MySpace.com Joins the "Hate Speech" Censors

My Space is one of the major portals to the internet. 67 million people are said to use it. So it is of concern when we read:

"MySpace does not allow users under 14, and also combs through the millions of images uploaded daily to filter out "nudity, hate speech, hate icons, and offensive content," Ms. Dudeck said.

Source

They are of course entitled to do just that but it is just one episode in an ongoing move towards more and more limits on free speech. There will hopefully always remain some sites that express unpopular views but if you cannot find them via search engines or popular portals to the net, they might as well not exist for most people.

And nobody ever seems to define "hate speech" with any exactitude. It seems to me that heaps of comments about President Bush ("Bush = Hitler" etc) that emanate from the Left are clear examples of hate speech but they somehow get a pass. But how long will that last? Would similar comments about a future President Hillary Clinton be allowed? It seems to me that we are only a very small step from much political debate being declared as hate speech and that would surely mean the virtual end of democracy. I don't like such slippery slopes at all.




American Flag Banned in an American School



We read:

"More than two dozen students walked out of Skyline High School Friday morning to protest what they say is a ban that doesn't allow the American flag to be flown on school grounds. The principal said that the ban isn't just on American flags -- it's on all flags. Several students who walked out of class Friday said that they were upset that Mexican flags can be waved around but that American flags couldn't..."

Source

I cannot see why the national flag of ANY country should be banned from government buildings of the country concerned. In many countries displaying the national flag would be compulsory, in fact.

And that there are no principles involved is shown by the fact that displaying the Mexican flag was perfectly accepted until the students started displaying the U.S. flag as well. It is clearly just a rejection of American patriotism while saying any other national loyalty is just fine.

I wonder how many of the world's liberties were fought for under the Mexican flag? It seems to me that to dishonor the flag is to dishonor all those who died under it.

(Hat tip to Slapstick Politics)

Australian Cartoonist Hits Back



The above is a response to similar cartoons about Australia's political leaders emanating from Muslim Indonesia (See my post of Thursday). What's good for the goose should surely be good for the gander.

The cartoon refers to the savage oppression ("rape") of the Western New Guinea natives by Indonesia. Some of the Melanesian natives concerned have recently found refuge in Australia -- to Indonesia's disgruntlement.

Background to the cartoon here




Some Statements about Race now Illegal in Australia

Australia's political correctness court, the "Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission" has just declared illegal statements made by Prof. Andrew Fraser about racial aspects of Australia's immigration policy. Prof. Fraser has a response to the verdict here. It appears that he will refuse to comply with the verdict.

Fraser has set out his views both in the popular press and in an academic journal article -- an article which was suppressed before it could be published. You can however find the article here. It is a very thorough defence of his views. Predictably, the only substantial scholarly riposte to Fraser that I know of comes from a moderate conservative -- Windschuttle. The only talent the Left have in these matters is for hysteria and abuse.

Just for the record, I should perhaps note that I personally disagree with much of what Fraser says -- particularly with regard to Asians. I do however find it utterly bizarre that statements can now be declared illegal that would have attracted near-universal assent (including assent from many Leftist intellectuals) in the Western world up until about 60 years ago.

Black Congresswoman Plays the Race Card

American newspapers are so shy of mentioning the race of a black criminal that they normally indicate it only by way of a photo of the accused. And if his first name is Leroy or some such they don't even bother with the photo. But an allegation against a white by a black suffers from no such restraint. The race of the offending party is immediately highlighted.

We see that in an incident reported here where black Congresswoman McKinney had an altercation with a policeman. In an internet comment by her she immediately said that the incident was part of a pattern of harassment of her by white police officers. For all I know the policeman concerned MAY have been overly officious but he was in the end only doing his job and there is no reason why his race or the race of other police should have been mentioned. The dispute should have been resolved on the facts (as ascertained by eyewitness reports etc), not on anyone's skin color.

It appears however that she did a big backdown when she heard that there was a videotape of the incident. So I think I can guess just which one of the two people involved was behaving arrogantly.

A Double Cartoon Standard

As in the USA, none of the major Australian newspapers dared publish the Mohammed cartoons. Not because they were scared, of course. Oh No! It was because they respected people's sensitivities and "right" not to be offended. So what happened when the newspapers of a Muslim nation (Indonesia) published grossly offensive cartoons of Australia's Prime Minister and Foreign Minister? Did they deplore such "insensitivity"? Not at all. They republished the Indonesian cartoons so that Australians could see them too!

No doubt they realized that Australia's "Fascist" conservative government was not Fascist at all and that they were perfectly safe in what they were doing.

See here for one of the cartoon reproductions by these fearless speakers of truth to power. And for living colour see here. No doubt many of the big majority of Australians who voted in our conservative government found the Indonesian cartoons offensive but did that bother our Leftist champions of sensitivity? As usual, anything that offends conservatives, Christians etc. is just fine as far as most of the media is concerned.

Beware the Tar Baby!

Why? I guess because tar is black. We read:

"Leigh Lenzmeier stopped short of apologizing for referring to the St. Cloud Human Rights Commission as a "tar baby," but he did promise not to use the term again... He said there has been discussion for years about expanding the city's commission to include Stearns County. "When did we first hear this? I think, oh, nearly (back) to the ... (former Mayor Al Loehr) administration in the city, they've been wanting us to take over, sorry, this tar baby for a while. I don't see that," Lenzmeier said".

Source

.

A "tar baby" is a sticky problem, that's all as far as I know -- and that's clearly what the speaker meant -- but the NAACP and various busybodies say the expression is a racial slur. Since careful people now have to speak of the pot calling the kettle Afro-American, I guess it figures.

Lawyers not Allowed to Criticize the Law in New Zealand

The idea that the law and lawyers are beyond criticism is laughable but apparently you cannot be a lawyer in New Zealand if you vigorously criticize the system there. We read:

"An outspoken men's activist and critic of New Zealand's legal system has been told he is not a fit and proper person to be a lawyer. But Peter Zohrab, acting president of New Zealand Equality Education Foundation, says he will not let matters rest there. "I just intend to keep at it and see how long it takes," he said of his quest to become a lawyer. Mr Zohrab could bypass the law society approval process that blackballed him and apply to the High Court for admission to the Bar.

He said he spent more than two years gaining his law degree because he believed men could not find lawyers who understood a man's point of view. He wanted to begin as a family law specialist and then expand into other areas where men's rights were an issue, such as criminal and employment law.

Mr Zohrab says Wellington District Law Society raised issues of "balance and judgment" against him. He believes a big part of the problem is his involvement in the men's rights movement.

Source

.

If you want to send emails in support of Mr Zohrab's application, this site has the details you need.

Internet censorship demanded by the Australian Left

Under the guise of protecting children from pornography, the Australian Labor Party wants to bar many sites to ADULTS. And you thought censorship on moral grounds was the preserve of the Christian Right! The truth is that the Left will seek kudos wherever it can find it -- regardless of any principle that they have claimed to support previously. Given the pressure from both the Left and Christian conservatives, the Australian Federal government is so far being fairly heroic in resisting the pressure for censorship but there are worrying signs:

"The federal Government is planning to bolster NetAlert, its online safety agency, and give the media regulator greater powers as pressure builds from Labor and its own backbench to curb online pornography. Communications and IT Minister Helen Coonan says, however, that calls from Labor and Coalition colleagues to force internet service providers to filter porn sites are misguided...

Opposition IT spokesman Stephen Conroy said Government research showed the blacklist ISP filtering system that Labor had proposed would have had minimal impact on network performance. "In 2004, the Government received independent advice that ISP filtering to remove blacklisted sites would take just 10 milliseconds and that this delay is generally not noticeable to the user," Senator Conroy said. "The Government should stop making excuses and do all in its power to prevent children from being exposed to prohibited internet content.".... Labor leader Kim Beazley last week put internet pornography back on the agenda saying Labor, if elected, would force ISP's to offer a "clean feed" internet service to Australian families....

The Government was pursuing technology to control the net, Senator Coonan said. ... The latest study found that ISP filters continued to create network performance problems, Senator Coonan said. The best-performing filters slowed network performance by 18 per cent, while the worst-performing filters degraded the network by 78 per cent. "They found that even the best-performing filter missed about a quarter of the content on a small prepared list of sites." ... "We are continuing to look into it," she said. PC-based filtering offered parents greater flexibility than the one-size-fits-all approach of ISP filtering, she said....

Source

New Rules for the Internet

The very idea of rules for the internet is anathema to me but America's FEC does not seem to think so. The rules they have just handed down have no terrors for bloggers at the moment but as sure as night follows day, more and more regulations will follow. I thought readers would be interested in the following summary of what the new rules say:

Paid political advertising appearing on someone else's Web site would have to be reported, regardless of how little or how much it costs. But that responsibility would lie with the candidate, political party or committee backing the ad--not a Web site accepting the ads.

All ads that expressly advocate the election or defeat of a candidate or solicit donations would have to carry disclaimers.

Bloggers and other individual commentators wouldn't have to disclose payments received from candidates, political parties or campaign committees--but those groups would have to report payments to bloggers.

No one except registered political committees would be required to put disclaimers on political e-mailings or Web sites. The e-mail requirement would kick in only if the committee sent out more than 500 substantially similar unsolicited messages at a time.

The media exemption enjoyed by traditional news outlets would be extended to "any Internet or electronic publication," which could include everything from online presences of major media companies to individual bloggers.

Fury Over Christians Speaking out

How wrong of them to exercise their democratic rights!

This concerns the recent election in the Australian State of Tasmania. To the media, a constant outpouring of Green/Left propaganda from Australia's public broadcasters is fine. But advertising by Christian groups is deeply offensive. The media report below refers to advertising by a Christian group as a "secretive smear campaign". Pick the real smear! Just a few excerpts:

"In the dying moments of Tasmania's election campaign, people wearing animal masks drove through the streets of Hobart towing a trailer with an anti-Greens slogan. In the weeks leading up to this bizarre display, a series of newspaper advertisements and letter-box pamphlets attacked the Greens, warning they were "socially destructive".

Two of the men authorising these ads were later exposed as members of the Exclusive Brethren, a secretive fundamentalist Christian sect... Unwin and Christian deny they were involved in a secretive smear campaign, backed by the Liberal Party. "We placed these ads so people were aware of (the Greens') policies," Christian says. "There's no smear campaign or hidden agenda. We put our names to them, and we support any government that is good for Tasmania"....

While the Greens' vote slump was ultimately the result of Tasmanians deciding not to risk the uncertainty of minority government, the Greens believe the smear and fear campaigns against them played a big role... State Greens leader Peg Putt, seething at the loss of at least one seat, was booed and heckled when she used her speech in the tally room last Saturday night to complain about Tasmania's "grubbiest" ever campaign. She later vowed the Greens would adopt a more "hard-nosed" approach to future campaigns, and push for better disclosure laws. "The nation needed to know that there were shadowy forces at work here that won't identify themselves and will not discuss the amounts of money they put into this campaign," Putt says...

Source

It shows how anti-Christian the policies of the Australian Green party are that an unworldly group like the Brethren thought they had to get involved in politics.

South Park Censored



We read:

"Two weeks ago, Hayes, a longtime Scientologist, announced he was quitting "South Park," the animated show that transformed the "Shaft" star into "Chef" and introduced him to a new legion of fans. He said the show had exceeded the boundaries of good taste when it aired an episode titled "Trapped in the Closet" -- in November -- that skewers Scientology and Cruise. "South Park" creators Matt Stone and Trey Parker responded to Hayes by saying something to the effect of, "Dude, you're just noticing that we offend people now?" But last week, a rerun of that Scientology episode was mysteriously pulled off the air amid published reports that Cruise had used his clout to bury it. A Cruise spokesman denied that."

Source

Sure, a private company is entitled to air its shows or not as it likes but censorship does not have to be by governments to be destructive and limiting. There is counter-pressure on the company to re-air the show and one can only hope it succeeds.

Andrew Sullivan makes an eloquent case for why we need South Park and ALL its episodes, despite the unpleasant aspects of the show. Sullivan blames "religion" for the ban but Hollywood (with its love of all weirdness, including Scientology) is the more likely culprit.

Wrong to Favor Normal Family Life

The little Utah tourist town of Kanab is in big trouble:

"In January, the City Council in the overwhelmingly Mormon community of 3,600 unanimously passed a resolution in favor of the "natural family" consisting of a working husband, a stay-at-home wife and a "full quiver of children." The resolution struck some as homophobic and sexist, and stirred talk of a Kanab tourism boycott, which won the endorsement of syndicated travel columnist Arthur Frommer.

Source

Since then, there appears to have been some effect from the boycott and local business people are thinking about "reversing" the resolution. But, seeing that the resolution is not a law and so does not do anything anyway, only a full-scale grovel will probably work.

So don't you ever DARE to say that you think a normal family is best for children! You may be right or you may be wrong but you are certainly not allowed to say it in public. If you want to say that you think the sun shines out of homosexuals, however, that is fine.

The Stifled Debate about AIDS

I am going to touch here on a topic that seems to be extraordinarily touchy -- The cause of AIDS. From the earliest days, some researchers with great experience in virology have questioned whether the HIV virus is the cause of AIDS. I am not going to make any pronouncement on that issue. I hope that what I am about to say will not reveal which side of the issue I come down on.

What I want to note is how the debate seems to be censored. Proponents of the orthodox theory seem very reluctant to debate it. The documentary The other side of AIDS brings all that into sharp focus. The maker of the documentary had no trouble finding distinguished scientists who questioned the orthodox view but he could find almost nobody who would defend the orthodox view on camera. The most eminent scientist that he managed to interview on the orthodox side was Dr. Mark Wainberg of the McGill University AIDS Center. Here is part of what Dr. Wainberg said:

"Anyone those who attempts to dispel the notion that HIV is the cause of AIDS are perpetrators of death. And I, would very much, for one, like to see the Constitution of the United States and similar countries have some means in place that we can charge people who are responsible for endangering public health with charges of endangerment and bring them up on trial. I think that people like Peter Duesberg belong in jail".

Source

He actually wants to throw in jail anybody who questions the orthodox theory! It sure looks like a fragile theory judging by the words and deeds of those who espouse it.

So here's the surprise: I have been reading on this issue for many years and I think the orthodox view is probably right -- at least as far as the Western world is concerned. Africa is another matter. They seem to call anything AIDS there. The main thing that makes me doubt the orthodox theory these days is the dogmatism of its defenders.

I am guessing that admitting to any uncertainty in their conclusions is seen by the establishment as politically dangerous. But the matter should nonetheless be discussed fully and openly as it would be truly tragic if the theory is wrong.

No Free Speech at Sportsgrounds?

The reasons people find for limiting free speech never seem to end. Apparently, free speech is now out of bounds during sporting events. Or so it seems:

"And in the World Baseball Classic-on March 13, 2006, hidden in a thicket of good feelings and mostly good baseball-Fidel Castro's Cuba reared its ugly head. During the early rounds, on the way to a 7-3 loss to the Dominican Republic, but long before Japan would upend the Cubans in the final, several rowdy fans were causing a disturbance in Puerto Rico's Hiram Bithorn Stadium. These enterprising individuals had coordinated the customized lettering on their shirts to spell out "ABAJO FIDEL"-roughly translated, in English, as "Down With Fidel"-when they stood next to each other. They also displayed a smaller, similar sign with the same message. Before long, however, security guards came to take the sign away. The authorities also demanded that the fans either change their shirts or exit the ballpark altogether.

Source

I certainly think politics should be kept out of sport if we mean by that political interference with sporting events (I don't like political interference with ANYTHING much, actually) -- but these guys were just expressing an opinion. They were even doing it silently, and certainly not aggressively. And if others got aggressive towards them, it is surely the aggressive ones that the police should have been pouncing on.

"Coon" follow-up

David Lenihan, the guy who got sacked from his radio job for mispronouncing "coup", has now been suspended from his day job as well. He was teaching anatomy and neuroanatomy at Logan College of Chiropractic, but no more, it seems.

He has of course got a lot of media attention because of his sacking but I think the best point was made by black conservative talk-show host Larry Elder. He said that prominent blacks have made disparaging remarks about Rice and gotten away with it, and feels Lenihan's firing was unfounded.

And it is not only prominent blacks who have used disgraceful and DELIBERATELY offensive language about Condi but prominent white Leftists as well. In that context, Lenihan is clearly being unfairly victimized. More of the story here


Update:

Condi has now accepted Lenihan's apology

You must not Mispronounce "Coup"

There is the story here of a poor guy who tried to say "coup" on radio (It is of course pronounced as "coo"). But in the excitement of the moment it came out as "coon". Not so bad, you might think. He did after all spot his slip in a split second and apologize immediately for it. Sadly, however, he was speaking at the time of Condi Rice.

He lost his job over it. Anybody who has ever had an embarrassing slip of the tongue would sympathize with him, I think.

"Bloody" hits America

I have posted before about the uproar caused when the British authorities banned an official Australian tourism advertisement that used the word "bloody". The term is a mild obscenity much used in both countries but virtually unknown in America. It is usually said to be a contraction of an old Catholic oath: "By our Lady".

The Canadians didn't like the advertisement either and placed restrictions on it (though for peculiarly Canadian reasons -- VERY peculiar ones). But to their credit, the American broadcasting authorities did not restrict it. That was not the end of the story, however:

"A key conservative American lobby group is set to unleash a campaign of protest against Australian tourism's "where the bloody hell are you?" TV advertisement. The controversial commercial made its US debut tonight in front of 20 million American TV viewers and one influential group was not amused. The American Family Association (AFA), which has more than two million members and leads campaigns against abortion and gay rights, was upset with the bikini-clad model Lara Bingle's use of "bloody" and "hell" in the ad's tagline".

Source

The amusing thing is that they attacked the advertisement even though they did not understand why the word "bloody" was used. They just thought it sounded nasty.

Below is a picture of the wicked woman who utters the offending words:

Conservative Values "Religious" and Must be Banned, Leftist Values OK

A Federal program running in Rhode Island schools that taught sexual abstinence to children has been dropped. Why?

"Lawyers at the Rhode Island affiliate of the American Civil Liberties Union first complained last year that a now-abandoned textbook used by Heritage of Rhode Island taught students that girls should wear clothing that doesn't invite "lustful thoughts" from boys. The book described men as "strong" and "courageous" while women were called "caring."....

"The curriculum had these incredible sexist viewpoints about men and women and boys and girls that seemed to come out of the nineteenth century," said Steven Brown, executive director of the state's ACLU....

Pawtucket's top school official complained that he was duped by Heritage officials and halted the program even before a parent complained to the ACLU. "We really don't promulgate any religious opinion in this school system"....

Source

It looks like we REALLY have an established church in Rhode Island. You can teach feminism but not traditional values. And describing traditional values as "religious" is just a ploy. I am an atheist and I have similar values so it is nonsense. It is a partisan attack on the values that got us to where we are today, full stop. But Rhode Island clearly bows down to the established church of Leftism.

You are Allowed to Abuse the English

The connections between England and Australia are still close. A significant fraction of Australians were actually born in England. Nonetheless, Australians are a very independent lot and they regard themselves as very different from (and better than) the English. And they have a derisive term for English people -- "Pommies". Australian are also much prone to using the word "Bas***d" -- and it as as often used in a bantering way as it is used to abuse someone. Among friends it can even be an affectionate term -- perhaps a bit like the way American blacks use the n-word.

And among the great sporting events of the year are the occasions when the England and Australian teams play cricket against one another. And, as in most big sporting events, passions do get aroused and bad language against the opposing team gets used. And Australian crowds can get pretty abusive:

"Cricket Australia's chief executive, James Sutherland, arrived home yesterday from Dubai, where an International Cricket Council board meeting heard a damning report on racial abuse directed at South African players by Australian crowds this summer. As Mr Sutherland fielded questions, he was asked whether spectators might be ejected from grounds for shouting "Pommy bas***d" at an English player. "I would have thought so, yeah. I would have thought if it is regarded as a racist comment, then yes," said Mr Sutherland, later adding: "We need to be very sensitive to it." Perhaps, in retrospect, he felt he was being too sensitive, for when contacted later, Cricket Australia backpedalled."

Source

So in the end it was decided that you must not call South Africans "Kaffirs" (the South African equivalent of the n-word) but you may call the English "Pommy Bas***ds" -- even though the term "bas***d" is more obviously offensive. Perhaps that is a reasonable judgment but how much better it would be if all groups were as little prone to being offended as the English.

Censorship of Conservative Blogger

Larry Auster is one of the best known conservative bloggers but his webhosting company (Hostic.com) has just treated him like dirt. They "suspended" his blog last Friday suddenly and without explanation, but presumably because it was in their eyes "hate speech" or some such. Larry of course tried to find out why he had been so treated but apparently got nowhere. Suddenly, however, they restored his blog last Sunday -- still with no explanation. He reproduces the terse emails he received here.

I would be finding another hosting company in a big hurry if I were he. The only trouble is that you are likely to encounter liberal arrogance wherever you go. A web-hosting company that advertised itself as engaging in no censorship of conservative writing might do well, under those circumstances.

If anybody reading this is doing business with Hostic.com, you might think about taking your business elsewhere and telling them why.

Bible Ban: A Quick Backdown in Texas

There are obviously some virulent Christianity-haters in positions of influence in Plano, Texas. In an article dated 20th., we read:

"A student organization sued a school district Monday, alleging officials prohibited them from posting information about their Bible study group on the district's Web site. Students Witnessing Absolute Truth claimed in the suit that other officially recognized clubs were allowed to post details on the site, but their "noncurricular" religious group was denied equal access.

The federal lawsuit is the second religious discrimination suit filed against the Plano district by Liberty Legal Institute".

Source

And NEXT DAY we read a response from the school district concerned:

"Yesterday (March 20, 2006), through the press, the Plano Independent School District was made aware, for the first time, of another lawsuit filed against the District and its educators by Liberty Legal Institute. Unfortunately, no one associated with Liberty Legal ever contacted the administration before starting this unnecessary litigation....

With notification of this pending litigation, Superintendent Dr. Doug Otto conducted a review of the existing regulations and immediately implemented a revision....Dr. Otto's revision allows the posting of non-curricular student groups to campus web sites. Previously, CQ Local regulations tried to distinguish between curricular and non-curricular groups. After careful consideration, it has been determined this distinction, for the purposes of web posting, is unnecessary. "Information about this revision of regulation has been communicated to all campus leadership and is effective immediately".

Source

Obviously the haters don't get it all their own way in Texas. Or maybe they are just smart enough not to mess too much with that "Ol' time religion".