” along with people like Bill Maher and Russell Brand are FINALLY starting to realize how bag-lady-crazy leftists are and the pendulum is swinging back slightly. But, it was conservatives that were calling out the social justice cult and their highway to hell for years.

…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…

UK Considering Legislation That Would Imprison Internet Trolls

UK Considering Legislation That Would Imprison Internet Trolls

This blatant attempt at the censorship of online speech is deeply concerning.

If you ever need a reminder of how important freedom of speech is, all you need to do is look across the pond. The United Kingdom, which doesn’t have a First Amendment, has slowly seen citizens’ free speech rights eroded—and now may soon start imprisoning people for being trolls on the internet.

At question is pending legislation called the “Online Safety Bill,” which ostensibly punishes social media companies that allow harassment. Yet it may be expanded to include new criminal penalties for individuals who engage in mean speech online.

“Trolls could face two years in prison for sending messages or posting content that causes psychological harm under legislation targeting online hate,” the Times of London reports. “The Department for Culture, Media & Sport has accepted recommendations from the Law Commission for crimes to be based on ‘likely psychological harm.’ The proposed law change will shift the focus on to the ‘harmful effect’ of a message rather than if it contains ‘indecent’ or ‘grossly offensive’ content, which is the present basis for assessing its criminality.”

Other offenses will reportedly be created for “knowingly false communication,” applying to those who “send or post a message they know to be false with the intention to cause emotional, psychological, or physical harm to the likely audience.” The new offenses will also include punishment for social-media “pile-ons,” where groups gang up and are rude to people online.

Culture Secretary Nadine Dorries is reportedly planning on adding these provisions to the Online Safety Bill when it’s introduced in Parliament next month.

…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…

Julian Assange’s ‘Trial of the Century’: 10 Reasons Why it Threatens Freedom of Speech

Julian Assange’s ‘Trial of the Century’: 10 Reasons Why it Threatens Freedom of Speech

Fidel Narváez was in the court in London for the majority of the hearings and offers this comprehensive summary.

“Old Bailey” court in London. (Wikimedia Commons)

At the end of the hearings that seek to extradite journalist Julian Assange to the United States, on Oct. 1, his defense team should have felt triumphant. Because with more than 30 witnesses and testimonies, throughout the whole month of September, they gave a beating to the prosecution representing the U.S.

If the case in London were decided solely on justice, as it should in a state based on law, this battle would have been won by Assange.

However, this “trial of the century” is, above all, a political trial, and there remains the feeling that the ruling was made beforehand, regardless of the law.

The court kicked off on Sept. 7 with hundreds of protesters outside, in contrast with the restrictions that the court imposed inside — in what is the most important case against the freedom of expression in an entire generation.

It only permitted the entry of five people on the list of “family members,” and five people from the public, who were put in an adjacent room, where they were barely able to follow the video transmission.

The judge, Vanessa Baraitser, who is overseeing the case, without a convincing reason cut the access to the video stream that had previously been authorized to nearly 40 human rights organizations and international observers, including Amnesty International, Reporters Without Borders and PEN International.

Each day, starting at 5 am, selfless activists stood in line so that observers like Reporters Without Borders, for example, could enter and take one of the five available seats. Thanks to them, and to family members of Assange, I was able to be in court to attend the majority of the hearings.

…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…

“Goodbye Asset Inflation” – Marc Faber Fears Funding Chaos Contagion From Repo Markets

“Goodbye Asset Inflation” – Marc Faber Fears Funding Chaos Contagion From Repo Markets

Faber wrote in his Monthly Market Commentary for October, under the title : THE THREAT TO ACADEMIC FREEDOM AND TO THE RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF OPINION IS A MENACE TO LIBERTY,

The historian Niall Ferguson recently wrote an article entitled: A message to all professional thinkers – we either hang together or we hang separately.

Ferguson explained that:

In every case, the pattern is the same. An academic deemed to be conservative gets ‘called out.’

The Twitter mob piles on.

Mindless mainstream media outlets amplify the story.

The relevant authorities capitulate” and get rid of the academic…

A month rarely passes without some conservative academic being taken down.” 

The French philosopher and best-selling author, Alain Finkielkraut who is a member of the Academie Francaise, recently said that, far-left protests against him mean he “can no longer show my face” on the street.

The “threat to academic freedom” is at the same time an assault on “freedom of speech” and “expression,” and therefore, should concern all of us.

Under Trouble in the US financial Wonderland we discuss the funding chaos in the repo market.

Several experts have downplayed the recent chaotic behaviour but I take it far more seriously because it indicates to me that liquidity has become tight – at least for some market players.

Should a widespread liquidity crunch follow – “good bye asset inflation” and welcome “widespread asset deflation” as well as QE4. 

Source: Bloomberg

September 24, 2019, was most likely the beginning of the end of the Unicorn bubble as well as for the trend to allocate pension assets to private equity managers. There may be some liquidity problems at some private equity firms. 

…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…

France: More Death to Free Speech

France: More Death to Free Speech

  • Defending someone who is accused of being a “racist” implies the risk of being accused of being a “racist” too. Intellectual terror reigns in France.
  • France is moving from a “muzzled press to a muzzling press that destroys free speech”. — Alain Finkielkraut, writer and philosopher.
  • Writers other than Éric Zemmour have been hauled into court and totally excluded from all media, simply for describing reality.
  • In a society where freedom of speech exists, it would be possible to discuss the use of these statements, but in France today, freedom of speech has been almost completely destroyed.
  • Soon in France, no one will dare to say that any attack openly inspired by Islam has any connection with Islam.

On September 28, a “Convention of the Right” took place in Paris, organized by Marion Marechal, a former member of French parliament and now director of France’s Institute of Social, Economic and Political Sciences. The purpose of the convention was to unite France’s right-wing political factions. In a keynote speech, the journalist Éric Zemmour harshly criticized Islam and the Islamization of France. He described the country’s “no-go zones” (Zones Urbaines Sensibles; Sensitive Urban Zones) as “foreign enclaves” in French territory and depicted, as a process of “colonization”, the growing presence in France of Muslims who do not integrate.

Zemmour quoted the Algerian writer Boualem Sansal, who said that the no-go zones are “small Islamic Republics in the making”. Zemmour said that a few decades ago, the French could talk freely about Islam but that today it is impossible, and he denounced the use of the “hazy concept of Islamophobia to make it impossible to criticize Islam, to reestablish the notion of blasphemy to the benefit of the Muslim religion alone…”

 …click on the above link to read the rest of the article…

CrossFit Warns Those Who Engage In ‘Activities Contrary to Prevailing Opinion’ to Avoid Facebook

CrossFit Warns Those Who Engage In ‘Activities Contrary to Prevailing Opinion’ to Avoid Facebook

CrossFit Warns Those Who Engage In 'Activities Contrary to Prevailing Opinion' to Avoid Facebook

Source: (AP Photo/Efrem Lukatsky)

As conservatives warn of the dangers of Silicon Valley’s left-wing monopoly on political speech, one fitness and self-improvement company has jumped into the fray to discuss free speech on social media. Crossfit, the high-intensity gym program, released a statement this past Thursday slamming Facebook for the unexplained removal of its content as well the company’s lack of self-responsibility as the “de facto authority over the public square, arbitrating a worldwide exchange of information as well as overseeing the security of the individuals and communities who entrust their ideas, work, and private data to this platform.” 

“CrossFit is a contrarian physiological and nutrition prescription for improving fitness and health. It is contrarian because prevailing views of fitness, health, and nutrition are wrong and have unleashed a tsunami of chronic disease upon our friends, family, and communities,” the statement began. The company then says that millions who use CrossFit and share its methodology stand “against an unholy alliance of academia, government, and multinational food, beverage, and pharmaceutical companies.” 

The company says that it encourages and supports its adherents to “speak openly and freely about the ideas and principles that animate our views of exercise, nutrition, and health.” In doing so, CrossFit has defended their beliefs “against overreaching governments, malicious competitors, and corrupt academic organizations.” 

But, now Facebook has threatened that freedom, CrossFit argues. It all started when Facebook removed a group of CrossFitters with more than 1.65 million members without explanation. That group advocates low-carb, high-fat diets — something that not everybody in the health community agrees upon. Due to this unexplained censorship, the company believes that “Facebook’s action should give any serious person reason to pause, especially those of us engaged in activities contrary to prevailing opinion.” The company notes the group was reinstated, but that was never explained either.

 …click on the above link to read the rest of the article…

California Democrat: “I Would Love To…Regulate The Content Of Speech”

California Democrat: “I Would Love To…Regulate The Content Of Speech”

One California Democrat has finally admitted what we all knew, that politicians in government want to end free speech permanently. Representative Ted Lieu said he would “love to be able to regulate the content of speech” during an interview Wednesday.

Lieu admitted that the only reason the government hasn’t punished people for free speech yet is the first amendment.  It seems like the United States government and the die-hard statists that vote for these Communists have learned nothing from the Nazis or the Soviet Union.  Violently controlling speech (which is exactly what regulation of speech would be) is one of the most egregious of human rights violations.

According to The Free Beacon, Lieu got a lot of attention a day earlier when Google CEO Sundar Pichai testified at a House Judiciary Committee hearing. Pichai took to assailing conservative claims of the tech giant’s bias against them by reading positive and negative stories about Republican Representatives Steve Scalise of Louisiana and Steve King of Iowa, the latter of whom has repeatedly courted controversy with racially charged remarks.

According to Fox News, after CNN host Brianna Keilar praised Lieu for the “clever” stunt during the testimony, she wondered if Democrats should have used more of their time to question the Google leader about how it and other tech companies can work to prevent the spread of conspiracy theories and other online trolling.  Meaning, Keilar wants people who say things she dislikes or doesn’t believe to be shut down.  She wants to kill freedom of speech for good, not unlike Adolf Hitler.

But for now, at least even though the Nazis in charge obviously want more power and to strip any and all rights from everyone else, Lieu admitted he can’t (yet) regulate speech. 

…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…

Avoid the Slippery Slope

Avoid the Slippery Slope

Everything government touches turns to crap.
Ringo Starr

Social media companies, search engines, and payments platforms are excising conservative, libertarian, and assorted anti-government voices. SLL argued in “The Friendly Faces of Fascism” that the largest and best known of these companies were essentially arms of the government. They are mechanisms for conveying information, opinions, and commerce between billions of people. Given their reach, importance, and ties to the government, should these ostensibly private companies be subject to the First Amendment’s prohibition of government restriction of free speech and the free press?

The First Amendment states that: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. By its terms, the amendment applies to one institution, Congress. By necessary implication, freedom of speech and the press must also be the freedom to choose what not to speak or publish.

In Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins, 447 U.S. 74 (1980), the Supreme Court held that California’s Constitution permissibly required a private shopping center to allow a group to express its political views on shopping center property regularly held open to the public. California’s Constitution created an affirmative right of free speech that the court reasoned went beyond the First Amendment, which is a set of prohibitions on the government, or negative rights.

Those who argue that the social media companies, search engines, and payments platforms shouldn’t be allowed to suppress viewpoints they don’t like hang their rhetorical hats on the Pruneyard rationale. These companies are virtual public forums or enable such forums, the argument goes. As such, they should be required to accept all viewpoints.

…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…

America’s Kristallnacht?

America’s Kristallnacht?

If the US government prosecutes Julian Assange and WikiLeaks, it will mark a point of no return.

We’ll never know what “average” Germans thought on November 11, 1938, the day after Kristallnacht. Perhaps a few recognized it for what it was: a turning point, an acceleration of Germany’s descent into hell. America’s Crystal Night looms, and if it occurs, only a few will recognize it for what it is.

The fate of Julian Assange is the fate of one man, but it is also the fate of one of our most important freedoms. There won’t be shattered plate glass from vandalized businesses littering the streets, synagogues smashed, graves unearthed, or people herded onto trains. But his prosecution by the US government would destroy an inestimable value, one enshrined in the First Amendment, for which generations of Americans have fought and died: the right of the people and its press to inform the people and to hold their government to account.

Aside from armed resistance and revolution, the one defense individuals have against governments is intellectual: the concept of individual rights. There is an argument as to whether those rights come from our Creator (Thomas Jefferson) or from our basic nature as humans and the requirements of our survival (Ayn Rand). Despite starting from different premises, both arguments lead to the same conclusion: individuals have inherent, inalienable, inviolable rights, and the only legitimate function of government is to protect those rights.

The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were explicit attempts to delineate a set of principles that recognized individual rights and tried to restrain government power. Though real-world implementation has fallen short, often far short, they were towering conceptual achievements.

In 1933, the year Hitler assumed power, the government began enacting laws that restricted Jews’ rights to earn a living, gain an education, or work in the civil service.

…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…

How Democracies Turn Tyrannical

How Democracies Turn Tyrannical

Both monarchs of the past and dictators more in the present have denied limits on their power to command and coerce those under their control.

For most of the last three centuries, the ideas of liberty and democracy have been intertwined in the minds of both friends and foes of a free society. The substitution of absolute monarchies with governments representative of the voting choices of a nation’s population has been considered part and parcel with the advancement of freedom of speech and the press, the right of voluntary and peaceful association for political and numerous social, economic and cultural reasons, and the guarding of the individual from arbitrary and unrestrained power. But what happens when an appeal to democracy becomes a smokescreen for majoritarian tyranny and coalition politicking by special interest groups pursuing privilege and plunder?

Friends of freedom, including many of those who strongly believed in and fought for representative and democratically elected government in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, often expressed fearful concerns that “democracy” could itself become a threat to the liberty of many of the very people that democratic government was supposed to protect.

The Tyrannies of Minorities and Majorities

In his famous essay “On Liberty” (1859), the British social philosopher John Stuart Mill warned that tyranny could take three forms: the tyranny of the minority, the tyranny of the majority, and the tyranny of custom and tradition. The tyranny of the minority was represented by absolute monarchy (a tyranny of the one) or an oligarchy (a tyranny of the few). The tyranny of custom and tradition could take the form of social and psychological pressures on individuals or small groups of individuals to conform to the prejudices and narrow-mindedness of wider communities who intimidate and stifle individual thought, creativity, or (peaceful) behavioral eccentricity.

…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…

Olduvai IV: Courage
Click on image to read excerpts

Olduvai II: Exodus
Click on image to purchase

Click on image to purchase @ FriesenPress