You are currently browsing the category archive for the ‘freedom of speech’ category.
The government issued a new set of regulations in December, though they weren’t widely circulated until recently.
The regulations state that “No television drama shall show abnormal sexual relationships and behaviors, such as incest, same-sex relationships, sexual perversion, sexual assault, sexual abuse, sexual violence, and so on.”
The new rules appeared a week after a controversial show called Addicted Heroin, about gay teenagers, was pulled from video streaming sites in China. The show can now only be viewed on YouTube, which is blocked in China. Several other shows featuring gay characters have also been pulled in recent months.
Yay! My kind of country. See, China has leaders that actually care about having a healthy people and a healthy society.
And given that they are the new rulers of the world, all the better.
Saw this in a comment at TAC: “As Orwell noted, the purpose of propaganda is not to convince or persuade, but to establish a climate of thought wherein any dissent from it is seen as either insanity or criminality.”
The subject was, of course, what liberals are doing to smear and attack anyone who stands for a healthy sexuality. Any decent person is seen as either insane or criminal (hater/racist) if they oppose normalizing homosexuality.
William Dalton says (in a comment at TAC):
September 22, 2015 at 3:04 am
“Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote, “The best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market.” But is this true? A decade after his beer hall putsch failed in Munich, Adolf Hitler’s Nazi party won the largest number of Germans ever to vote in a democratic election. He had succeeded in the marketplace of ideas. Did that democratic ratification make Hitler’s ideas true?”
Pat Buchanan knows history well enough to know that Adolf Hitler’s Nazi Party had not won a plurality of seats in the Reichstag, nor had President Hindenburg been convinced to appoint him Chancellor of Germany, because Hitler had “succeeded in the marketplace of ideas”. A majority of Germans considered Hitler’s ideas to be ridiculous, even when they gave his party a victory. They did so because, in a country in which, under the Weimar Constitution, it had proven impossible to elect a moderate government which could maintain the peace and suppress radical militia roaming the streets, and faced with a choice of government led by either Nazis or Communists, a plurality chose, and a majority approved, the party they saw to be the lesser evil.
It is not far distant from the choice Americans currently have, between a party representing warmongers eager to institute a police state for the protection of “national security” and a party dedicated to instituting a welfare state guaranteeing each citizen, and non-citizen, all the necessities of life, governed by coalition of sexual libertines and worshipers of Baal and Ashtoreth. When either one or the other gets elected, it won’t be because they have been successful in selling their wares in America’s “marketplace of ideas”. It will be because they have succeeded in scaring the bejeezus out of Americans at the prospect of again empowering the alternative.
I would add that the choice today is different. First because, for practical purposes, the US has not one, but two major neocon parties – the only difference is that one is slightly a bit more neocon than the other.
Obama and Clinton did not dismantle the military/industrial complex – nor had any intent or demand from their constituents to do so. Clinton played golf at times during the Rwandan genocide was happening – a testament to just what monsters liberals are. US arm sales that spread death and destruction to millions of civilians worldwide continues unabated – and receives robust support from liberals and Democrat voters. And there is probably no difference between Hillary and Bush regarding war and imperialism, while there may have been a very small one between Bush and Bill.
Seven years into the Obama administration and the Patriot Act police state is just as much implanted as when Bush went to clamor for its existence. In a little Twitter feud this week, a liberal shot back that the maintenance by Obama and all the Dems of the Patriot Act and the current US police state is Bush’s fault, since Bush started it.
These people actually vote and in their crazy minds, only Republicans are neocons, no matter how much both are exactly for the same kind of things. It’s no consolation, but at least Republicans don’t engage in this level of 1984-ish twisting of reality about themselves. I always find people who lie on such barbaric levels disturbing – specially since it’s collective and involving millions of people.
In the minds of Democrats, the fact that they can point their fingers at Republicans for doing the same thing they do entitles them to absolve themselves of all responsibility regarding the evil they are and do. They are the American version of “Eichmann in Jerusalem”, the responsibility for every neocon act of a liberal lies with Bush/Republicans and they never acknowledge anything they do is actually their own doing.
Lastly, Dalton above fails to mention that the welfare liberal state is a state full of sexual violence and is currently implementing the destruction of fundamental civil rights, like freedom of speech and the right to an ethical society in the sphere of personal relationships, so it certainly does not provide “the basic necessities” citizens need.
What Americans can choose from are two very corrupt political parties, one which is particularly insane for not admitting its neocon attitudes and doings (the Democrats) and the other one which is a little bit more straightforward, while being just as destructive for most practical purposes.
This is “democracy” in the 21st century. Much like Rome a couple of millennia ago.
There’s this commenter over at TAC, Charles Cosimano, who can be witty and smart at times, and usually that’s what most of his comments try to be (although usually a bit more witty than smart). He had a serious comment (September 25, 2015 at 12:13 pm), however, that I found interesting, an excerpt of which is copied below:
Here in the midwest the Pope … might as well still be in Italy for all anyone cares.
Reiff is of course wrong. Cultures do not die. They are transformed. Other than that, Rod has it right.
People do not make decisions that matter in their lives on the basis of religious teaching. They make the decision and then find the proof text to justify it. What is interesting now is that people are not going to Christianity for the proof text any more. In that sense, the broader culture is, de facto, post Christian.
For large portions of the culture, Christianity carries no special authority. By that I mean if you say to X, “A Christian would not do that,” X is likely to say, “Probably not, but who cares?”
Now, it is a mistake to apply that to the Pope in the US for a very simple reason. The US is overwhelmingly non Catholic. The Pope carries with him no special authority for the bulk of the population. He is easily ignored. The rot of Christianity goes far deeper than what is happening to the Catholic Church which
never really had much cultural weight here to begin with. It is reflected in the decline of the mainline Protestant denominations which did control the culture and who still matter in ways that
the Catholic Church can only look upon with envy.
The question now is what is going to replace Christianity as the determiner of Western, particularly US, which is the only place that really matters, culture.
I don’t think that’s really a question to where there’s any doubt. We already know what has replaced Christianity – it’s the deformed, perverted, and violent culture of liberalism.
Savage West + savage capitalism = savage sexuality (homosexuality/bisexuality + porn + promiscuity + sexual abuse + sexual harassment + STI epidemics + adultery epidemics + divorce + abortion as contraceptive + transgender + prostitution + etc.)
And liberals are like mullahs – ignorant, narrow-minded bigots who stifle everyone else and destroy society while thumping on their porn, because for them, being deformed and sexually violent represents freedom and progress.
And like mullahs, the thing that liberals hate most is freedom of speech – because that permits dissident voices to be heard. It means their nasty ideology is criticized. It means all the violence and harm they do in the world is not entirely covered up by their own lies and denial.
This is why liberalism is just another form of any dictatorial religion. It’s oppressive, repressive, and so very destructive.
I think we are advancing rather fast to a state where Twitter et al will censor all viewpoints that attack liberalism. Mullahs and dictators are like that. They hate to be challenged.
Then, more specifically on how liberalism is really the very expression of the savage and brutal capitalism that organizes the West and the rest of the world today, there was this comment from KD (September 25, 2015 at 9:33 am):
I was reading Turchin’s War, Peace an War where he discusses Southern and Northern Italy, and argues that Southern Italy is a capitalist wash, at best family business with large Mafia contingent.
In contrast, No. Italy has produce medium-sized corporations (family-based), but nothing like a GE or Microsoft capable of planetary organization. These larger structures only occur in particular societies (generally Protestant/Confucian).
It will be interesting if American corporations will continue to be able to function as secularization progresses. Note, it may be that MTD and therapeutic managerialism may be superior to
Protestantism: the materialism, status consciousness, conspicuous consumption, commodity fetishism divorced from any spiritual elements of Calvinism. In other words, MTD may be the new order because it is adaptive to an international system of resource exploitation and consumption, in a way that Christianity, with its focus on the family and its symbolic particularity could not be.
And we’re off! To another locked Twitter account…
The #gaymafia sure hates freedom of expression. After Twitter locked my first account, @Alessandra_Ref, they now locked @Alessa_Ref. Well, at least I’ll create another one with a better name. Because I had put Ketch Upton for the name – a play on splitting up the word ketchup, which I like. But at the moment I did that, I didn’t realize Ketch sounds masculine.
Why did Twitter lock my account? The message given this time was something like “we’ve noticed some unusual activity on your account”. Yes, like critical thinking. Liberals find that awfully unusual.
Or maybe: didn’t march in lockstep with the #gaymafia.
“Hate speech” against sodomy.
The marketplace of ideas according to liberals.
The “marketplace of ideas” is a rationale for freedom of expression based on an analogy to the economic concept of a free market. The “marketplace of ideas” holds that the truth will emerge from the competition of ideas in free, transparent public discourse. The “marketplace of ideas” concludes that ideas and ideologies will be culled according to their superiority or inferiority and widespread acceptance among the population. This concept is often applied to discussions of patent law as well as freedom of the press and the responsibilities of the media in a liberal democracy.
The marketplace of ideas metaphor was first developed by John Stuart Mill in his book, On Liberty in 1859 (although he never uses the term “marketplace”). It was later used in opinions by the Supreme Court of the United States. The first reference to the “free trade in ideas” within “the competition of the market” appears in Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.‘s dissent in Abrams v. United States. The phrase “marketplace of ideas” first appears in a concurring opinion by Justice William O. Douglas in the Supreme Court decision United States v. Rumely in 1953: “Like the publishers of newspapers, magazines, or books, this publisher bids for the minds of men in the market place of ideas.” The Court’s 1969 decision in Brandenburg v. Ohio enshrined the marketplace of ideas as the dominant public policy in American free speech law (that is, against which narrow exceptions to freedom of speech must be justified by specific countervailing public policies). It has not been seriously questioned since in U.S. jurisprudence.
The general idea that free speech should be tolerated because it will lead toward the truth has a long history. The English poet John Milton suggested that restricting speech was not necessary because “in a free and open encounter”, truth would prevail. U.S. President Thomas Jefferson argued that it is safe to tolerate “error of opinion … where reason is left free to combat it”. Fredrick Siebert echoed the idea that free expression is self-correcting in Four Theories of the Press: “Let all with something to say be free to express themselves. The true and sound will survive. The false and unsound will be vanquished. Government should keep out of the battle and not weigh the odds in favor of one side or the other.” These writers did not rely on the economic analogy to a market.
If beliefs such as religions are considered as ideas, the marketplace of ideas concept favors a marketplace of religions rather than forcing a state religion or forbidding incompatible beliefs. In this sense, it provides a rationale for freedom of religion.
Echo chamber (media)
In media, an echo chamber is a situation in which information, ideas, or beliefs are amplified or reinforced by transmission and repetition inside an “enclosed” system, where different or competing views are censored, disallowed or otherwise underrepresented.
I suspect it’s the #gaymafia that’s upset with my little SSM tweets re Kim Davis.
[Sept 4: new account created: @alessa_ref “Ketch Upton” 😉 ]
Reason displayed by Twitter:
Your account has been locked.
Your account appears to have exhibited automated behavior that violates the Twitter Rules. To unlock your account, please click the button below and confirm that you are the valid account owner.
“Automatic behavior” like sending a variety of tweets that I was typing? Right!
How do they want you to unlock your account? By giving them your phone number!
Heh. Freedom of speech with liberals is like that.
Christian children’s worker ‘sacked for telling gay colleague: God doesn’t condone homosexuality’ launches unfair dismissal claim
- 21:01, 1 March 2015
- By Nina Massey
Sarah Mbuyi (devout Christian) has launched claim following her “dismissal for gross misconduct “
Her crime? Having a decent mind about sexuality and talking about her beliefs with a coleague.
From the mirror.co.uk:
Belgian-born Miss Mbuyi claims that in January last year, a colleague raised the issue of what the Bible teaches on homosexuality.
She alleges her co-worker felt unhappy the Church did not allow her to marry her female partner, and said that she thought God condoned homosexuality.
Miss Mbuyi explained: “When I said ‘No, God does not condone the practice of homosexuality, but does love you and says you should come to Him as you are’, she became emotional and went off to report me to my manager.”
At an internal disciplinary hearing on January 8, Miss Mbuyi was confronted with her colleague’s allegations including that the woman had taken offence at being give a Bible as a gift by Miss Mbuyi.
She was dismissed for gross misconduct by nursery directors who are said to have told her that she had breached the equality policy of the nursery. [Surely that means only people who think like pigs are equal – or something…]
At the tribunal, it is expected she will argue she has the right, under EU law, to enter into conversations with adult co-employees subject to the normal principles of engagement in speech. [Not anymore. Because with LGBT pigs in society, there is no such thing as democracy or freedom or having the most basic fundamental rights.]
Miss Mbuyi claims that she had previously discussed matters of faith and religion without any offence being taken, the Christian Legal Centre (CLC) said.
Saying that her disciplinary hearing was “hopelessly one-sided” [I can just imagine the insanity of this hearing] Miss Mbuyi added: “It is obvious that we live in a climate where being Christ-like-following the Bible as much as we can-and being open and honest about that, is a problem now.” [Having a decent and healthy mind about sexuality and relationships has been effectively made into a crime – even if liberals don’t admit it.]
Andrea Minichiello Williams, chief executive of the Christian Legal Centre, said: “Sharing Biblical truths out of genuine love for colleagues is being outlawed in the workplace by an oppressive ‘cultural correctness’. [“Cultural correctness” only if you mean this nasty homosexuality agenda pushed by LGBT pigs.]
“There is a culture of fear which shuts down freedom of speech and the expression of faith.
“It’s indicative of the sad state we’re in that we’re using EU Law in Sarah’s case because she was prevented from living out her faith in a country which once led the world in freedom and justice.” [Nice appeal to national pride, but the sad truth is that the UK has a history of brutal violence and oppression internally and externally – and unfortunately, as we can see, it continues the pattern.]
Here are several of my tweets concerning the Charlie Hebdo affair and the many fundamental issues it touches upon. I’ve been sad about so many horrible things happening in our world that the Charlie Hebdo incident just highlighted for me in such a stark way.