The usual Democrat hypocrisy

Religious groups are blasting President Obama for not condemning am anti-Christian art display set to appear in New York City and one Republican lawmaker said he is “fed up with the administration’s double standard and religious hypocrisy.

 “Piss Christ,” once branded as a “deplorable, despicable display of vulgarity,” will be displayed at the Edward Tyler Nahem Gallery in Manhattan on Thursday. The artwork features a “photograph of the crucifix submerged in the artist’s urine.”

The artwork debuted in 1989 and was funded through prize money provided by the National Endowment for the Arts. The art gallery hosting the retrospective salute to Andres Serrano is privately owned.

Religious groups and some lawmakers have already started sounding off – and making comparisons to the controversy over a recent anti-Muslim film. The low budget movie “Innocence of Muslims” sparked violent and deadly clashes across the globe.

It also brought strong rebukes, condemnations and apologies from President Obama, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and a host of administration officials.

The administration tried to have the film removed from YouTube – but Google rebuffed their request. The State Dept. spent $70,000 on a Pakistani television advertisement rebuking the film. And the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff personally telephoned a Christian minister in Florida to ask him to withdraw his support of the film.

Rep. Michael Grimm (R, C-NY) wants to know why President Obama hasn’t denounced the exhibit and said he’s fed up with what he called the administration’s “religious hypocrisy.”

“The Obama administration’s hypocrisy and utter lack of respect for the religious beliefs of Americans has reached an all-time high,” Grimm told Fox News. “I call on President Obama to stand up for America’s values and beliefs and denounce the ‘Piss Christ’ that has offended Christians at home and abroad.”

So will the Obama Administration condemn the anti-Christian art display? Will they air a television ad denouncing the exhibit? Will the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff ask the gallery to cancel the exhibit?

The White House did not return calls seeking comment. Neither did the Pentagon.

Source

Muslims, Mormons and Liberals

Why is it OK to mock one religion but not another?

'Hasa Diga Eebowai" is the hit number in Broadway's hit musical "The Book of Mormon," which won nine Tony awards last year. What does the phrase mean? I can't tell you, because it's unprintable in a family newspaper.

On the other hand, if you can afford to shell out several hundred bucks for a seat, then you can watch a Mormon missionary get his holy book stuffed—well, I can't tell you about that, either. Let's just say it has New York City audiences roaring with laughter.

The "Book of Mormon"—a performance of which Hillary Clinton attended last year, without registering a complaint—comes to mind as the administration falls over itself denouncing "Innocence of Muslims." This is a film that may or may not exist; whose makers are likely not who they say they are; whose actors claim to have known neither the plot nor purpose of the film; and which has never been seen by any member of the public except as a video clip on the Internet.

No matter. The film, the administration says, is "hateful and offensive" (Susan Rice), "reprehensible and disgusting" (Jay Carney) and, in a twist, "disgusting and reprehensible" (Hillary Clinton). Mr. Carney, the White House spokesman, also lays sole blame on the film for inciting the riots that have swept the Muslim world and claimed the lives of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three of his staff in Libya.

So let's get this straight: In the consensus view of modern American liberalism, it is hilarious to mock Mormons and Mormonism but outrageous to mock Muslims and Islam. Why? Maybe it's because nobody has ever been harmed, much less killed, making fun of Mormons.

Here's what else we learned this week about the emerging liberal consensus: That it's okay to denounce a movie you haven't seen, which is like trashing a book you haven't read. That it's okay to give perp-walk treatment to the alleged—and no doubt terrified—maker of the film on legally flimsy and politically motivated grounds of parole violation. That it's okay for the federal government publicly to call on Google to pull the video clip from YouTube in an attempt to mollify rampaging Islamists. That it's okay to concede the fundamentalist premise that religious belief ought to be entitled to the highest possible degree of social deference—except when Mormons and sundry Christian rubes are concerned.

And, finally, this: That the most "progressive" administration in recent U.S. history will make no principled defense of free speech to a Muslim world that could stand hearing such a defense. After the debut of "The Book of Mormon" musical, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints responded with this statement: "The production may attempt to entertain audiences for an evening but the Book of Mormon as a volume of scripture will change people's lives forever by bringing them closer to Christ."

That was it. The People's Front for the Liberation of Provo will not be gunning for a theater near you. Is it asking too much of religious and political leaders in Muslim communities to adopt a similar attitude?

Source

France bans protests over Prophet Mohammad cartoons

This is undoubtedly an infringement of free speech but since Muslims do their best to deny free speech to others, there is a certain justice in it

France confirmed on Friday it would allow no street protests against cartoons denigrating Islam's Prophet Mohammad that were published by a French magazine this week.

Interior Minister Manuel Valls said prefects throughout the country had orders to prohibit any protest over the issue and crack down if the ban was challenged.

"There will be strictly no exceptions. Demonstrations will be banned and broken up," he said.

Source

British  backflip:  OK (sometimes) to diss homosexuals on Twitter

Internet trolls who post one-off offensive messages may escape criminal charges, the country’s chief prosecutor announced yesterday.

Keir Starmer said court action would be taken only where there was a ‘sustained campaign of  harassment’ or a direct threat, as he stressed the need to protect free speech.

The Director of Public Prosecutions made his comments as he announced that a semi-professional footballer who posted a homophobic tweet about Olympic diver Tom Daley would not face criminal charges.  He said the comments were not so ‘grossly offensive’ that they should lead to a prosecution.

Daniel Thomas sent the message about Daley, 18, and diving partner Peter Waterfield, 31, after the pair missed out on a medal on July 30.

Thomas, who plays for Welsh side Port Talbot Town, was arrested after the tweet spread around the internet. It falsely suggested that Daley and Waterfield were in a gay relationship and drew a link between homosexuality and HIV.

Under the 2003 Communications Act, it is an offence to send messages online that are grossly offensive.

Mr Starmer accepted Thomas’s tweet was ‘homophobic’ but said it had been a misguided attempt at humour.

The message was also not intended to go beyond his Twitter followers, who were mainly friends and family. And he said the message was quickly taken down and the footballer had apologised.

Chief Constable Andy Trotter, of the Association of Chief Police Officers, said the new guidance would help police to focus on the most serious online abuse.

Source

Islamic states to reopen quest for global blasphemy law

 A leading Islamic organization signaled on Wednesday that it will revive long-standing attempts to make insults against religions an international criminal offence.

The bid follows uproar across the Muslim world over a crude Internet video clip filmed in the United States and cartoons in a French satirical magazine that lampoon the Prophet Mohammad.

But it appears unlikely to win acceptance from Western countries determined to resist restrictions on freedom of speech and already concerned about the repressive effect of blasphemy laws in Muslim countries such as Pakistan.

As if to underline the point, a conference in Geneva of the World Council of Churches (WCC), which groups the world's major Protestant, Orthodox and Evangelical churches, urged Pakistan to abolish its blasphemy law, which carries a possible death penalty.

Source

Cripes!  Even the WCC is against the Muslim demands.  The WCC could most accurately be renamed:  "The World Council of Wishy-washy Mainstream Churches"

Atheists Rebuke Hobby Lobby in ‘Constitution Day’ Newspaper Ad: ‘Trusting in Any God Is Very Risky’‏

The Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF), an atheist activist non-profit, very frequently takes to billboards and newspaper advertisements to tout the value of a “free-thinking” society.

 This week, the group decided to take out a full-page, anti-theist ad in The Albuquerque Journal. It’s purpose? To commemorate “Constitution Day,“ while letting New Mexico residents know that ”trusting in any god is very risky.”

The ad, which was overtly intended to offend the faithful, served as the FFRF’s Albuquerque, New Mexico, chapter’s public method of commemorating the anniversary of the U.S. Constitution’s ratification on Sept. 17, 1787. But in addition to celebrating this event of historical significance, the atheist group was also taking the opportunity to directly respond to craft store chain Hobby Lobby’s July 4 ad in the same newspaper.

The ad Herman references was intended to encourage newspaper readers to embrace their faith. It included quotes from past presidents, Congress and the Founding Fathers — statements that reaffirm America’s standing as a nation that was founded upon faith-based sentiment.

The FFRF decided to respond to this message, using “Constitution Day” as a springboard for doing so. Rather that touting faith, the non-believers came up with an ad focused upon “godless” ideals.

“Freethinkers can all celebrate the fact that the founders of our nation were first among nations to adopt a godless and entirely secular Constitution, whose only references to religion are exclusionary,” FFRF co-president Annie Laurie Gaylor commented in a statement posted on the group’s web site.

Source

Ms Gaylor seems not to have read the 1st Amendment  -- JR

The half-life of euphemisms

David Friedman below makes a point I have often made.  In Australia in the 50s, officialdom promoted the idea that European immigrants (all immigrants were British or European then) should be called "New Australians" instead of "wop", wog", "dago" etc.  Soon, however,  "New Australian" too came to be said with a sneer by many

As Europeans assimilated to Australian ways, however, negative views of them evaporated

 For no particular reason, I was recently thinking about the futility of the euphemism strategy—replacing a word that has negative connotations in the hope that the change will get rid of the connotations. The problem  is that if, as is usually the case, the connotations are based on what the word means not how it sounds, they will rapidly transfer to the substitute. The record for sequence length may be held by what we now usually refer to as a toilet. I do not know what the earliest term was, but the string includes "privy," "guarderobe," "WC," "lavatory," "bathroom," "toilet," and probably more that I have missed.

A different example that I noticed a few years ago was "gay." It was introduced as a substitute for "homosexual" on the theory that the latter was an insulting term. The problem, as usual, was that what made it insulting was that many people regarded what it described as immoral, disgusting, or both—and although  such feelings may weaken over time, they are not eliminated by a change in label.

Not only did the negative connotations spread to the new word, the effect was not limited to its euphemistic use—a fact I discovered listening to casual chatter on World of Warcraft. Posters routinely used "gay" as a general purpose negative term, often with no connection to homosexuality. "That's gay" meant, more or less, "isn't that terrible."

Source

Must not diss the nominal leader of Europe

The European union has a very authoritarian structure.  Despite propaganda to the contrary, the bureaucracy makes all the decisions and the parliament is mostly just a talking shop.  They are not even allowed to initiate legislation. So the President of it is just a figurehead.  Nigel Farage summed him up pretty accurately but frank speech is risky anywhere in Europe these days

The European Parliament has upheld a £2,400 fine against UK Independence Party leader Nigel Farage.

The MEP was docked the money in 2010 for tearing into Herman Van Rompuy, who had just been appointed EU president.  Addressing the former Belgian premier in parliament, Mr Farage said he had ‘the charisma of a damp rag’ and the ‘appearance of a low-grade bank clerk’.



As Mr Van Rompuy listened, Mr Farage added that the Belgian came from 'pretty much a non-country.'

Jerzy Buzek, the then parliamentary chief, ordered Mr Farage to apologise. He refused and the authorities cut €3,000 from his pay.

He appealed to the European Court of Justice but it ruled that he filed his appeal too late and would also have to pay parliament's legal expenses.

Mr Farage was unrepentant last night, saying: ‘They have made themselves a laughing stock over this. It is a simple question of free speech.’

Although MEPs have protection from prosecution when discussing political issues or constituency matters this legal privilege does not extend to personal comments.

Shortly after the incident, Mr Buzek met with Mr Farage and made a statement explaining that the matter was not one of free speech but simply common courtesy.  'I defend absolutely Mr Farage's right to disagree about the policy or institutions of the Union, but not to personally insult our guests in the European Parliament or the country from which they may come,' he said in a statement at the time.

Source

Britain is as bad as Egypt for penalizing "offensive" speech

Google took the unprecedented step of banning one single YouTube video in three countries (Egypt, Libya and India) in order to protect the sensibilities of the peoples who populate those lands.

Steve Henn, writing for National Public Radio, points out that in the present context, Google's censorship is "an example of the challenges of balancing U.S. free speech concerns and of something known as the 'heckler's veto'" -- the problem faced when one person or a group of people resort to extreme means (e.g. threats of violence) in order to silence public discourse.

But before we congratulate ourselves for our tolerance and humanity, we should take a hard look in the mirror. Last week, in Leeds, on 14 September (3 days after the attacks which destroyed the U.S. consulate in Benghazi), Azhar Ahmed, a 19-year-old from West Yorkshire, was convicted of making "derogatory, disrespectful and inflammatory" remarks under the Malicious Communications Act. His crime? Writing a Facebook post which stated, shortly after the funeral of a number of British soldiers from the area, that "all soldiers should go to hell".

In the United Kingdom, such a communication falls foul of a provision of the Act which states that "a person who sends to another person a(n)... electronic communication... of any description which conveys a message which is indecent or grossly offensive... is guilty of an offence if his purpose [or one of them] in sending it is that it should... cause distress or anxiety to the recipient". He made the post; distress was intended and caused; judicial sanction followed.

And this is far from the only case of its kind - there are dozens of reported cases showing that all manner of political speech, religious speech, and even the casual F-word can, under the right circumstances, fall foul of the legislation. The man on the Clapham omnibus has as much of a heckler's veto as the Salafist on a Cairo street; furthermore, the man on the Clapham omnibus is state-backed.

David Cameron described the attacks on the Libyan embassy as "senseless". I totally agree. In a free society the expression of a controversial opinion by an individual should not, under any circumstances, justify the threat or application of violence by other men in order to silence that opinion.

But Azhar Ahmed has been so silenced. Until we end the criminalisation of those opinions which offend us, we cannot justifiably claim that we are any different from the mob.

Source

Atheists Continue to Push for 9/11 Cross Ban, Claiming It Has Caused Them ‘Physical and Emotional’ Pain‏

Atheist activists have a knack for picking riveting, infuriating and seemingly never-ending battles. During the Christmas season, they aim for nativities on public property and at the end of every school year, their targets set on commencement prayers.

While these battles have become all-too-familiar, there’s one showdown brewing that distinguishes itself from the rest — atheists’ demands that a cross found in the rubble following the September 11, 2001 attacks not be included in a museum that is being planned to commemorate the lives lost during the tragedy.

American Atheists (AA), a group working to advance the secular cause, has been leading the charge against the Ground Zero cross since July 2011, when the organization first filed suit against it.

“The atheists’ suit claims that by including the cross in a museum on public property, the government is unconstitutionally endorsing a religion,” Jessup writes. “It also asserts that the mere presence of the cross would result in emotional — and possibly even physical — injuries among atheists who will feel anxious and excluded.”  [What pathetic little pussies!]

Interestingly, even if these protections do apply, the museum contents that “there is no legal authority for the proposition that a museum is prohibited from displaying an item with historical, cultural or artistic significance merely because that item also has religious significance.”

The World Trade Center cross was not a symbol constructed by men using debris found at Ground Zero following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. Instead, the “cross” itself is a piece of debris found at the site — a group of steel beams which resembles the proportions of a Christian cross.

So why the outrage? The cross symbol only holds significance for those who believe in what it stands for. In other words, to an atheist, the steel “cross” wreckage should represent nothing but the tragedy of 9/11.

CNN legal expert Jeffrey Toobin calls the atheists’ case “absurd” and says that the odds that the cross will be removed “are literally zero.” Still, Silverman’s group forges on in its non-theistic crusade to strip faith out of the 9/11 Museum.

Source

'Offensive' comment about Gypsies prompts equalities training for British councillor

"Equalities training"!  How Orwellian can you get?  People often make sweeping statements in private but privacy is under a lot of attack these days.

A councillor, who said a minefield should be planted around a travellers’ site, has been told to attend equalities training, it was reported.

Mervyn Loynes, a member of South Cambridgeshire District Council, was investigated after he made the “silly remark in private”, according to the Conservative council leader Ray Manning.

The investigation found he had breached the council’s code of conduct over “respect, equalities and disrepute”.

Source

Twitter turns over Occupy tweets to court

Do you have freedom to hide your speech?  It appears not so far but what SCOTUS might decide could well be different

An interesting question that flows from this episode is what happens when you "delete" an online comment?  Why is it not in fact deleted?  Why is it retained on the servers of the hosting company?  There have been efforts in Congress to force such retention but none have succeeded.  Is it another Obama decree?

Earlier today, Twitter gave in to a New York court subpoena requiring it to turn over more than three month’s worth of tweets posted by user Malcolm Harris, 23, who was arrested last September during an Occupy Wall Street Protest. The surrender of the tweets, which Harris deleted from his public profile, follows a months-long battled by Twitter to keep the information from landing in the hands of prosecutors.

The surrender of the tweets was the result of presiding New York State Supreme Court Judge Matthew Sciarrino’s threat to hold the company in contempt and impose a fine on Twitter if the tweets were not handed over by today.

To assess the amount of the fine, Sciarrino demanded that Twitter disclose its earnings statements from the past two quarters — financial data that Twitter, as a privately-held company, does not want to be made public by the court.

Source

Indian cartoonist's arrest exposes 'world's largest democracy'


The guy on the handle is wearing the sort of dress that Indian politicians wear. 

CARTOONISTS are a powerful bunch. They can bring down governments, in particular large, functional and blameless democracies, and therefore they must be stopped.

This, at least, must have been the reasoning behind this week's arrest by the Indian police of young cartoonist Aseem Trivedi. The government must have been very afraid of him. He has depicted (some months ago, as it happens) such subversive images as the national Parliament as a toilet, gang rape of "mother India" by corrupt politicians and bureaucrats (nothing too graphic there - just her being held and the blokes in suits being encouraged by the monster, corruption. Even another of his drawings, of "politics" and "corruption" in flagrante "69" is rather tastefully rendered as those little artists' articulated wooden figures for drawing).

For a wicked cartoonist intent on bringing down his government, he hasn't been very sneaky. Going under the banner of Cartoons Against Corruption, he's clearly up to no good, but easy to find.

A lawyer has brought these offensive and dangerous cartoons to the attention of the authorities, who are taking appropriate action. He has been charged with sedition - understandably! - and now been released on bail but is fighting to have charges dropped. What is surprising is that those cartoons can have been out there for so long without having actually brought down the Indian government!
Advertisement

My own view is that, if a government, even a corrupt, flawed one, wants to give the impression of being a democracy (especially the "world's largest democracy"), it should be able to risk the damage wrought by cartoonists. The chances are, if the cartoonist is wrong, he or she won't get much of a following. And if the cartoons have a tiny basis in truth, better not to draw such attention by trying to suppress them. This gives quite moderate political cartoons far more reach than they might have had, and draws sympathy for the cartoonist's right to expression.

An Algerian cartoonist friend told me of how he was regularly brought before the court for offending his country's government. He had the odd week in the slammer but was mostly let off with a warning. Now, Algeria isn't the greatest democracy, but its powerful know well enough that suppressing a cartoonist makes the populace far more suspicious about what's being hidden, than the reassuring sight of a cartoon poking fun at a world they might otherwise find intolerable.

Source

I don't usually report on events in India but its British traditions give it some relevance to the rest of the Anglosphere.  As in  Britain itself  these days, speech in India can be pretty restricted but the report above suggests some hope -- JR

Must not tell blacks they need to work harder

Judging by their generally low levels of economic and educational achievement they do need to but you must not tell them that, apparently

Pupil, 11, told to work harder by school worker 'because as a black person he would struggle in life for not being white'

The mother of an 11-year-old boy has received an apology after a school official told her son he would have to 'work harder in life' - because he is black.

Rosamaria Failla, 34, discovered that a truancy officer had told her child Sonny that he would struggle in life because he is not a 'white British boy'.

Sonny, who suffers from ADHD, had been struggling with teachers at Bowmansgreen School, Hertfordhire, when his attendance started slipping.

In a bid to make her British-born son feel better about education his mother arranged for council truancy officers to visit him at home in July.

But Mrs Failla was upset when the officer gave Sonny a brutal evaluation of his life prospects, warning him he would 'have to work harder in life to gain people’s respect' because of his colour.

She complained to police and the council about the comment, which she says was: 'Because you are not a white British boy, you are going to have to work harder in life to gain people’s respect and achieve high things,' which she claims is racist.

Hertfordshire County Council has now launched a full investigation into the claims while the officer has written a letter of apology to the family.

Source

This is probably advice that the kid needed but there is not much chance of him heeding it now.

Utah city's "free-speech zones" challenged as unconstitutional‏

The American Civil Liberties Union has sued a Utah city in federal court over a "free-speech zone" ordinance, saying the Orwellian-named measure unconstitutionally requires a permit for almost any form of public expression.

The lawsuit was filed against Brigham City on Tuesday on behalf of the Main Street Church, a non-denominational faith barred under the municipal statute from distributing pamphlets on some sidewalks near a new Mormon temple in town.

Brigham City, a predominantly Mormon town of about 18,000 people, is about 60 miles north of Salt Lake City, the state capital.
The ordinance in question requires any individual or group wishing to stage a demonstration, hand out literature or engage in other forms of public expression to seek a municipal permit establishing an approved "free-speech" zone for that activity.

The permit, if granted, can include limits on the time, place and number of participants. Violations are punishable by civil fines of up to $750 or a misdemeanor criminal prosecution that carries a penalty of up to 90 days in jail.

"The overbreadth of Brigham City's 'Free Speech Zone' Ordinance is breathtaking," John Mejia, legal director of the ACLU of Utah, said in a written statement.  "Under this ordinance, you would arguably have to apply for a permit to engage in nearly any speech in the city," he said. "The ordinance could be used to silence anyone, from two friends debating politics on the sidewalk to a missionary handing out fliers."

The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Salt Lake City, asks a federal judge to declare the ordinance unconstitutional and seeks an injunction barring its enforcement.

The city said in a statement later in the day that the measure was not intended for "restricting freedom of speech, but for public and protester safety" and was based on other state and local laws believed to have been upheld by the courts.

On August 18, Main Street Church Pastor Jim Catlin sought a permit to publicly distribute religious-themed literature on the sidewalks surrounding a Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints temple during a month-long open house for the new building, according to the lawsuit.

Brigham City officials issued a permit limiting access for Catlin's group between August 21 and September 15 to three areas on lesser-trafficked sidewalks and capped the number of permitted pamphleteers at four, the lawsuit said.

Source

Atheists Convince TN University to Ban Prayer Before Football Games‏

Prayer at public school football games has been a frequent target of atheist activist groups, particularly when it comes to high schools and colleges in Tennessee. Last September, high school football coaches in Westmoreland found themselves in hot water for bowing their heads during student-led prayers. And now, the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga has taken the extraordinary step of banning prayers before games.

The prayer complaint sent to school officials in Chattanooga came from the Freedom From Religion Foundation. The organization says a local person complained in May about prayer at games.

The school’s chancellor, Roger Brown, announced this week that the university will now issue a moment of silence rather than a spoken prayer before each game. The decision comes after the FFRF complaint and after the university’s Secular Student Alliance (SSA), an atheist student group, protested the previous prayer practices.

Source

From an atheist viewpoint, prayer is talking to yourself.  So why is that offensive?  This is just anti-Christian Leftist activism, nothing more. 

And what has become of the guaranteed "free exercise" of religion?

Here's The Video That Sparked Muslim Mayhem And Murder in Libya and in Egypt

Agree or disagree with the content of this video, it is still a legitimate exercise of a fundamental human right -- a right that is antithetical to Islam.



The acting, dialogue, and production are awful -- but there is nothing there that justifies riots and murders. Nor is there anything there that our political leaders should not have unambiguously defended as fully in keeping with the true values of America contained in the Bill of Rights.

Source

More background here A trailer of the video dubbed into Arabic has apparently been much viewed in Arab lands and led fairly rapidly to the riots.  The producer of the movie is understandably lying low.

British plumber posted hundreds of 'health warning' flyers in campaign of harassment against curry house he accused of poisoning him

He's got a strong conviction that his curry was "off" but the family more likely had a virus.  He sounds like a rather obsessed personality.  What he said was clearly defamatory and could have led to a civil prosecution.

A father who claims he and his family suffered food poisoning after eating at a curry house is facing jail after campaigning to stop other diners going there.

Nick Diver-Legge, 48, became ill after a chicken tikka and salad meal at the B26 restaurant in Birmingham.

He spent the following weeks determined to spread his views about the restaurant – writing a scathing online review and posting flyers warning that 'the B26 should be avoided at all costs if you value your health'.

His campaign was so successful the restaurant suffered a 30 per cent fall in trade, leading the owner to contact police, who charged Diver-Legge with harassment.

At Birmingham Magistrates' Court, district judge Robert Zara said the father, of Hall Green, Birmingham, had gone beyond what was 'justified'.

He faces up to six months in prison when he is sentenced later this month. However, he plans to appeal against his conviction.

The plumber, who claims he lost thousands of pounds while off work ill, said the court's decision was a breach of his freedom of speech, adding: 'I am the innocent party.'

He said he and his 18-month-old son were sick for a week and his wife Jennifer for two weeks.  [Doesn't sound like food poisoning]

B26 owner Mitt Balli described the campaign as 'very upsetting' and said he had had to lay off staff as a result of the fall in takings.

Diver-Legg was convicted of harassment in court but said he would appeal.  He said outside court: ‘Basically (the judge) has said you don’t have the right to public protest or freedom of speech. It has been really stressful.

Source

Late backdown:  British Liberal leader concedes that opponents of homosexual marriage are not "bigots"

Was the Bible written by bigots?

Nick Clegg attracted ridicule after hastily attempting to withdraw a press release in which he referred to opponents of gay marriage as 'bigots'.

The clumsy attempt at news management by the Deputy Prime Minister's senior press officer brought immediate comparisons to The Thick of It, the spoof BBC Television show about bungling politicians and civil servants.

Mr Clegg's office had sent out a press release via email at 3pm informing journalists about a reception he is hosting tonight for "celebrity campaigners, religious figures, activists, charities and politicians" to "celebrate the Government’s historic consultation on equal marriage."

In a hard-hitting speech at the reception, the press release announced, the Liberal Democrat leader would describe opponents of gay marriage as "bigots".  The full quote read: “Continued trouble in the economy gives the bigots a stick to beat us with, as they demand we 'postpone' the equalities agenda in order to deal with 'the things people really care about'. As if pursuing greater equality and fixing the economy simply cannot happen at once."

As news of the Deputy Prime Minister's remarks began circulating in Westminister, Mr Clegg's team clearly had second thoughts about his frank use of words.

Source

Australia:  Graffiti vandal loses freedom of expression appeal

He sounds like a Leftist nut

A serial graffiti artist has lost his court fight for the right to paint over public advertising as an act of free expression.

Kyle Magee, a university student from Collingwood, told police he painted over an advertisement on a tram shelter as part of his personal protest against the global advertising industry.

He was convicted and fined $500 for damaging property.

Magee appealed against his punishment, arguing the Victorian Human Rights Charter gave him the right to deface advertising under freedom of expression.

The Supreme Court judge ruled the graffiti did not constitute a protected form of expression and he was ordered to pay the court costs.

Magee has previously spent weeks in custody for painting over city advertising.

Outside court, he refused to speak to reporters, taking issue with what he called a "corporate media presence".

SOURCE