Michael Savage is not amused

We read:

"An American “shock jock” said last night that he was planning legal action against the Government after discovering that he had been on a list of 16 people banned from entering Britain since October.

Michael Savage, who hosts the “Savage Nation” radio show, told the San Francisco Chronicle that he had been defamed and endangered by the decision made by Jacqui Smith, the Home Secretary.

“This lunatic . . . is linking me up with Nazi skinheads who are killing people in Russia,” he said. “She’s putting me in a league with Hamas murderers who kill Jews on buses. “I have never advocated violence. I've been on the air 15 years. My views may be inflammatory, but they're not violent in any way.”

Source

Sue 'em, Michael. You will get a following in Britain too, at the end of it! It's the sanctimonious British government that will end up looking pathetic.

Court puts hold on flawed policy in ‘In God We Trust’ school censorship case

We read:

"A federal court Friday suspended a policy used by Wilson County Schools officials to censor “In God We Trust” and other phrases referencing God and prayer on posters in the hallways of Lakeview Elementary School. The court determined that parents and students represented by Alliance Defense Fund attorneys who filed suit against the school board are likely to succeed in their claims and ordered the policy halted while the case moves forward in court.

“Christian students shouldn’t be censored for expressing their beliefs,” said ADF Senior Counsel Nate Kellum. “It’s ridiculous as well as unconstitutional to cover up these references to God and prayer--one of which is the National Motto itself--on posters announcing a student-led activity. The court certainly did the right thing in making sure that this censorship doesn’t continue while it considers this case.”

At a hearing April 20, Kellum asked the court to issue a preliminary injunction in the case, Gold v. Wilson County School Board, and the court Friday granted the injunction. The order means that parents and students will be permitted to post uncensored posters for the upcoming National Day of Prayer.

According to the order issued by the court, “Mere receipt of an invitation to a religious activity does not rise to the level of support for, or participation in, religion or its exercise to create an Establishment Clause problem.”

The posters were hand-drawn by students and their families to announce “See You at the Pole,” a voluntary, student-led prayer event held outside of class time. The American Civil Liberties Union previously sued the school to stop it from recognizing such events, including “See You at the Pole” and the National Day of Prayer. In May 2008, a federal judge refused to grant the ACLU’s request.

Each year, students and parents affiliated with Lakeview Elementary School in Mt. Juliet have placed posters in the hallways of the school informing students of the “See You at the Pole” event. This year, each poster, made on personal time without the use of any school funds or supplies, included the disclaimer: “See You at the Pole is a student-initiated and student-led event and is not endorsed by Lakeview Elementary or Wilson County schools.” Nevertheless, the students and their parents were ordered to cover up references to God and prayer and any Scripture passages on the posters or else they could not be posted.

Source

Anti-Christian teacher rapped in California

We read:

"A federal judge ruled that a public high school history teacher violated the First Amendment when he called creationism "superstitious nonsense" during a classroom lecture. U.S. District Judge James Selna issued the ruling Friday after a 16-month legal battle between student Chad Farnan and his former teacher, James Corbett.

Farnan sued in U.S. District Court in 2007, alleging that Corbett violated the establishment clause of the First Amendment by making repeated comments in class that were hostile to Christian beliefs. The lawsuit cited more than 20 statements made by Corbett during one day of class, all of which were recorded by Farnan, to support allegations of a broader teaching method that "favors irreligion over religion" and made Christian students feel uncomfortable.

During the course of the litigation, the judge found that most of the statements cited in the court papers did not violate the First Amendment because they did not refer directly to religion or were appropriate in the context of the classroom lecture. But Selna ruled Friday that one comment, where Corbett referred to creationism as "religious, superstitious nonsense," did violate Farnan's constitutional rights.

Farnan is not interested in monetary damages, said his attorney, Jennifer Monk of the Murrieta-based Christian legal group Advocates for Faith & Freedom. Instead, he plans to ask the court to prohibit Corbett from making similar comments in the future. Farnan's family would also like to see the school district offer teacher training and monitor Corbett's classroom for future violations, Monk said....

Corbett, a 20-year teaching veteran, remains at Capistrano Valley High School. Farnan is now a junior at the school, but quit Corbett's Advanced Placement European history class after his teacher made the comments.

The establishment clause of the First Amendment prohibits the government from making any law establishing religion. The clause has been interpreted by U.S. courts to also prohibit government employees from displaying religious hostility.

Source

Sad that a kid has to tape-record his teachers to get fair treatment.

I was a very fundamentalist Christian during my High School years around 50 years ago and I objected vigorously to certain school practices that I considered un-Biblical. The only consequence for me was a mild chat with the headmaster and permission for me to go my own way. I cannot fault the way any of the teachers treated me at any time. I still think of all of them with respect. I think there was more genuine tolerance then than there is now. These days people just talk about it.

Something for the left to think about regarding hate crime laws

We read:

"As a libertarian, I find Republican Congresswoman Virginia Foxx’s comment that Matthew Shepard’s death was a ‘a hoax that continues to be used as an excuse for passing these bills’ as reprehensible as anyone on the left ever could. Although she’s now apologized for the remark, she’s yet another good example of why the Republican Party continues to lose elections.

However, some of the well-meaning arguments used by the left regarding hate crime legislation make no sense to me, either. Most of my progressive friends are fairly bright people — and they are certainly smart enough to know that they probably won’t control Congress and the White House forever. It seems that the progressive movement is promoting a slippery-slope issue which will ultimately be used to target the left side of the aisle should the social conservatives ever take over.....

If you don’t think social conservatives will do everything they can to define those in opposition to their agenda as hate-mongers, think again. They already call folks opposed to the Iraq War or the Patriot Act part of the “Hate America” crowd. With control of Congress and the White House, it would be easy to expand the definition of hate crime to suit their purposes.

Source

The writer above appears to be some sort of Left libertarian who has swallowed the media hokum about the Shepard death. Shepard's cruel death was drug related. His homosexuality was incidental to his murder. See here, for instance.

The writer does however have more insight than most Leftists in that he apparently sees the hate in Leftists and thus realizes that they could be tripping themselves up with this legislation. Thinking ahead is not a Leftist talent, however. The emotion of the moment is all that matters to them. But a GOP President who is less of a gentleman than GWB is not at all hard to imagine. GWB even endorsed Arlen Specter! A less kindly President might find much in Leftists that he could prosecute. Obama seems keen to prosecute former Bush officials so a future GOP president might resort to prosecutions of political opponents too. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Hatred of Miss California

The leading post today on POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH should be of interest to Tongue-Tied readers.

Indiana criminalizes dissent

We read:

"Standing on a table and shouting at public meetings is a felony in Indiana and amounts to “Racketeering” if the offender is a member of an organized citizens group, according to arrest warrants issued April 17 in Pike County for two anti-NAFTA Highway protesters.

In the documents, Pike County Prosecutor Darrin McDonald and a state police officer allege that direct actions by members of the Roadblock EarthFirst! group between June 2007 and August 2008 are felonies under the Indiana Corrupt Business Influence Act, punishable by up to eight years in state prison. The law is Indiana’s version of the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, a.k.a. RICO.

Two activists – Hugh F. Farrell and Gina. A. “Tiga” Wertz – were arrested on April 26 and charged with four misdemeanors and felony racketeering for anti-Interstate 69 actions in Petersburg, Oakland City, Evansville and Bloomington. Farrell was released April 28 on bond. Wertz remained in jail as of …

According to the documents, the state believes that citizens organized to discourage public projects like I-69 are organized criminals.

Source

And the 1st Amendment was nowhere to be found, apparently.

Australia: Free speech for Leftists is always guaranteed

Depict a prominent conservative politican as a Nazi? No problem: That's free speech

"The State Library of Victoria has outraged politicians and Jewish groups by spending taxpayers' money on an artwork depicting Jeff Kennett surrounded by Nazi imagery. Do I Pass Muster? by Australian artist Juan Davila shows the former Victorian premier as a cow surrounded by swastika-shaped trees.

Jewish groups were outraged, saying it trivialises the Holocaust. Dr Tzvi Fleischer, editor of the Australia/Israel Review, which is published by the Australia/Israel Jewish Affairs Council, said his organisation deplored the work for trivialising Nazism.

But the State Library hit back, with spokesman Matthew Van Hasselt bizarrely saying there was no evidence the artist meant the trees to be swastikas - even though the exhibition's program notes said the trees are "shaped into swastikas".

Dr Fleischer said the use of swastikas in the picture devalued the suffering that Hitler inflicted on the world. "We always deplore misuse of Nazi analogies in Australian political life," he said. "There's a difference between killing tens of millions of people and interfering in art policies - which I understand this work is referring to. "The inability to make this distinction not only trivialises what the Nazis did, but is dangerous to Australian political discourse because if everyone is a Nazi, then no one is."

State Arts Minister Lynne Kosky said: "I don't like the print, but the State Library has an independent board which selects artistic work. "When politicians start to influence independent processes it starts limiting freedom of speech and artistic expression." [This is the same State where an official government body successfully prosecuted a Christian pastor for disrespecting the Koran. No free speech for Christians!]

Source

Green/Left hate speech

A small excerpt from a post on a prominent Warmist blog. The author actually admits to his hate.

"Marc Morano is a douchebag and most people don’t even give enough of a crap about him to hate him. Once James Inhofe’s Senate butt boy, which gave him a modicum of relevance and credibility, Morano is now the proprietor of an obscure Drudge-wannabe climate denial site. He is useful to the 30% and their Congressional representatives; he supplies their climate-related talking points. But those talking points are crazy, and everyone hates the people repeating them.

But the public at large, outside the ideological tribe? They don’t know. They don’t care. And if they knew, they’d hate him too, like other mouth-breathers preaching conspiracy theories.

Some time in the next hour, somebody will say something stupid on cable TV. Somebody will write an idiot op-ed. Somebody will be wrong on the internet. Let. It. Go.

They are not Boogie men. They are douchebags, and everyone hates them.

SOURCE

Quite comical in its febrile and juvenile rage! I'd guess the author's age as being about 13. For a sustained burst of hate, read the whole post. Note the complete absence of any rational argument or any mention of climate facts. It's just pure hate.

Tancredo abused by Leftist haters

We read:

"While protesters outside chanted ‘Tom Tancredo, out of our state, we don’t want your racist hate,’ Tancredo was inside pointing toward the muffled voices and telling an appreciative audience, ‘they hate the idea of America.’

The battle lines were drawn on a tidy Fairlawn side street Wednesday as the former Colorado congressman and 2008 GOP presidential candidate, who made his name battling illegal immigration, addressed the group Rhode Islanders for Immigration Law Enforcement (RIILE), bemoaning what he called the ‘frenzy of political correctness and the cult of multiculturalism.’”

Source

NH: Exercising right to remain silent lands journalist in jail indefinitely

We read:

"Video journalists in Iran aren’t the only ones at risk for due process violations. That’s what journalist Sam Dodson learned when he was arrested April 13th at Keene District Court for videotaping in the lobby. Dodson is being held indefinitely in unsanitary conditions on $10,000 cash bail and without access to legal representation because he refuses to disclose his legal name to authorities at Cheshire County Correctional Facility. Dodson is on a hunger strike.”

Source

The right to remain silent seems to me to be a part of free speech. And the famous 5th amendment also gives a right to remain silent. A writ of habeas corpus should be issued on his behalf. I don't think habeas corpus is completely dead yet in America. SCOTUS last year recognized habeas corpus rights for Gitmo prisoners. Is it too much to ask that American citizens should also be entitled to such rights?

Canadian hypocrisy

Alberta has just amended its human rights legislation but left in place its hate speech provisions:

"Despite all the rhetoric about the need to protect freedom of speech, the Alberta government is doing precisely nothing about it. In a profoundly disappointing decision, the Alberta government's legislation to amend the Act has left in place the section dealing with matters of speech.

That decision is briefly explained here (PDF):

- Section 3 of Alberta’s human rights legislation already states that “nothing shall be deemed to interfere with the free expression of opinion on any subject.”

- Government found that removing “publications” from the Act could have serious consequences. Ultimately, Albertans need a balance between freedom of speech and responsibility.

Source

So they pretend that their Act already protects free speech, completely ignoring that it does not -- as shown by the fact that Pastor Boissoin was successfully prosecuted for hate speech under it.

Artist cancels showing of Obama “Jesus” painting



Offended Christians get heard for once:

"A New York artist has canceled the public showing of his portrait of President Obama after receiving a barrage of angry e-mails condemning the religious nature of the work. ‘The Truth,’ a painting by Michael D’Antuono, was scheduled to go on view Wednesday in Union Square in Manhattan to mark the president’s first 100 days in office. The work depicts Obama in a crucifix pose and wearing a crown of thorns, with the presidential seal in the background.”

Source

Obama hushing up 9/11 events



We read:

"A children's colouring book depicting the burning towers of the September 11 terror attacks has caused controversy in the U.S. The book, called A Scary Thing Happened, was prepared by a crisis response team to help youngsters ‘cope with disasters’.

Its cover shows a childlike drawing of one of the Twin Towers in flames, with a hijacked plane on collision course for the second. The cover of the colouring book, posted on The Smoking Gun, depicts the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Centre

The 25-page booklet was approved by the Bush administration. But it has been removed from the website of the Federal Emergency Management Agency after apparently being vetoed by Barack Obama’s administration.

Source

Politically correct "beauty"

The usual Leftist abuse of words:

"Michelle Obama has been included in US magazine People's list of 100 most beautiful people, alongside cancer survivor, actor Christina Applegate, and Twilight heart-throb Robert Pattinson.

The First Lady, who has achieved celebrity status and wowed the world as a fashion icon, made the list for the first time.

Applegate, 37, the star of the TV show Samantha Who?, won admiration for going public last year about her breast diagnosis and later underwent a double mastectomy.

Also included on the list in a "Barack's Beauties" section were White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and others.

Source

The Left seem to have made "beauty" into an empty word. What makes hustler Rahm Emmanuel or Timothy Geithner beautiful? And the most esteemed female appearance in most of the world is blonde hair, blue eyes and fair skin. How does Michelle Obama fit into that? She is just a huge over-inflated ego as far as I can see.

Am I allowed to say that a black person has a large ego? I guess we shall see. For the record, there is a large body of psychological research stretching back decades in which blacks have been recorded as having on average very big egos. See e.g. here. Low self-esteem is certainly not their usual problem. So if what I say is "hate speech", so is a large body of academic research.

That I am myself a much-published academic psychologist does come in handy sometimes. Much more truth is allowed in the academic literature than in popular publications. Some academic publications even publish data which contradict global warming!

Apple versus free speech?

We read:

"Apple is being threatened with legal action for silencing an online forum discussing how to use iPods without the need for the iTunes website. Lawyers from the non-profit Electronic Frontier Foundation have teamed up with OdioWorks' legal team to file a lawsuit against California-based Apple, after it told OdioWorks to shut down one of its websites' forums.

The website in question, BluWiki, operates as a public service, allowing visitors to freely edit content on its web pages in a Wikipedia-style collaborative effort.

On one of BluWiki's forums last year, "hobbyists" posted information detailing ways to get Apple's iPhones and iPod MP3 players to synchronise music and video files with websites other than iTunes, such as Songbird, Banshee, Rockbox, and Winamp. BluWiki terminated the forum late last year after Apple's lawyers threatened to sue parent company OdioWorks for spreading methods of how to circumnavigate its digital rights management technology, otherwise known as "reverse engineering".

According to the EFF, Apple alleged this type of discussion constituted copyright infringement, as it strongly guards iTunes' status as an exclusive content delivery and management tool for all iPod and iPhone hardware.

Fred von Lohmann, EFF senior staff lawyer, argued: "It's legal to engage in reverse engineering in order to create a competing product, it's legal to talk about reverse engineering, and it's legal for a public wiki to host these discussions."

Source

US TV swearing policy 'correct'

We read:

"The US government's policy of fining broadcasters over the use of even a single swear word on live TV is justified, the Supreme Court has ruled. The "fleeting expletives" policy, introduced in 2004, was on hold after a legal challenge by TV company Fox. The Federal Communications Commission introduced the rule after Bono swore at the 2003 Golden Globes. It previously had a "one free expletive" rule.

Justice Antonin Scalia said the new policy had been "entirely rational".

Fox's legal challenge stemmed from a 2006 FCC ruling that the network had violated decency during its broadcast of the Billboard Music Awards at which celebrities had sworn.

The network, together with ABC, NBC and CBS, legally challenged the FCC policy by arguing that the decency standard was unclear and undermined free speech protections.

Source

I can't see why the network should be punished for something someone else did during a live broadcast. Does this mean the end of live broadcasts?

South Korea: “Prophet of doom” blogger acquitted

We read:

"A South Korean court acquitted a blogger on Monday of spreading false information, in a case that triggered debate about freedom of speech in cyberspace and critics said was only launched because his economic doom postings angered authorities.

Defendant Park Dae-sung, who went by the pseudonym ‘Minerva’ after the Greek goddess of wisdom became a household name last year for his predictions of sharp falls in the won [Korean currency] and the local stock market and the collapse of U.S. investment bank Lehman Brothers.”

Source

Games must not be realistic??



We read:

"The publisher behind a video game based on one of the Iraq war's fiercest battles has pulled the plug on the title, called Six Days in Fallujah. A spokeswoman for Japanese game company Konami confirmed on Tuesday the company is no longer publishing the game, which was set to go on sale early next year.

The game, which was still in development, sought to re-create the November 2004 Fallujah battle from the perspective of a US Marine fighting against insurgents. Fallujah had been an insurgent holdout until US forces stormed it in one of the war's most intense ground battles. Six Days was developed by another company, Atomic Games, with input from more than three dozen Marines.

Before deciding not to publish the game, Konami had advertised it as a realistic shooting game "unlike any other," combining "authentic weaponry, missions and combat set against the gripping story of the US Marines on the ground."

But the game was criticised by some veterans, victims' families and others who called it inappropriate.

Source

If the objection is that some people died in the events portrayed, I guess that's the end of Westerns and war movies.

Israeli official: Swine flu name offensive

We read:

"The outbreak of swine flu should be renamed "Mexican" influenza in deference to Muslim and Jewish sensitivities over pork, said an Israeli health official Monday. Deputy Health Minister Yakov Litzman said the reference to pigs is offensive to both religions and "we should call this Mexican flu and not swine flu," he told a news conference at a hospital in central Israel.

Scientists are unsure where the new swine flu virus originally emerged, though it was identifed first in the United States. They say there is nothing about the virus that makes it "Mexican" and worry such a label would be stigmatizing.

Source

So you can't call it "swine" flu because that offends Jews and Muslims and you can't call it Mexican flu because that stigmatizes Mexicans. So what on earth can you call it? I know: "Christian flu". You can be as offensive as you like about Christians.

British "equality" law promotes inequality

The U.S. Democrats are pretty good at giving misleading names to their bills but the British are learning fast:

"Employers will be given legal powers to discriminate in favour of women and black job candidates under a controversial equality shake-up. Harriet Harman unveiled plans for firms to choose them ahead of equally-qualified white male applicants without risking being sued. Miss Harman, Labour's deputy leader, hopes to boost the proportion of female and ethnic minority staff, as well as pushing more of them into senior roles.

But the Equality Bill, which brings together nine major laws, yesterday prompted grave concern that white men could miss out unfairly on jobs. Business chiefs and opposition MPs reacted furiously to the plans, which have been described as 'socialism in one clause'. They warned it would burden firms struggling to cope with the worst recession in 60 years with more red tape and leave them open to 'costly and damaging' exployment tribunals.

Source