"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press"
The primary site for this blog mirror is HERE. Dissecting Leftism is HERE (and archived here). The Blogroll. My Home Page. My Recipes. My alternative Wikipedia.
For a list of blog backups see here or here.
Email me (John Ray) here. See here or here for the archive index of this site
30 April, 2018
Australia: Must not notice that Aborigines have dark skin
IT WAS supposed to be a nice way to bid farewell to their friends,
family and followers on social media, but one comment in a video message
has landed Married at First Sight’s Troy Delmege in trouble.
The reality TV star took the controversial clip with his lover Carly
Bowyer before leaving Melbourne International Airport to jet off to Bali
Uploaded to Instagram stories, the surprise couple known on the show for
their goofy antics revealed how excited they were about their getaway.
However, giddy Delmege started talking about how tanned they planned on
becoming when he made a strange comment about indigenous Australians.
“Couldn’t be more excited,” he said in the video. “Can’t wait to get the
tan on, get some heat on me after being in Melbourne for a few weeks.”
He then pointed at his Bowyer before adding: “I’m going to be dark,
(but) she’ll be darker, like an Aborigine!”
The video then abruptly ends and it appears that Bowyer quickly cut the clip.
Indigenous activist Tarneen Onus-Williams, shared the video on Twitter and branded Delmege’s comments “disgusting”.
Australian TV network liable for $50,000 fine after using 'Anzac' as code word in Today Show cash giveaway
ANZAC day is Australia's day of remembrance for our war dead. It is Australia's most solemn day of the year
Channel Nine has breached a law that protects the word 'ANZAC' from
inappropriate commercial use when it used it in one of it's cash
The Today show used the word ANZAC as a code in it's daily cash give
away, which is a breach of the law and carries a penalty of up to
The popular morning show runs daily $10,000 cash giveaways where
audiences text in code words advertised on the previous day to enter.
For the commemorative public holiday, the code word was ANZAC.
The minister for veterans affairs administers the protection of the word and have said they were not approached by the show.
Their approval is needed for its use in connection with 'any trade,
business, calling or profession or in connection with any entertainment
or any lottery or art union or as the name or part of a name of any
private residence, boat, vehicle of charitable or other institution, or
other institution, or any building.'
Even the biscuits are monitored and can only have the word ANZAC attached to them if they are the traditional recipe and shape.
A spokeswoman for the Department of Veterans Affairs told Fairfax media
that the use of the word was not approved by Minister Darren Chester.
'Even if they had approached us, we wouldn't normally grant them the use of the word Anzac in this manner,' she said.
While the spokesperson said 'no decision had been made' as to if they
would escalate she stressed that there were significant penalties for
breaching the law. Under the Crimes Act of 1914, a penalty of up to
$51,000 may be imposed
When deciding on the appropriateness of attaching the word to a
commercial context the Minister considers the views of the ex-service
community, the intent of the legislation and any commemorative links.
The controversy came just after the show's host Karl Stefanovic blasted
cinemas for releasing the film Avengers: Infinity War on ANZAC day. In
an impassioned speech he argued that it was 'a grubby cash grab' and
questioned what it taught children.
'There might be some legitimate reason why the Avengers is opening on
ANZAC day but I haven't seen it...how on earth are our kids supposed to
breathe in the significance of ANZAC day?' he said.
Channel Nine acknowledged its use of a word in a giveaway was a poor choice
29 April, 2018
The "Nazi" dog: Update
Markus Meecham trained his girlfriend’s dog to perform Nazi salutes. In a
YouTube video, Meecham explained why: “My girlfriend is always ranting
and raving about how cute her dog is so I thought I would turn her into
the least cute thing you could think of which is a Nazi.”
Meecham, a UK citizen known online as Count Dankula, was subsequently
arrested, spent a night in prison, lost his job and was this week fined
Now, Meecham may not be everybody’s cup of Irn-Bru, but he’s on solid
ground when he argues that an obvious joke should not result in a
conviction and financial penalty (were similar rules enforced in 1967,
Mel Brooks would be in prison to this day).
Declining to pay his fine, Meecham launched a crowd-funding bid to finance an appeal, aiming for an ambitious total of £100,000:
This is the amount that has been quoted by my lawyer, the reason it has
been quoted so high is my lawyer wishes to bring in top legal
representatives to ensure that we have the highest chance of reversing
the standard that this case sets.
Little more than one day later, Meecham has raised more than £137,000 – the equivalent of $A252,000.
That’s the free market and free will rallying behind free speech. That’s people standing up to oppression.
Outrage as shoppers find a 'Terrorist Man' costume being sold to CHILDREN
A Melbourne shop has been caught selling a terrorist costume to outraged
customers. The 'Terrorist man' costume sold for $34.99 at the JC Plaza
in Clarinda, shows a man holding a gun with a long black beard, hat and
One angry customer said she left the shop in tears when she saw the
outfit and told the Herald Sun she was horrified. 'I was shocked and
terrified and could not believe my eyes,' she told the publication.
'I wanted to shout out, 'this is so wrong, this is shameful' and it took
me a few minutes to calm down and take a photo.'
Store owner Jin Cai apologised and told Daily Mail Australia the costumes were 'old stock' leftover from the previous owners.
Anti-Defamation Commission Chair Dr Dvir Abramovich said the costume was
'bad taste' and he called on the shop owners to immediately withdraw
'these disgusting outfits' from sale.
'There is nothing funny or cool about dressing up as a murderer
responsible for horrific bloodshed and for tragic suffering that have
affected so many people around the world,' he told Daily Mail Australia.
'Terrorism should never be glorified or celebrated in any way. I have no
doubt that this insensitive costume will get the thumbs down from most
Australians who will find this sickening and who will condemn it.'
The costume has previously appeared in shops in Brisbane and Melbourne.
27 April, 2018
UK: She Posted Rap Lyrics to Remember a Dead Teen, So the U.K. Prosecuted Her for Hate Speech
Prosecutors in Liverpool decided they were unable to charge anybody in
the death of Frankie Murphy when the 13-year-old boy was struck and
killed by a car while riding his bike back in 2016.
But prosecutors did charge and convict a young woman who posted rap
lyrics on Instagram in Murphy's memory, because they included the
Chelsea Russell, 19, posted lyrics to a song by the Detroit rapper Snap
Dogg (no, not Snoop Dogg) on the bio of her Instagram account to pay
tribute to Murphy. The song, "I'm Trippin'," released in 2016, is heavy
on killing snitches and waving guns around and it has lots of use of the
n-word. It's the type of song that people point to when they say they
don't like rap music because it's too violent.
According to the Liverpool Echo, Russell's Instagram account was
reported to a constable in a "hate crime unit" who found the lyrics
"offensive and upsetting." Russell was charged with sending a grossly
offensive message by means of a public electronic communications
At Russell's trial, her defense pointed out that Jay-Z had used these
similarly offensive words at a music festival in Glastonbury. She had
copied the lyrics off a friend's Instagram account—apparently thousands
of others were using the lyrics to remember Murphy. Clearly it must have
been a favorite song of his.
But the court and the magistrates didn't care. District Judge Jack
McGarva said: "There is no place in civil society for language like
that. Everyone with an Instagram account could view this content. The
lyrics also encourage killing and robbing, so are grossly offensive."
Russell now has to submit to ankle monitoring for eight weeks and pay the equivalent of about $800 in fines.
This is what the enforcement of "hate speech" laws looks like. This
woman was prosecuted entirely because a person in a position of power
found her repetition of somebody else's song lyrics offensive. She does
not stand accused even of using hate speech to actually encourage racial
violence against others. People with the power to fine or lock up
Russell merely found what she posted too offensive for their ears, and
now she's going to pay for it.
'Real Indian' running against Sen. Elizabeth Warren sues after city tells him to stop calling her 'Fake Indian'
A self-described "real Indian" who is running against Mass. Democratic
Sen. Elizabeth Warren is suing after city officials demanded he take
down his signs calling her a "fake Indian."
The upstart independent Senate challenger, Shiva Ayyadurai, on Sunday
filed a federal lawsuit alleging that the demand from the city of
Cambridge violates his constitutional free speech rights, according to
The Washington Times.
Since March 17, Ayyadurai's campaign bus has sported two identical signs
picturing himself and a rendition of Warren wearing Indian attire.
Emblazoned next to the images are the words: "Only a REAL INDIAN Can
Defeat the Fake Indian."
The bus has reportedly been stationed in a parking lot in front of an
office building owned by Ayyadurai, who faces exceptionally long odds,
for more than a month -- just a mile from Warren's home.
Earlier this month, the campaign received a notice from Cambridge
building inspector Branden Vigneault that the signs lacked the
appropriate "approvals and permits," according to local reports and the
Vigneault threatened fines of $300 per day plus additional legal penalties if the signs remain in place, according to Ayyadurai.
“We will not remove the slogan from our bus,” Ayyadurai told The
Washington Times. “We will defend the First Amendment, and we will fight
this egregious attack on the First Amendment, at any cost.”
Ayyadurai's campaign reportedly thinks the building code doesn't apply to the signs because they're on a bus, not a structure.
26 April, 2018
Shania Twain apologizes after saying she would have voted for Donald Trump
Country singer Shania Twain has apologized after saying in an interview
that she would have voted for Donald Trump for president if she could.
Twain, who is Canadian, told The Guardian in an article published
Sunday: “I would have voted for him because, even though he was
offensive, he seemed honest.”
Twain added that she would have supported Trump because of his
straightforward style, and said she thought he would be transparent.
“Do you want straight or polite? Not that you shouldn’t be able to have
both,” she said in the article. “If I were voting, I just don’t want
[expletive]. I would have voted for a feeling that it was transparent.
And politics has a reputation of not being that, right?”
Almost immediately, the online backlash against the singer began.
“Shania Twain is canceled,” tweeted @SoSofieFatale. “When people say
he’s ‘honest’ what they mean is that he makes them feel good about being
racist trash because they feel the same way. He lies pathologically. If
someone can’t understand that they’re either dumb, racists, or both.”
Twain, who is performing at TD Garden in July, swiftly issued an apology
for her comments, saying she supports inclusion and was taken off-guard
by the unexpected question.
“I would like to apologise to anybody I have offended in a recent
interview with the Guardian relating to the American President. The
question caught me off guard. As a Canadian, I regret answering this
unexpected question without giving my response more context. My answer
was awkward, but certainly should not be taken as representative of my
values nor does it mean I endorse him. I make music to bring people
together. My path will always be one of inclusivity, as my history
Australian government doing nothing to stop violent hate speech
Leading political commentator and columnist for The Australian Janet
Albrechtsen is calling on the government to protect our values before
it’s too late.
In recent years the government has turned its focus on prosecuting
people for “offending or insulting” others but turns a blind eye to
speech that actually incites violence.
Ms Albrechtsen gives Alan several recent examples across Queensland and New South Wales that cannot be put up with.
One poster says “legalise the execution of jews” another says “join your
fellow faggots” alongside an image of a gay man committing suicide.
“These are words that incite violence and yet the NSW Government has
done nothing, even though it’s promised on so many occasions to do
“They know that legislation doesn’t work. Because if it did work it
would be used on so many occasions to shut down words that incite
“This is not about hurt feelings, this is not about insulting someone, this is about inciting violence.”
25 April, 2018
Mothers of Former Natick Students File Lawsuit to Defend Free Speech Rights
NATICK – The ACLU of Massachusetts and the law firm Todd & Weld
today filed a lawsuit in Middlesex Superior Court against the Natick
School Committee on behalf of Corey Spaulding and Karin Sutter, two
mothers of former Natick Public School students.
The suit seeks to protect the free speech rights of the plaintiffs and others.
Spaulding and Sutter seek a court order that the School Committee may
not silence members of the public who engage in protected speech based
on the content of that speech, particularly at the very time and place
the School Committee designated for free speech.
“The School Committee shut down Spaulding’s and Sutter’s attempts to
express their deep-seated concerns about the operation of the Natick
Public Schools, which they sought to express during the School
Committee’s designated period for “any individual to voice an opinion or
concern on any school-related issue that is not on the [School
Committee] agenda,” called Public Speak. The School Committee did so in
reliance upon an unconstitutionally overbroad policy that claims to
allow the School Committee to regulate speech on the basis of the
content of that speech, and for practically any reason at all. The
School Committee has claimed it can silence speech, for example, because
it finds the speech “improper,” not “appropriate,” or “sensitive”,”
stated the court filing.
At the January 8 “Public Speak,” the School Committee silenced
Spaulding’s attempt to express her concerns about the emotional harm
bullying at the Natick Public Schools caused her daughter (00:49),
according to the court filing.
Members of the School Committee repeatedly interrupted her and then suspended the meeting, according to the court filing.
At the February 5 “Public Speak,” Sutter was instructed to stop speaking
– including under the threat of being escorted out of the meeting –
when she commented on the hostile environment in the Natick Public
Schools (11:15), according to the court filing.
The School Committee again censored her second attempt on March 12 (1:29), according to the court filing.
“I was stunned and saddened that the School Committee did everything in
their power, including calling the police, to stop me from speaking. I
simply wanted to voice my concerns about the harm my daughter suffered,
and then for my daughter to have the opportunity express herself to the
School Committee,” said Spaulding, in a press release.
“I cannot understand why the School Committee would not let me speak
about the hostile environment of the Natick Public Schools my children
and I experienced,” said Sutter, in a press release. “I would hope that
in the future the School Committee sticks to their own concept of
‘Public Speak’ as a place for any individual to voice concerns about the
“The School Committee’s policy on speech is just a collection of vague
excuses for silencing unwanted voices. It is difficult to conceive of a
speech policy that more directly violates the free speech rights of
members of the public,” said Benjamin Wish of Todd & Weld LLP, who
represents Spaulding and Sutter as cooperating counsel with the ACLU of
Massachusetts, in a media release.
“In our free society, government officials may not silence speech in a
public forum based on their disapproval of the content or views being
expressed. Yet this is exactly what the Natick School Committee is
doing,” said Ruth Bourquin, senior attorney for the ACLU of
Massachusetts, in a media release.
Another "free speech zone" quashed
A suburban Chicago community college has agreed to settle a
lawsuit filed by a student who alleged the school violated her
free-speech rights by prohibiting her from handing out flyers that read,
"Shut Down Capitalism."
Ivette Salazar claimed Joliet Junior College limited political expressions to a small campus "free speech zone."
Salazar saw other students distributing flyers outside the zone Nov. 28
advocating capitalism with a poster reading, "Socialism Sucks." When she
began distributing her flyers, campus police allegedly stopped her. As a
result of the settlement, the college is paying $30,000 to the
Foundation of Individual Rights in Education, which brought the lawsuit.
The school has since updated its free speech and expression policy. It allows for expressive activity throughout the college.
The college says in a statement it has a long-standing commitment to
free speech and its former policies "were consistent with the First
24 April, 2018
California Moves to Ban Anti-LGBT Books
More sneaky than burning them, I guess. It's contrary to both arms of the 1st Amendment so will not fly
The California State Assembly is expected to vote on a bill that would
effectively muzzle orthodox Christian teaching on sexuality, banning
books and counseling presenting the Christian views that gender identity
should conform with biological sex and that sexual activity is reserved
for marriage between a man and a woman.
Assembly Bill 2943 (A.B. 2943) would amend the Consumer Legal Remedies
Act to ban as "unfair or deceptive acts or practices ... the sale or
lease of goods or services" that promote "sexual orientation change
efforts." If enacted, this law would enable any LGBT person to object to
any good or service promising freedom from unwanted same-sex attraction
or gender dysphoria (the persistent condition of identifying with a
gender opposite your birth sex) as "fraudulent."
The Consumer Legal Remedies Act, passed in 1970, banned unfair
commercial practices in order to protect consumers who had been duped or
misled. As A.B. 2943 explains, "Existing law authorizes any consumer
who suffers damages as a result of these unlawful practices to bring an
action against that person to recover damages, among other things."
The new bill would add "sexual orientation change efforts" to the list
of banned practices. A.B. 2943 defines these efforts as "any practices
that seek to change an individual’s sexual orientation. This includes
efforts to change behaviors or gender expressions, or to eliminate or
reduce sexual or romantic attractions or feelings toward individuals of
the same sex."
This over-broad definition smuggles transgender identity into the
"sexual orientation change efforts" by including "gender expressions."
Scotland: Man fined for hate crime after filming dog's 'Nazi salutes'
A man who filmed a pet dog giving Nazi salutes before putting the footage on YouTube has been fined £800.
Mark Meechan, 30, recorded his girlfriend's pug, Buddha, responding to statements such as "Sieg Heil" by raising its paw.
The clip was viewed more than three million times on YouTube.
Meechan, of Coatbridge, North Lanarkshire, was sentenced at Airdrie
Sheriff Court after being found guilty of committing a hate crime last
He had denied any wrong-doing and insisted he made the video, which was posted in April 2016, to annoy his girlfriend.
But Sheriff Derek O'Carroll found him guilty of a charge under the
Communications Act that he posted a video on social media and YouTube
which was grossly offensive because it was "anti-semitic and racist in
nature" and was aggravated by religious prejudice.
There was a small demonstration outside court by protesters claiming the case went against the principle of freedom of speech.
23 April, 2018
England fans told to furl the flag at World Cup. With tensions
raised, a police chief is warning that displays of loyalty, including
provocative songs, could be dangerous
There are also various bans on Old Glory but this seems even more extreme
England football fans could be denied some of their greatest pleasures
at this summer’s World Cup. Supporters who enjoy draping the St George’s
Cross over public spaces in other people’s countries while singing Ten German Bombers are being told: “Don’t!”
Police chiefs have warned travelling fans not to sing provocative songs
or display the national flag at this summer’s tournament in Russia.
Mark Roberts, the national lead for football policing, says the
deterioration in relations between the West and Russia means risqué
songs are more likely than usual to trigger violence.
American Army Chaplain Bombarded for Marriage View
Army Chaplain Scott Squires has been to battles all over the world — but
he never imagined he’d be fighting his biggest one right here at home.
For Squires, who’s spent 25 years serving his country, no one was more
surprised than he was that the same military that hired him for his
faith is now punishing him for exercising it. Turns out, some Obama-era
habits are hard to break.
Like a lot of chaplains, Scott watched the military change under the
last administration. He saw morale tank. He heard the unbelievable
stories of airmen, sailors, and Marines who were targeted for their
faith. And until Wes Modder nearly lost his job, he might have thought
military chaplains were safe. Squires found out this year how wrong he
was. The administration may have changed, but the intolerant attitudes
of some have not.
When he was transferred to Fort Bragg last year, Squires picked up where
he’d left off at other bases with the Army’s Strong Bonds program. For
years, he’d been speaking at the event, trying to help soldiers develop
healthier relationships in a stressful military life that’s led to some
of the highest divorce rates in the country. When a lesbian couple
wanted to join the marriage retreat, Scott realized he couldn’t, in good
conscience, participate. So, he did what Army regulations demanded: He
found another chaplain to oversee it.
Now, even though he followed Army policy, he could lose his job! To this
couple, Scott’s actions weren’t an accommodation, they were
“discrimination.” An official military investigation was launched — and
Squires, despite his chaplain status, is being recommended for
discipline! “The Army E.O. policy states that no service will be denied
to any member of the Armed Service, regardless of race, color, national
origin, gender, religious affiliation, or sexual orientation,” the
report reads. “CH Squires should be reprimanded for his failure to
include (name deleted) in the initial Strong Bonds Retreat.”
Asked how he was taking the news, Squires said he was “shocked.” After
all, his attorneys at First Liberty point out, he was following the
Army’s own policy! He couldn’t lead the session, so he found someone who
could. If anything, this should be a lesson in the art of compromise.
His solution accomplished the perfect balance of accommodating his faith
and serving these women. Even so, he points out, “The investigator
concluded that I should be reprimanded for doing something I’m required
to do under Army regulations and my endorser’s rules. I hope the Army
sees that I was simply following Army regulations and the tenets of my
Remember when the Pentagon said religious liberty wouldn’t be a casualty
of open homosexuality in the military? So do we. Unfortunately, it’s
just another broken promise of the same-sex marriage movement. Now,
because of the culture of hostility created in the military under Obama,
the Army refuses to accept a compromise that should have satisfied
everyone. But, as we should all know by now, the Left isn’t interested
in coexistence. Instead, it wants to punish a father of three who served
multiple tours in Afghanistan, Africa, and the Middle East.
And of course, there’s the other piece of this, which is Chaplain
Squires’s sponsoring organization: the Southern Baptist Convention. As
Fox News’s Todd Starnes explains, the SBC’s North American Mission Board
(NAMB) doesn’t support same-sex marriage — and its 2013 memo reiterated
as much. “NAMB endorsed chaplains will not conduct or attend a wedding
ceremony for any same sex couple, bless such a union or perform
counseling in support of such a union, assist or support paid
contractors or volunteers leading same-sex relational events, nor offer
any kind of relationship training or retreat, on or off a military
installation, that would give the appearance of accepting the homosexual
lifestyle or sexual wrongdoing.” He’s not only bound by his own
conviction but the conviction of his military sponsors. And yet this
investigator thinks Chaplain Squires should be punished just for
explaining his beliefs to the offended soldier!
Mike Berry, Squires’s attorney at First Liberty, can’t believe the
terrible precedent this would set. “That would mean a chaplain can’t
even talk about their religious beliefs without being accused of
discrimination. That would strip thousands of chaplains across our
military of their most basic freedoms under the First Amendment.”
Something this president, who’s fought to restore religious liberty,
would never stand for.
As FRC’s own Lt. Gen. Jerry Boykin has said, “If the military wants a
chaplain corps, then they have to be prepared for chaplains to be
chaplains. A chaplain isn’t worth anything if he isn’t allowed to
minister and counsel according to his faith. If the Army won’t allow him
to be a chaplain, then he becomes nothing more than a social worker.”
If anyone should be free to exercise his or her faith, shouldn’t it be
chaplains? It’s time for the Army to refresh its memory on a little
thing called the First Amendment and reread the president’s executive
order on religious liberty. Both documents ought to be all the proof
they need that Chaplain Squires is guilty of nothing but doing his job.
And, by all accounts, doing it well.
22 April, 2018
UK: The problem with Twitter’s ban on Tommy Robinson
Britain’s broadsheet press has recently gone into meltdown over the
easily debunked Cambridge Analytica conspiracy theory, in which shady
data-miners are alleged to have manipulated the political views of the
masses via Facebook.
Yet a recent attempt to control political discussion by another
social-media giant was met largely with a shrug. Yes, when it came to
Twitter’s permanent ban on right-wing rabble-rouser and ex-English
Defence League frontman Tommy Robinson, these worriers about the
political power of Silicon Valley didn’t protest; if anything, they
Twitter once declared itself to be on ‘the free-speech wing of the
free-speech party’. But it now decrees that tweets by certain
individuals are so dangerous and ‘hateful’ that Twitter-users must be
shielded from them. How’s that for social-media manipulation?
You don’t have to agree with a single word Tommy Robinson says, or buy
into his attempts to rebrand himself as a journalist or an expert on the
Koran, to defend his right to speak and tweet freely. It doesn’t matter
that he is an ex-con, jailed for mortgage fraud and for attempting to
enter the US with someone else’s passport. Nor does it matter that
Robinson is himself not really a fan of unfettered speech – his branding
of the Koran as inherently dangerous betrays his own censorious
instincts. I can certainly think of more deserving free-speech martyrs.
But free speech must be an indivisible right if it is to have any
meaning. It must apply equally to Tommy Robinson as to the Islamists he
has made his name railing against.
Yet those who are indifferent to, or who are celebrating, Robinson’s
Twitter ban argue that free speech doesn’t apply in this case. Free
speech relates only to government censorship, they say. Twitter, as a
private enterprise, has every right to host or eject any tweeter it
wishes, they say. The right to free speech, says anti-extremist charity
Hope Not Hate, is not the same as ‘the right to voice one’s opinions on
every social-media platform’. After all, even post-Twitter you can carry
on speaking somewhere else. Writer and broadcaster Mike Stuchbery says
Robinson’s Twitter ban is no different to him ‘getting bounced from his
There are two problems with this argument, with this idea that when
private companies silence people it is not a free-speech matter. The
first is that these social-media bans don’t happen in a vacuum. It is
clear that state censorship, particularly that directed at so-called
hate speech and Islamophobia, informs the actions of platforms like
Facebook and Twitter. Robinson has many times been censured by the
British state for his views on Islam. Former counter-terrorism police
chief Mark Rowley compared Robinson to Anjem Choudary, the Islamist who
was jailed not for any violent act, but for declaring support for ISIS.
Recently, three right-wing activists, including one of Robinson’s former
colleagues, Lauren Southern, were detained under anti-terror laws and
denied entry to the UK on the basis that their political views are not
‘conducive to the public good’. When YouTuber Count Dankula was found
guilty recently of being ‘grossly offensive’ for producing a video of a
Nazi pug, some comedians defended the conviction on the grounds that
Dankula has associated with Robinson. Just having links with Robinson
apparently justifies state heavy-handedness.
The British state has made clear its intention to censor far-right
content and to make it harder for people like Robinson to say certain
things. In banning Robinson, Twitter is in essence doing the state’s
bidding. This isn’t a simple private decision; it’s the outsourcing of
state authoritarianism to a private company.
And secondly, there’s the fact that social-media platforms like Facebook
and Twitter are now so large that they are central to public discussion
and debate. In the US, the president regularly conducts state business
on Twitter. Aside from hurling abuse at the media, Trump announces
policies, appointments and sackings on social media. Twitter’s status as
a de facto public forum is reflected in the fact that a Manhattan
federal court is currently assessing whether Trump has the right to
block Twitter users or whether that would be a violation of their First
Nazi speech must be permitted.
“As much as I wouldn’t tolerate hate speech in my own personal life, it
is protected,” said Sean J. Young, legal director for the American Civil
Liberties Union of Georgia.
“There may be many kinds of speech that it seems everyone would agree is
considered hate speech,” Young said. But deciding certain kinds of
speech are no longer protected because you don’t like them can open the
door to many types of speech being banned.
“If you allow the government to ban hate speech, you’ll give them the
power to ban phrases like ‘black lives matter.’ I bet there are a few
people who would consider that hate speech,” Young said. “I can think of
many examples. You just cannot open that door for the government to
determine what is hateful or not. That is a dangerous road to go down."
Ever since word broke that a neo-Nazi group, the Nationalist Socialist
Movement, would be holding a rally in Newnan on April 21, many Cowetans
have spoken out against the city granting a permit for the event, saying
the permit should have been denied – or revoked after the fact. Some
have said that NSM’s hate speech should not be protected as free speech.
The Newnan TImes-Herald asked two First Amendment experts to weigh in on the issues.
“The best response to bad speech is more speech,” Young said. “If you
don’t agree with the things some people are saying then you should
consider responding. “But using the government… to punish people you
disagree with or to silence other people’s views is
Local governments can put some minimal restrictions on speech, but most
types of restriction on content are “almost always unconstitutional,”
said Fred Smith, professor at the Emory University School of Law. “The
safe thing for a government actor to do is not to engage in any kind of
content regulation,” Smith said. “Even when people are going to say
something most people in the community would find odious, our
constitutional tradition is that people absolutely nonetheless have to
be able to say those things."
20 April, 2018
ESPN going to court over announcer accused of calling Venus Williams a ‘gorilla’
At the 2017 Australian Open tennis tournament, ESPN commentator Doug
Adler described Venus Williams’ game as having a “guerrilla effect.”
ESPN (and many on social media, who savaged Adler for his perceived
insensitivity) heard it as “gorilla effect,” widely considered a racial
slur when directed at black athletes.
Adler, for his part, apologized, saying he “simply and inadvertently
chose the wrong word” and claiming that he meant no offense to Williams
or black people in general.
ESPN, though, wasn’t satisfied and promptly let him go.
Now, Adler is getting his day in court. Adler is suing for wrongful
termination on the grounds that ESPN’s reaction to the viral outcry led
them to fire him for something he didn’t actually say.
“They didn’t have good cause and I didn’t do anything wrong,” Adler told
NBC’s “Today“ last August. “They killed me, they made me unemployable.
They ended my career, they killed my reputation, my good name. What else
was I supposed to do?”
Family Farmers Face Prison for Calling Skim Milk by Its Name
Forget narcotics. Uncle Sam has a new substance to crack down on: all-natural skim milk.
Food and Drug Administration regulations make it a federal crime for
dairy farmers to call all-natural skim milk exactly what it is—skim
milk. Instead, the FDA demands that farmers label additive-free skim
milk as “imitation milk product,” because, in the FDA’s mind, skim milk
just isn’t the real thing.
The FDA’s finicky rules are not going unchallenged, however. Attorneys
with the Institute for Justice are challenging those rules on behalf of a
dairy farmer, Randy Sowers, who wants to sell all-natural products and
label them honestly, without the threat of fines or imprisonment.
Randy Sowers wants to sell his milk in Pennsylvania, which is no problem under Pennsylvania law.
But under FDA regulations, in order for him to sell skim milk across
state lines with an honest label (“skim milk”), it needs to have some
dishonest additives: artificial vitamins A and D, in amounts set by
Without those additives, the FDA requires Sowers to call his product “imitation skim milk” or “imitation milk product.”
Who even knows what that is? And more importantly, who would buy it?
19 April, 2018
Twitter CEO Endorses Silencing Republicans
Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey recently endorsed a controversial article that
essentially called for the takedown of the Republican Party for a
generation or two in order to save the country.
In an article entitled “The Great Lesson of California in America’s New
Civil War,” authors Peter Leyden and Ruy Teixeira assert that the U.S.
is in the midst of an ideological civil war, and that “the way forward
is on the path California blazed about 15 years ago.”
Leyden and Teixeira point out that California’s Democrat Party so
successfully marginalized the Republican Party in the state that it has
essentially developed one-party rule, and thus it has been able to move
the state more easily “forward.”
They ridiculously suggest that California “provides a model for America
as a whole.” It appears these leftist writers have been living a little
too long in Hollywood fantasy land, where facts have little weight.
Ironically, the Democrat Party’s stranglehold on California’s government
seems to have produced enough frustration among the states’ citizens
that an initiative to break the state up has garnered enough support to
make the ballot.
Girl’s University Classifies “God Bless You” After a Sneeze as a Microaggression
Simmons College, an all-girls college in Boston, has an extensive list
of microaggressions on their website with categories including:
“anti-racism,” “anti-transmisia,” “anti-ableism,” among others.
Curiously enough, though, one seemingly timeless display of politeness
has been categorized as a microaggression that established one’s own
religious status as the standard.
It seems parents who taught their children to say “God bless you” after
someone sneezes are outdated bigoted Jesus-freaks, because, as the
school would put it, saying the term is “[Assuming] of One’s Own
Religious Identity as the Norm.” Now, let’s unwrap the fact that the
word “god” is not a purely Christian or Catholic concept by any chance,
nor is a blessing, and the term is not “Christian god bless you” or “my
god bless you”, but simply “God bless you”. I suppose you could say the
term is god-neutral?
This is a short story for a short-minded and clearly ill-conceived
notion concept, but let’s make one thing clear; as a society we have
many issues to deal with, including actual life-size aggression, and if
people cannot deal with a very small version of the aforementioned
aggression perhaps they should feel free to separate themselves from
18 April, 2018
Video: The Left's War on Science
Many in the media say there’s a conservative war on science. Is this
true? No, says John Tierney, contributing editor at the Manhattan
Institute’s City Journal. Tierney says, “The real war on science is the
one from the Left.”
Gender differences, IQ trends, genetically modified foods. Tierney says
the Left stifled research into what could have been a second Green
Revolution to feed Africa.
People who study gender difference have leaned to keep quiet, says
Tierney: “You can’t say that there are more men are more aggressive,
more risk-taking, that status matters and making money matters more to
Finally, Tierney complains that Universities are utterly dominated by
leftists. In the social sciences, Democrats outnumber Republicans by at
least eight to one. In some fields like sociology it’s 44 to one.
Students are more likely to be taught in sociology by a Marxist [25%]
than by a Republican [2%].
Tierney says, “Once an academic department gets a majority of people who
are on the Left, they start hiring people like themselves, and pretty
soon the whole department is that way. They start to think that their
opinions and that their interests are not only the norm but the truth.”
John Stossel says: Think about that, next time you hear about a “conservative war on science.”
Australia: Tongan footballer escapes sanction for what he said - but sponsors showdown looms
He said homosexuals would burn in Hell
Rugby Australia is set for an ugly showdown with its major sponsors
after deciding to not take action against Israel Folau over his anti-gay
comments in an Instagram post earlier this month.
Fairfax Media understands RA chief executive Raelene Castle is satisfied
with the “respectful” way in which the Wallabies’ highest-paid player
clarified his remarks in a first-person online column posted on Monday
In the column, Folau threatened to walk away from the game if RA
officials wanted him to. He also took aim at Castle for misrepresenting
his “position and comments” at a media conference following their
meeting in Sydney early last week.
Despite this, Castle and RA are satisfied with his comments and will not
take action against him. RA confirmed the news on Tuesday afternoon via
“In his article, Israel clearly articulated his religious beliefs and
why his faith is important to him and has provided context behind his
social media comment," Castle said. "In his own words, Israel said that
he did not intend to upset people intentionally or bring hurt to the
game. We accept Israel’s position.
“Rugby Australia will use this experience as an opportunity to remind
all employees of their obligation to use social media in a respectful
But the decision to bend for the renegade Wallabies and Waratahs player,
who is off contract at the end of this season, is set to anger major
sponsors who have been watching the issue fester over the past two
weeks. In their eyes, there has been a major backflip.
Castle and RA have been under enormous pressure from Folau’s closest
allies, not least influential broadcaster Alan Jones, to allow him to
say what he wants because of his religious beliefs.
17 April, 2018
TV host who said he would sexually assault Parkland survivor resigns
He lost the plot
A conservative commentator who sent a tweet saying he would use “a hot
poker” to sexually assault an outspoken 17-year-old survivor of the
Florida high school shooting has resigned from a St Louis TV station and
been taken off the radio after several advertisers withdrew from his
KDNL-TV accepted Jamie Allman’s resignation and canceled The Allman
Report, according to a brief statement from the Sinclair Broadcast
Group, which operates the TV station. Before the show’s launch in
January 2015, KDNL-TV touted it as a nontraditional newscast with a
Allman’s radio show on KFTK-FM has been taken off the air while the
company “looks into the matter”, said Esther-Mireya Tejeda, a
spokeswoman for Entercom, which began operating the station last month.
In the tweet, Allman wrote: “I’ve been hanging out getting ready to ram a hot poker up David Hogg’s ass tomorrow.”
Allman’s Twitter account was “locked” shortly after he sent the tweet,
restricting access to his account, but a screenshot of it has been
widely circulated on social media.
Hogg’s willingness to take on the gun-control cause has made him a target for some conservatives.
Facebook Bans German Historian for Saying 'Islam Is Not Part of German History'
Too much truth
Last month, Facebook censored a German historian who posted a message
about Islam's historic impact on Germany. Facebook banned the historian
for 30 days, even though 76 percent of Germans agree that Islam does not
"belong to Germany."
Michael Hesemann, a journalist and Vatican historian with an honorary
doctorate for his work in uncovering documents from the Armenian
Genocide, posted a message that Facebook said did "not correspond to our
community standards." The offensive message was an accurate — if
overstated — historical statement.
"Islam always plays only one role in the 1700-year-old history of the
Christian Occident: the role of the sword of Damocles which hung above
us, the threat of barbarism against which one needed to unite and
fight," Hesemann wrote, according to NRW Direkt. "In this sense, Islam
is not part of German history, but the defense against Islam!"
Facebook argued that it would delete any comment that "attacks persons
because of their race, ethnicity, national background, religious
orientation, sexual orientation, sexual identity, or physical
impairment," the Catholic site OnePeterFive reported.
16 April, 2018
Some racism is OK, it seems
I posted about the first advertisement yesterday -- and the vast outrage it provoked
Both advertisements are from Australia. The second advertisement is
highly comparable to the first but provoked no outrage at all.
Discriminating in favour of blacks is fine.
We live in a world where there are no moral or behavior standards, only political expediency.
More Leftist hate
If you’re looking for the bad guy in the Avengers movie, check behind
the camera. Director Joss Whedon may not be part of the cast, but based
on his Twitter account, he’s a pretty convincing villain in real life.
This week, after a year and a half of vile anti-Trump rants, the
Hollywood liberal finally took it too far. “Die, Don,” he tweeted.
Even for Whedon, who’s used to creating drama, it was a sinister turn.
The man who shocked everyone last year by posting that he’s “grateful”
his mom has “the gift” of death so that she doesn’t have to see what a
“tub of [profanity] our country’s become” seemed even more unhinged than
ever. “Donald trump is killing this country. Some of it quickly, some
slowly, but he spoils and destroys everything he touches. He emboldens
monsters, wielding guns, governmental power, or just smug doublespeak.
Or Russia. My hate and sadness are exhausting. Die, Don. Just quietly
And Hollywood says we’re the haters? A major motion picture director is
openly calling for the death of the president. Imagine, PJ Media’s Jim
Treacher wondered, if someone famous had said that to Obama. “Not just
some Flyover Country bumpkin blogger like me, but a guy who directs
blockbuster movies. He’d be run out of Hollywood on a rail. He’d never
work again. His career would be deader than Kevin Spacey’s.” Instead,
the mainstream media yawns and goes back to calling out conservative
“intolerance,” as if believing in marriage is the same thing as wanting
the leader of the free world dead.
Whedon, for his part, has no shame. The self-proclaimed “feminist”
publicly called Ivanka Trump a dog — and industry peers said nothing. He
told followers he wanted to see a rhino sexually assault House Speaker
Paul Ryan (R-WI) to death. Crickets. Only when he unleashed on a group
of childhood cancer survivors, insisting they must be in DC for the
“White House wife hunt” except they were “not a 10,” did he take any
heat. Finally, liberals objected. He offered a faint apology, but the
damage had already been done.
15 April, 2018
Anti-abortion poster censored and removed in Rome
A huge anti-abortion poster featuring an 11-week-old foetus in the womb has been censored and removed today in Rome.
It appeared close to the Vatican City on Thursday. The message said:
““You were like this at 11 weeks. All your organs were present. Your
heart was already beating from the third week after conception. You were
already sucking your thumb. And now you’re here because your mother did
not abort you.” The initiative has been launched by the Pro Life
association “Pro Vita Onlus“.
The pro-life initiative sparked outcry from pro-abortion group on social
media and also a left-wing Member of the Parliament Monica Cirrinà
attacked on Twitter: “It’s shameful that posters against a State law and
the right of women to choose have been allowed to appear on the streets
of Rome. It should be removed straightaway.”
To be noted that not the same outcry sparked when blasphemous posters
have appeared in Rome illustrating a ‘pedophile’ Jesus Christ and Holy
Mary pregnant thanks to ‘surrogacy’. The figures have appeared in the
official bus stops managed by ATAC, the public transport company of the
Municipality of Rome.
Why cannot a business advertise for the staff it most needs?
An Australian company wanted a salesmen to operate in a high-income,
mostly white suburb. It rightly thought that the salesman would be
more successful, the more he was like the people he would be selling
to. But saying that was a big no-no, apparently
A job ad calling for applicants who are 'Anglo Saxon' and live near
'Neutral Bay' on Sydney's affluent North Shore has outraged politicians,
lawyers and the public.
The advert for a retail consultant with telecommunications giant Optus,
which has now been taken down - appeared on Seek on Thursday afternoon.
Lawyers, politicians and community leaders condemned the ad on Friday, with some commenting on its legality.
The median price for rent in Neutral Bay is $1,100 per week and it costs $2.2 million to buy in the exclusive suburb.
Optus labelled the job advert as 'completely unacceptable' and expressed
its commitment to 'diversity and inclusion' in a post to social media.
'A job advert posted on a website today is a clear breach of Optus
values and our commitment to equal opportunity employment,' the company
'We've removed the advert and are investigating how this occurred and offer an unreserved apology.' '
Race Discrimination Commissioner Dr Tim Soutphommasane described the
post as illegal in a post to twitter on Friday. 'Under the Racial
Discrimination Act, it is unlawful to discriminate on the grounds of
race in employment,' he said.
Social media users reacted with anger on twitter and Facebook, with some
describing the ad as 'racist', while others threatened to switch phone
Anti-Defamation Commission chairman Dvir Abramovich said he was pleased
Optus 'removed the hurtful and outrageous ad', which he said
'clearly violates the Australian values of fair go, equal opportunity
'People should be employed based on their skills, merit and CV, not
because of their background, culture or skin colour,' he said.
13 April, 2018
Facebook still discriminatory
Diamond and Silk, two pro-Trump commentators, have scored a significant
concession from Facebook after the social media site labeled their
videos “unsafe to the community.” The pair say their social media
traffic was doing great but that suddenly it had been throttled in
recent months, with many users no longer able see the pair’s content on
After months of attempting to reach out to the social media giant, they
finally received a reply, stating that their content had been deemed
“unsafe,” causing the video creators, Lynnette "Diamond" Hardaway and
Rochelle "Silk" Richardson, to come forward. But Facebook may finally be
changing its tune.
A Facebook spokesperson told Fox News, “We are aware of this issue. We
are reaching out to the creators of Diamond & Silk to try and
resolve this matter.” That was after the pair appeared on Fox to raise
the alarm bell over the throttling.
The concession stands in stark contrast to how Facebook dealt with its
labeling Breitbart.com with a Wikipedia description that it is a
“far-right” news outlet that is “intentionally misleading,” a
description that now appears on every post Breitbart puts on Facebook
like a scarlet letter.
It has no resemblance to reality. Breitbart is fairly mainstream
publication where conservatives can go to get news. One might disagree
with what they put out there, but they are accountable to facts and have
a thorough editorial process. Yes, it publishes opinion pieces, but
those are held to similar standards and there isn’t a newspaper that
doesn’t have editorials. They have done nothing to be labeled political
extremists by Facebook, but there it is.
In the meantime, Facebook hosts pages for Antifa groups all over the
world, a group whose stated tactic is to commit political violence
against its opponents. They bear no such moniker as “violent” or
“unsafe” or even “far-left” even as the group is under active criminal
investigation for its many attacks.
There is absolutely a double-standard at Facebook.
Governments twist language
Mostly under Leftist influence
Those who support the state ideologically tend to engage in chronic
misrepresentation of what the state does and how it does it. So, not
only war—the characteristic state action—but statism in general makes
truth the first casualty of its claims, proposals, programs, and
Consider some common examples. Foreign sellers don’t “dump” goods in
U.S. markets; they sell them at prices American buyers find attractive.
Immigrants and refugees don’t “invade” the USA; they cross the border
and, unless obstructed by state agents, proceed into the country
peacefully. After a hurricane or other natural emergency, local sellers
don’t “price gouge”; they sell, as usual, at prices that reflect the
currently prevailing conditions of demand and supply. Government
make-work programs don’t “create jobs”; they hire people for politically
determined activities while, owing to the programs’ financing by
taxation, reducing the number of people hired for activities valued
directly or indirectly by consumers. The Transportation Security Agency
does not provide “security” for airline passengers; it provides security
theater while greatly diminishing the passengers’ convenience and ease
of travel—and probably their true security as well.
In sum, behind virtually every government claim, proposal, program, or
project, we find a misuse of language. Government goes hand in hand with
calling actions what they are not, often the opposite of what they
12 April, 2018
Facebook’s Recent Algorithm Change Is Crushing Conservative Sites, Boosting Liberals
Facebook’s much-publicized demotion of publishers’ content in users’
news feeds has negatively impacted conservative-leaning publishers
significantly more than liberal-leaning outlets, an analysis by The
Western Journal has revealed.
Liberal publishers have gained about 2 percent more web traffic from
Facebook than they were getting prior to the algorithm changes
implemented in early February.
On the other hand, conservative publishers have lost an average of nearly 14 percent of their traffic from Facebook.
This algorithm change, intentional or not, has in effect censored
conservative viewpoints on the largest social media platform in the
world. This change has ramifications that, in the short-term, are
causing conservative publishers to downsize or fold up completely, and
in the long-term could swing elections in the United States and around
the world toward liberal politicians and policies.
TX: West U councilwoman accused of yelling obscenities at teen wearing Trump shirt
Investigators at the Harris County Precinct One Constable's Office on
Wednesday filed a disorderly conduct charge against West University
Place Councilwoman Kellye Burke, after accusations that she berated a
group of teenage girls over a Trump T-shirt.
The girls said they were in line at Tiny's Milk and Cookies in West U on
Saturday, waiting to buy cookies for younger girls at their nearby
"A tall, short-haired blond woman came up to them and screamed, 'Grab em
by the (expletive) girls!'" the father of one of the girls said. He did
not want to be identified, fearing retaliation against his daughter.
The girls initially tried to laugh it off, the father said.
"Then, she yells it again!" the father said. "At that point the girls
were getting kind of scared, and then the woman starts, you know, going,
'MAGA! MAGA! MAGA!' while shaking her fist."
One of the girls was wearing a shirt that read, "Trump: Make America Great Again," the father said.
The father said the girls left without responding to the woman. He said
one of the girls said she noticed that Burke had taken a picture of her.
"They were scared," the father said. "They were absolutely scared. My
little girl essentially wanted to know if this woman was going to hurt
West U police referred the case to Harris County Precinct One
Constable's office, which filed a class C misdemeanor charge against
"How dare anyone attack children," Kathryn Faherty said.
"We need to be tolerant of other people's views," added Ana Garcia.
11 April, 2018
'Listen here chocolate lips': A bad thing to say
A Victorian Councillor has been suspended after making a racist comment
on his social media account. City of Hume Councillor, Steve 'Jack'
Medcraft posted a link to his Facebook page mocking an example of
police brutality in Victoria.
He referred to the victim, who is of African appearance as 'chocolate lips'.
'Now listen here chocolate lips if you are going to rob someone there are consequences,' the Facebook post read.
The man he was referring to was having a psychotic episode and assaulted
several people before attempting to hold up a pharmacy in Preston.
CCTV footage showed the man was beaten, kicked and stomped on by Victorian Police Officers in 2016.
The representative later removed the post from social media and apologised for making the comment.
'I never intended any hurt or malice towards others, nor did I
appreciate that my comments did not reflect well in my role as a
Councillor or a community representative,' he said.
The Councillor was pulled aside by the Hume Mayor, Geoff Porter and has
since been stripped of the Indigenous Support portfolio, suspended for
two council meetings and agreed to take cultural diversity training
Big free speech debate in Australia after a footballer dared to express traditional Christian beliefs about homosexuality
Who knew that Rugby Australia was a religious organisation with
doctrine, dogma and decrees about the existence of hell? It looks that
Footballer Folau was brought up as a Mormon. He is of
Tongan origin and the Mormons are strong on Tonga. Mormons are
very family-oriented so are traditionally hostile to homosexuality
In response to an Instagram question last Tuesday in which he was asked
what he thought was “God’s plan for gay people”, Israel Folau,
Australian rugby’s highest- paid player and a devout Christian, was
unequivocal: “HELL. Unless they repent of their sins and turn to God.”
What has followed has been a fevered week of urgent backroom meetings
involving Folau, Rugby Australia and the sport’s two biggest sponsors,
Qantas and ASICS.
Alan Jones writes: Folau is entitled to his opinion on gay people. The code has bigger concerns than keeping him silent
It was the worst possible moment for the story to break. Both sponsors
had just endured a public relations “hell” of their own because of their
Cricket Australia sponsorships and, in the case of ASICS, personal
partnerships with two of the three disgraced cricketers, Warner and
It is understood both companies moved quickly to express their
unhappiness about Folau’s comments directly to rugby’s most senior
executives. What followed was a crisis management strategy by Rugby
Australia and the sponsors that was straight out of the cricket scandal
playbook, as they all tried to shield their brands from Folau’s views.
Rugby Australia stated: ‘‘Folau’s personal beliefs do not reflect the
views of Rugby Australia … Rugby supports all forms of inclusion,
whether it’s sexuality, race, or gender, which is set out in our
Inclusion Policy (2014).”
Qantas said simply: “We’ve made it clear to Rugby Australia that we find the comments very disappointing.”
It is understood Qantas has told Rugby Australia that continued social
media comments by Folau or any other players along these lines would
cause it to re-evaluate its support of the sport.
But beyond the predictable backpedalling from Folau’s comments by the
immediate stakeholders, opinions are much more divided in the broader
community about whether Folau should be allowed to express such views.
Even the generally socially progressive readership of The Sydney Morning
Herald showed some sympathy in yesterday’s letters section, which was
headlined: “Folau has every right to express his opinions”. Several
letters actively defended his right to express his beliefs.
Former human rights commissioner and federal Liberal MP Tim Wilson told
The Australian he believes companies and individuals lashing out at
Folau should “take a chill pill”.
“Respecting diversity includes diversity of opinion, including on
questions of morality,” Wilson says. “Targeting Folau falsely feeds a
mindset that he is persecuted for his opinions. Everyone needs to take a
chill pill, respect Folau’s authority on the rugby field, and also
recognise that he is employed in a profession that values brawn over
Wilson, one of the Liberal Party’s most vocal advocates in favour of
same-sex marriage during the recent national debate, has also taken aim
at the hand-wringing in the sponsorship arena over Folau’s comments.
“It is ridiculous for sponsors to walk away from Rugby Australia because
of Folau’s opinions,” he says. “Companies have the freedom to sponsor
organisations that share their values, but it would be absurd to make a
collective sponsorship decision based on an individual player who isn’t
hired based on his opinions. If Qantas and other sponsors punish Rugby
Australia they’d be saying Australians can’t associate with them if they
have religious or moral views.”
A source at one Australian rugby sponsor said it was unfair to judge
sponsors simply for being cautious about brand damage from comments like
those of Folau. “When you’re investing to have your brand associated
with a team, and the values don’t line up repeatedly, then it begs the
question: is it worth it?”
The source said that the problem was even more marked for Rugby
Australia, which has had its own well-chronicled battles to attract
sponsors in recent years amid the patchy performances of the Wallabies.
“The problem is really Rugby Australia’s,” the source said. “Comments
like Folau’s are not aligned with their values when they’re trying to
Crisis management specialist Greg Baxter, partner of Newgate Australia,
understands the point of view of Rugby Australia and the sponsors to
“I don’t think I’ve heard anyone say he can’t have an opinion, but it’s
not the sort of attitude that modern rugby wants,” he says.
“Rugby is saying: ‘We’re all about inclusivity, and we want all sorts of
people playing our game.’ There’s no question his views are at odds
“It’s no different from any employee having to exercise care in using
social media platforms. In this instance, he needed to think more
carefully about how offensive his statement was: not just to people in
rugby, but the consequences to a major sponsor.”
Baxter believes players need to become much more aware of the impact of their comments.
“You have to be highly sensitised to the fact your comments can be
interpreted a certain way, not only on behalf of yourself but a sporting
code or a political party,” he says. “It’s easy to say it’s a handbrake
on free speech — I don’t personally think it is — but they have to
understand there will be consequences if they upset people. To me, it’s
“In the absence of common sense, sporting codes will have to think of
social media policies and training that goes with that for people. The
higher your profile, the more sensitive you have to be. If you have a
public profile, your so-called private capacity is diminished. The
audience doesn’t differentiate between public profile and private
However, Sharon Williams, chief executive of prominent social media
consultancy Taurus Marketing, believes companies need to avoid becoming
hyper-sensitive to the views of individual athletes in the social media
She argues that corporates are “overplaying their hand”. “I think there
is sometimes a juvenile approach by corporates and organisations to
understanding the limitations of how much they can impose on the
players,” she says.
“Everyone gets hung up about social media. But nothing has changed in
how the world should operate if you have a commercial relationship that
needs to be honoured with mutual integrity and respect.
“If you’ve got a commercial relationship with an organisation, you
respect your differences and your likenesses. You have to be aware of
people’s beliefs. If the sponsors don’t want players to put some of
their beliefs on social media, they need to make sure they cover that
off in their sponsorship agreements.”
On the flip side, she believes that the prevailing environment where
there is an abundance of caution among corporates about causing offence
requires athletes to be given more formal coaching.
“I have no doubt that Israel Folau is sincere in his religious beliefs,”
she says. “Maybe there can be more education and mentoring of athletes
on the consequences and implications of their actions on social media.
‘‘We’re in an environment where political correctness is going mad, and
the athletes need to be aware of that on social media.”
Williams contrasts Folau’s post with Stephanie Rice’s infamous
homophobic 2010 tweet “Suck on that faggots”, which also had a rugby
union connection, after the Wallabies beat South Africa in a Test she
was watching. Rice ended up losing personal sponsorships based on the
“Folau was answering a direct question, based on his religious beliefs, but Rice was deemed to be derogatory,” she says.
Folau’s comments have emerged at a time when protections for religious
freedoms are being examined by a panel headed up by former federal
immigration minister Philip Ruddock, in the wake of last year’s same-sex
marriage plebiscite result.
There were suggestions at the time the process was set up by the
government largely as a way of keeping conservative interests in the
Coalition onside, amid their concerns about the effect legalising
same-sex marriage could have on religious freedom.
Ruddock said yesterday there had been 16,500 submissions to the panel,
which would commence “formal sessions” by the end of next week. “We’ve
been embarking on the program to identify how we can effectively secure
our international obligations on freedom of religion, with regard to
broader human rights obligations.”
One key advocate of religious freedoms, in discussing Folau’s social
media comments, cites the adage: “I disapprove of what you say, but I
will defend to the death your right to say it.”
Peter Kurti, an Anglican priest who runs the religion and civil society
program for the Centre for Independent Studies, says: “My own personal
view is that Israel Folau is wrong. I don’t believe that being gay is
incompatible with being Christian.”
Despite disagreeing with Folau’s view, Kurti says the vilification of him is “troubling”.
He is also concerned about the possibility of sponsor departures over
the opinion. He believes major sponsors of rugby such as Qantas could
turn the matter into a public relations win by showing tolerance on the
“In a sense, if their response is heavy-handed, it ratchets the whole
controversy up,” he says. “I’d like to see Qantas and Rugby Australia
defuse the tension in this. If Qantas were to come back and say along
the lines: ‘This is an individual’s point of view. We continue to
support rugby in Australia’, it would defuse the situation.
“Tolerance means we tolerate views we don’t agree with, allowing people
with whom we don’t agree to say things that may be offensive.
“We all know Qantas has a strong position on many social issues such as
same-sex marriage. And it’s driven from the top by Alan Joyce. The worry
is if they decide as a major sponsor they don’t like the points of view
of any member of the organisation they are sponsoring.”
He believes that rather than shut Folau down, corporate organisations
should simply “debate” him. “What he’s doing is embarking on a
theological debate about what will happen to a certain section of
community after death. What we have to do is debate him on those terms.
But we don’t vilify him for holding a point of view.”
However, Baxter says the problem for Folau is that with an Instagram
following of more than 338,000, he is a large-scale media outlet in his
own right. “The higher the profile, the more the scrutiny,” he says.
“A comment is much less likely to be made in a private capacity and stay
private — particularly if you’ve got hundreds of thousands of
followers. The point at which you press the button to publish those
comments on any platform, you make them public and you have to be
Baxter argues there is a critical lack of awareness among sports stars
and others about their reach through social media. “There’s a naivety
among a lot of people. Some people can write whatever they want on these
platforms behind a cloak of anonymity, and not face any consequences.
But people like him, who earn a living from sponsorship and from having a
public profile, need to understand that it carries with it more
responsibility than another private citizen who has no public profile.”
Kurti, on the other hand, argues the Folau affair and the pressure for
him to bite his tongue show that the balance is in danger of tipping in
favour of censorship.
“It shows that we are forgetting just how important freedom of speech is in our society,” he says.
“We only want people to say the things we agree with. That seems to be
the prevalent mood on social media. But in a society where freedom is
truly valued, people have to be free to say things with which we don’t
10 April, 2018
MasterChef UK judges cause a stir with chicken curry comments
JUDGES on a popular British cooking show are being ridiculed for
ignorance of Asian food after insisting a Malaysian contestant’s chicken
rendang curry should have been crispy.
Foodies in Malaysia, Singapore and Indonesia have taken to social media
to vent at the critique of the Malaysian-born cook’s traditional and
standard method for preparing chicken rendang.
“The skin isn’t crispy. It can’t be eaten but all the sauce is on the
skin I can’t eat,” one of the MasterChef UK judges complained in a
recent episode of the show.
Online, Southeast Asians pointed out that the chicken is cooked in curry
sauce, not fried, and is never crispy. Some accused the judges of
neo-colonial attitudes and racism.
Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak also chipped in, posting a photo of
chicken rendang on Twitter and lightheartedly asking whether anyone has
ever eaten a crispy chicken curry.
Malaysian Foreign Minister Anifah Aman said the judges were guilty of “whitesplaining.”
Australian Olympic legend Kerri Pottharst apologises for calling
Caribbean beach volleyball players 'human lamingtons covered in sand'
A Lamington is a popular Australian small cake. It is a cube of
sponge cake coated with chocolate icing and sprinkled with dessicated
A volleyball Olympic champion has apologised for making a racial slur while commentating at the Gold Coast Commonwealth Games.
Kerri Pottharst was pulled up after she said the Saint Kitts beach
volleyball players looked like 'lamingtons' when the sand stuck to their
They look like 'human lamingtons covered in sand,' the 52-year-old said on the live broadcast of the games.
Pottharst has since apologised and said didn't intend for the comment to be racist.
'I made a comment I unreservedly apologise for and sincerely regret,' she said. 'It was 100 per cent not meant to offend.'
The remark caused outrage on social media calling for the 2000 Olympic
gold medalist to get the sack from the Channel Seven coverage.
9 April, 2018
After 9 Years, HOA Revokes Veteran’s Right to Fly American Flag in Front Yard
Nine years after he was given permission to flag an American flag in his
yard, and began doing so, a veteran is now being told he must remove
it, he says.
Wayne Marchant, who served four years active duty and four years in the
Air Force reserves, says his Home Owners Association (HOA) has suddenly
rescinded permission to flag in front of his Franklin, Ohio home.
According to the HOA, flying the American flag a home’s yard “does not
comply with the communities standards,” Local station WLWT reports:
"As a veteran, I wouldn't think to erect a flagpole and fly the American
flag would be something that I would have to get permission to do,"
Marchant moved into Franklin's Renaissance subdivision nine years ago.
He said then, the homeowners association gave him verbal permission to
install the pole and fly the flag.
Omni Community Association, the HOA, says its board will consider Marchant’s complaint and issue a final decision.
The Atlantic Fires Conservative Writer Over Abortion Views
The Atlantic fired Kevin Williamson on Thursday over past comments he
made on abortion, ending the conservative columnist's time at the
magazine only two weeks after the publication hired him.
The Atlantic‘s editor in chief, Jeffrey Goldberg, informed the
publication's staff of Williamson's departure via email, according to
multiple press reports.
Goldberg's initial decision to hire Williamson as a columnist last month
drew rebuke from liberals, who argued that previous columns Williamson
wrote for National Review, where he worked before The Atlantic,
showcased racist sentiments. They specifically cited a 2014 column in
which Williamson "described an encounter with a young black boy using
racially loaded terms like ‘three-fifths-scale Snoop Dogg' and
describing the boy as a ‘primate,'" the Daily Beast reported.
Critics of the hire also cited a tweet in which Williamson wrote that
"the law should treat abortion like any other homicide." The writer
added that hanging would be an appropriate punishment.
8 April, 2018
DNC member who called blacks "colored people" resigns — National
Association for the Advancement of Colored People had no comment
Florida Democratic National Committee member John Parker is facing calls
to resign from African-American activists and other party members,
including his own wife, after he referred to blacks as "colored people."
Parker, a Florida state committeeman, told Politico that he simply
mangled the phrase "people of color" and didn't mean to say "colored
people" at a January party meeting at the Burrito Gallery in
But not everybody believes that explanation, and some argue it wasn't an isolated incident.
Diallo-Sekou Seabrooks, who attended the meeting, said Parker "freely
used" the phrase "colored people" and that he expressed concern
Jacksonville would become more like Atlanta, a city with a
majority-black government, First Coast News reports.
"Why would you still think that ‘colored' was cool? Because to me it's a
Jim Crow terminology and it's unacceptable," Seabrooks said.
Roseanne Barr slammed for offensive Hitler photo shoot, producer urges audiences to ignore it
COMEDIAN Roseanne Barr has been slammed for controversial photo shoot in
which she dressed like Hitler holding a tray of gingerbread men in
front of an oven.
The pictures, which were taken in 2009 for a satricial Jewish magazine
called Heeb, have garnered attention online after the star returned to
the public eye last week with the reboot of the sitcom Roseanne.
Entertainment Weekly reports that the concept was Barr’s idea, and the images were criticised when they first came out.
Barr, who is Jewish, addressed the issue in 2011 during an interview on
The Green Room with Paul Provenza, saying she didn’t know why people
were so upset over the images.
When Paul Provenza said, “Jews went crazy over this. Understandably,”
Barr said she didn’t think the reaction was understandable.
“I don’t think understandably. It really pissed me off. Because they
were like ‘you’re making fun of the people in the ovens’, but I’m not
making fun of people in the ovens.”
She said the message she was trying to send, was about how many holocausts have occurred since Hitler was in power.
“Moving off this Holocaust. There’s been about fifty of them since then.
That’s what I’m kind of trying to say. Is like, Jesus Christ it’s so
fucking every day now, holocausts, it’s like baking cookies,” she said.
Some Twitter users don’t agree, however, saying despite its satirical
nature, the photos are “offensive and obscene”, while others threatened
to boycott the TV station that airs the show.
6 April, 2018
NCAA title hero under fire for scrambling to cover up controversial comments
The internet never forgets, and DiVincenzo’s championship celebration
was marred by some online sleuths sifting through his social media
activity. Two posts in particular caught the eye of intrepid
First, per TMZ, DiVincenzo deleted a tweet in which he had used the n-word.
“Ballin on these n—-s like I’m (former NBA MVP Derrick Rose),”
DiVincenzo posted to Twitter in 2011. Despite him seemingly quoting a
rap song, people were still upset about his use of the racial epithet.
In another instance, DiVincenzo used more online vulgarity while talking about his father, according to Larry Brown Sports.
“To my dad I’m a p—- now?” DiVincenzo directed at his father. “(Because) I don’t want to play f—ing soccer?”
In fairness to the DiVincenzo family, whatever issues father and son may
have had over a potential soccer career seem to have been smoothed
over. Both of his parents were seen in the crowd on Monday, cheering on
So despite the thrilling championship win, DiVincenzo spent part of his post-game activities explaining his tweets.
“It’s my account, yes … but I never remember doing that,” DiVincenzo
said when asked about the vulgar comments posted on his Twitter account.
More eyebrows were raised when Villanova reportedly released and
retracted a statement claiming that DiVincenzo’s Twitter account had
been hacked. Considering his comments were from 2011, it’s hardly a
surprise Villanova went back on its claim.
In fairness to DiVincenzo, he was barely 14 or 15 years old when he
posted some of his more graphic tweets. It’s also fair to wonder if any
of this criticism directed at comments DiVincenzo made nearly seven
years ago are valid today.
Yes, obviously DiVincenzo’s choice of language left a bit to be desired.
But, and this can’t be stressed enough, DiVincenzo was literally a
child when he made those comments.
Let him enjoy his national championship without having to defend something he tweeted long ago
Anti-Islam leader who staged a mock beheading outside council offices
to protest the building of a new mosque appeals 'hate speech' charges
No free speech in Australia
An anti-Islamic leader has launched an appeal in court against his
conviction as the first person to be charged with 'hate speech' in
Blair Cottrell was found guilty after staging a mock beheading outside
council offices in Bendigo in protest to permission being granted for a
The carpenter from Melbourne says he is determined to carry on sharing
his far-right views until 'they lock me up or kill me' as he kicked off
his appeal on Wednesday.
He launched an appeal against the conviction which carries a maximum
sentence of six months in prison and appeared at court on Wednesday.
He and two others, Neil Erikson and Christopher Shortis, carried out
what Cottrell described as 'an Islamic-style beheading' of a dummy.
Cottrell told Daily Mail Australia he was 'confident' he could overturn
his conviction. 'We have a very fair justice system in this country,
unfortunately some judges are making some bad decisions, especially in
recent years,' he said. 'But the majority of judges are very fair and
'Even if I'm found guilty again I'll never stop speaking, they'll have to lock me up or kill me.'
Earlier, he posted a video appealing for donations to fund his legal
challenge in which he denies being an extremist. He said: 'I've never
done anything violent yet I'm called extremist simply because I speak.
'I chose to appeal the conviction to a higher level of court and that's what I'm doing today.
'If you're a white person in a Western country and you speak your
opinion, you're regarded extremist so long as your opinion isn't left
wing. 'What have I done that's extremist? I've given speeches. I've
never called for violence.'
5 April, 2018
YouTube gets some pushback for its censorship
Regrettable that users have so little recourse against YouTube high-handedness that someone was pushed to this extent
Nasim Aghdam, 39, of Southern California, was identified by US media as
the woman who approached the Silicon Valley campus around lunchtime on
Tuesday and began to fire before entering the building of the
Google-owned video sharing service.
One man and two women were shot in the incident before the female shooter apparently committed suicide.
Aghdam was angry at YouTube because it had stopped paying her for videos
she posted on the platform, her father told the Bay Area News Group .
People who post on YouTube can receive money from advertisements that
accompany their videos, but the company "de-monetizes" some channels for
reasons including inappropriate material or having fewer than 1,000
YouTube had "stopped everything," and "she was angry," Ismail Aghdam
told the Associated Press in a telephone interview from his San Diego
Sources told NBC that Aghdam appeared to have a YouTube channel and had
posted videos criticising the video-sharing service for censorship.
According to the broadcaster, she says in a video posted in January 2017
that YouTube “discriminated and filtered” her content. In the video,
Aghdam reportedly says her channel used to get lots of views but that
after being “filtered” by the company, it received far fewer views.
Aghdam was also a prominent animal rights protester. She was quoted in a
2009 story in the San Diego Union-Tribune about a protest by People for
the Ethical Treatment of Animals against the use of pigs in military
"For me, animal rights equal human rights," Aghdam told the Union-Tribune at the time.
Security ordered to eject fans at the Masters who say this popular phrase
If you are fortunate enough to attend the Masters, you’ll want to deftly avoid using Anheuser-Busch-inspired lexicon.
According to golf reporter Bryce Ritchie, decision-makers at Augusta
National Golf Club are cracking down on unruly fans this year.
Just been told security staff at Augusta National have been handed a
sheet with a list of sayings that are prohibited. I'm told "dilly dilly"
is one of them. Patrons who shout out these phrases will be "removed"
Yes, the viral Budweiser commercials that featured the phrase “dilly dilly” have now become a top target for Masters officials.
It's truly is remarkable that in today’s social media age, something as
simple as “dilly dilly” has picked up so much cultural momentum and
But Masters officials seem to be over the phrase, and are reportedly
telling the security there to remove any patrons that dare yell “dilly
That’s not a small punishment, either. Aside from the indignation of
getting kicked out of a very public event, a cursory glance at StubHub
reveals that the “cheap” tickets for the major golf event start around
$1,600. That’s a good chunk of change to lose out on simply for reciting
your favorite tagline from a beer commercial.
4 April, 2018
Obama Judges Rule Cross Monument Must Go, Showing Elections Do Have Consequences
When Republican congressional leaders went to the White House on Jan.
23, 2009—just three days into Barack Obama’s presidency—to discuss
legislation, he helpfully reminded them that his policy preferences
necessarily had to prevail because “elections have consequences, and at
the end of the day, I won.”
Obama is out of office now, but the regrettable consequences of his
election remain strewn across the political landscape. Perhaps nowhere
is that more consequential than in the makeup of the 4th U.S. Circuit
Court of Appeals.
The 4th Circuit handles cases originating from the states of Maryland,
North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, and West Virginia.
Obama appointed six of the eight judges who, on March 1, refused to
reconsider a wrongheaded 2-1 ruling of a 4th Circuit panel last fall.
That ruling found the World War I memorial Peace Cross in Bladensburg,
Maryland, suddenly “unconstitutional” after more than 90 years without
Erected with funding from the American Legion and local families in
1925, at what is now the intersection of U.S. Route 1 and Maryland state
Route 450, the 40-foot cross features a plaque listing the names of 49
Prince George’s County men who gave their lives in what H.G. Wells
dubbed—wrongly, as it turned out—“the war that will end war.”
The Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission took control
of the land on which the memorial sits in 1961 because of its location.
According to the October ruling, the commission’s paying for the upkeep
and repairs of the monument “has the primary effect of endorsing
religion and excessively entangles the government in
religion”—supposedly in violation of the First Amendment’s establishment
That plaque at the base of the memorial also includes the words “valor,
endurance, courage, devotion.” But the only thing the secularists at the
American Humanist Association (which filed the suit) is “devoted” to is
To the humanists, the decision was “a big win … for the separation of
church and state.” Never mind that that’s a phrase and a concept nowhere
to be found in the Constitution, the left’s assertions to the contrary
“We cannot allow it to be the final word,” said Hiram Sasser, deputy
chief counsel for First Liberty Institute, the Plano, Texas-based
nonprofit public interest law firm representing the American Legion,
warning of the slippery slope the 4th Circuit’s ruling will create if
it’s not repudiated by the Supreme Court.
Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan, a Republican, called the 4th Circuit’s ruling
“an affront to all veterans,” and a spokesman for Maryland Attorney
General Brian Frosh, a Democrat, said his office would file a brief in
support of the veterans memorial monument when the case is appealed to
the Supreme Court, as it will—and should—be.
A reversal by the justices would send a much-needed shot across the bow of an out-of-control 4th Circuit.
Libs are boycotting a D.C. steakhouse over a Patagonia hat
Great publicity for Patagonia. They make caps for climbers and
other outdoors folk but their main market is no doubt poseurs who would
like to be thought of as outdoorsy. So perhaps it was poseurs who were
objected to. That would include a lot of Democrats
Adrienne Elrod, former director of strategic communications for Hillary
for America, is angry at the Del Frisco’s Grille in D.C., apparently
over the establishment’s dress code which didn’t approve of her
Patagonia hat. And now there’s a boycott of the restaurant brewing:
What’s even funnier is that @DelFriscosResto — the target of the angry
boycott tweets — is in Canada, not D.C. Maybe Hillary avoiding
Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania makes more sense now that her
supporters can’t even find the right restaurant to boycott?
Complaining about the wrong restaurant on Twitter while complaining that
a restaurant has a dress code you CHOSE to not obey. Let me
guess...blame a #Deplorable? This is WHY we know Dems are out of touch
with the guy in back cooking, washing dishes, etc.
Thankfully, they have since figured out which restaurant to boycott:
Yea girl! Though to note, it is @dfgrille in dc that is terrible. I
look forward to visiting the friendlier @DelFriscosResto in Quebec!
Exit question: Why not just take off the hat?
3 April, 2018
Even "Playboy" is ditching Facebook
Facebook will be stripped of its “Playboy” magazine pages because the
social media giant contradicts the publication’s “values,” a “Playboy”
executive has announced.
“Playboy” is also offended by Facebook’s “sexually repressive” stance,
the son of the magazine’s founder said, “Variety” reports:
In a tweet Tuesday evening, Playboy chief creative officer Cooper Hefner
— son of the late Hugh Hefner, the mag’s famed founder — said, “We are
stepping away from Facebook.”
“Facebook’s content guidelines and corporate policies continue
contradicting our values,” the exec wrote. “We’ve tried to craft our
voice for the platform, which in our opinion continues to be sexually
Hefner added, “Learning of the recent meddling in a free U.S. election
further demonstrates another concern we have of how they handle users’
“Playboy” had briefly decided to go nudity-free in 2014, but, ultimately, returned to its previous values:
Playboy in 2014 removed nude photos from its websites and said the print
mag would no longer include nudity starting in early 2016. However,
last year, Cooper Hefner reversed that decision.
The Golliwog saga continues
A shopkeeper has refused to stop selling golliwog dolls despite receiving complaints saying they're racist.
Antiques store Upstairs Downstairs in Faversham, Kent, stocks a
selection of the black-skinned dolls, which have exaggerated lip
features and frizzy hair that many consider offensive.
Golliwog dolls were designed as minstrel-men replicas and were once common in the UK until the 1970s.
Faversham resident Gavin McGregor blasted the dolls, which were once a
mascot for Robertson's jam until 2001, as a symbol of racism and said
that the shop is an embarrassment to the town.
Local James Brown wrote online: 'Regardless of whether it's legal or not
I find it astonishing that he cannot see that in this day and age it's
Owner of Upstairs Downstairs antiques Andy Wilkinson said he had nothing
to hide, claiming that the dolls are popular with customers.
Mr Wilkinson said: 'Golliwogs are collectables, they're just part of history - It's not racism.
'I find it quite weird how everything has got to be offensive, people of my age remember having them as toys.
'I have sold lots and lots of gollis and as soon as they come in they go out again.'
'We have got standards, we wouldn't sell anything that we found offensive at all.
Faversham residents remained steadfast in the row, with many taking to the internet to voice their support of the dolls.
2 April, 2018
Diversity Task Force Ditches Reference to Puritans in 'Fair Harvard' Song
The song "Fair Harvard," written by an alumnus in 1836, has stood the
test of time with two revisions, the most recent one coming this week.
The final line of the song -- "Till the stock of the Puritans die" -- now reads, "Till the stars in the firmament die."
According to the Harvard Crimson, a university task force on inclusion
and belonging decided last April to hold a competition to replace the
song's final line, which was deemed out of step with Harvard's "Veritas"
The new line about stars in the firmament was selected from 168 entries.
Harvard University President Drew G. Faust was quoted as saying in an
email that she will "proudly give voice to the song's new final line --
and its recognition that the pursuit of truth and knowledge belongs to
everyone at Harvard, from all backgrounds and beliefs.”
Faust also said she wants to make other symbols, including public art on campus, more inclusive.
This is not the first revision to "Fair Harvard": In 1998, the word
“sons” in the song was replaced with the word “we” to address concerns
of gender inclusivity, the Crimson reported.
Freedom stifled at Wellesley college
The founder and director of Wellesley College’s controversial Freedom
Project, a program backed by the Charles Koch Foundation, is stepping
aside amid an outcry from college alumnae uncomfortable with the
libertarian billionaire Koch exerting influence on campus.
Thomas Cushman, a tenured sociology professor at the college, will leave
campus for a year, and the college is overhauling the program, which
brings conservative and controversial speakers to campus. The college
will appoint a new director for the next academic year and is creating a
task force to recommend ways to “explore the important role of free
speech’’ on campus, according to a statement sent from the college.
The shake-up occurred after the Globe outlined how Wellesley’s Freedom
Project was pitched to conservative donors as a way to break through
perceived liberal dogma on American campuses.
This is Tongue-Tied 3
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press"
Posts by John J. Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.)
HOME (Index page)
Alternative (monthly) archives for this blog are here
The war on "cultural appropriation" is straightforward racism
Is the American national anthem politically incorrect? From the 4th verse:
Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation.
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto: "In God is our trust."
The truth can be offensive to some but it must be said
"HATE SPEECH" is free speech: The U.S. Supreme Court stated the general
rule regarding protected speech in Texas v. Johnson (109 S.Ct. at
2544), when it held: "The government may not prohibit the verbal or
nonverbal expression of an idea merely because society finds the idea
offensive or disagreeable." Federal courts have consistently followed this. Said Virginia federal district judge Claude Hilton: "The
First Amendment does not recognize exceptions for bigotry, racism, and
religious intolerance or ideas or matters some may deem trivial, vulgar
Even some advocacy of violence is protected by the 1st Amendment. In
Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), the U.S. Supreme Court held unanimously that
speech advocating violent illegal actions to bring about social change
is protected by the First Amendment "except where such advocacy is
directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely
to incite or produce such action."
The double standard: Atheists can put up signs and billboards saying
that Christianity is wrong and that is hunky dory. But if a Christian
says that homosexuality is wrong, that is attacked as "hate speech"
One for the militant atheists to consider: "...it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg" -- Thomas Jefferson
"I think no subject should be off-limits, and I regard the laws in many
Continental countries criminalizing Holocaust denial as philosophically
repugnant and practically useless – in that they confirm to Jew-haters
that the Jews control everything (otherwise why aren’t we allowed to
talk about it?)" -- Mark Steyn
A prophetic comment on Norwegian hate speech laws: As Justice Brandeis
once noted, repressive censorship “breeds hate” and “that hate menaces
stable government,” rather than promoting safety; “the path of safety
lies in the opportunity to discuss freely supposed grievances and
Voltaire's most famous saying was actually a summary of Voltaire's
thinking by one of his biographers rather than something Voltaire said
himself. Nonetheless it is a wholly admirable sentiment: "I disagree
with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it".
I am of a similar mind.
The traditional advice about derogatory speech: "Sticks and stones will
break your bones but names will never hurt you". Apparently people today
are not as emotionally robust as their ancestors were.
The KKK were members of the DEMOCRATIC party. Google "Klanbake" if you doubt it
A phobia is an irrational fear, so the terms "Islamophobic" and
"homophobic" embody a claim that the people so described are mentally
ill. There is no evidence for either claim. Both terms are simply abuse
masquerading as diagnoses and suggest that the person using them is
engaged in propaganda rather than in any form of rational or objective
Leftists often pretend that any mention of race is "racist" -- unless
they mention it, of course. But leaving such irrational propaganda
aside, which statements really are racist? Can statements of fact about
race be "racist"? Such statements are simply either true or false. The
most sweeping possible definition of racism is that a racist statement
is a statement that includes a negative value judgment of some race.
Absent that, a statement is not racist, for all that Leftists might howl
that it is. Facts cannot be racist so nor is the simple statement of
them racist. Here is a statement that cannot therefore be racist by
itself, though it could be false: "Blacks are on average much less
intelligent than whites". If it is false and someone utters it, he
could simply be mistaken or misinformed.
Categorization is a basic human survival skill so racism as the Left
define it (i.e. any awareness of race) is in fact neither right nor
wrong. It is simply human
Whatever your definition of racism, however, a statement that simply
mentions race is not thereby racist -- though one would think otherwise
from American Presidential election campaigns. Is a statement that
mentions dogs, "doggist" or a statement that mentions cats, "cattist"?
If any mention of racial differences is racist then all Leftists are
racist too -- as "affirmative action" is an explicit reference to
Was Abraham Lincoln a racist? "You and we are different races. We
have between us a broader difference than exists between almost any
other two races. Whether it is right or wrong I need not discuss, but
this physical difference is a great disadvantage to us both, as I think
your race suffer very greatly, many of them by living among us, while
ours suffer from your presence. In a word, we suffer on each side. If
this be admitted, it affords a reason at least why we should be
separated. It is better for both, therefore, to be separated." -- Spoken at the White House to a group of black community leaders, August 14th, 1862
Gimlet-eyed Leftist haters sometimes pounce on the word "white" as
racist. Will the time come when we have to refer to the White House as
the "Full spectrum of light" House?
The spirit of liberty is "the spirit which is not too sure that it is
right." and "Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies
there, no constitution, no law, no court can even do much to help it.
While it lies there it needs no constitution, no law, no court to save
it." -- Judge Learned Hand
Mostly, a gaffe is just truth slipping out
Two lines below of a famous hymn that would be incomprehensible to
Leftists today ("honor"? "right"? "freedom?" Freedom to agree with them
is the only freedom they believe in)
First to fight for right and freedom,
And to keep our honor clean
It is of course the hymn of the USMC -- still today the relentless warriors that they always were.
It seems a pity that the wisdom of the ancient Greek philosopher
Epictetus is now little known. Remember, wrote the Stoic thinker, "that
foul words or blows in themselves are no outrage, but your judgment
that they are so. So when any one makes you angry, know that it is your
own thought that has angered you. Wherefore make it your endeavour not
to let your impressions carry you away."
"Since therefore the knowledge and survey of vice is in this world so
necessary to the constituting of human virtue, and the scanning of error
to the confirmation of truth, how can we more safely, and with less
danger, scout into the regions of sin and falsity than by reading all
manner of tractates, and hearing all manner of reason?" -- English poet
John Milton (1608-1674) in Areopagitica
Hate speech is verbal communication that induces anger due to the listener's inability to offer an intelligent response
Leftists can try to get you fired from your job over something that you
said and that's not an attack on free speech. But if you just criticize
something that they say, then that IS an attack on free speech
"Negro" is a forbidden word -- unless a Democrat uses it
"It is impossible to speak in such a way that you cannot be misunderstood." -- Karl Popper
Why are Leftists always talking about hate? Because it fills their own hearts
Leftists don't have principles. How can they when "there is no such
thing as right and wrong"? All they have is postures, pretend-principles
that can be changed as easily as one changes one's shirt
When you have an argument with a Leftist, you are not really discussing
the facts. You are threatening his self esteem. Which is why the normal
Leftist response to challenge is mere abuse.
naive scholar who searches for a consistent Leftist program will not
find it. What there is consists only in the negation of the present.
The intellectual Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius (AD 121-180) could have
been speaking of much that goes on today when he said: "The object in
life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding
oneself in the ranks of the insane."
I despair of the ADL. Jews have
enough problems already and yet in the ADL one has a prominent Jewish
organization that does its best to make itself offensive to Christians.
Their Leftism is more important to them than the welfare of Jewry --
which is the exact opposite of what they ostensibly stand for! Jewish
cleverness seems to vanish when politics are involved. Fortunately,
Christians are true to their saviour and have loving hearts. Jewish
dissatisfaction with the myopia of the ADL is outlined here. Note that Foxy was too grand to reply to it.
Email me here (Hotmail address).
DETAILS OF REGULARLY UPDATED BLOGS BY JOHN RAY:
"Dissecting Leftism" (Backup here)
"Education Watch International"
"Political Correctness Watch"
BLOGS OCCASIONALLY UPDATED:
"Marx & Engels in their own words"
"A scripture blog"
To be continued ....
Coral Reef Compendium
Australian Police News
My alternative Wikipedia
BLOGS NO LONGER BEING UPDATED
"Food & Health Skeptic"
"Eye on Britain"
"Immigration Watch International".
"Leftists as Elitists"
OF INTEREST (2)
QANTAS -- A dying octopus
BRIAN LEITER (Ladderman)
Obama Watch (2)
Dissecting Leftism -- Large font site
AGL -- A bumbling monster
Bank of Queensland blues
There are also two blogspot blogs which record what I think are my main recent articles here and here. Similar content can be more conveniently accessed via my subject-indexed list of short articles here or here (I rarely write long articles these days)
Mirror for this blog
Mirror for "Dissecting Leftism"
Longer Academic Papers
Academic home page
Academic Backup Page
General Backup 2
My alternative Wikipedia
MONOGRAPH ON LEFTISM
CONSERVATISM AS HERESY
Fascism is Leftist
Hitler a socialist
What are Leftists
Psychology of Left
Leftism is authoritarian
James on Leftism
Irbe on Leftism
Beltt on Leftism
Main academic menu
Menu of recent writings
basic home page
Pictorial Home Page
Selected pictures from blogs (Backup here)
Another picture page (Best with broadband. Rarely updated)
Note: If the link to one of my articles is not working, the
article concerned can generally be viewed by prefixing to the filename
OR: (After 2015)