Obama administration introduced an anti-free speech measure

[vector7]

FCC Official Proposes a “Public Value Test” for Licensing


By John Galt
December 3, 2010

I, among many others, have been warning at length that this administration and its minions would seek control of the airwaves and the flow of information on the internet to insure that the various points of view within the greater debate and discussion in our society are limited within a framework which is satisfactory to the two political parties in power. When this idea is expanded to the current administration it means the pure unadulterated naked censorship and rationing of the disbursement of government actions, legislation, and regulation so the bureaucrats can move in silence and surprise the public only when their evil deeds are complete. The “Unfairness Doctrine” was something that I warned about back during the Bush administration when the Democrats in Congress first grumbled that they wished to restore the Federal Communications Commission powers to regulate the debate on the airwaves and the tools that would be proposed would indeed restrict political debate in addition to religious speech that a bureaucrat deemed offensive.

The next step in this ideal they seek to re-impose can be found in this morning’s print edition of the New York Times within this story by Brian Stelter:

A New Test Is Proposed in Licensing Radio and TV

This should not come as a shock to my readers or listeners, but what should scare everyone is the proposal as discussed by FCC Commissioner Michael J. Copps within the story:

Michael J. Copps, one of the five commissioners on the Federal Communications Commission, said Thursday that a “public value test” should replace the current licensing system for television and radio stations.

The test, he said, “would get us back to the original licensing bargain between broadcasters and the people: in return for free use of airwaves that belong exclusively to the people, licensees agree to serve the public interest as good stewards of a precious national resource.”

Mr. Copps, a Democratic commissioner who has long wanted to reform the license system, made the proposal in an address at the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism on Thursday. It is his latest effort to draw attention to the public interest requirements of local stations at a time when he believes American journalism is in “grave peril.”

Wake up and smell the coffee America because as I have warned for years now, the slide into 1923 Italy is not very far for our society as Americans indeed would trade freedom for security, economic guarantees for your rights, and a willingness to silence your voice for a predefined notion of “civil discourse.” This is your test period my fellow citizens as if they succeed in this plan, which knowing how this administration functions, they will, the entire spectrum of debate on the news of the day and actions by our political and economic elites will be controlled and rationed only after they mold the information into a palatable form acceptable to whatever regime is in power.

Pray for our Republic as the moment of truth is approaching.

[vector7]

Free speech can't exist unchained. US politics needs the tonic of order

If America is to speak in a way that heals, as Obama wishes, it needs the curbs and regulations that make freedom of expression real

• Comments (376)

• guardian.co.uk, Thursday 13 January 2011 20.00 GMT

The ugly American is back.

Can the handsome one do anything about it?

When Barack Obama addressed a shocked nation in Tuscon, Arizona, yesterday, he deployed the only weapon left to a crippled presidency: the power of rhetorical cliche. He deployed it brilliantly.

"Together we thrive," he cried meaninglessly. "For all our imperfections, we are full of decency and goodness." While American hearts were broken, "yet our hearts also have reason for fullness … The forces that unite us are stronger than the forces that divide us." Despite pleas to keep war jargon out of political discourse, Obama asked: "How can we honour the fallen?"

The answer came in copious references to heroism, family, home, hearth, to "September 11 … faces of hope … simple wishes … those in need … the American anthem … hand over heart". True Americans, said Obama, "jump in rain puddles". In a tribute to a nine-year-old gunned down by a madman, he added: "If there are rain puddles in Heaven, Christina is jumping in them today."

More substantive was the president's remark that it "is part of our nature to demand explanations, to try to impose some order on the chaos". The process also involved "debating what might be done to prevent such tragedies in the future". Americans had to make sure that they speak to each other "in a way that heals, not a way that wounds".

Foreigners are always surprised by the US's capacity to speak right but somehow not do it. Washington must contain more wisdom and talent than anywhere on earth, yet it contrives the disaster zone that is American foreign policy. This is normally put down to such impediments as the US constitution, the silent majority, sheer bigness and freedom of speech.

Today's culprit is freedom of speech, or at least the speech of the American right and its broadcast cheerleaders. Shock-jock radio presenters feed on biased television news to present a view of the world divided between goodies and baddies. The baddies are always on the brink of victory and must be confronted with virile aggression. Language that might not disturb a balanced mind can clearly stimulate and legitimise an unbalanced one.

The vitriol and inaccuracy of the campaign against Obama's public health reforms last year were like those against abortion and homosexuality.

To many Europeans, the echo across the Atlantic came from a people isolated from the outside world and unable to handle today's social and scientific progress. The debate was infused with nastiness and xenophobia, as if the US was a land composed of tribes bred only to hate the outside world, and often themselves.

I was asked some time ago by a university-educated Texan, in the nicest possible way, what it was like to live in a country of "baby-killers" about to be "overrun by Muslim bad guys". I inquired where he had gained this bizarre impression of Europe, which he had never visited. It turned out his sole information about the world beyond America's shore came from Fox News. He was not stupid. But he and millions of people like him considered this source of news a sufficient window on the world. He genuinely thought American troops would soon have to save Europe from "the Arabs".

Freedom of speech, like freedom of traffic, can only be defined by the curbs and regulations that make it real. The right wing seeks to curb WikiLeaks, and the left seeks to curb "hate speech". The right wants the freedom to finance unlimited political propaganda, and the left wants the freedom of unlimited access to state secrets.

There is nothing peculiarly American about this. Last month Julian Assange of WikiLeaks was in effect gagged when he was jailed after embarrassing the government. The racing car boss Max Mosley went to court to seek a court order censoring journalists. There were efforts to censor the Twitter site of the crackpot celebrity Kenneth Tong for promoting anorexia. No sooner does free speech open its mouth than someone puts a foot in it.

Free speech is a Hobbesian jungle. It requires a marketplace where the trade in information, ideas and opinion has a framework of rules, including rules that maintain fair and open competition. Most will be voluntary, but others need enforcement. The US supreme court last year freed from control all political campaign gifts from corporations, on the grounds that this would be a breach of free speech. Ronald Dworkin's rebuttal of this "devastating decision for democracy" in the New York Review of Books pointed out that freedom of speech was hopeless if vulnerable to the bullying of wealth. Obama warned that it would "open the floodgates for special interests – including foreign corporations – to spend without limit in our elections".

Yet Obama himself declined to champion the "fairness doctrine" that once governed broadcasting licences awarded by America's Federal Communications Commission, and governs them throughout Europe.

The doctrine was rescinded in 1987 under pressure from the right, stimulating the growth of one-sided broadcasting outlets such as shock-jock radio stations and Fox News. While Jon Stewart and others have counter-punched from the left, it strains credulity to maintain that this polarisation has had no impact on the virulence – and immobility – of American public life.

Under Britain's 2003 Communications Act, Ofcom's rules on "due impartiality, due accuracy and undue prominence" are voluminous. So is the BBC code of practice on balance. Both require impartiality within news presentation rather than just between channels – or not at all, as in the US. Article 10 of the European convention on human rights goes further. It subjects freedom of expression to "such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society". This is defined as "the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence".

This is not freedom but authoritarianism, and mercifully seems to be a dead letter. When it comes to Mosley's defamation or Tong's twittering, most Europeans would rely on self-discipline on the part of the media, and on the chaotic pluralism of the internet. Even so, they would argue for regulated airwaves, as they would for laws preventing libel, slander and incitement to illegality and racial hatred. Freedom can only flourish in a climate of discipline.

When the art historian and TV presenter Sir Kenneth Clark was asked what quality best defined civilisation, he did not answer with liberty or wealth or equality. He answered with courtesy, the framework of rules governing people's tolerance of each other, so their discourse might be creative. Most of the time, it is best for that courtesy to be informal. The best rebuttal of the politics of hate is a torrent of love – or, if not love, at least of facts.

But sometimes, as Obama said, there is a yearning "to try to impose some order on the chaos". If American politics is now going the way of wounding, not healing, it needs the tonic of order. It is the great paradox of democracy. Free speech cannot exist without chains.

[American Patriot]

The handsome one? Obama? LMAO.

No LEFTIST Bullshit in THAT article is there?

HAHAHAHA

[vector7]

Companion Threads:

• MSM openly turns programming over to Obama
• Obama’s Growing Snitch Program
• Obama Making Plans to Use Executive Power
• Obama wishes America was run like China

Homeland Security Given Green Light to Monitor American Journalists

• Posted on January 9, 2012 at 11:44pm by iffany Gabbay

• Comments (392)

Under the National Operations Center (NOC)’s Media Monitoring Initiative that emerged from the Department of Homeland Security in November, Washington has written permission to collect and retain personal information from journalists, news anchors, reporters or anyone who uses “traditional and/or social media in real time to keep their audience situationally aware and informed.”

According to DHS, the definition of personal identifiable information can consist of any intellect “that permits the identity of an individual to be directly or indirectly inferred, including any information which is linked or linkable to that individual.”
RT adds:

Previously established guidelines within the administration say that data could only be collected under authorization set forth by written code, but the new provisions in the NOC’s write-up means that any reporter, whether someone along the lines of Walter Cronkite or a budding blogger, can be victimized by the agency.

Also included in the roster of those subjected to the spying are government officials, domestic or not, who make public statements, private sector employees that do the same and “persons known to have been involved in major crimes of Homeland Security interest,” which to itself opens up the possibilities even wider.

The department says that they will only scour publically-made info available while retaining data, but it doesn’t help but raise suspicion as to why the government is going out of their way to spend time, money and resources on watching over those that helped bring news to the masses.

According to RT, the website “Fast Company” reports that the NOC Monitoring Initiative has been in play since at least early-2010 and that the data is being shared with both private sector businesses and international third parties.

[American Patriot]

Just heard this on Glen Beck's show. The lady reading the news was talking about it.

So, now 1st amendment can kiss Obama's ass too.

[vector7]

We'd better talk about this while we still can



Uploaded by cablenewsguy on Mar 13, 2012

"No free speech zones" That's the new law with FELONY charges attached for breaking it according to The Judge Andrew Napolitano.

[American Patriot]

Oh, REALLY?

overwhelming support for BOTH parties?

Signed by the President of the United States?

All these people sworn to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America?

I'm sorry, but it's time to put a stop to this shit.

Vote this man out, repeal this law, and if not... well, it's time to do something more serious.

[vector7]

Companion Thread:

• Progressive ‘Mission Accomplished,’ Now on to Phase II — Communism
  
• The Growing List Allegedly Committing Sedition Against U.S. Government
• Bill creates Camps in U.S. for 'Emergencies'
  
• Is Barack Obama a real Manchurian candidate?
  
• Nation Building America
  
• Obama’s Growing Snitch Program on Extremism
  
• Obama Admin invites Russian Paratroopers to practice Killing Terrorists on US soil

Obama Administration taps Russian Owned Voice ID Company to Record Your Voice for Authorities

We are certain these tools will be put to positive use, citizen.

By Steve Huff 9/21 4:59pm




How VoiceGrid works (SpeechPro-USA)

In case Orwellian surveillance systems like TrapWire weren’t creepy enough, we learn today that SpeechPro, a Russian-owned company, has helpfully invented a voice identification tool for law enforcement use called VoiceGrid Nation.

American authorities are looking into using the software at 911 call centers and in police precincts. As Slate reports, it’s already in place and working out pretty well in some other countries:

The technology has already been deployed across Mexico, where it is being used by law enforcement to collect, store, and search hundreds of thousands of voice-prints. Alexey Khitrov, SpeechPro’s president, told me the company is working with a number of agencies in the United States at a state and federal level. He declined to reveal any names because of nondisclosure and confidentiality agreements. But Khitrov did divulge that various versions of the company’s biometric technology are used in more than 70 countries and that the Americas, Europe, and Asia are its key markets. Not all of its customers are law enforcement agencies, either. SpeechPro also designs voice recognition technology that can be used in call centers to verify the identities of customers. Depending on the size and specifics of the installation, it can cost from tens of thousands up to millions of dollars.

Slate notes that this software is different from the FBI’s own efforts at putting wholesale biometric programs in place, though no less scary.

Mr. Khitrov told Slate that SpeechPro is being used for “noble causes.” His example of one such noble cause was when the technology helped Mexican authorities track down kidnappers via recorded ransom calls.

A look at SpeechPro’s site reveals a product description or two that privacy activists might find pretty creepy. The blurb for VoiceGrid ID has a particularly dystopic echo, offering a “voice data management solution with unlimited database size” in addition to system architecture that scale all the way up to “national system deployments.”

We look forward to a future when products like these have turned the frivolous distractions of texting and iMessaging into acts of civil disobedience.



No Privacy: US Government Using Russian “Voice Grid Nation” SpeechPro Against Americans To Program To Store, Analyze, And Identify Voices

WASHINGTON, DC – The US government has already proven its intent to see all evil, with the use of Orwellian programs like TrapWire. But it can now hear all evil too, as law enforcement agencies implement a tool able to store, analyze and identify voices in seconds. ‘Voice Grid Nation’ is a system that uses advanced algorithms to match identities to voices. Brought to the US by Russia’s Speech Technology Center, it claims to be capable of allowing police, federal agencies and other law enforcement personnel to build up a huge database containing up to several million voices.

When authorities intercept a call they’ve deemed ‘hinky’, the recording is entered into the VoiceGrid program, which (probably) buzzes and whirrs and spits out a match. In five seconds, the program can scan through 10,000 voices, and it only needs 3 seconds for speech analysis. All that, combined with 100 simultaneous searches and the storage capacity of 2 million samples, gives SpeechPro, as the company is known in the US, the right to claim a 90% success rate.

According to Slate.com’s Ryan Gallagher, who spoke with SpeechPro president Aleksey Khitrov, the software is already being used in many different countries and for ‘noble causes’ only – like in Mexico, where Voice Grid helped identify and apprehend kidnappers during a ransom call, thus saving their victim’s life.

Both the FBI and the NSA have expressed interest in the program, which is also expected to be used at 911 call centers and police precincts. And sample lists would, of course, contain ‘persons of interest’ – known criminals, terror suspects or people on a watch list.

Or would it?

The definition of ‘suspect’ has been known to be loosely interpreted by US law enforcement agencies in the past. What with the FBI branding people as ‘terrorist suspects’ for buying waterproof matches or flashlights, and the Department of Homeland Security urging hotel staff to notify authorities immediately if a person has tried to use cash and/or hung a ‘do not disturb’ sign on their door, it’s easy to see why many are spooked by the idea that not only can the government see you at all times, it can also hear you.

In fact, combined with the capabilities of TrapWire, this would give law enforcement agencies an unprecedented ability to effectively dismiss both the country’s founding documents and any notion of privacy you may have had.
An unsuspicious, law-abiding citizen would obviously have to read his private messages or broadcast his phone calls out loud to be considered above-board. If he’s whispering into his handset, however, the DHS is relying on its “citizen spies” to pounce and denounce the poor guy.

So, law enforcement agencies now have TrapWire to ‘all the better to see you with’ and Voice Grid ‘all the better to hear you with’. That plus the Patriot Act is effectively turning America into the land of the-no-longer-free-and the very agencies that set out to protect their people and their land into the big bad wolf.

The Patriot Act is probably one of the most controversial pieces of legislature in American history, an acronym that, for all the old and new security bureaus, Provides Appropriate Tools Required (to) Intercept (and) Obstruct Terrorism. But the tools included in the bill weren’t – and still aren’t –considered appropriate by many. Wiretaps and electronic surveillance were legalized. Arrests were made on a daily basis. When the number of those detained reached 1,200, officials stopped counting. Personal records no longer remained personal – and that was only the domestic beginning.

Officially, 1,200 special interest detainees were held and investigated under the Patriot Act. The Justice Department examined more than 700 of them and none were ever linked to any terrorist group or plot.

Nevertheless, upon his resignation in 2004, former Attorney General John Ashcroft’s letter stated that “The objective of securing the safety of Americans from crime and terror has been achieved.” This should have meant the end of the Patriot Act, for it included a “sunset” provision, to expire in December 2005. Seven years later, it’s still in place and regularly being enforced…not necessarily for a war against terror.

Statistics show that the so-called sneak-and-peak, a search warrant that can be executed without prior warning, is mostly used for drug-related crimes. Between 2006 and 2009, 1,618 delayed-search warrants were issued for drugs, 122 for fraud – and only 15 for terrorism.

The National Defense Authorization Act allows the indefinite detention of anyone deemed a terror suspect – American citizen or not. And if you look at what makes a potential suspect, you can pretty much expect to be taken in every time you answer your phone.

So bottom line:you can be heard making a hotel reservation and then seen trying to pay cash, for example, or looking stressed at breakfast and then detained as a suspect under the NDAA whilst police comb through your files using a warning-less warrant.

[vector7]

Obama vs. free speech: "The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam"



If There Was Ever Any Doubt About This Traitor He has Put Those Doubts To Rest

Obama at the UN:

The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam. Yet to be credible, those who condemn that slander must also condemn the hate we see when the image of Jesus Christ is desecrated, churches are destroyed, or the Holocaust is denied. Let us condemn incitement against Sufi Muslims, and Shiite pilgrims. It is time to heed the words of Gandhi: “Intolerance is itself a form of violence and an obstacle to the growth of a true democratic spirit.”

Together, we must work towards a world where we are strengthened by our differences, and not defined by them. That is what America embodies, and that is the vision we will support.

He Made That The 1st Line In the Speech. BTW What Western Value Does Not "Slander" The Prophet?

More on this soon

[American Patriot]

he actually said, "The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam."?

Really?

I haven't heard that put on the air yet.

[vector7]

The Anti-Blasphemy, Anti-First-Amendment President


Sep 28 Written by: Diana West
Friday, September 28, 2012 6:38 AM



This week's syndicated column:

Who said the following: “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.”

Iran’s Ahmadinejad? Egypt’s Morsi? Some little-known, fatwa-flinging cleric increasing the bounty on Salman Rushdie’s head?

None of the above. The words are President Obama’s, and he spoke them this week to the U.N. General Assembly.

No Big Media outlet reported this stunning pronouncement. It’s as if Ronald Reagan addressed the National Association of Evangelicals in 1983 and the media failed to report that he used the phrase “evil empire.” To make the comparison more direct, imagine if a Republican president declared that “the future must not belong to those who slander the messiah of Christianity” – or, for that matter, the prophet of Latter-day Saints. We would have heard all about it, and for the rest of our lives.

Of course, the Islam-Christianity comparison isn’t a perfect match, given the peculiar definition of “slander” under Islamic law (Shariah). According to such authoritative sources as “Reliance of the Traveller,” a standard Sunni law book approved by Cairo’s Al-Azhar University, “slander” in Islam includes anything Muslims perceive to reflect badly on Islam and its prophet, including the truth. In other words, any negative fact about Islam and Muhammad is, under Islamic law, deemed “slander.”

Does the president, son of a Muslim father and raised for four years as a Muslim by his stepfather in Indonesia, understand this? Shouldn’t someone in the White House press corps bother to ask?

Whether the president is ignorant or knowing, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), the Islamic bloc of 56 nations and the Palestinian Authority, certainly understood the Islamic meaning as its representatives sat in the General Assembly. They heard the U.S. president declare that the future “must not belong” to those who analytically or critically approach Muhammad and, by natural extension, Muhammad’s totalitarian religious/legal system of governance. According to this understanding, We the People who prize the First Amendment are out. Those who enforce and follow Shariah are in. I can’t think of another instance in which an American president has publicly uttered such a rank betrayal of American principles. And the media censored it!

But, but, but … the president also said the future “must not belong” to those who “target Coptic Christians in Egypt” (no word on Christians “targeted” in other Islamic countries) and “bully women.”

First of all, “target” and “bully” are wan verbs to describe the terror, bloodletting and systemic abuse that Christian populations and women suffer at the hands of Islam. More important, though, the violence inherent to religious cleansing and female oppression is in no way comparable to the most critical words or pictures on a page or screen. Such an equivalence is immoral. The president should be ashamed.

But we should be afraid. As Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said last December, the Obama administration has been working with the OIC to “move to implementation” of U.N. Human Rights Council Resolution 16/18, an international law that would criminalize criticism of Islam. Obama’s “slander” speech just greases the skids.

But, but, but … the president also said: “The strongest weapon against hateful speech is not repression; it is more speech – the voices of tolerance that rally against bigotry and blasphemy, and lift up the values of understanding and mutual respect.”

Let’s crack that code. “More speech” as a weapon sounds perfectly fine until the president defines it. What does he mean by “voices of tolerance” rallying against “blasphemy”? (Since when does a supposedly secular politician decry “blasphemy”?) Obama’s “voices of tolerance” sound like the public pressure-cooker Hillary Clinton described when proposing to enforce the U.N. blasphemy resolution through “some old-fashioned techniques of peer pressure and shaming, so that people don’t feel that they have the support to do what we abhor.”

Excuse me, but who’s “we”? The Obama administration and the Islamic bloc? Are these the progenitors of what President Obama calls “the values of understanding and mutual respect” that must triumph over “hateful speech”?

Clearly, this president is not protecting free speech as our founders guaranteed it, and, in fact, he gravely endangers it. Meanwhile, if I choose to write against child rape as condoned under Islamic law with roots in Muhammad’s consummation of a marriage with a 9-year-old – Islamic “slander,” for sure – in what way is the “mutual respect” President Obama calls for even conceivable as an antidote?

Here’s the secret that blasphemy laws are written to smother: Regarding the fundamentals of freedom of conscience, the autonomy of the individual, protection of children and equality of women, Islamic and Western doctrines have nothing in common and are, in fact, at irreconcilable, dagger’s-point odds. Silence – Shariah blasphemy laws – is the Obama-Clinton-OIC Islamic answer. Indeed, in the Shariah-compliant end, silence will replace the questions, too.

But we’re already used to it. Don’t believe me? Afshin Ellian, an Iranian-born Dutch law professor, poet and columnist, puts it this way: “If you cannot say that Islam is a backward religion and that Muhammad is a criminal, then you are living in an Islamic country, my friend, because there you also cannot say such things. I may say Christ was a homosexual and Mary was a prostitute, but apparently I should stay off of Muhammad.”

[vector7]

September 29, 2012
Barack Obama: President and Protector of Islam's Prophet

By Andrew E. Harrod



United States President Barack Obama addressed the United Nations General Assembly this past week, on September 25, 2012.

During his remarks on his country's role in international relations, Obama, in the midst of his comments otherwise within the mainstream of American discussions, proclaimed that the "future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam." This single phrase entails deeply disturbing implications for the defense of free speech critical of Islam against multiplying threats from various adherents of this faith. This statement also introduces intellectual confusion into the rest of Obama's remarks extolling individual freedom while condemning bigotry and insults. This philosophical quagmire ultimately is resolvable only through reflection upon Obama's presumed future troubling policy course.

Obama's reference to Islam's prophet Muhammad came amidst a series of cited future threats to global social well-being. "On so many issues," Obama outlined, "we face a choice between the promise of the future, or the prisons of the past." "The future must not belong to those who target Coptic Christians in Egypt," Obama's rhetorical litany began -- "it must be claimed by those in Tahrir Square who chanted, 'Muslims, Christians, we are one.'" Nor must the "future ... belong to those who bully women" or "to those corrupt few who steal a country's resources" or "to those who turn their backs on a prospect of peace" in the Arab-Israeli conflict or "to a dictator who massacres his people" in Syria.

Elaborating on the Innocence of Muslims trailer, Obama called it a "crude and disgusting video" that "sparked outrage throughout the Muslim world," although Obama admonished that "no speech ... justifies mindless violence." Obama proclaimed that the film's "message must be rejected by all who respect our common humanity." He termed the trailer an "insult not only to Muslims, but to America as well ... a country that has welcomed people of every race and every faith."

Yet Obama rejected any legally punitive measures against Innocence of Muslims or any similar expression, in contrast to the various forms of coercion Obama would presumably be willing to accept with respect to the other threats cited. In the Innocence of Muslims controversy, though, Obama saw "play out" a conflict between "those who find different religious beliefs threatening" and "those who love freedom for themselves" but "must ask themselves how much they're willing to tolerate freedom for others." Obama confessed to "know there are some who ask why we don't just ban such a video," but the "answer is enshrined in our laws: our Constitution protects the right to practice free speech." "Like me," Obama asserted in a claim rabidly rejected by some on the basis of admittedly spurious evidence, "the majority of Americans are Christian, and yet we do not ban blasphemy against our most sacred beliefs."

The American reasoning behind such behavior is not "because we support hateful speech, but because our founders understood" that in a "diverse society," speech restriction can become a "tool to silence critics and oppress minorities." The "strongest weapon against hateful speech is not repression," Obama concluded; "it is more speech -- the voices of tolerance that rally against bigotry and blasphemy." As a practical matter, moreover, "when anyone with a cell phone can spread offensive views around the world with the click of a button, the notion that we can control the flow of information is obsolete."

Obama presented these arguments within his speech's call for liberty worldwide. "True democracy" affirmed by Obama "demands that citizens cannot be thrown in jail because of what they believe" and allows the "freedom of citizens to speak their minds." Such "freedom and self-determination," moreover, "are not unique to one culture" and "are not simply American values or Western values -- they are universal."

Yet Obama also qualified his comments with the recognition that "not all countries" represented in the General Assembly share America's "particular understanding of the protection of free speech." "We do not expect other nations to agree with us on every issue," he stated in another passage. Indeed, one statement by Obama would seem positively to invite punitive action against the makers of Innocence of Muslims as described by Obama under various hate speech and public order laws around the world. Obama called upon his applauding audience "to heed the words of Gandhi: 'Intolerance is itself a form of violence and an obstacle to the growth of a true democratic spirit.'"

The resulting advocacy of freedom articulated by Obama is thus convoluted and tenuous with respect to the key issue of liberty in dispute today between the world's free societies and Muslim-majority countries -- namely, criticism of Islam. The numerous previously cited passages praising individual freedom of conscience clash with Obama's aforementioned grouping of the American producers of the home movie-quality film Innocence of Muslims condemnatory of Islam's prophet Muhammad with a veritable rogues' gallery of international security threats subject to sanctions including even military force. Obama continued such moral equivalence later in the address, rejecting the assumptions "that the violence of the past weeks or the hateful speech by some individuals represent the views of the overwhelming majority of Muslims, any more than the views of the people who produced this video represents those of Americans." Yet Obama called it the "obligation of all leaders in all countries to speak out forcefully against violence and extremism" presumably manifested in equal measure by the filmmakers and by their rioting and terroristic Muslim antagonists.

Other questionable equivalences occurred in another of Obama's statements. For the sake of being "credible," Obama called once again with applause upon "those who condemn" Innocence of Muslim's "slander" to "also condemn the hate we see in the images of Jesus Christ that are desecrated, or churches that are destroyed, or the Holocaust that is denied." Innocence of Muslims equals hereby physical vandalism or the denial of historically proven genocide, even though, as this author has previously discussed, much of the film's contents concern events discussed in Islamic canonical sources. The Obama administration, meanwhile, refused last week even to condemn publicly a recent retrospective exhibit of Andres Serrano's "art" including the notorious Piss Christ photo of a crucifix submerged in Serrano's own urine. Manifesting once again the oft-noted double standards concerning offense to Christians and Muslims, this photo not only is protected under the Constitution cited by Obama, but also received a 1989 federal National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) grant for its original creation.

Obama's citing of "slander," however and by whomever defined, against Islam's founder as a future danger puts Obama in the strange position of a president of a self-proclaimed non-sectarian republic protecting one faith's prophet. Such deference to Islam is occurring precisely in an age when historically Christian countries, if not actually reviling their spiritual heritage, are at least relativizing it in the name of multicultural harmony. The heir to the British throne, Prince Charles, for example, has in the past expressed a desire to be a Defender of Faith in general, and not a defender of any exclusive faith, upon becoming king -- Defender of Faith being a historic title referring to the British monarch's role as head of the Church of England.

More troubling is what Obama's statements portend for free speech. While the Constitution referenced by Obama prevents him from restricting whatever he deems "slander" of the "prophet of Islam" in the United States, Obama's unequivocal condemnation of Innocence of Muslims gives enthusiastic approval for other, less legally constrained countries to sanction this film or any other similar expression. Even in the United States, criticism of Islam inconvenient for authorities like Obama might entail negative consequences. Following Innocence of Muslims' tumultuous global debut, the Obama administration's suggested to Google a review of any possible company policy violations by the film's internet posting -- a posting that has also prompted a federal investigation into whether the film's producer, Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, violated his parole. (The filmmaker was subsequently arrested.)

Such actions indicate that future officials will seek any technicality analogous to the proverbial "spitting on the sidewalk" as leverage against unwelcome leverage against any "blasphemy" condemned by Obama. Despite Obama's proclamation of universal principles before the U.N., his words and actions indicate less than courageous compromise.

[vector7]

Has Sharia arrived?

Conservative’s Anti-Jihad Subway Ad Leads to New Policies: NYC Authority Can Now Ban Ads That Could ‘Incite or Provoke Violence’

• Posted on September 28, 2012 at 1:49pm by Billy Hallowell
• Comments (379)

The epic battle between American Freedom Defense Initiative executive director and blogger Pamela Geller and The Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) culminated with a court decision that forced the transit authority to permit the display of controversial ads about radical Islam. But the story didn’t end there. As TheBlaze reported this morning, Geller’s case caused the MTA to rethink the manner in which it handles First Amendment issues, leading to the adoption of some potentially-controversial measures.

(Related: Read TheBlaze‘s initial report about the MTA’s changes here)

On Friday, TheBlaze spoke with a spokesperson who confirmed some of the details surrounding the case, while clarifying the new changes that passed on Thursday. As noted, one of the emergent provisions that was added into the public company’s advertising standards in the wake of the Geller debate allows the MTA to deny ads it believes could incite violence (this was not mentioned in the press release the agency put out about the changes).

As previously noted, a document, reflecting yesterday’s changes, was provided by the MTA to TheBlaze this morning. It highlights the transit authority’s advertising standards and reads, in part, “The licensee (‘advertising contractor’) shall not display or maintain any advertisement that falls within one or more of the following categories.” One of the category sections reads:

The advertisement, or any information contained in it, is directly adverse to the commercial or administrative interests of the MTA or is harmful to the morale of MTA employees or contains material the display of which the MTA reasonably foresees would incite or provoke violence or other immediate breach of the peace, and so harm, disrupt, or interfere with safe, efficient, and orderly transit operations.

It is the portion presented in bold that is new to the regulations. It’s inclusion is interesting for a number of reasons. On the surface, it appears oddly placed in the list of grievances that could lead to the banning of an advertisement. Furthermore, there is some ambiguity regarding what led to the inclusion of the “violence” reference in the first place.

Here’s a screen shot from the official document:



A portion of the new advertising standards, with the highlighted "violence" reference (Photo Credit: MTA)

In an e-mail reply, MTA spokesperson Aaron Donovan told TheBlaze that the change was among the “outstanding issues” that the agency was looking to tackle in the new regulatory document.

“Since we hadn’t updated our advertising standards in 15 years, we used this opportunity to address several outstanding issues or potential hypothetical situations,” he wrote. “This is one of them.”

TheBlaze responded with additional questions about the motivations for the change, asking how, in particular, the MTA’s court battle with Geller impacted the new restriction on violent ads. Donovan responded, admitting that the dilemma did play an integral role in the decision to make the change.

“The ad, and more specifically the litigation surrounding it, caused us to think about a variety of potential scenarios and review our standards more carefully within a prism of First Amendment law,” he commented.

Considering that the MTA has made its opposition to the ad’s message known in the past — and taking into account continued calls for bans on blasphemy and offensive messages — the natural question is: Will this new regulation serve as a backdoor method for banning controversial ads that take aim at specific faiths, like Islam?


Photo Credit: American Freedom Defense Initiative/ABC News

To gain a better perspective, TheBlaze asked who would be involved in the process of defining which messages incite violence and what the metrics for doing so would be.

“It would go through the same process we currently use to determine whether ads meet the overall guidelines,” Donovan explained. “Ads are submitted to our advertising contractor, CBS Outdoor, for posting and approval.”

Once the ads are submitted, Donovan said that CBS then decides which ones need to be scrutinized more closely to ensure they meet guidelines.

Considering the other MTA regulation that was adopted on Thursday — the requirement that political, religious and morality-based ads include a disclaimer separating their ideals from the agency’s — the spokesperson said that CBS would also be involved in flagging ads for that purpose.

“The MTA’s final determination is made by the MTA’s Director of Real Estate, in consultation with CBS Outdoor (our ad contractor), the MTA’s General Counsel, the Chairman, and others he may choose to consult with,” he continued, highlighting how potentially-violent ads will be assessed.

Still, considering these elements, the issue needs further exploration. The language seems fluid enough to present further First Amendment battles in the future — especially considering the guidelines’ subjective nature.

[vector7]

This is a joke...I think



State Department Adds YouTube to Known Terrorist Websites

Posted on 2012/09/28 by admin



In response to the U.S. Intelligence community naming Al-Queda as behind the Benghazi embassy attacks, the State Department added YouTube to its list of known terrorist websites.



Shortly after the intelligence community announced that Al-Queda was behind the Benghazi embassy attacks the State Department quickly added YouTube to the list of known terrorist websites. The move comes amid criticism that too much focus has been made of the role of a YouTube video in inciting violence and riots in the Middle East.



Mr. Hill from the State Department made the announcement during a press conference with the foreign press in Washington D.C. Hill stated, “YouTube is essentially the same as Al-Queda – it is basically a virtual terrorist training camp that occasionally has booty-popping videos.”

It was not clear whether or not the U.S. is planning any attacks against the terrorist training website but Hill did mention that, “all options are on the table and certainly we are discussing whether or not drone strikes would be appropriate in this case or even sending ground forces to cripple YouTube’s infrastructure.”

We will keep you informed on any updates to this breaking story.

[American Patriot]

Ok, now that's funny. LOL

[vector7]

United Nations Official Calls Free Speech A “Gift” And A “Privilege”

Joseph A. Klein (Bio and Archives) Wednesday, October 3, 2012

The United Nations would have us forget all about the idea of inalienable rights with which all individuals are endowed by their Creator. The UN wants us to forget the idea that government was established for the purpose of securing these rights, not to create them with the power to take them away. Such ideas are so old-fashioned, after all. The Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights, including the First Amendment, were written in the eighteenth century. The United Nations believes it has a much more modern idea.

Free speech is a “gift given to us by the [Universal] Declaration of Human Rights,” said Deputy Secretary General of the United Nations Jan Eliasson during a press conference on October 2nd at UN headquarters in New York. It is “a privilege,” Eliasson said, “that we have, which in my view involves also the need for respect, the need to avoid provocations.”

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a set of normative principles adopted by a majority of the member states of the UN. It gave rise to legally enforceable UN human rights treaties that embodied its core principles, such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

Under Deputy Secretary General Eliasson’s logic, the UN Declaration of Human Rights, which gave us the “gift” of free speech, can be modified or interpreted in such a way that would restrict its use if people were deemed too provocative or irresponsible in what they express.

It’s no leap at all from this premise to the conclusion that statements, cartoons, videos and other forms of expression that offend a religious faith’s sensibilities and provoke them to violence - especially Muslim believers in the superiority of their faith, whom are easily provoked - is an unacceptable misuse of the “gift.”

In an apparent bow to the Muslim world’s reaction regarding the video insulting Prophet Mohammed, Eliasson said:

“we understand you, that you were provoked, that it was an absolutely unnecessary, stupid way of causing even more hatred among you. And when you run on the streets and people are killed and buildings are burned down, those who provoke have succeeded. We shouldn’t fall in that trap of provocation, so that’s the line I think we’ll take.”

Eliasson’s boss Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said last month that using “freedom of expression to provoke or humiliate some others’ values and beliefs” was not worthy of protection. Rather, Ban Ki-moon indicated that such freedom only deserved protection when “used for common justice, common purpose.”

At first glance, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights appears to be fully consistent with the values enshrined in our Bill of Rights rather than the more restrictive interpretation of the right of free speech put forth by Ban Ki-moon and Jan Eliasson.

Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights sounds good to believers in the First Amendment: “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”

But the gift-givers at the United Nations point to another article (Article 29), which in their view makes the “gift” or “privilege” of free speech conditional:

“(1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.
(2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society. (emphasis added)
(3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.” (emphasis added)

As the initial Islamic response to the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) foreign ministers adopted the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam in 1990.

The Cairo Declaration reaffirmed “the civilizing and historical role of the Islamic Ummah which God made the best nation that has given mankind a universal and well-balanced civilization in which harmony is established between this life and the hereafter and knowledge is combined with faith.” After reciting a litany of human rights that it pledged to protect, the Cairo Declaration subjected all of its protections to the requirements of Islamic law. For example, Article 22 (a) states: “Everyone shall have the right to express his opinion freely in such manner as would not be contrary to the principles of the Shari’ah.”

By making Islamic law the sole authority for defining the scope of human rights, the OIC’s Cairo Declaration sanctioned limits on freedom of expression, discrimination against non-Muslims and women, and a prohibition against a Muslim’s conversion from Islam.

Recognizing that the West was certainly not about to replace outright the Universal Declaration with the Cairo Declaration and overtly embrace all of Sharia law, the OIC has worked hard to expand its influence at the United Nations so it could nevertheless incorporate key Sharia concepts into universal human rights norms.

The Islamists managed to ram through the United Nations Human Rights Council and the General Assembly a series of resolutions condemning the “defamation of religions” that put the UN on the side of limiting free speech offensive to Islam. All these UN resolutions are a direct assault on the First Amendment. As constitutional lawyer Floyd Abrams so correctly predicted, “What they would do would be to make it illegal to put out a movie or write a book or a poem that somebody could say was defamatory of Islam.”

Contrary to the UN’s warnings against “provocative” speech, freedom of speech means nothing unless it protects provocative speech that challenges conventional wisdom, rigid beliefs, and official government versions of the “truth.”

Nothing must be sacrosanct or off limits to criticism. Mobs must not be given vetoes over free speech because they claim to be offended.

The right of free speech is not a “gift” bestowed by the UN through the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which in any event has been bastardized by the Islamists’ successful campaign to infect it with Sharia values. It is an inalienable right. Our Creator bestows this right upon us, which no government, global forum or jihadist can take away unless we let them take it away.

[American Patriot]

I'm sorry but Free speech, and my fucking guns are NON-NEGOTIABLE.

Got that UN? Got that Blue hats? Got that You Fucking Dickhead Ellison? Got that Obama? Got that CONGRESS? GOT THAT LIBERALS?????????????????

Go fuck yourselves, all of you. I'll keep my guns and you all are still DICK HEADS (remember, freedom of speech?)

[vector7]

Obama-Worshipper George Clooney On Mohammed Film: It’s “Unfortunate” People Have First Amendment Rights…



I guess it could be worse, Bette Midler wanted the filmmaker charged with murder.

Via Movie Line:

[W]hen I saw George Clooney, who is one of Argo’s producers, at a private screening and dinner for the film at the Time Warner Center on Tuesday night, I ran my idea by him. Was there any lesson, I asked, to be learned from the controversy and the tragedy that Innocence of Muslims provoked? I’m not a big fan of asking celebrities their opinions about international or national affairs, but I’ve come to admire Clooney’s political activism and his understanding of the way the world really works, as well as his humanitarian spirit. (In March, he was arrested outside the Sudanese embassy in Washington for protesting the country’s blockage of food and aid to its own starving people.)

After listening to my take on Argo and Innocence of Muslims, Clooney suggested that I was making a bit of a leap, but he did answer my question. For one thing, he said, “I’m not quite sure that those diplomats did die as a result of that movie. It seems more like that was a coordinated effort by Al Qaeda” to make a statement on the anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks on U.S. soil. But getting to the root of my question, Clooney told me: “Freedom of speech means you have to allow idiots to speak, and that’s the unfortunate thing.” “This guy clearly wanted to create problems,” he continued referring to Nakoula Basseley, the Egyptian immigrant who appears to have masterminded the making of Innocence of Muslims. Clooney added that he saw part of the YouTube video: ”It made me mad and I’m not Muslim,” he said. “It made me mad for the quality of film that it was, more than anything. But the simple truth is that in order to make [democracy] work, the idiots get to have their say, too. And that’s unfortunate.”

Keep reading…

[vector7]

Companion Threads:

• Obama: Anti-Colonial President, Plans for the next term
• Rush Limbaugh Tells Sean Hannity That Obama Is Destroying America
• Obama Likes Wanda Sykes Joke About Rush Limbaugh — 'I Hope His Kidneys Fail'
  
• Obama Administration to probe Murdoch's company over hacking allegations
  
• "Obey" Manifesto
• Be forewarned on what is happening(specifics disputed by Krauthammer)
• The Growing List Allegedly Committing Sedition Against U.S. Government
• Obama Authorizes Assassination of Civilians He now calls Terrorists

Obama Threatens Fox News, Limbaugh



by Ben Shapiro 27 Jan 2013, 2:34 PM PDT 670 post a comment

In a sycophantic interview with The New Republic, conducted by former campaign staffer Chris Hughes and leftist writer Franklin Foer, President Obama suggested that he had all the answers to the pressing issues facing America and therefore no compromise was necessary with Republicans. He added that Republicans should compromise. And if those Republicans don’t compromise, Obama suggested that the fault would lie at the feet of Fox News and Rush Limbaugh – and that the calculus had to be changed to force Fox News and Limbaugh to stop holding Republicans accountable to conservatism.

Here’s Obama on how he’s going to fix the country:

The truth is that most of the big issues that are going to make a difference in the life of this country for the next thirty or forty years are complicated and require tough decisions, but are not rocket science.

We know that to fix our economy, we've got to make sure: that we have the most competitive workforce in the world, that we have a better education system, that we are investing in research and development, that we've got world-class infrastructure, that we're reducing our health care costs, and that we're expanding our exports.

On issues like immigration, we have a pretty good sense of what's broken in the system and how to fix it. On climate change, it's a daunting task. But we know what releases carbon into the atmosphere, and we have tools right now that would start scaling that back, although we'd still need some big technological breakthrough. So the question is not, Do we have policies that might work? It is, Can we mobilize the political will to act?

Despite the fact that Obama’s policies have been abysmal failures on virtually every front, the question for Obama is not what to do, but how to swindle the American people into doing it. And Obama said he would not be focusing on how to get things done in Washington, D.C.; instead, he’d be attempting to drum up public support on every issue. Obama then compared himself to Lincoln for such tactics:

I always read a lot of Lincoln, and I'm reminded of his adage that, with public opinion, there's nothing you can't accomplish; without it, you're not going to get very far. And spending a lot more time in terms of being in a conversation with the American people as opposed to just playing an insider game here in Washington is an example of the kinds of change in orientation that I think we've undergone, not just me personally, but the entire White House.

But what of his Republican opposition? That opposition, said Obama, has to be forced to embrace his positions:

And I think if you talk privately to Democrats and Republicans, particularly those who have been around for a while, they long for the days when they could socialize and introduce bipartisan legislation and feel productive. So I don't think the issue is whether or not there are people of goodwill in either party that want to get something done. I think what we really have to do is change some of the incentive structures so that people feel liberated to pursue some common ground. One of the biggest factors is going to be how the media shapes debates. If a Republican member of Congress is not punished on Fox News or by Rush Limbaugh for working with a Democrat on a bill of common interest, then you'll see more of them doing it.

How, exactly, will Obama achieve changing that incentive structure, exactly? Fox News and Rush Limbaugh are a free press. But according to Obama, that media must apparently be curbed. The media on the left, however, need not be curbed, because “more left-leaning media outlets recognize that compromise is not a dirty word.”

This is nothing new from a thuggish administration that has vocally derided Rush Limbaugh repeatedly, pushed secondary boycotts of Limbaugh through its extragovernmental allies, and targeted Fox News as illegitimate for daring to question The One’s agenda. But with Obama’s re-election, he obviously feels that his cross-hairs can be safely placed on his media opposition.

ALSO!!

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journal...-news-limbaugh


http://www.newrepublic.com/article/1...down-president

SNIP...

FF: Sticking with the culture of violence, but on a much less dramatic scale: I'm wondering if you, as a fan, take less pleasure in watching football, knowing the impact that the game takes on its players.

Obama.....

I'm a big football fan, but I have to tell you if I had a son, I'd have to think long and hard before I let him play football. And I think that those of us who love the sport are going to have to wrestle with the fact that it will probably change gradually to try to reduce some of the violence. In some cases, that may make it a little bit less exciting, but it will be a whole lot better for the players, and those of us who are fans maybe won't have to examine our consciences quite as much.

How do I weigh tens of thousands who've been killed in Syria versus the tens of thousands who are currently being killed in the Congo?

I tend to be more worried about college players than NFL players in the sense that the NFL players have a union, they're grown men, they can make some of these decisions on their own, and most of them are well-compensated for the violence they do to their bodies. You read some of these stories about college players who undergo some of these same problems with concussions and so forth and then have nothing to fall back on. That's something that I'd like to see the NCAA think about.3

[vector7]

Do Bloggers ‘Deserve First Amendment Protection’? Sen. Lindsey Graham Isn’t Quite Sure

Jun. 5, 2013 1:04pm Liz Klimas

The issue of whether bloggers are technically journalists has been discussed since, well, since blogging ever became a thing — and the line between the two is only becoming more blurred. But Sen. Lindsey Graham in some interesting comments Wednesday didn’t seem quite sure if bloggers should even receive First Amendment protection.


U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) hold a news conference after the Senate voted 99-0 in favor of a resolution in support of Israel May 22, 2013 in Washington, DC. (Photo: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

Speaking to reporters ,the South Carolina senator asked rhetorically, “Who is a journalist is a question we need to ask ourselves?” the Free Times out of Columbia reported.

“Is any blogger out there saying anything — do they deserve First Amendment protection? These are the issues of our times.”

In general terms, any U.S. citizen is granted freedom of speech under the Bill of Rights. The First Amendment does also say, as Graham is alluding, that Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of the press. It is this provision that has Graham wondering if it extends to bloggers as he helps draft a new media shield law to protect members of the press after the federal government has come under fire for targeting the emails of Associated Press reporters and a Fox News reporter without warrants.

Making a distinction between a what constitutes a journalist versus a blogger becomes important when the content crosses into national security, Graham explained.

“You can sit in your mother’s basement and chat away, I don’t care. But when you start talking about classified programs, that’s when it gets to be important,” the Free Times reported Graham saying. “So, if classified information is leaked out on a personal website or [by] some blogger, do they have the same First Amendments rights as somebody who gets paid [in] traditional journalism?”

This is a question Graham hopes will be addressed.

(H/T: National Journal)