Friday, September 22, 2017

OH: Wright State U primes its students to expect that certain speech will be "offensive"

Wright State University found itself at the center of the ongoing debate about campus free speech Wednesday when questions emerged over how the school handled an anti-abortion demonstration.

Wright State sent out a campus-wide email Tuesday night, warning students of the demonstration. The email, sent by interim WSU vice president of student affairs Gary Dickstein, stated that that the public university “must allow” the activists on campus, even if they express views that some might find offensive.

The message prompted criticism from state Rep. Niraj Antani, R-Miami Twp.

“I’m saddened it seemed as if he were taking a position on this protest when he said it ‘must’ be allowed, that it might be ‘offensive,’ and that he will ensure the group ‘behaves,’” Antani said. “This is disturbing when university campuses already seem to be a bastion of liberal ideology.”

Wright State encouraged people uncomfortable with the event to avoid the quad where the demonstration was scheduled for. Dickstein also said people could seek support from the school’s counseling and wellness center, a statement Antani took aim at.

“Students do not need counseling services because of a protest,” Antani said.

Wright State spokesman Seth Bauguess declined to respond directly to Antani’s comments. But, from now on the university plans to notify students, staff and faculty every time an off-campus group plans to hold a demonstration on campus, he said.

“We had people in our community wanting to know when these types of things were happening,” Bauguess said. “We decided we’re going to be more committed going forward to telling our campus about these things.”


Twitter Suspends Libertarian Trans Woman Michelle Catlin

Catlin, who has criticized socialism, Antifa, Islam, and the alt-right, had just over 10,000 followers on her account before it was suspended, forcing her to use a backup with just over 1,000.

“My main account @CatlinNya got suspended. Twitter hasn’t given me any reason for it so I wouldn’t know why it happened,” Catlin claimed to Breitbart Tech. “I think its caused by a report system that is being abused for false reporting and it seems to target a lot of right-leaning accounts.”

“I’ve had my Twitter locked before after being harassed and mass reported by Saudi Muslims over a picture of Muhammad,” she continued, adding, “Twitter is the only place where I’ve had these issues so far.”

Social networks have previously suspended popular trans commentators for political reasons, including Theryn Meyer, who was suspended from Facebook for sharing a Breitbart News article one year ago.

Twitter has also repeatedly banned conservative and libertarian users, including former Breitbart Senior Editor Milo Yiannopoulos, Breitbart London Editor Raheem Kassam, free speech social network Gab, pro-Trump commentator Pizza Party Ben, DNC hacker Guccifer 2.0, political commentator Instapundit, former Muslim and anti-female genital mutilation activist Shazia Hobbs, pharmaceutical entrepreneur and Martin Shkreli.


Thursday, September 21, 2017

"Net neutrality" will not protect free speech on the internet

Recent highly public moves by Facebook and Google to deactivate users or to otherwise censor or handicap certain speech the companies deem “hate speech” or “fake news” has reopened one of the oddest but most popular arguments for net neutrality — that somehow categorizing internet service providers (ISPs) as public utilities is necessary to protect citizens’ First Amendment rights.

The argument is that if Verizon, Comcast, or AT&T are not forced to act as “dumb pipes,” these companies will foreclose speech that they find distasteful. Even more convoluted is the assertion that if other companies (such as Netflix or Amazon) pay ISPs for faster service by private agreement, faster service in and of itself is a threat to free speech as it “prefers” some speech over other speech — even if anyone has the same opportunity to buy the prioritized service and some do not even need it.

These are odd arguments for various reasons, not least of which is that the First Amendment only limits Congress, not private actors (such as ISPs), from abridging speech. But most strikingly, net neutrality advocates’ focus on ISPs is odd as these companies do act as content conduits, not content platforms, unlike edge providers such as Google, Facebook, Amazon, and Twitter.

Consider the intellectual jiujitsu that net neutrality proponents perform to claim that ISPs are enemies of the First Amendment (or more accurately free speech) and platform and application companies that block content are not.

It is ironic that the progressive left attacked non-content platforms on free speech grounds but are relatively silent when favored companies such as Google and Facebook actually act on content. That silence puts the lie to the argument that free speech was ever a true motivator to the net neutrality argument.

Indeed, past net neutrality arguments that claim a lack of competition among ISPs necessitates regulation to protect speech are far more persuasive when applied to large content platforms. For example, many net neutrality arguments are based on the false premise that ISPs form a duopoly — cable in particular is characterized as a monolithic, powerful competitor with a choke hold on content. But this argument ignores competition, especially in mobile telecommunications, where Verizon, T-Mobile, AT&T, and Sprint roughly divide the market. Contrast that to Google and Facebook, each of which has dominant, international market shares over search and content platforms — arguably, these platforms for speech are the perfect place to put a “dumb pipe” if free speech is really on the line.

Even high market shares in highly dynamic industries should not be overplayed. From his 2012 article on whether Google search should be declared a public utility, Mark Jamison wrote, “Even if there were no rivals [and there are], [Google’s] monopoly status would be fleeting because Internet-based markets are constantly evolving so that today’s innovative service is tomorrow’s relic.” Remember in the late 1990s, when Yahoo was the winner in internet search?

The delistings and self-appointed censorship role of these platforms are disconcerting. But the answer is not to incite a government takeover of the internet. Government regulation has not helped consumers of ISPs, and it won’t help consumers in the marketplace of ideas. It is time to restore internet freedom to help the internet grow and competition flourish. This way, consumers have more, not fewer, choices of where and how to express their ideas.

Any Obama legacy regulations can be counted on to be anti – freedom; anti – business and anti – American, so, lets trust the free markets to help make America great.


Cotton is racist (?)

Daniell Rider, a Hobby Lobby consumer, found a decoration at one of their stores so offensive, she shared the image on Facebook requesting that they remove the decor from their shelves. What was it?

Rider on Thursday shared a photo of a shelf with glass bottles containing what appear to be replicas of raw cotton plants.

She captioned the photo, “This decor is WRONG on SO many levels. There is nothing decorative about raw cotton… A commodity which was gained at the expense of African-American slaves.”

“A little sensitivity goes a long way,” she added. “PLEASE REMOVE THIS ‘decor.'”

At the time of this writing, the post has been “liked” 33k times, has received 76k comments, and has been shared nearly 7k times.

The reaction was split — some commenters supported Rider’s outrage and wrote things like, “What do you expect from HL!!!? NEVER shop there!” while others couldn’t find the offense in the innocuous-looking decoration.

One commenter wrote, “Ummm… it’s cotton… wtf…its 2017… do you know some slaves in 2017 that picked this cotton and didn’t get paid for it. Just… stop.”


Wednesday, September 20, 2017

This year's annual Constitution Day lecture at Princeton University was titled "F*** Free Speech"

The lecture was given by the chairwoman of the Department of Anthropology and director of the Program in African Studies, Carolyn Rouse, another hostile black

In the lecture, Rouse stated that we should "rethink academic freedom and academic values" and that "the way in which free speech is being celebrated in the media makes little to no sense anthropologically."

    "Put simply, speech is costly," Rouse said. "So, contrary to the ACLU's statement on their website regarding the role of free speech on college campuses, the academy has never promoted free speech as its central value."

  Rouse might want to rethink this. After all, in the wake of the election, Rouse has been seeking submissions for her "Trumplandia" project - "a virtual space for documenting the impact of Trump's presidency on the world" - something she says was inspired by her belief that "the changes promised by the president-elect to `make America great again' were authoritarian and racist."

  The irony is as rich (and sickening) as a mayonnaise-covered chocolate truffle: This professor actually has the nerve to knock those who value free speech on campus, while using her position as a campus leader to spearhead a project that openly calls the president "racist" - an obvious example of the kind of speech that some might want to censor.

  To be fair, it doesn't seem that Rouse actually went so far as to say that there was anything wrong with the First Amendment in itself. Rather, according to Campus Reform, she seemed to define "free-speech absolutism" as the idea that all opinions should be considered equally, without, as Campus Reform puts it, "reference to any peer review process or any system of credentials," e.g., a skeptic without any experience in climatology being free to call climate change a hoax. Rouse also argued that academia is a "semi-autonomous social field," and that all "semi-autonomous social fields" have the right to make their own rules for themselves.

    Now, Rouse is right to say that all kinds of institutions have all kinds of rules. Where she's wrong, however, is the insinuation that the best way to counter incorrect or uninformed speech is to limit it. This is especially wrong when we're talking about academia, seeing as the entire purpose of something such as classroom discussion is to learn and grow from a free exchange of ideas. Someone is out there spreading falsities? Well, then counter it with truth. That is, after all, how the real world works.


A chilling study shows how hostile college students are toward free speech

Here's the problem with suggesting that upsetting speech warrants "safe spaces," or otherwise conflating mere words with physical assault: If speech is violence, then violence becomes a justifiable response to speech.

Just ask college students. A fifth of undergrads now say it's acceptable to use physical force to silence a speaker who makes "offensive and hurtful statements."

That's one finding from a disturbing new survey of students conducted by John Villasenor, a Brookings Institution senior fellow and University of California at Los Angeles professor.

In August, motivated by concerns about the "narrowing window of permissible topics" for discussion on campuses, Villasenor conducted a nationwide survey of 1,500 undergraduate students at four-year colleges. Financial support for the survey was provided by the Charles Koch Foundation, which Villasenor said had no involvement in designing, administering or analyzing the questionnaire; as of this writing, the foundation had also not seen his results.

Many of Villasenor's questions were designed to gauge students' understanding of the First Amendment. Colleges, after all, pay a lot of lip service to "freedom of speech," despite high-profile examples of civil-liberty-squelching on campus. The survey suggests that this might not be due to hypocrisy so much as a misunderstanding of what the First Amendment actually entails.

For example, when students were asked whether the First Amendment protects "hate speech," 4 in 10 said no. This is, of course, incorrect. Speech promoting hatred - or at least, speech perceived as promoting hatred - may be abhorrent, but it is nonetheless constitutionally protected.


Tuesday, September 19, 2017

No, Free Speech Is Not Threatened By The Right

Libellous speech from the Left is frequent but is always claimed as "free speech" by the Left.  But libel and defamation have never been protected free speech.  The Left have just got away with political defamation for so long that they expect no consequences from it. 

It is about time that changed.  Just the charge of "racism" is a grievous and very damaging accusation and innocent people are entitled to be protected from such accusations.  And Mr Trump has a record with blacks and Jews that would give him an easy victory in court over such an accusation

And the now common accusation against almost any conservative that they are a "white supremacist" both really ups the stakes and exposes Leftists to a high burden of proof in court -- thus seriously exposing them to an adverse judgment.

When an addled black broadcaster made libellous and grossly untrue statements about the President, that should have been dealt with by a libel action only, not by any demands to fire her.  But whether the matter went to court or not, the remarks were still not protected free speech

ESPN host Jemele Hill calling President Trump a “white supremacist” is the latest battle in America’s grueling cultural war.

After Hill received backlash from right-wing media and became a fixture of news coverage, the White House was asked to weigh in on the subject at Wednesday’s press briefing.

“That is one of the more outrageous comments that anyone could make and certainly something that is a fireable offense by ESPN,” White House press secretary Sarah Sanders answered. (RELATED: White House Says ESPN Host’s Comments About Trump Are A ‘Fireable Offense’)

With that statement, the outrage over Hill was redirected towards the president. What Sanders said was interpreted by the media as the White House demanding a private company terminate one of its employees; an apparent sign of encroaching tyranny.

Soon thereafter, concerns of right-wing political correctness rose again to the fore of national discourse. And many of those railing against conservative “snowflakes” were respectable conservative pundits, such as National Review’s David French.

“Snowflake Republicans are no better than snowflake progressives. Respect free speech. It’s not that hard,” French angrily declared. The National Review writer admitted that ESPN has ridiculous double standards when it comes to the political views of its commentators, but he argued that that is no reason for conservatives to insist on hoisting the sports network by its own petard.

Instead, conservatives should just “rebut bad speech with better speech,” according to French.

In a perfect world, that’s all we would need to do. However, we don’t live in that utopia and ESPN is effectively saying that it will only punish conservative speech of its employees while allowing the most ridiculous left-wing comments to be aired.

In spite of that development, the result of this controversy is further reinforcing the faulty view of liberals and some conservatives that right-wing outrage is just as much of a threat, if not more so, than left-wing political correctness.

This idea is already ridiculous just taking ESPN as an example. The network has a very long record of punishing its talent who engage in right-leaning commentary or political incorrectness, but is fine with their stars comparing the tea party to ISIS.

Hill herself faced no consequences for her actions as she wasn’t even taken off the air during the uproar. Moreover, she became a martyr to the Left as numerous pundits and commentators rushed to claim that calling Trump a “white supremacist” is merely a statement of fact.

Powerful institutions in America such as media and universities are still overwhelmingly progressive, and conservative backlash against the ludicrous statements of their representatives only leads to awareness of the problem.

It is not stopping any liberal or leftist from continuing to share their opinion in the public sphere, a contrast to the situation for rightists who have to live with the knowledge that their views could cost them their job and physical safety.

After a week where it cost over $600,000 in security to ensure Ben Shapiro could talk about his relatively tame brand of conservatism at the University of California – Berkeley, only hacks and fools could believe free speech faces a serious threat from the Right.


Will Germany's new law kill free speech online?

In October a new law comes into force in Germany that will impose huge fines on social networks if they don't delete illegal content including hate speech. It's touched off a huge debate over freedom of expression and has attracted an unusual collection of opponents.

The law is called Netzwerkdurchsetzungsgesetz - NetzDG for short. It obliges the biggest social networks - those with more than two million German users - to take down "blatantly illegal" hate speech within 24 hours of it being reported. For material that's less obviously violating the law, networks such as Facebook and Instagram will have seven days to consider and, if appropriate, delete posts. Failure to meet these deadlines could lead to fines of up to €50m.

Critics argue the short timeframes coupled with the potentially large fines will lead social networks to be overly cautious and delete huge amounts of content - even things that are perfectly legal. But the law's supporters, and the German government, argue that it will force social media companies to proactively deal with online incitement and hate speech.

The law has also been criticised for containing no legal mechanism for people whose posts are wrongly deleted to appeal to get them reinstated.

Opposition has come from a wide range of groups and politicians on both the left and right - and Facebook has also made its disagreement with the law clear.

The United Nations has also weighed in. David Kaye, the UN's Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression, has written to the German government to warn about the potential consequences of the law.

A Facebook spokesperson admitted to the BBC that they can't rule out the possibility of legal content being deleted. "The law is not the right way to fight hate speech online," the spokesperson says. "It provides an incentive to delete content that is not clearly illegal and would have the effect of transferring responsibility for complex legal decisions from public authorities to private companies.

"Several legal experts have assessed the draft law as being against the German constitution and non-compliant with EU law. Facebook is committed to working in partnership with governments and civil society on solutions that would have made this law unnecessary."


Monday, September 18, 2017

Leftists want a right to disrupt others people's speech

Campus progressives and their allies in the media and ACLU have worked themselves into a lather over a perfectly reasonable new policy of Ohio University aimed at guaranteeing the rights of both protestors and those who are at the university to learn or accomplish work tasks. The essence of the new policy is that protestors have the right to use any outdoor space for their activities, unless that space already has been reserved and is in use for some university activity.

The unscheduled use of outdoor spaces for the purpose of engaging in constitutionally protected speech shall be permitted provided the space has not already been reserved by another user and that the unscheduled use does not result in disruption as defined below.

And even if the outdoor space is in use, non-disruptive speech is still permitted.

The rights of individuals authorized to attend an event in an outdoor space to engage in constitutionally protected speech shall not be limited, provided they do so in a manner that does not materially disrupt the event or prevent others from expressing their views. Attendance at an event is authorized if the event is open to the public or, in the case of limited admission events, the individual has a ticket or invitation or satisfies other appropriate admission criteria.

Inside university buildings – a place of business where students pay for the privilege of attending classes, and the taxpayers of Ohio pay for demonstrators and support staff to carry out their professional activities – demonstrations are permitted, if a reservation in advance is made, and if the activities will not disrupt other business.

In other words, the freedom of expression is only limited by the freedom of others to go about their business, carrying out the activities for which they are being paid, or for which they are paying.

Seems pretty reasonable to me, but not to the progs.


FCC gets censorship demands

FCC Chairman Ajit Pai said that “free speech in practice seems to be under siege in this country,” pointing to protests to silence speakers on college campuses and to messages that the commission receives to try to shut down news channels.

“Fewer today seem to be willing to defend to the death others’ right to say things with which they might disagree,” Pai said in a speech on Friday before the Future of Speech Online forum. He called the attempt to shut down speeches and free expression on college campuses “especially distressing,” and cited incidents at Evergreen State, Yale, and Berkeley. Conservative writer Ben Shapiro spoke at Berkeley on Thursday, amid heavy security given threats of protest and even violence.

Pai said that he also sees “worrying signs” at the FCC, pointing to Twitter messages in which “people regularly demand that the FCC yank licenses from cable news channels like Fox News, MSNBC, or CNN because they disagree with the opinions expressed on those networks.”

“Setting aside the fact that the FCC doesn’t license cable channels, these demands are fundamentally at odds with our legal and cultural traditions,” Pai said.


Sunday, September 17, 2017

California Legislature Passes Bill To Punish Elder-Care Workers Who Don’t Use Trans Pronouns

There was a time when I thought no rule of grammar could possibly inspire more ardent debate than the Oxford comma. But California once again proves me wrong.

State representatives elected by the special, especially tan snowflakes of the Golden State have just passed the nation’s first state laws governing pronoun usage.

SB 219, which passed the State Assembly on September 12 and has already passed the Senate, proposes to fine or jail employees of long-term or intermediate care facilities who repeatedly and willfully refuse to use a preferred gender pronoun:

This bill would enact the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Long-Term-Care Facility Resident’s Bill of Rights. Among other things, the bill would make it unlawful, except as specified, for any long-term care facility to take specified actions wholly or partially on the basis of a person’s actual or perceived sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, or human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) status, including, among others, willfully and repeatedly failing to use a resident’s preferred name or pronouns after being clearly informed of the preferred name or pronouns.

There Are No Religious Exemptions In SB 219

Although this technically wouldn’t criminalize using the wrong pronoun, violating this item in the patient’s “bill of rights” for Residential Care Facilities for the Elderly would carry a fine of up to $1000 or a year in jail. As Amy Swearer noted in the Daily Signal, in true California style, SB 219 carries no religious exemptions—not for nursing homes run by religious institutions, nor even individual doctors. The only exception it makes is for “professionally reasonable clinical judgment.”

Additionally, facility staff may not “Prohibit a resident from using, or harass a resident who seeks to use or does use, a restroom available to other persons of the same gender identity, regardless of whether the resident is making a gender transition or appears to be gender-nonconforming. Harassment includes, but is not limited to, requiring a resident to show identity documents in order to gain entrance to a restroom available to other persons of the same gender identity.”

In other words, a provider concerned about protecting vulnerable residents could be fined for stopping a man, who may very well fit “stereotypical expectations of how a man… should appear or act” from entering the women’s restroom. The bill also would make it unlawful to refuse to move a person who identifies as a woman into a room with other women, or vice versa.


Police union wants professor fired over cop-hate tweets

He's entitled to insult his customers but he also has to allow that they might retaliate

The hate-filled weed himself

The head of the city’s largest police union is calling for the firing of a John Jay College professor after he tweeted “it’s a privilege to teach future dead cops.”

Professor Michael Isaacson, a self-proclaimed member of the Antifa movement who works in the economics department at the CUNY Manhattan college, tweeted from the account @VulgarEconomics: “Some of ya’ll might think it sucks being an anti-fascist teaching at John Jay College but I think it’s a privilege to teach future dead cops” on Aug. 23.

Patrolmen’s Benevolent Association boss Pat Lynch wrote a letter saying Isaacson “harbors total disdain for the active and future police officers that he teaches at John Jay College.”

In a Friday letter to Karol Mason, president of John Jay College of Criminal Justice, Lynch demanded the “immediate dismissal” of Isaacson “on behalf of nearly 50,000 active and retired New York City police officers who are members of the Patrolmen’s Benevolent Association of the City of New York.”

“Recent media reports have revealed Mr. Isaacson’s disgusting anti-police attitudes and his gleeful embrace of political violence, including violence against police officers, as expressed in his own social media postings,” Lynch wrote.

Lynch continued: “It is absolutely outrageous that an individual who holds and expresses these views could be employed by any academic institution, much less one that counts an overwhelming number of New York City police officers as among its students, alumni and faculty members.”


Friday, September 15, 2017

UC Berkeley faculty members call for boycott of classes during ‘Free Speech Week’

Their fear of conservative ideas is palpable

In a letter addressed to the UC Berkeley campus and the Berkeley community, 76 campus faculty members from various departments have called for a complete boycott of classes and campus activities during “Free Speech Week,” which will be held on campus from Sept. 24-27.

The letter was co-written by seven faculty members, including campus associate teaching professor of African American studies Michael Cohen. It calls upon faculty to take three steps: cancel classes and tell students to stay home; close buildings and departments and allow staff to stay home; and not penalize students who are afraid of coming to campus.

“This is a clear threat to public higher education,” Cohen said. “People are coming to humiliate others and incite violence. … The boycott is a refusal to allow this to happen on our campus.”

According to Cohen, most of the students in his African American Studies 27AC class are students of color. Cohen said he believed that for him to ask his students to be on campus during Free Speech Week was unethical and discriminatory.

Free Speech Week is being hosted by the Berkeley Patriot, a conservative student newspaper. The four-day event includes themes such as “Feminism Awareness Day” and “Mario Savio is Dead.” Speakers scheduled to be on campus include Milo Yiannopoulos and Steve Bannon.

“We’re not afraid of Milo, Ann (Coulter) or Bannon’s words. We have a deep anxiety over the violence that their followers bring in response,” Cohen said. “Chancellor Christ’s idea that we can have these people on campus is a fantasy and a dangerous one.”


Poll: Over half of Calif. Democrats in favor of free speech restrictions

Fascism runs deep in the Left

A recent poll conducted by UC Berkeley reveals that over half of California Democrats are in favor of free speech restrictions for white nationalists and other "hate groups."

According to the poll, 53 percent of the state's Democrats believe that white nationalists should not have the right to demonstrate, compared to 42 percent of the state's Republicans and 39 percent of independent voters.

Statewide, 46 percent of voters support free speech restrictions, 43 percent believe that there should be no restrictions, and 11 percent have no opinion.

The poll was conducted by Berkeley's Institute of Government Studies from Aug. 27 to Sept. 5, and included 1,200 registered California voters.

"I would have thought the liberals would be defending the right to demonstrate in general," the poll's director, Mark DiCamillo, told the San Jose Mercury News.

Sixty-six percent of the participants also believe that race relations have worsened in the past year, and 67 percent have "little to no confidence" in President Donald Trump's "ability to handle the country's race relations."

Forty percent of white participants were in favor of restricting the free speech of white nationalists, compared to 51 percent of Latino participants, 58 percent of African American participants and 59 percent of Asian American participants.

UC Berkeley will be hosting conservative speaker Ben Shapiro on Thursday night, and Milo Yiannopoulos, Ann Coulter and Steve Bannon will give on-campus speeches later this month as part of the currently unsanctioned "Free Speech Week."


Thursday, September 14, 2017

Bannon, Yiannopoulos plan to speak at ‘Free Speech Week’ at UC-Berkeley

But the university is looking at excuses to ban them

Former White House chief strategist Stephen K. Bannon, writer Milo Yiannopoulos and other provocative figures are expected to speak at the University of California at Berkeley later this month at a “Free Speech Week” planned by a conservative student group.

The Berkeley Patriot, a student group, invited Yiannopoulos and the others in a bid to ensure that a wide range of viewpoints could be heard after controversial speakers sparked protests and cancellations on campus last semester.

But a university official warned that administrators do not have the information they need to guarantee security for the events.

In February, about 150 masked extremists threaded into a large, peaceful protest of a planned speech by Yiannopoulos, smashing windows, starting fires and throwing rocks. University police shut down the event, leading President Trump to lash out at the school on social media. “If U.C. Berkeley does not allow free speech and practices violence on innocent people with a different point of view — NO FEDERAL FUNDS?” he tweeted.

It was a sign of things to come, as protesters from the far right and far left confronted one another at events in Berkeley and on campus and as the university worked to provide security and faced criticism from some that the school was censoring its speakers.

The school, emblematic as both a left-leaning campus and the birthplace of the Free Speech Movement of the 1960s, provides a symbolic and literal backdrop for fights about political correctness, hate speech, academic freedom, the First Amendment and the Trump administration.

A leader with the Berkeley Patriot did not respond to a request for comment Tuesday afternoon.

University spokesman Dan Mogulof said in a statement Tuesday that both Bannon and Yiannopoulos have announced they will speak but the university does not yet have a complete list of confirmed speakers.

He noted that “some of the proposed events are being planned for indoor venues that have specific security and procedural requirements. We have asked the student group to meet those requirements and have informed them in writing that critical deadlines are fast approaching.


Free speech in Australia under heavy threat over homosexuality

 Free speech is under siege. Everywhere we look, there’s a new attack on the rights and liberties of Australian citizens. In the same-sex marriage postal vote, gay-left militants are showing their true colours.

For them, “marriage equality” is not about love and tolerance.  It’s part of a spiteful obsession to get their own way in life, wiping out contrary points of view.  Instead of debating the issue, freely and openly, their preferred tactic is authoritarianism: vilifying, bullying and boycotting anyone who disagrees with them.

If a doctor like Pansy Lai says she believes in traditional man-woman marriage, they try to have her thrown out of the medical profession. If two parliamentarians have a civil debate about the Marriage Act, hosted by a beer manufacturer like Coopers, the militant tendency tries to close down the company. If parents organise a meeting at their local church to discuss the education of their children and Safe Schools program, as they did in Brisbane last Thursday night, gay-left protesters try to block them from entering the building.

Is this a forerunner to the type of division and intimidation that will dominate Australian politics if the Yes vote succeeds?

A nation where anyone who chooses not to worship at the altar of homosexuality and gender fluidity will be run out of town?

I fear for the Christian cake-makers and tailors who chose not to be involved in gay and transgender marriage ceremonies. In the United States, with the passage of “marriage equality”, these small businesspeople have been attacked and demonised — fighting all the way to the Supreme Court to defend their rights.

The only way to stop a similar reign of terror in Australia is to vote down the postal ballot.

The Turnbull government is not proposing to legislate to protect the religious freedoms of these people.

The only practical freedom for Christians and conservatives is the freedom of gay marriage never coming into law.

If gay-left militancy and legal inconsistency weren’t bad enough, last month there was a third strike against free speech in Australia.

The High Court refused to hear Major Bernard Gaynor’s appeal against his unfair dismissal from the Australian Army.

In June 2013, Gaynor received a notice from the Chief of the Defence Force David Hurley, confirming his sacking on the grounds of “intolerance of homosexuals, transgender persons and women” that were “contrary to (Defence’s) policies and cultural change program”.

As a political activist, in his private time, Gaynor had made a series of contentious statements — most notably, that he would not allow gays to teach his children at school. This is not something with which I agree, but so what. They are Gaynor’s children, not mine or anyone else’s.

As a father he has the right to decide what’s best for his family. Having outlined his views publicly, they should have been seen as an exercise in parental belief and free speech.

Hurley acknowledged that Gaynor “was not on duty, in uniform or performing any service for the Army at the time of the comments”.

He also said Gaynor had “interacted with male and female Defence members in a cordial and respectful manner in the workplace”. Gaynor was a decorated war hero, having served in Iraq. He hadn’t done anything other than articulate political opinions consistent with his Christian faith and parental responsibilities.

Yet he was out on his ear.

After two years of court action and huge personal expense, the High Court ended Gaynor’s matter by not even hearing it.

It’s like the old line about homosexuality: I don’t care what they do, as long as they don’t make it compulsory.

In today’s ADF, it is compulsory, even in one’s private life, to gushingly support same-sex and transgender relationships. How is this relevant to national security? It’s another politically correct distraction from the core responsibilities of government.

Australia urgently needs a Free Speech Act. Twenty years ago, in the Lange case, the High Court declared that Australians enjoyed the “implied rights” of freedom of political speech. As our constitution is based on a vigorous parliamentary democracy, we need to be able to debate issues without censorship or punishment.

Yet in Gaynor’s case the High Court ignored this principle. If it won’t defend its own precedents for free speech, Parliament must legislate instead.


Wednesday, September 13, 2017

UC Berkeley 'Braces' as Cat 3 Free Speech Nears

School beefs up security to prevent violence and offers counseling for "triggered" students   

“Berkeley braces for right-wing talk show host Ben Shapiro’s visit,” blares the headline at the Los Angeles Times. What the story is about, of course, is the left-wing antifa hoodlums at the University of California-Berkeley who will raise Cain over Shapiro exercising his free speech rights to discuss politics from a conservative point of view. So why is the LA Times characterizing it as the school “bracing” for Shapiro’s Sept. 14 speech? Because the leftist rag is sympathetic to the leftist mob.

Given Berkeley’s ignominious history of campus brownshirts rioting over conservative speakers, the Times notes the school will have an “increased and highly visible police presence” and a “closed perimeter” around the building — access granted only to those with tickets for the speech. At least initially, the school limited ticket sales to half the venue’s capacity, including closing the balcony over safety concerns.

Somewhat humorously, the Times reports, “The university also is offering counseling to students and faculty worried about the event.” A speech by a mainstream conservative at a major university requires counseling for “triggered” students? And without any sense of irony, the school says, “No one should be made to feel threatened or harassed simply because of who they are or for what they believe.” Except conservative speakers, we suppose. Heck, Shapiro left Breitbart News in 2016 over the site’s deep support for Donald Trump, and still students are too fragile to hear what he has to say. Not only fragile, but violent. Let the irony sink in for a minute that these self-styled “Nazi hunters” are targeting a Jew.

Berkeley students were spared facing a hurricane, but heaven help them as they endure proximity to a speech. Oops — we used the word “heaven”…


BBC under fire for 'airbrushing Rule Britannia! from Last Night of the Proms concerts to avoid offending nationalists'

The BBC’s Last Night of the Proms is meant to be the moment that Britons unite in a moment of patriotic singing of standards like Rule, Britannia! and Land Of Hope And Glory.

The corporation organises live “Proms in the Park” open air concerts in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland every year to coincide with the Last Night’s broadcasts from the Royal Albert Hall in London.

However the broadcaster has been caught up in a political row after it prevented fans at the live concerts in Scotland and Wales from singing along to the songs with audience members at the hall in London.

On Saturday night all four concerts featured a live feed of the BBC concert orchestra playing Sir Henry Wood’s sea shanties from his Fantasia on British Sea Songs live from the Royal Albert Hall.


Tuesday, September 12, 2017

British conductor is sacked by US university for 'being racist' - even though the black singer friend who was butt of his joke says he thought it was funny

A British conductor has been fired from his job directing a prestigious American music festival after being branded racist over a joke, his friend says.

Matthew Halls, who was educated and taught at Oxford, was hired in 2014 as artistic director at the Oregon Bach Festival which is run by the University of Oregon.

But he has now been fired after a joke he made with African American friend and singer Reginald Mobley was overheard by a white woman and reported as racist.

Mr Mobley, who is from Florida, has since spoken out to defend his friend, saying Mr Halls was 'victimised' and the jibe had nothing to do with race.

He told The Sunday Telegraph: 'It was an innocent joke that has been entirely taken out of context.'

Mr Mobley told the paper that the incident took place back in July while the pair were talking following this year's Bach Festival.

They began discussing a concert Mr Mobley had recently performed at in London, when the countertenor said he thought it had presented a rose-tinted vision of the pre-Civil War South.

Mr Halls had jokingly 'apologised on behalf of England' for the miscalculation, before asking 'do you want some grits?' in an exaggerated southern accent.

'I'm from the deep south and Matthew often makes fun of the southern accent just as I often make fun of his British accent,' Mr Mobley said.

'Race was not an issue. He was imitating a southern accent, not putting on a black accent, and there was nothing racist or malicious about it.'


Twitter Bans Activist Mommy for Tweeting Her Dislike of Teen Vogue's Anal Sex Guide

This one falls under "too stupid to believe," but it's actually true. Twitter has banned writer Elizabeth Johnston, who writes at "The Activist Mommy," for her war of words with Teen Vogue editor Phillip Picardi

Not only has Twitter banned her, but YouTube will not allow her video commentaries to be monetized. While Johnston's posts and views are controversial to some, none of what she has to say is new. Her views on homosexuality come from the best-selling book in the world — the Bible. The tweet that got her booted was a little salty and perhaps not the best tactic to use for persuasion, but it wasn't any more obscene than the Teen Vogue article.

After Picardi okayed a guide to anal sex for teen girls in a recent issue, parents everywhere were understandably upset and tweeted their concerns. Picardi's response was to give them the middle finger while kissing a man.

If Phillip Picardi doesn't like the word "sodomy," then why is he publishing articles encouraging young girls to practice it? And why is a gay magazine handing him awards for doing it? That does seem rather strange, doesn't it? I can only guess that Johnston got suspended for using the words "sodomite" and "sodomy" instead of "gay" and "anal sex" and thus angering the gaystappo who appear to run social media.

But who knows? Does anyone have access to the list of words we aren't allowed to use anymore? Someone should keep a running tally for reference.


Monday, September 11, 2017

An extreme black racist

Being both black and transgender would appear to be not good for the mind.  "She" is a black male who was born in England to a financially successful white mother

TRANSGENDER model Munroe Bergdorf made history earlier this week when it was announced that she would be the face of a L’OrĂ©al UK campaign.

But after attention was called to her Facebook post on racism following the events in Charlottesville, the cosmetics giant decided to let her go.

The beauty brand said on Twitter that the comments made by Munroe Bergdorf were “at odds” with its values and had decided to end the campaign with her.

The Daily Mail published Bergdorf’s Facebook post in which the model said white people must “admit their race is the most violent and oppressive force of nature on Earth.”

“Honestly I don’t have energy to talk about the racial violence of white people any more. Yes ALL white people,” she reportedly said. “Because most of ya’ll don’t even realise or refuse to acknowledge that your existence, privilege and success as a race is built on the backs, blood and death of people of colour. Your entire existence is drenched in racism ...

Come see me when you realise that racism isn’t learned, it’s inherited and consciously or unconsciously passed down through privilege.”


85 percent of Americans support free speech for all, even the unpopular, 63 percent oppose political violence by Antifa

Americans for Limited Government President Rick Manning today issued the following statement in response to a poll by Center for Security Policy/Eagle Forum/McLaughlin & Associates showing overwhelming support for the First Amendment and free speech rights:

“At a time when the First Amendment is under unprecedented assault by the institutional left, the American people have proven once again that they are not willing to trade their essential liberty to avoid being potentially offended, with 85 percent unequivocally supporting free speech rights for everyone, including those they disagree with. Particularly telling is the result that nearly two-thirds of Americans are opposed to the radical Antifa movement, which supports and engages in violence against those they disagree with.

“The fact that the First Amendment maintains broad suppport across America clearly shows that freedom runs through the very DNA of the American people, and those who seek to undermine basic freedoms or provide aid and comfort in that effort, do so at their own political peril.

“Private companies like Google, Facebook, Twitter and Paypal need to proceed cautiously as they consider becoming arbiters of appropriate speech on the Internet, because if Americans believe that they have relinquished their neutrality, they will lose their dominance to market alternatives.”


Sunday, September 10, 2017

A terrifying banana peel

A Greek Life retreat at the University of Mississippi (Ole Miss) was promptly cancelled this weekend after a banana peel was found hanging in a tree.

“To be clear, many members of our community were hurt, frightened, and upset by what occurred at IMPACT,” Interim Director of Fraternity and Sorority Life Alexa Lee Arndt remarked in an email between Greek leaders, according to The Daily Mississippian. “Because of the underlying reality many students of color endure on a daily basis, the conversation manifested into a larger conversation about race relations today at the University of Mississippi.”

"To be clear, many members of our community were hurt, frightened, and upset by what occurred."    Tweet This

Apparently, student Ryan Swanson admitted to discarding the banana peel in a tree after he was unable to locate a garbage can, and it was later spotted by Alpha Kappa Alpha President Makala McNeil, who leads one of the campuses historically black sororities.

“The overall tone was heavy. I mean, we were talking about race in Mississippi and in the Greek community so there’s a lot involved,” McNeil recalled, later adding that she and her friend were “all just sort of paranoid for a second” after spotting the banana.

After word of the banana spread throughout the retreat, leaders decided to end the event early. Arndt explained that she “felt it was imperative to provide space immediately to students affected by this incident.”

According to The DM, some students left the retreat in tears, with McNeil noting that they “didn’t feel welcome” and “didn’t feel safe.”

Swanson apologized for the incident, writing in a statement that he wants to “sincerely apologize for the events that took place this past weekend.”


Andrea Mitchell Is Wrong About the Term 'Illegal Aliens'
In her “reporting" on the ending of the DACA program, Andrea Mitchell of MSNBC asserted that Attorney General Jeff Sessions was wrong to use the term "illegal alien,” which she deemed both “offensive” and “not correct.” But “illegal alien” is in fact the correct legal term.

In footnote two of federal Judge Andrew Hanen’s February 16, 2015, opinion in which he enjoined the implementation of President Obama’s DAPA program, Hanen explained that he would be using the phrases “illegal immigrant” and “illegal alien” interchangeably in his order. While “a certain segment of the population” might find that phrase offensive, “the Court uses this term because it is the term used by the Supreme Court in its latest pronouncement pertaining to this area of the law.”

The U.S. Supreme Court pronouncement that Hanen was referring to was Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387 (2012). That case dealt with an Arizona law that, among other things, required state and local law enforcement to check the immigration status of individuals they stop, detain, or arrest if they have a reasonable suspicion the individual is in the country illegally. In an opinion written by Justice Anthony Kennedy that was joined by the liberal justices (except for Elena Kagan, who was recused from the case), that particular provision of the Arizona law was upheld, although other provisions were thrown out.

As Judge Hanen says, the Arizona opinion is replete with the term “illegal alien.” It is used close to a dozen times in the main opinion and the concurring (and partial dissents) by Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito. In fact, the main opinion cites an official report on “Immigration Enforcement Action: 2010” published by the Department of Homeland Security that discusses the “identification, apprehension, and removal of illegal aliens from the United States” (emphasis added).

The correct legal term is “illegal alien,” despite Andrea Mitchell’s protestations to the contrary. The politically correct term “undocumented immigrant” that she and others insist on using is a made-up term used by progressive groups and media sources to extinguish the line between legal immigrants and illegal aliens. That makes it easier for them to claim that anyone who wants our immigration laws enforced is “anti-immigrant.”

As civil-rights icon Barbara Jordan (who chaired Bill Clinton’s Commission on Immigration Reform) aptly said, “We disagree with those who would label efforts to control immigration as being inherently anti-immigrant. It is both a right and responsibility for a democratic society to manage immigration so it serves the national interest…. Unless this country does a better job in curbing illegal immigration, we risk irreparably undermining our commitment to legal immigration.”


Friday, September 08, 2017

Sarcasm doesn't pay

A police lieutenant in Cobb County, Georgia,  has been moved to administrative duty for making what the department deemed were “inappropriate racial comments” during a traffic stop last year.

WSB-TV reported that its request for body camera footage of the incident prompted an internal investigation of Lt. Greg Abbott.

The footage shows a white female driver pulled over during a DUI traffic stop telling Abbott that she was scared to move her hands in order to get her cellphone because “I’ve just seen way too many videos of cops ... ”

At that point, she is cut off by Abbott: “But you’re not black. Remember, we only shoot black people,” the police veteran of nearly three decades can be heard saying. “Yeah. We only kill black people, right? All the videos you’ve seen, have you seen the black people get killed?”

The footage is from July 2016, before Mike Register took over as chief of Cobb police.

He said that Abbott will remain on administrative duty pending the outcome of the investigation, for which he didn’t give a timeline.

A statement Wednesday from the department said Register just found out about the recording Friday.

“No matter what context it was said, it shouldn’t have been said,” Register told WSB-TV.

Suri Chadha Jimenez, who is representing the driver in the case, said he thinks the officer was being sarcastic after the woman “gave him some lip.”

“It makes you cringe when you hear it. It’s unacceptable,” Jimenez said.

Lance LoRusso, Abbott’s attorney, gave the station this statement:

“Lt. Greg Abbott is a highly respected 28-year veteran of the Cobb County Police Department. He is cooperating with the department's internal investigation and will continue to do so. His comments must be observed in their totality to understand their context. He was attempting to de-escalate a situation involving an uncooperative passenger. In context, his comments were clearly aimed at attempting to gain compliance by using the passenger’s own statements and reasoning to avoid making an arrest.”


Children's book on puberty is PULPED after sparking outrage by telling boys that girls have breasts to make them 'look grown-up and attractive'

A children's publisher has bowed to pressure and pulped remaining copies of a puberty guide for boys that claimed girls have breasts for 'feeding babies and looking grown-up and attractive'.

Growing Up for Boys by Alex Frith, published in 2013, promises to 'prepare boys for what to expect from puberty.'

But it sparked outrage among social media users after a blogger posted a page on Facebook which reads: 'Girls have breasts for two reasons. One is to make milk for babies.

'The other is to make the girl look grown-up and attractive. Virtually all breasts, no matter what size or shape they end up when a girl finishes puberty, can do both things.'

The extract was posted by Simon Ragoonanan who blogs at Man vs. Pink, 'chronicling the fun and games of a geek father, his fangirl daughter, and their ongoing struggle against pinkification'.

He wrote on Facebook: 'The problem is that the book is saying that looking attractive and grown up is a key purpose of the breast.

'It's like saying the same about a woman's legs. Nothing wrong with finding them attractive - and I do - but it's not their 'purpose' to make a girl/woman look attractive or grown up.

'We have legs to stand, walk and run on. We (probably) have 2 legs so our hands are freed up for whatever our ancestors used them for. Their perception in any sexual desire is secondary and certainly not their purpose.'

His followers were quick to comment, labelling the book 'Outdated sexist rubbish'.

Nadia Elhaggagi wrote: 'Usborne are serial offenders for girls v boys products. But never seen anything as bad as this.

'Breasts are not there for boys' pleasure. And how awful for early developer girls if this is what their male schoolmates are being taught.'


Thursday, September 07, 2017

Rider is ‘gutted and disappointed’ after Cycling Weekly publishes her photograph with the caption ‘token attractive woman’

A female cyclist said she was 'absolutely gutted and disappointed' after Cycling Weekly captioned a picture of her 'token attractive woman'.

The magazine was forced to apologise today after the 'idiotic' wording appeared underneath a picture of Hannah Noel, a member of the Hinckley Cycling Race Club in Leicester.

Ms Noel wrote on Facebook: 'So today I made it into Cycling Weekly, it seems not for my ability as a female cyclist but as a "Token attractive woman". 'I'm absolutely gutted and disappointed in the magazine.'

The farce sparked fury on social media, with many demanding an apology and some even claiming to have cancelled their subscriptions. 

The magazine's editor Simon Richardson apologised for the 'idiotic' farce, which was blamed on a sub-editor.


It sounded like a compliment to me

Must not mention reality at Edinburgh university

The victim in today’s example is an Edinburgh university law student, Robbie Travers. He is being accused of committing a “hate crime” by posting on social media, after the US Air Force dropped a “massive ordnance air bomb” on an Isis stronghold in Afghanistan last April: “Excellent news that the US administration and Trump ordered an accurate strike on an IS network of tunnels in Afghanistan. I’m glad we could bring these barbarians a step closer to collecting their 72 virgins.”

This provoked history student Esme Allman, the former black and ethnic minority convenor of the university’s students’ association, to file a complaint to the university, saying: “Not only do I believe this behaviour to be in breach of the student code of conduct, but his decision to target the BME Liberation Group at the University of Edinburgh, and how he has chosen to do so, puts minority students at risk and in a state of panic and fear while attending the University of Edinburgh.”

In another Facebook post, Mr Travers wrote: “I won’t give elements of Islam or Muslims who hold regressive beliefs a free pass for their assorted poisonous bigotries and regressive values because they face bigotry. If you have terrible, oppressive views that seek to attack the rights of others, expect to be called out for those views, regardless of being oppressed yourself… ”

Mr Travers has also aroused controversy for his comments on gender issues. In a Facebook post he wrote: “If I die from a stress-induced heart attack, you will all know it is from dealing with criminally moronic intersectional nonsense. Having a preference of what genitals your sexual partner has is now declared ‘transphobic’.”

Ms Allman, who describes herself as a feminist and “womanist”, says: “While I have not met him personally, given my matriculation at the University of Edinburgh, my membership of the Black and Minority Ethnic Liberation Group at the university, and how I identify personally, I take issue with this clear and persistent denigration and disparagement of protected characteristics and blatant Islamophobia.”

Mr Travers has given voice to views shared by countless millions of decent, rational people around the world. He is standing up against the bullying and intimidation, inversion of truth reason and victimhood, and brazen hijacking of language itself that characterise today’s totalitarian leftists. For this they are punishing him, thus demonstrating once again just what a menace they are.

And they are aided in this by the pusillanimity of those in authority. Edinburgh University says it is investigating the complaints of misconduct against Mr Travers. It should have dismissed them and instead be disciplining Ms Allman for harassment and her assault on the cardinal principle of a university: the unthreatened dissemination of ideas.


Wednesday, September 06, 2017

Supermarket cross removal angers shoppers

Lidl has digitally removed crosses on top of an iconic Greek church from its food packaging, causing a stir among some shoppers.

The German supermarket giant erased the symbols on the roof of the Greek Orthodox building in Santorini from products in its own-label Greek food range.

In a statement, Lidl UK told Premier: "We are extremely sorry for any offence caused by the most recent artwork and would like to reassure our customers that this is not an intentional statement."

Research by Premier has revealed the distorted image has appeared on products available in the UK, including Eirdanous Halloumi with Basil. The image was additionally found on a three-litre Lidl container of olive oil in Germany.

One Twitter user reacted: "I find the removal of the cross offensive", while another asked: "Why use churches if you take away the cross? Idiotic!"

A third Twitter user asked: "Lidl, since when is a picture of a Greek church provocative or disturbing? It only becomes that if you erase the cross!"

The firm signalled a willingness to bow to customer concerns, saying: "We will ensure that all feedback is taken into consideration when redesigning future packaging."

One of the Cyclades islands in the Aegean Sea, Santorini's blue-domed churches are among the key factors behind its popularity among tourists. Hundreds of thousands of people visit each year.


Free speech site threatened by its domain provider

Link for Gab:

This is the story of Gab’s most difficult and most controversial decision to date. On September 1st I opened my email to see a note from the compliance department of our domain registrar, Instantly I knew something was up. They asked that we update our contact information on the domain within one week or it “may result in the suspension of the domain.” To be fair: the address was outdated. The last time we tried to update it on the AsianRegistry website it failed. We promptly provided the requested information and updated to our new address.

A few days later we heard back, only this time it was from AsianRegistry’s legal team. They noted that they had received a “formal complaint” about content posted on Gab. They cited the individual link in question and told us that we had 48 hours to remove “any images that are in violation of their policies.”

 We then proceeded to read their guidelines to determine what violation could have occurred with the post they cited. We have followed up with their legal team to get some clarity and specifics about which clause was violated. The only thing that stuck out to us was the following vague and ambiguous clause:

Instra Corporation prohibits unlawful use of a registered domain name or product/service we supply, in a manner that is harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, defamatory, or hateful against another party. This includes, but is not limited to, hate speech, discrimination or harassment on the basis of gender, religion, sexuality or race. Instra Corporation reserves the right to suspend or delete any product or service that, after reasonable investigation, is deemed to be in breach of this clause.

You’ll also note in their guidelines that they “typically give 15 days,” in our case we were given 48 hours to act.

Instra generally provides registrants with 15 days notice of a pending domain action due to a violation of our Terms of Service in order to provide them with the opportunity to remedy the alleged violation. If the registrant is not in violation of our Terms of Service at the end of the 15 day notice period, we may cancel any pending action and consider the matter resolved. This notice period may change depending on the circumstances.

Upon looking at their guidelines, we reviewed the post in question to determine if it had broken our own Community Guidelines. Our guidelines are very clear about properly tagging content that is Not Safe For Work.

Gab follows the Stewart Standard Jacobellis v. Ohio, 378 U.S. 184 (1964) on what constitutes pornography and obscene content.
We believe the post in question was indeed obscene. It should have been marked #NSFW and it was not, therefore it is in violation of our Community Guidelines.

This is not the first time we have enforced our guidelines. Gab has banned users for spamming, making death threats to the President, posting revenge porn, and doxing among others. We’ve been transparent and incredibly fair about this on many occasions.

We believe this effort was coordinated and planned. We knew this day would come and now we have entered a crossroads with a very binary decision: remove one post or lose our domain and thus the entire website.

Our choice was very clear to me. The post needs to come down. If it does not, we lose our domain. To my knowledge there are no pro-free speech domain registrars and that is a massive problem.

Our only other option now would be to play a cat and mouse game by transferring our domain to another registrar. Others who have attempted to play this game have failed and even had their domain seized completely from under them. We will not play these games. We have little choice, for now.

The free and open internet as we know it is under attack. It is centralized and controlled by no more than a handful of companies who provide these services:

DDoS protection
Payment Processing
Domain Registrars
Mobile device hardware and software distribution

Without any of these things an individual website can not possibly compete and operate at scale. If left unchecked, these centralized platforms will continue their dominance and control the means of all information, personal data, and communication on the internet.

It’s not too late to save the free and open internet.

Decentralized platforms built on the blockchain (including Gab in the near future) will inevitably give the power and control to The People and make the internet censorship-proof.

Gab wants to lead the creation of the next level of the internet. If Web 2.0 was about centralized, social, and mobile networks: Web 3.0 will be a decentralized, blockchain-based, radically transparent, people-powered internet infrastructure.

We are actively looking for a new registrar. This post will hopefully inspire other teams to start building or attract talented engineers to Gab who want to help us protect the free and open web. Until then, we will continue to build and fight for the freedoms we cherish.


Tuesday, September 05, 2017

Traditional British dancers black their faces to 'prevent being recognised by evil spirits' in historic procession

Traditional dancers from a 150-year-old troupe took to the streets with blackened faces in a historic procession.

Members of the Britannia Coconut Dancers of Bacup took part in the Whitworth Rushcart parade, in Lancashire, accompanied by a hand-drawn cart decorated with flowers and a brass band.

The troupe performs 'folk dances', with their blackened faces reflecting a 'pagan tradition as a disguise from the evil spirits'.

Their parade includes rush-bearing, where rushes, herbs and grasses are collected and transported to the local church to be laid on the floor.

The custom is supposed to symbol providing a new surface for the forthcoming year and is believed to go back to the middle ages.

Their choreography, which looks similar to Morris dancing,  is believed to originate from Moorish pirates, with the outfits worn by the group - kilts, turbans and clogs - similar to pirates' dress.

Critics have previously slammed the tradition as offensive, with white men wearing black face paint prompting memories of the Black and White Minstrel Show - which was pulled from the air in 1978.


Sometimes you can't win

Bowing down to political correctness backfired in Australia

SHOPPERS are outraged over a Woolworths mud cake that hit shelves on Father’s Day with icing that read “Special Person’s Day”.

The photograph of the cake was uploaded to the Woolworths Facebook page by a Queensland father on Sunday. It was quickly reshared by dozens of others who called the supermarket giant out on failing to recognise Aussie dads.

One man commented: “This is a disgrace and total disrespect to all fathers in Australia today ... How dare you Woolworths?”

Another wrote: “Please keep Father’s Day to celebrate Dads, and don’t disappoint Australia with your political “special person” cakes.”

One woman said the cake was a “slap in the face to all the wonderful dads”. “If you want to support a “Special Persons Day”, do it on any other day! So disappointed that you would make this divisive political statement,” she added.

However, others said they disagreed with the backlash against “Special Person’s Day”, saying not all Australians had fathers in their lives.

“There may be other people in their life that may have to take that role on. I truly celebrate that you have created a cake saying “Special person’s Day” because for every family that does not have a mother or father around and someone else to fill that massive role, they are 100% a very special person. Well done Woolies!” A woman wrote.

Another congratulated Woolworths on “taking into consideration other people’s circumstances”.

“My son doesn’t have his father around a very sad day for him in fact but you turned it into a positive by providing a cake acknowledging a special person so he gave that to his uncle to say thank you for being a special part of his life, all round a happy day instead of a sad one,” the woman said.

A Woolworths spokesman responded to customers over Facebook, saying the contentious photograph had been cropped out not to show other cakes that contained “Happy Father’s Day” messages.

“We’re currently looking into this display with our store teams. We want to reassure you that we’re helping all customers across Australia celebrate Father’s Day as seen from our store displays, products and recipe ideas. Cropped out of this image are a range of decorative cakes that have different messages on them, including ‘Dad’ and ‘Happy Father’s Day’. Thanks again for sharing.”


Monday, September 04, 2017

'It Ain't Coming Down': Joe Piscopo Fires Back at Columbus Circle Statue Protesters

Radio host and "Saturday Night Live" alum Joe Piscopo fired back at those who see New York's Christopher Columbus statue as a symbol of oppression and want it taken down.

Piscopo, a Passaic, N.J. native who often played fellow Italian-American New Jerseyan Frank Sinatra on "SNL", said he and many people he knows are "proud Italian-Americans."

He recalled how his grandparents came over from Italy and instilled in him a love for their new country.

"This is America. Learn it, live it," he said. "They worked so hard - they've been prejudiced against.


Innocent Words (and Names) Are Under Attack
“The Bard,” William Shakespeare, had a healthy distrust of the sort of mob hysteria typified by our current epidemics of statue-busting and name-changing.

In Shakespeare’s tragedy “Julius Caesar” — a story adopted from Plutarch’s “Parallel Lives” — a frenzied Roman mob, in furor over the assassination of Julius Caesar, encounters on the street a poet named Cinna. The innocent poet was not the conspiratorial assassin Cinna, but unfortunately shared a name with the killer.

The terrified poet points out to the mob this case of mistaken identity: “I am Cinna the poet.”

The mob answers: “Tear him for his bad verses, tear him for his bad verses! … It is no matter, his name’s Cinna!”

Shakespeare certainly would recognize that, like the playwright’s Roman mob, we have launched a war against words in our frenzy to find targets for our politically correct madness.

Recently, there were progressive calls at the University of Southern California to rename the school’s mascot, the white Andalusian horse “Traveler.” Members of the Left thought that the mute animal’s name too closely resembled the name “Traveller,” the favorite horse of Confederate general and sudden demon of 2017 Robert E. Lee.

But the mob was not finished there. An Asian-American sportscaster named Robert Lee was recently yanked by the sports channel ESPN from broadcasting a University of Virginia football game. Apparently, Lee’s name was too close to that of Robert E. Lee.

Nearly a century and a half after his death, General Lee has gone from tragic figure to Public Enemy No. 1 of the Left.

Lee the sportscaster, like Cinna the poet, was found guilty on the basis of ignorant association with his name. If the politically correct herd could not get its hands on the long-dead Robert E. Lee, it would apparently settle for anyone in the present who shared nearly the same name.

Why would a supposedly civilized country descend into such linguistic fascism?

Part of the problem is the presumption by elites that a supposedly illiterate public must be protected from itself. But does anyone really believe that average people will confuse an Asian-American sportscaster who has the common Chinese surname “Lee” and the all-American first name “Robert” with a Confederate general — or that the sportscaster could thus be somehow tangentially connected with the recent violence in Charlottesville?

ESPN, however, does not bet on the intelligence of the average American. It prefers to virtue-signal that it is above all suspicion of sympathy for the Confederacy. In its search for cosmic justice, it cares little about the injustice it metes out to real live people.

ESPN has long politicized sports and continues to lose viewers over its adolescent political correctness. Not long ago, the network fired tennis commentator Doug Adler. He had characterized the aggressive play of tennis star Venus Williams as employing the “guerrilla effect.” (“And you’ll see Venus move in and put the guerrilla effect on, charging,” Adler had said.) Adler’s reference was drawn from the once-popular term “guerrilla tennis” that denoted a tough, brawling, take-no-prisoners style from the 1990s.

The word “guerilla,” remember, is a diminutive of the Spanish word “guerra,” (“war”). In Spanish, “guerrilla” means “little war.” In English, “guerilla” is commonly used to describe a type of unconventional fighting.

But Adler forgot that “guerilla” is pronounced the same as its English homophone “gorilla.” Some ESPN viewers did not understand the guerilla reference and charged that Adler was using “gorilla” as a racist smear. Adler tried to explain the reference, but he was fired and his career was ruined, making him a modern-day Cinna the poet, torn apart by the mob.

Why the linguistic McCarthyism?

When a cowardly and self-righteous ESPN assumes the worst in people, it hopes to find protection for itself from the thought police.

When chronic inner-city problems — epidemic levels of murder, drug use and out-of-wedlock births — cannot be solved, frustrated progressives start looking for extraneous targets to blame. And so attention turns to, for example, an Andalusian horse — as if changing the animal’s name is at least proof that they care.

Most revolutions eat their own. Monday’s most fanatical revolutionary becomes a counterrevolutionary sellout by Tuesday.

Once left-wing activists forced cities and states to pull down their politically incorrect statues in the dead of night, and once they got off scot-free in defacing and destroying publicly owned monuments, it was an easy step up to the next level: waging war against words themselves.

In totalitarian societies, cities change their names regularly. Statues go up and are torn down. Words, as the historian Thucydides warned 2,400 years ago, habitually change their meanings to reflect passing political orthodoxy — and thugs, commissars and brownshirts oversee the charade.

For an antidote to these statue-smashers and name-changers, Americans seek just one honest public official who dares to say “no more” — and arrests rather than appeases those who destroy public property, or shames those who ruin people through guilt by association.


Sunday, September 03, 2017

Liberals Outraged After DOJ Starts Calling Illegal Immigrants 'Aliens'

The Justice Department began calling illegal immigrants "illegal aliens," breaking from the Obama-era language of "undocumented," "unauthorized," or "migrants."

The change came last month in a press release announcing Attorney General Jeff Sessions' meeting with the families of victims of crimes by illegal immigrants. This week an official statement heralding tougher rules for sanctuary cities also used the term.

"So-called 'sanctuary' policies make all of us less safe because they intentionally undermine our laws and protect illegal aliens who have committed crimes," the document read.

Some were outraged at the language switch, noting that "word choice is important," as Chicago Tribune writer Todd Slowik wrote.

"The phrase “illegal alien” plays into assumptions that immigrants living in this country without proper documentation are criminals," Slowik wrote.


Google Issues Ultimatum To Conservative website: Censor Your Content Or Lose All Ad Revenue!

Yesterday morning, we received a very bizarre letter from Google issuing us an ultimatum. Either we were to remove a particular article or see all of our ad revenues choked off in an instant. This is the newest method that Big Brother is using to enforce thought control.

Former Liberty Conservative contributor James Allsup was involved in the Charlottesville, VA “Unite the Right” rally-turned-riot that served as the catalyst for this drive for Orwellian censorship. Although the article itself contained no offensive content (it was merely distinguishing the many differences between the alt-right and literal Nazis), just the fact that it was authored by a man deemed to be an “unperson” by the corporate elite was enough for Google to target it for censorship.

The entirety of Google’s letter addressed to us is as follows. Notice how the descriptors for what violates the terms of service are deliberately vague and open for interpretation, giving Google an excuse to target any website or individual they so choose for any reason:

“Additionally, please be aware that the URL above is just an example and that the same violations may exist on other pages of this website or other sites that you own. To reduce the likelihood of future warnings from us, we suggest that you review all your sites for compliance,” the letter says.

This is not the first time we have been censored. In the past, Facebook banned users from sharing content immediately after they posted our controversial article criticizing a “libertarian” Washington D.C. thinktank official who denigrated Ron Paul. This is, however, the first time we have been directly threatened that we would be cut off if we refused to censor our content. An incredibly dangerous precedent is obviously being set here, and if you think that it won’t impact you directly at some point, think again.

Due to financial constraints, we had to comply with Google’s strong-arming tactics for the time being. An independent publisher such as The Liberty Conservative needs revenue from the Google ad platform in order to survive. We look forward to the day where rival ad platforms who respect the intellectual freedom of their customers can outcompete Google, but those days have not arrived yet. These tech companies have us all by the short hairs, and post-Charlottesville, they are all working in unison to enforce the Orwellian nightmare. Nobody is safe.

All conservatives and libertarians must realize that the Orwellian nightmare enforced by private hands is just as harmful to human freedom as if the dystopia was enforced by the hands of government commissars. The results will be the same, as freedom of expression will be sacrificed to the God of political correctness. After they destroy free speech, the rest of our rights won’t be far behind. A world where digital lynch mobs can ruin people’s entire lives–harming their reputations, making it impossible to feed their families, and potentially subjecting them to retaliatory violence–for merely expressing an honest opinion would amount to a dark age for liberty.

Mainstream conservative provocateurs such as Lauren Southern, Paul Joseph Watson, and Milo Yiannopoulos have been targeted as well. This situation is much bigger than just a few fringe political figures being humiliated. If they can censor us and target people like Allsup to be digitally scrubbed from the internet, it will happen to you next. A world where Big Brother is judge, jury and executioner is right on the horizon, and that does not bode well for anyone except a small handful of oligarchs and elites. We all must band together, eschewing mindless partisanship, to defeat the burgeoning Orwellian surveillance state before our rights are lost forever.


Friday, September 01, 2017

What role do governments and private companies play in allowing people to say what they want?

It seems that in America we have reached a whole new level of absurdity. There are so many unimaginable things occurring in our country that it should cause each one of us to ponder what our nation will be like in the years ahead — and fight to make it better. The freedoms that Americans have enjoyed since our founding have been tremendously eroded, and it appears that, for the foreseeable future, more freedom will be lost unless we stop those who would take it.

Free speech is under vicious attack yet again, this time from both the private sector and government. Before we elaborate, however, we should note that the First Amendment protection of free speech applies to government, not business or private entities. In other words, while the government may not quash free speech, a company or individual has no such obligation to allow it, much less provide the platform for it.

That said, last week, Matthew Prince, co-founder and CEO of Cloudflare, a global network that makes internet applications faster and protects them from cyberattacks, pulled the plug on one of the company’s customers. In the aftermath of the violence in Charlottesville, a website called the Daily Stormer made some extremely vile and hateful comments about Heather Heyer, the woman murdered by the sociopath with a car.

The Daily Stormer website is a favorite for white supremacists and neo-Nazis. Cloudflare’s main purpose is to protect websites, including the Daily Stormer, from being hacked, regardless of the viewpoints that are expressed on those websites. In short, Cloudflare prided itself in remaining neutral on political stances and, up until this point, speech was of no concern as to whether they would provide services. Go Daddy and Google likewise shut down The Daily Stormer, and other such vile websites have lost their web hosts or domain names.

Since then the CEO of Cloudflare has had second thoughts about his decision to stop providing his company’s services to the Daily Stormer. His reasoned that his company is in business to prevent cyberattacks, not to deny people the freedom to say what they want. Granted the Daily Stormer website had numerous vile comments and content within, but Prince believes that what he did may have set a dangerous precedent. He aptly noted, “The First Amendment doesn’t compel private companies to let anyone broadcast on their platforms.” While this is true, looking at it another way, should one individual or group of individuals be allowed to deny someone from saying what they want to? The Internet is a particularly unique platform, after all.

One might say Prince must be losing a lot of business and that he’s now trying to sit on both sides of the fence.

By contrast, the state of California — the government — has gone the extra mile with its efforts to limit free speech. A bill punishing speech recently passed the state senate and is now under consideration in the general assembly. This bill would make it a crime to call someone by a pronoun with which they don’t identify. Yes, you read that right — if this bill passes it would be a crime to refer to a woman as a “she” if she “identifies” as a “he,” or vice versa. If the bill becomes law, the penalty for observing such hateful and offensive things as the gender assigned at birth would be a fine of up to $1,000 and up to one year in jail.

This is, of course, beyond absurd, and California lawmakers have reached the death of reason with this one. Common sense is a thing of the past. It should be quite interesting to see what kind of court cases will be heard in the months ahead, and we can only surmise that this will exacerbate the exodus from California.

Ironically, this same state that wants to ban people from calling a transgender person the “wrong” pronoun has few qualms about the fascists laughably calling themselves anti-fascists (antifa, for short) and other Marxist groups physically attacking Trump supporters because of their speech. To be clear, antifa, Black Lives Matter, Nazis, and all other groups for that matter have the right to peacefully protest whatever they wish. But when the protest turns from speaking freely into violent assaults against an opposing group, then it is no longer free speech and it is not protected by the First Amendment. They are committing a crime and should be jailed. That includes those defacing and destroying historical monuments.

Yet no less than the mayor of Berkeley, Jesse Arreguin, essentially threatened that if the fascists can’t silence speech they don’t like, there may be trouble.

Have we really reached the point that people cannot argue or protest another person for fear of being offended or assaulted? And have we reached the point where a state government or a private industry can control what one says? George Orwell’s book “1984” was supposed to be fantasy, but it seems that this classic fiction has now become reality.


Antifa is a result of speech tyranny

Antifa is not you're friend, they are not liberals, they are not conservatives, they are off-season black block anarchists and communists. As fast as they'd beat a "nazi"(and they certainly aren't always right in picking them out) they will assault anyone filming them, journalists they feel aren't covering them right, anyone they deem as "counter-revolutionary". You're either with us or against us, and we will NEVER be on your side, only attempt to convince you and the people in your movement violent revolution is inevitable.

They don't have the interests of "liberty" in mind in any way, especially the communists. This isn't a group that should be idolized or praised.

On the other hand some people are shocked by images of antifa activists beating up normal, peaceful right-wing protesters in Berkeley or physically shoving right-wing people off Boston Common.

Why? This is what happens when you tell an entire generation that other people's ideas are dangerous, that their speech is toxic, that their words can wound you and traumatise you: you invite that generation to shut people down, to use any means necessary to ensure "dangerous" ideas are not expressed and do not cause injury to people's self-esteem or sense of safety.

We are starting to see what happens when speech is talked about as a form of violence: it green-lights actual violence against certain forms of speech. If speech is violence, shouldn't it be met with violence? Antifa looks increasingly like the militant wing of Safe Space fanaticism, the bastard offspring of a culture that elevates mental safety over intellectual liberty, and people's feelings over public freedom.

That's what we should really be at war with, people on the right and left that want to take away people's freedoms. Anyone that celebrate's antifa's actions is effectively willing to trade freedom and liberty for a VERY false and very fleeting sense of safety. Anyone that would celebrate facism, racism or white supremacy is doing the same.


Thursday, August 31, 2017

A waiter wrote 'lesbians' on a couple's bar receipt

I gather that they ARE lesbians but didn't like it being mentioned

A HORRIFIED couple got a bar receipt with the word “lesbians” on it. Belinda Mulcah, 46, and Joanne Sheperd, 41, were out to celebrate Belinda’s birthday.

The Sun reports they found the barman’s crass note on their drinks bill at the Hafan y Mor holiday park near Pwllheli, North Wales.

But when they asked for the bill and paid, Jo was stunned to be handed a receipt with the description “lesbians” under their table number.

NHS worker Jo, of Whixall, Shropshire, said: “Belinda looked at me and she said, ‘Are you all right?’ I showed her and she was speechless.

“We hadn’t done anything overt. We hadn’t been kissing or holding hands. We could have been friends. “So the fact he decided to identify us as lesbians was a bit horrifying. We were shocked.”

A spokesman said: “This incident should not have occurred and we are sorry for any distress caused. “Following an investigation conducted by management, the individual concerned has been subject to internal disciplinary action.”


Naughty lingerie ad

IT’S fair to say that Eloise Monaghan has had a gutful. For 10 years the creator of the Honey Birdette lingerie range has been battling people who complain about the appearance of women’s breasts in her advertising campaigns.

One year she had an image banned because it showed too much “side cleavage”. Today, it’s the image above that has caused all the fuss.

After receiving a complaint, the image has been banned by the Australian Ad Standards Bureau for breaching Section 2.4 of the Code which states that “Advertising or Marketing Communications shall treat sex, sexuality and nudity with sensitivity to the relevant audience”.

It’s one of seven pictures that appears on digital billboards in Honey Birdette lingerie stores around Australia. But this particular shot that shows the “Issy” range, has been deemed too racy because it exposes minors to “inappropriate marketing” by using “highly sexual images”.

The big problem with this particular shot? You can see the models’ nipples.

Monaghan — who finds the image “beautiful” — deems it all utterly ridiculous and is clearly exasperated.

“Are they standing there with a magnifying glass looking for the nipple?” she said in an interview with


Wednesday, August 30, 2017

A cartoon that has escaped so far

The cartoon below has been doing the rounds for at least ten years, according to my knowledge.  It is well drawn and  I laugh at it whenever I see it pop up again.  But how come it has not provoked great wrath over "stereotyping" etc.

I think I know why.  Nobody knows who drew it and there is no point in getting outraged if you can't threaten the author over it in some way.  Getting an incautious person to lose their job is the big turn-on for correctness critics so without that their outrage doesn't exist.