On the Death of Free Speech

This is a really good article on the lefts attempt to control free speech using agenda politics.

LGBT Activists Arm For Further War On Free Speech

Kirsten Powers’ new book, “The Silencing,” nails it by showing just how bad things have gotten for free speech in America. It’s going to get a whole lot worse, and I’ll explain why.

Powers has dubbed today’s intolerant purveyors of leftist causes the “the illiberal left” because, as a liberal herself, she sees them as anything but liberal about allowing a voice to those who don’t toe their rigid line. Her book catalogues and analyzes the dehumanization and demonization techniques the illiberal Left applies towards anyone who dares to veer from their rigid narratives. Their sacred cows include abortion, climate change, same-sex marriage, and second-wave feminism. Dissenters are systematically smeared and destroyed.

There is no small irony in the fact that the crazed reaction from the illiberal Left to Powers’ book demonstrates the very behaviors and attitudes she critiques. Social media immediately erupted with a hate-fest and swarmed Powers on Twitter, in exactly the manner described in her book. It’s yet another exercise in promoting groupthink and suppressing freedom of expression by those who want to tell us all what we must think.

But I would add that most of this is coming straight out of the Left’s holy of holies: the LGBT lobby (whose agenda Powers happens to support.) Because next up on the LGBT hit parade is the literal silencing of America—with the force of the federal government behind it.~snip~

I really don't think it matters to the commie/left which cause they can use to create laws stifling speech just so long as they can find a way to stop people from saying things they don't like for "social justice" to create hate speech laws.

Once that happens the doors are open to anything deemed hateful and then we'll see people censoring their own thoughts out of fear that they will articulate them. The idea that our society seems to be OK with this is really what's alarming.

Attacking Free Speech

On top of the fact that businesses can be penalized for not wanting to participate in ceremonies that violate their religious beliefs a court has ruled that schools can ban T-shirts with American flags worn by students.
A nice analysis can be found here:

Not safe to display American flag in American high school

Today’s Dariano v. Morgan Hill Unified School Dist. (9th Cir. Feb. 27, 2014) upholds a California high school’s decision to forbid students from wearing American flag T-shirts on Cinco de Mayo. (See here and here for more on this case.)
The court points out that the rights of students in public high schools are limited — under the Supreme Court’s decision in Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. Comm. School Dist. (1969), student speech could be restricted if “school authorities [can reasonably] forecast substantial disruption of or material interference with school activities” stemming from the speech. And on the facts of this case, the court concludes, there was reason to think that the wearing of the T-shirts would lead to disruption. There had been threats of racial violence aimed at students who wore such shirts the year before:

On Cinco de Mayo in 2009, a year before the events relevant to this appeal, there was an altercation on campus between a group of predominantly Caucasian students and a group of Mexican students. The groups exchanged profanities and threats. Some students hung a makeshift American flag on one of the trees on campus, and as they did, the group of Caucasian students began clapping and chanting “USA.” A group of Mexican students had been walking around with the Mexican flag, and in response to the white students’ flag-raising, one Mexican student shouted “f*** them white boys, f*** them white boys.” When Assistant Principal Miguel Rodriguez told the student to stop using profane language, the student said, “But Rodriguez, they are racist. They are being racist. F*** them white boys. Let’s f*** them up.” Rodriguez removed the student from the area….
At least one party to this appeal, student M.D., wore American flag clothing to school on Cinco de Mayo 2009. M.D. was approached by a male student who, in the words of the district court, “shoved a Mexican flag at him and said something in Spanish expressing anger at [M.D.’s] clothing.~snip~

Public schools receive public and federal money and as such can be considered extensions of the federal government so the rights under the constitution should apply. With threats of violence made it seems somewhat obvious that the easiest thing to do would be to give in to what in essence are terrorists and ban the shirts.
It seems like as a country we are giving in to terroristic threats more than trying to protect and respect the speech of all citizens thus rewarding those who use violence or threats of violence to silence others.
Strangely enough this is a commie/liberal tactic that keeps being used because we have allowed it to become so successful....that needs to change.

Yes it Can Happen Here

It's certainly an ironic situation that while Venezuela and Ukraine are in flames because people are fighting for their rights we have politicians here that threaten our right to disagree with them using the power of licensing to silence dissent.

Michigan Democrat Rep. Gary Peters threatens TV station licenses over Obamacare ad

While Julie Boonstra of Dexter, Mich., struggles to survive leukemia, she now also has to cope with being called a liar by the Democrat who wants to be her next senator.
And the campaign of Rep. Gary Peters is also going after television stations airing ads in which her story is featured, threatening their licenses.
The ad by Americans for Prosperity features Boonstra talking about how her insurance was canceled under Obamacare and saying that Peters' decision to vote for the law "jeopardized my health." The ads are airing in Michigan as Peters seeks the Democratic nomination to replace Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., who is not seeking re-election.
Media organizations investigating the ad's claims note that Boonstra was able to find comparable new insurance under the law; the Washington Post's "Fact Checker" blog gave the ad "two Pinocchios" (as compared to four for President Obama's claim that people could keep their insurance under the law).
But Boonstra, in response, told the local Dexter Leader newspaper that though she has no idea whether she will break even with her new plan, as the fact-checkers claim, the uncertainty of having to restructure her health care while coping with a deadly disease is damage enough.
"People are asking me for the numbers and I don't know those answers -- that's the heartbreak of all of this. It's the uncertainty of not having those numbers that I have an issue with, because I always knew what I was paying and now I don't, and I haven't gone through the tests or seen my specialist yet," she said.~snip~

No matter what the fact checkers say the bottom line is that Julia Boonstra has her reasons for disliking the plan she has been forced into and has no other alternative because of Obamacare. This is a basic fact that the democrats seem to want to constantly ignore while trying to sell the public on why they are better off now.
So now she's not only lost the freedom of determining what kind of health plan is better for her but could potentially lose the ability to speak out about it.

Congressmen Get Involved With Redskins

As others have already pointed out around the web you would think that members of congress would have more pressing issues to deal with than sending letters to the commissioner of the NFL.

Members of Congress urge NFL to press for Redskins name change

Two members of Congress will reportedly send a letter to National Football League Commissioner Roger Goodell Monday calling for the league to put pressure on the Washington Redskins to change the team's nickname.

The Washington Post reports that the letter, signed by Rep. Tom Cole, R-Okla., and Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., asks Goodell to "to take a formal position in support of a name change."

The letter goes on to add that the league "is on the wrong side of history. It is not appropriate for this multibillion dollar… tax-exempt organization to perpetuate and profit from the continued degradation of tribes and Indian people," the Post reports. Cantwell is the chair of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee, while Cole is one of two Native Americans in Congress.

The Redskins franchise, which was founded in 1932 and has been based in Washington since 1937, has been under increasing pressure to change its name, which many deem offensive to Native Americans. Some newspapers have refused to use the team's nickname in stories and NBC commentator Bob Costas referred to the nickname as "an insult, a slur" during the network's broadcast of a Redskins game this past October.

Redskins owner Dan Snyder has insisted that he would never change the name while he owned the team. Team spokesman Tony Wylie responded to the letter in a statement to the Post: "With all the important issues Congress has to deal with ... don’t they have more important issues to worry about than a football team’s name? And given the fact that the name of Oklahoma means 'Red People' in Choctaw, this request is a little ironic."

For his part, Goodell has resisted calls to change the team's name. At a news conference during Super Bowl week, Goodell responded to a question about the name by saying, "Eight out of 10 Americans in the general population would not like us to change the name. So we are listening. We are being respectful to people who disagree. But let's not forget this is the name of a football team."

Whether you like the name or not what a private entity names their organization seems to me to be a matter of free speech. To use their positions as congressmen to "urge" that a private entity change their name seems to me to be a intrusion by the government to regulate the Redskins free speech rights.
Opposing the name as private citizens is one thing, but when they use the power of their office then it becomes a constitutional intrusion.

Purging Dissent in the Media

Here's something I read about yesterday and it kind of slipped my mind until today.
Here's a guy who lost his job just because of his views on homosexuality.
He didn't call names or disparage homosexuas as a group, he just offered his opinion on what he saw the consequences to be.

Craig James fired by Fox Sports for saying homosexuality is a ‘choice’ to be judged by God

A Fox Sports college football analyst was fired after just one week once video footage surfaced of him in 2012 speaking of gays having to face God for their sexual choices.
Craig James, a former NFL player who unsuccessfully ran last year for a Senate seat in Texas, said during a campaign debate that gays would “have to answer to the Lord for their actions,” the Daily Mail reported. He also said, to applause, that being gay “is a choice” and those who “choose to do that” face accountability from God.
He made the comments about gays in context of explaining how “God’s going to judge each one of us in this room for our actions,” the Mail reported.
He added: “We should not give benefits to those civil unions. They should not occur. We have to stay strong on this, this is important, man. … We have a fiscal issue in this country. … We also have a moral issue in this country.”
Fox executives fired him and said he “will not be making any further appearances on Fox Sports Southwest’s football coverage this season,” a network spokesperson told Sports Illustrated.~snip~

Funny thing is that just mentioning FOX news is enough to send liberal/commies into paroxysms of foaming at the mouth rage that they lie and deceive and so on and so on.
But the truth is that FOX is closer to liberal/commies than they are conservatives.
Being proud members of the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association (NLGJA).

Fox News and MSNBC in Bed Together on Gay Rights

The Fox News Channel and MSNBC may be ideological competitors, but they see things the same way on homosexual “gay pride” in the media business.
The National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association (NLGJA) is sponsoring a March 24, 2011, “Headlines & Headliners” fundraiser to be hosted by MSNBC anchor Thomas Roberts, with “special guests” that include Jamie Colby, Rick Folbaum, and Kimberly Guilfoyle of Fox News. Tickets are $100-$150.
Other “special guests” include Chris Jansing of MSNBC, Natalie Morales of NBC News, Erin Moriarty of CBS News, Trish Regan of CNBC, and Jane Velez-Mitchell of Headline News.
Peter LaBarbera of Americans for Truth says “the NLGJA is an activist organization with a strong institutional bias against those espousing traditionalist views on homosexuality.”
He told AIM, “It is appropriate that Guilfoyle would be at this event based on her appearance on the Fox News “Red Eye” show in which she not only dismissed the social conservative boycott of the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) but she laughed at Greg Gutfeld’s nasty anti-Christian bigotry. Gutfeld called pro-family groups haters. She didn’t come to the defense of pro-family groups to defend their moral belief that homosexuality is wrong. It demonstrates her own bias against pro-family organizations. Many social conservatives are afraid that Fox News is going from neutral to becoming increasingly pro-gay. Fox News hosts were pretty much AWOL on the homosexuals in the military debate.”~snip~

 Apparently this issue is the one that FOX and all the other liberal/commie media can agree on. There is scant information being put out by anyone on the consequences of society unquestionably going full bore towards "homosexual" rights. With FOX aligning themselves with this ideological agenda there will be little hope of opposing views on social issues.

Right Message....Wrong Town

Liberals hate it when anybody criticizes dear leader Obama.


Nice cover story for stomping on someones free speech BTW.
If Obama wins another term then be prepared to lose the right to free speech completely.

Islamic Anarchy in Dearborn Michigan

This is kind of long but infuriating.
As I watched it was plain to me that the Muslims violating the rights of peaceful Christians to gather and exercise their free speech rights, in America mind you, seemed to feel entitled to abuse others who's beliefs they disagree with.

Yet I find it impossible to imagine a crowd of Christians surrounding a small group of Muslims and throwing various objects while uttering obscenities at them.

You gotta wonder how we've come to this point in this country and how corrupt the Dearborn police have become to be able to pander to hoodlums.