End Times and Current Events
December 05, 2021, 08:43:34 am
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Welcome To End Times and Current Events.
 
  Home Help Search Gallery Staff List Login Register  

Senator Introduces Bill to Silence Christians and Conservatives

Shoutbox
August 08, 2018, 02:38:10 am suzytr says: Hello, any good churches in the Sacto, CA area, also looking in Reno NV, thanks in advance and God Bless you Smiley
January 29, 2018, 01:21:57 am Christian40 says: It will be interesting to see what happens this year Israel being 70 years as a modern nation may 14 2018
October 17, 2017, 01:25:20 am Christian40 says: It is good to type Mark is here again!  Smiley
October 16, 2017, 03:28:18 am Christian40 says: anyone else thinking that time is accelerating now? it seems im doing days in shorter time now is time being affected in some way?
September 24, 2017, 10:45:16 pm Psalm 51:17 says: The specific rule pertaining to the national anthem is found on pages A62-63 of the league rulebook. It states: “The National Anthem must be played prior to every NFL game, and all players must be on the sideline for the National Anthem. “During the National Anthem, players on the field and bench area should stand at attention, face the flag, hold helmets in their left hand, and refrain from talking. The home team should ensure that the American flag is in good condition. It should be pointed out to players and coaches that we continue to be judged by the public in this area of respect for the flag and our country. Failure to be on the field by the start of the National Anthem may result in discipline, such as fines, suspensions, and/or the forfeiture of draft choice(s) for violations of the above, including first offenses.”
September 20, 2017, 04:32:32 am Christian40 says: "The most popular Hepatitis B vaccine is nothing short of a witch’s brew including aluminum, formaldehyde, yeast, amino acids, and soy. Aluminum is a known neurotoxin that destroys cellular metabolism and function. Hundreds of studies link to the ravaging effects of aluminum. The other proteins and formaldehyde serve to activate the immune system and open up the blood-brain barrier. This is NOT a good thing."
http://www.naturalnews.com/2017-08-11-new-fda-approved-hepatitis-b-vaccine-found-to-increase-heart-attack-risk-by-700.html
September 19, 2017, 03:59:21 am Christian40 says: bbc international did a video about there street preaching they are good witnesses
September 14, 2017, 08:06:04 am Psalm 51:17 says: bro Mark Hunter on YT has some good, edifying stuff too.
September 14, 2017, 04:31:26 am Christian40 says: i have thought that i'm reaping from past sins then my life has been impacted in ways from having non believers in my ancestry.
September 11, 2017, 06:59:33 am Psalm 51:17 says: The law of reaping and sowing. It's amazing how God's mercy and longsuffering has hovered over America so long. (ie, the infrastructure is very bad here b/c for many years, they were grossly underspent on. 1st Tim 6:10, the god of materialism has its roots firmly in the West) And remember once upon a time ago when shacking up b/w straight couples drew shock awe?

Exodus 20:5  Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
View Shout History
Pages: [1]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Senator Introduces Bill to Silence Christians and Conservatives  (Read 1064 times)
Mark
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 21729



View Profile
« on: January 19, 2014, 05:13:57 am »

13 House Democrats offer bill demanding government study on Internet hate speech

Thirteen House Democrats have proposed legislation that would require the government to study hate speech on the Internet, mobile phones and television and radio.

The bill, sponsored by Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) and 12 other House Democrats, would look at how those media are used to "advocate and encourage violent acts and the commission of crimes of hate."

The Hate Crime Reporting Act, H.R. 3878, is meant to update a 20-year-old study from the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA). That study, delivered to Congress in 1993, looked at hate speech on radio, TV and computer bulletin boards.

Jeffries says the NTIA needs to see how hate speech is transmitted over the various new modes of communication that have sprung up over the last two decades.

"The Internet is a wonderful vehicle for innovation, creativity and entrepreneurship," he said. "But it can also be used as a platform to promote hate and target vulnerable individuals.

"This legislation will mandate a comprehensive analysis of criminal and hateful activity on the Internet that occurs outside of the zone of the First Amendment protection."

His legislation requires the NTIA to update its report to examine how the Internet and mobile phones can be used to encourage and commit hate crimes based on race, gender, religion and sexual orientation.

The NTIA would also have to recommend a way to address these actions "while respecting the important protections of the First Amendment."

The NAACP supports the bill, and says more information is needed about how people commit or encourage hate crimes online.

"As the use of the Internet and the ever-expanding variety of social media tools used by these groups continues to grow and evolve, we need to have a better idea of what they are doing and how they are doing it," said Hilary Shelton, the director of the NAACP's Washington Bureau.

The National Organization for Women also supports the bill. "We hope that the study will address continuing hate speech that vilifies women seeking reproductive health care as well as websites that encourage violence against healthcare providers at women's clinics which we believe have led to the injuries and death of clinic personnel and volunteers," NOW said in an official statement.

Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/technology/195647-dems-demand-government-study-on-internet-hate-speech#ixzz2qeL4Ctz2
Report Spam   Logged

What can you do for Jesus?  Learn what 1 person can accomplish.

The Man from George Street
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkjMvPhLrn8

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter

Mark
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 21729



View Profile
« Reply #1 on: January 19, 2014, 05:14:38 am »

Pro-Life Banners in San Francisco Stir Controversy, Dubbed 'Hate Speech'

A pro-life group is stirring controversy in San Francisco after putting up anti-abortion banners on the city's main thoroughfare in preparation for the annual Walk for Life West Coast event on Jan. 25. Although the banners carry the simple message of "abortion hurts women," one pro-abortion group is demanding they be taken down, saying they are a form of hate speech against women.

The 50 banners, installed on San Francisco's bustling Market Street recently by Walk for Life West Coast organizers, include the message "abortion hurts women" along with an advertisement for the upcoming Walk for Life event that reads: "Walk for Life West Coast. A New Tradition. A New Voice."

The banners are promoting San Francisco's tenth annual Walk for Life event on Jan. 25, where over 50,000 people have gathered in years past to march in opposition to abortion through the city's streets. The 50 banners lining Market Street will be seen by the thousands of walkers, as Market Street is the new route of the annual pro-life walk.

David Campos of the city's Board of Supervisors has sponsored a resolution asking the city to review its current process of approving public advertisements. Campos argues that the "Abortion Hurts Women" advertisements violate city policy because they are spreading misinformation about abortions.

"I think that we in government have a responsibility to be on record saying that, you know, in San Francisco we do trust women, we respect their right to decide for themselves and we're going to protect that right," Campos said.

"Not only is abortion one of the safest medical procedures in the United States, but denied abortion care is what hurts women," Campos added.

Follow us Get CP eNewsletter ››

Ellen Shaffer, co-director of the Trust Women Silver Ribbon Campaign, a pro-abortion group, has also protested the banners. Shaffer previously wrote a letter to Mayor Ed Lee asking that the banners be removed because they contain "a false and hateful statement" regarding women's reproductive health. The mayor denied the group's request for banner removal, saying that the banners do not violate city code and removing them would be a violation of the First Amendment.

Walk for Life West Coast co-founder Eva Muntean argues that the banners are in complete accordance with the law and communicate the importance of the pro-life message. "We did everything legally, we did everything by the book," Muntean told ABC 7 News. "We met every criteria. There is no reason at all for this to be an issue right now."

Muntean went on to say that the sometimes hostile landscape of a city like San Francisco can prove difficult for groups toting messages that differ from what some residents believe. "One of the things that the city is always talking about is how tolerant they are and how they're open to all views," Muntean said. "And here we are with a view that's different than what some San Franciscans believe and they are trying to shut us down."

Addressing the controversy on their website, Walk for Life West Coast said it is "delighted with the publicity our banners have already generated. We urge all people of good will to join us on January 25 as we march in defense of the littlest among us. Our opponents seek to censor our message 'Abortion Hurts Women,' not because it is false but because it is true. We invite San Franciscans to attend the rally and Walk, and especially to attend the Silent No More Awareness campaign for post-abortive women at 10:45 AM in Civic Center Plaza, so that they may judge for themselves."

This is not the first time Walk for Life West Coast has encountered controversy over its advertising in the Bay Area. Back in 2009, the group put up a large billboard on US 80 that was viewed by hundreds of thousands of commuters. The billboard was soon vandalized by assailants with paintball guns, but the damage was not very noticeable from the highway.

In 2010, the group took out bus ads on the city's Golden Gate Transit buses to tote their pro-life message. In 2011, the group did a "Walk for Life Navy" advertisement by putting a giant pro-life banner on a yacht alongside the pro-life march's parade route.

http://www.christianpost.com/news/pro-life-banners-in-san-francisco-stir-controversy-dubbed-hate-speech-112873/
Report Spam   Logged

What can you do for Jesus?  Learn what 1 person can accomplish.

The Man from George Street
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkjMvPhLrn8
Mark
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 21729



View Profile
« Reply #2 on: April 24, 2014, 05:59:43 am »

Senator Introduces Bill to Silence Christians and Conservatives

Two hundred and fifty years ago, American colonists who criticized King George III would find themselves arrested and thrown into prison.  Sometimes they lost their businesses, homes and families because of their sedition to the crown.  The colonists had no freedom of speech to criticize the king, parliament or even a British citizen.

When James Madison and George Mason penned the Bill of Rights, there was a reason why they made the freedom of speech part of the First Amendment.  It was the right to speak freely and openly criticize the government that was a right they fought for.  They knew that in order to have a republic, not a democracy, the freedom of speech was a vital importance to its success.  (In a democracy, people don’t need the right for free speech as the people elect their own dictators.)

Over recent years, we have seen our freedom of speech being challenged and diminished by the whining’s of a liberal minority.  Now, we are on the verge of losing our First Amendment right to freedom of speech.

Massachusetts Senator Edward Markey (D) and New York Representative Hakeem Jeffries (D) have introduced the Hate Crime Reporting Act of 2014.  The opening of the bill reads:

    “To require the National Telecommunications and Information Administration to update a report on the role of telecommunications, including the Internet, in the commission of hate crimes.”

    “The report required under subsection (a) shall— “

    ‘‘(1) analyze information on the use of telecommunications, including the Internet, broadcast  television and radio, cable television, public access television, commercial mobile services, and other electronic media, to advocate and encourage violent acts and the commission of crimes of hate, as de-scribed in the Hate Crime Statistics Act (28 U.S.C. 534 note);”

    ‘‘(2) include any recommendations, consistent with the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, that the NTIA determines are appropriate and necessary to address the use of telecommunications described in paragraph (1); and”

    ‘‘(3) update the previous report submitted under this section (as in effect before the date of enactment of the Hate Crime Reporting Act of 2014).’’

Commenting on the bill, Markey states:

    “We have recently seen in Kansas the deadly destruction and loss of life that hate speech can fuel in the United States, which is why it is critical to ensure the Internet, television and radio are not encouraging hate crimes or hate speech that is not outside the protection of the First Amendment.  Over 20 years have passed since I first directed the NTIA to review the role that telecommunications play in encouraging hate crimes. My legislation would require the agency to update this critical report for the 21st century.”

Jeffries added:

    “The Internet has proven to be a tremendous platform for innovation, creativity and entrepreneurship. However, at times it has also been used as a place where vulnerable persons or groups can be targeted.  I commend Senator Markey for his longstanding leadership with respect to combating Hate Crimes in America. He understands that in the digital era it is important to comprehensively evaluate the scope of criminal and hateful activity on the Internet that occurs outside of the zone of First Amendment protection. With the introduction of Senator Markey’s bill, we have taken a substantial step toward addressing this issue.”

By hate speech, they mean anything that offends someone else.  Speaking out against homosexuality in any way could be considered to be hate speech.  The televised sermon of a preacher quoting the Bible in his sermon could be considered hate speech if someone hears it and becomes offended because they are being convicted of their of the sins.

Anyone writing or posting on the Internet that criticizes homosexuals, liberal Democrats, Muslims or illegal aliens could be considered to be engaging in hate crimes.  In fact, Alex Nogales, President & CEO of the National Hispanic Media Coalition supports the bill, saying:

    “I thank Senator Markey for his career-long commitment to ensuring that we have the data necessary to confront and combat hate speech in the media that targets our most vulnerable communities.  NHMC has long-recognized that an update to the National Telecommunications and Information Administration's 1993 report, ‘The Role of Telecommunications in Hate Crimes’, is long overdue and desperately needed given the incredible evolution of our communications systems over the past 21 years as well as the ever-increasing numbers of hate crimes targeting Latinos and others. As the author of the original piece of legislation directing the 1993 report, there is nobody better than Senator Markey to join Congressman Hakeem Jeffries and others in calling on the NTIA to study this pressing issue once again.”

If Markey’s bill becomes law, we will find ourselves in the same situation as our Founding Fathers were in under British rule.  We won’t be allowed to speak out against the government, homosexuals, illegals or dangerous religious extremists.  We won’t be able to publicly teach the biblical principles on sin, homosexuality, fidelity, adultery, fornication, greed, lying, coveting and more become someone will be offended, making our words hate language.

This website and many others will be forced to shut down.  Churches will be forced to compromise the Word of God or close their doors and go into hiding and meeting at underground locations.

Markey’s Hate Crime Reporting Act of 2014 is a direct attack on the First Amendment and our freedom of speech and it must be stopped in the US Senate and never allowed to become law.  Contact your Senator and urge him/her to make sure this bill never sees its way out of committee because I’m certain if given the chance, Obama would sign it into law in a heartbeat.

Read more at http://godfatherpolitics.com/15283/senator-introduces-bill-silence-christians-conservatives/#XqzvTQW0qCxjEfxC.99
Report Spam   Logged

What can you do for Jesus?  Learn what 1 person can accomplish.

The Man from George Street
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkjMvPhLrn8
Mark
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 21729



View Profile
« Reply #3 on: April 29, 2014, 09:55:42 am »

Big chill: Feds want to scour Net, media for 'hate speech'
'Perhaps he could crack a briefing book on the crisis in Ukraine'


If two Democratic lawmakers have their way, Barack Obama’s Justice Department will submit a report for action against any Internet sites, broadcast, cable television or radio shows determined to be advocating or encouraging “violent acts.

This according to the text of a new bill from Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass., and Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y.

The Hate Crime Reporting Act of 2014 “would create an updated comprehensive report examining the role of the Internet and other telecommunications in encouraging hate crimes based on gender, race, religion, ethnicity, or sexual orientation and create recommendations to address such crimes,” stated a news release from Markey’s office.

The one-page bill, reviewed by WND, calls for the Justice Department and the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights to “analyze information on the use of telecommunications, including the Internet, broadcast television and radio, cable television, public access television, commercial mobile services, and other electronic media, to advocate and encourage violent acts and the commission of crimes of hate.”

The bill does not define which actions by broadcasters would be considered to have encouraged violence, seemingly leaving that open to interpretation.

Once the report is compiled, the bill calls for “any recommendations” for action “consistent with the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States” that is determined to be an “appropriate and necessary” way to address the purported encouragement of violent acts.

The Boston Herald took issue with the bill, calling it “frankly chilling” that Markey is seeking to “empower an obscure federal agency to begin scouring the Internet, TV and radio for speech it finds threatening.”

“Perhaps he could crack a briefing book on the crisis in Ukraine rather than looking for his own extra-constitutional methods of punishing speech he finds unacceptable,” added the Herald editorial.

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2014/04/big-chill-feds-want-to-scour-net-media-for-hate-speech/#ikDfuXG0zMIcCU2g.99
Report Spam   Logged

What can you do for Jesus?  Learn what 1 person can accomplish.

The Man from George Street
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkjMvPhLrn8
Mark
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 21729



View Profile
« Reply #4 on: April 30, 2014, 10:39:27 am »

Hate Speech: U.K. Political Leader Arrested for Quoting Winston Churchill

A 2009 poll found that more than a third of British teenagers couldn’t identify some of Winston Churchill’s most famous words. Now it turns out that this deficit just might save them from jail.

In a shocking application of hate-speech law, Paul Weston (shown), co-founder and leader of the Liberty GB party and candidate for member of the European Parliament, was arrested on Saturday and now faces a possible two years in prison. His crime?

He quoted one of the 20th century’s most famous Englishmen, that WWII hero Churchill.

As Liberty GB reported at its website:

Mr Weston, a candidate in the 22 May European Elections in the South East, was arrested on 26 April in front of Winchester Guildhall for quoting in public a passage critical of Islam written by Winston Churchill, using a megaphone.

He spent several hours in a cell at Winchester Police Station, after which the original charge of breaching a Section 27 Dispersal Notice was dropped and Mr Weston was "re-arrested" for a Racially Aggravated Crime, under Section 4 of the Public Order Act, which carries a potential prison sentence of 2 years.

He was then fingerprinted and obliged to submit to DNA sampling, following which he was bailed with a return date to Winchester Police on May 24th.

Had the woman who complained to the police made an official statement, Mr Weston would not have been released last night, but fortunately for him she did not.

The case is now being presented to the Crown Prosecution Service. If the CPS decides to prosecute, then Mr Weston will be arrested, awaiting trial, when he presents himself to the police on May 24th.

The “offending” words were taken from Churchill’s book The River War, penned in 1899 while he served as a British army officer in Sudan. It is a passage oft-quoted on the Internet:

How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property — either as a child, a wife, or a concubine — must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the faith: all know how to die but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith.

Yet publicly voicing such sentiments in Britain is now often viewed as “racial or religious harassment.” What this means is that were Churchill alive today he could, conceivably, be arrested by the U.K. government simply for espousing his beliefs.

Some may assume Churchill’s fame would save him, but it was no shield for Paul Weston. Nor has it helped talk-show host Michael Savage, the most well-known American victim of British hate-speech law. In 2009, Dr. Savage was placed on a list of people banned from entering the U.K. along with hardened criminals and terrorists. The British government extended this ban in 2011, saying the commentator had not “provided any acceptable evidence to show his repudiation of those unacceptable behaviours.” Note that these “behaviours” amounted to simply voicing opinion.

As for opinion, Liberty GB finds itself an outlier in U.K. politics, describing its ideology as overriding “the conventional dichotomy (and terminology) of Left and Right,” as it rejects “the notion of Britain as a global no-man's land upon which any of the world's teeming millions may lay claim” and espouses “Christian ethics and Western civilization” but also is progressive “in areas such as women's equality and animal welfare.”

But it’s questioning how wide-scale Muslim immigration affects English welfare that can really get you in trouble in today’s U.K. As to this, columnist Mark Steyn recently wrote, recalling how, a decade earlier, he began a piece “with a reader's recollection of the first weeks of the Salman Rushdie fatwa” (hat tip: American Thinker’s Thomas Lifson):

A couple of years back, I mentioned the fatwa against Salman Rushdie and received a flurry of lively e-mails. It was Valentine's Day 1989, you'll recall, when the Ayatollah Khomeini issued his extraterritorial summary judgment on a British subject, and shortly thereafter large numbers of British Muslims were marching through English cities openly calling for Rushdie to be killed.

A reader in Bradford recalled asking a West Yorkshire officer on the street that day why the various "Muslim community leaders" weren't being arrested for incitement to murder. The officer said they'd been told to "play it cool". The calls for blood got more raucous. My correspondent asked his question again. The policeman told him to "F--- off, or I'll arrest you."

In his recent piece, Steyn added:

And so it has gone, ever more openly, across the ensuing quarter-century. Point out problematic aspects of Islam, and the British state's response is "F--- off, or I'll arrest you." Her Majesty's Constabulary do not yet police their charges quite as strictly as the Saudi mutaween, but they're getting there: The day after Drummer Lee Rigby was hacked to death in broad daylight on the streets of London, a march in support of the "Help for Heroes" military charity led to a five-hour standoff between marchers and police, ending with the arrest of Lee Cousins for "mocking the Islamic prayer ritual" by getting down on his hands and knees outside the pub. He was fined 600 pounds.

When was the last time someone was fined 600 quid for mocking any bit of Christian ritual?

And British citizens are noticing this double standard, though not many dare voice opposition too publicly. As a poster going by the name “John” wrote under the Liberty GB article about Weston’s arrest:

How many times did the racist who butchered Lee Rigby violate these [hate-speech] laws without fear of arrest? He was even involved in a scuffle with the police. People who pretend these "efforts" [at enforcement] are neutral are racist liars. These are in fact classic laws of racist colonialism, where the natives are forbidden to criticize the occupying power.

Even the supposed anonymity of the Internet may not offer protection for long, however. Swedes who criticized immigration on the Web were recently tracked down via their IP addresses and persecuted, while the Swedish government has just enacted a new law making it easier to prosecute “net haters.” And now two Democrat legislators in the United States have proposed the “Hate Crime Reporting Act of 2014,” which would empower the federal government to scour the Internet for “hate speech.”

http://www.thenewamerican.com/world-news/europe/item/18148-hate-speech-u-k-political-leader-arrested-for-quoting-winston-churchill
Report Spam   Logged

What can you do for Jesus?  Learn what 1 person can accomplish.

The Man from George Street
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkjMvPhLrn8
Mark
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 21729



View Profile
« Reply #5 on: May 05, 2014, 11:33:59 am »

Push For Amazon and PayPal To Blacklist Christian/Conservative Websites

For many years, the Southern Poverty Law Center has labeled groups with values it doesn’t tolerate as “hate groups,” but now the organization is taking its attacks a step further, demanding Amazon and PayPal blacklist bloggers and websites that don’t fall in line with its leftist agenda.

Headlined “Financing Hate” in the group’s Intelligence Report publication, the Southern Poverty Law Center, or SPLC, listed 91 “hate groups” ranging from those clearly on the fringe to mainstream bloggers and websites such as Catholic Family News, Atlas Shrugs, Jihad Watch, World Net Daily and the Americans for Legal Immigration PAC.

Clearly stating its opposition, it describes how some of the organizations utilize Amazon, PayPal and other online services to sell products.

SPLC said the Intelligence Report contacted Amazon in September about the participation of “hate groups” and “hate sites” in Amazon programs that earn the groups commissions.

Amazon, according to the report, said it would assign “appropriate teams to investigate, review applicable policies, and take appropriate action.”

But SPLC lamented that some of its targets “were still earning commissions through Amazon.”

Several of the targeted organizations have criticized the “thuggish” behavior of SPLC, charging the organization is “somewhere to the left of Karl Marx.”

Renowned Islam expert Robert Spencer, whose Jihad Watch monitor on Islamic radicalism was targeted, said it shows “the desperate insecurity of the left: even at a time when they control the government, the media, and the entertainment industry, they have to strike out against the small, under-financed voices of truth that challenge their hegemony.”

“It also demonstrates their true totalitarian colors, in their absolute unwillingness to tolerate the smallest dissent. This is Goliath striking out against David. But we all know who wins,” Spencer said.

The issue of “hate,” “hate crimes” and “hate speech” has moved back into the headlines now because of a proposal in Congress to evaluate online speech for “hate” and then take action based on that assessment.

As WND reported, if two Democratic lawmakers have their way, Barack Obama’s Justice Department soon will submit a report for action against any Internet sites, broadcast, cable television or radio shows determined to be advocating or encouraging “violent acts.”

That’s from the text of a new bill from Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass., and Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y.

The Hate Crime Reporting Act of 2014 “would create an updated comprehensive report examining the role of the Internet and other telecommunications in encouraging hate crimes based on gender, race, religion, ethnicity, or sexual orientation and create recommendations to address such crimes,” stated a news release from Markey’s office.

SPLC lists the American Family Association, a traditional Christian ministry focusing on helping families, and the Family Research Council, in the same category as groups like the “Aryan Nations,” because of their biblically based opposition to homosexuality.

“White nationalist” and “racist skinhead” groups are posted in a warning list alongside the family organizations. It was the SPLC’s “Hate Map” that apparently was used by D.C. shooter Floyd Corkins, who tried to kill as many people as possible at the Family Research Council. Corkins, a homosexual activist, told investigators he had obtained his information about the Family Research Council from the Southern Poverty Law Center, which publicly had labeled FRC a “hate group” because of its biblical position on homosexuality.

Spencer told WND the listing of his group by SPLC was “bitterly ironic.”

“The SPLC has a multimillion-dollar budget, gathered by frightening leftists with smear propaganda about right-wing ‘hate groups,’” he said. “They have artificially inflated their list of such groups by including mainstream and reputable conservative groups and groups fighting for the defense of constitutional freedoms and human rights (like Jihad Watch), while largely turning a blind eye to genuine hate groups on the left, as well as Islamic jihad groups.”

Spencer noted that SPLC has “a huge endowment and massively inflated salaries – and now, in their authoritarian quest to stamp out all dissent, they’re targeting tiny organizations that rely on small ($25, $50) donations from PayPal and Amazon to finance their small blades-of-grass-through-the-concrete challenges to the stifling leftist political orthodoxy that currently dominates the public discourse, and of which the SPLC is a thuggish defender.”

Author Pamela Geller, who writes at Atlas Shrugs, told WND the SPLC is a “far left group that uses its hate group listings to demonize conservatives and anyone who dissents from its statist, authoritarian agenda.”

“Its hate group list is so tendentious and politically motivated that they were recently removed from a government website’s listing of resources on hate groups,” she said.

“The ill-gotten wealth of the SPLC amounts to tens of millions of dollars, while those whom they target, the supporters of freedom, are meagerly financed by average Americans who want freedom preserved in this country. The SPLC is highlighting Amazon and PayPal because they are the online means for Average Joes to send money to pro-freedom groups. These subversive destroyers mean to shut us down.”

Judson Phillips, whose Tea Party Nation also was listed, said SPLC is “the ultimate left-wing hate group. This is a group that is somewhere to the left of Karl Marx, and they hate real Americans.”

WND Editor and CEO Joseph Farah, who long as been personally targeted by SPLC, along with the news site he founded, said, “The Southern Poverty Law Center is hardly a credible watchdog on so-called ‘hate groups.’ In fact, it is a hate group.

But, sadly, with its budget of hundreds of millions of dollars and its cozy relationship with government and the media elite, it has more power and influence than most Americans realize. Its hateful finger-pointing at companies and organizations has actually resulted in real acts of violence, as is the case of the Family Research Council shooting attack.

I actually consider it a badge of honor to be targeted by the SPLC. But their attacks do come at a price, because they actually do place real targets on the backs of their enemies.”

WND previously reported on the wide range of groups the SPLC labels as “hate groups,” including the World Congress of Families.

SPLC even has attacked the Drudge Report and Breitbart Editor Ben Shapiro.

The looming “hate crimes” reporting plan has been supported by the National Hispanic Media Coalition, as well as the SPLC.

WND reported that the new one-page bill calls for the Justice Department and the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights to “analyze information on the use of telecommunications, including the Internet, broadcast television and radio, cable television, public access television, commercial mobile services, and other electronic media, to advocate and encourage violent acts and the commission of crimes of hate.”

The bill does not define which actions by broadcasters would be considered to have encouraged violence, seemingly leaving that open to interpretation.

Once the report is compiled, the bill calls for “any recommendations” for action “consistent with the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States” that is determined to be an “appropriate and necessary” way to address the purported encouragement of violent acts.

The Boston Herald took issue with the bill, calling it “frankly chilling” that Markey is seeking to “empower an obscure federal agency to begin scouring the Internet, TV and radio for speech it finds threatening.”

“Perhaps he could crack a briefing book on the crisis in Ukraine rather than looking for his own extra-constitutional methods of punishing speech he finds unacceptable,” added the Herald editorial.

Read more at http://www.prophecynewswatch.com/2014/May05/051.html#3xujb3qDPwDcvxEo.99
Report Spam   Logged

What can you do for Jesus?  Learn what 1 person can accomplish.

The Man from George Street
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkjMvPhLrn8
Mark
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 21729



View Profile
« Reply #6 on: May 05, 2014, 11:36:30 am »

Amazon now urged to blacklist 'haters'
'Far left group uses its hate listings to demonize conservatives'


For many years, the Southern Poverty Law Center has labeled groups with values it doesn’t tolerate as “hate groups,” but now the organization is taking its attacks a step further, demanding Amazon and PayPal blacklist bloggers and websites that don’t fall in line with its leftist agenda.

Headlined “Financing Hate” in the group’s Intelligence Report publication, the Southern Poverty Law Center, or SPLC, listed 91 “hate groups” ranging from those clearly on the fringe to mainstream bloggers and websites such as Catholic Family News, Atlas Shrugs, Jihad Watch, WND and the Americans for Legal Immigration PAC.

Clearly stating its opposition, it describes how some of the organizations utilize Amazon, PayPal and other online services to sell products.

SPLC said the Intelligence Report contacted Amazon in September about the participation of “hate groups” and “hate sites” in Amazon programs that earn the groups commissions.

Amazon, according to the report, said it would assign “appropriate teams to investigate, review applicable policies, and take appropriate action.”

But SPLC lamented that some of its targets “were still earning commissions through Amazon.”

Several of the targeted organizations have criticized the “thuggish” behavior of SPLC, charging the organization is “somewhere to the left of Karl Marx.”

Renowned Islam expert Robert Spencer, whose Jihad Watch monitor on Islamic radicalism was targeted, said it shows “the desperate insecurity of the left: even at a time when they control the government, the media, and the entertainment industry, they have to strike out against the small, under-financed voices of truth that challenge their hegemony.”

“It also demonstrates their true totalitarian colors, in their absolute unwillingness to tolerate the smallest dissent. This is Goliath striking out against David. But we all know who wins,” Spencer said.

William Gheen, whose organization, Americans for Legal Immigration PAC, or ALIPAC, opposes illegal immigration and amnesty, said it was all too much.

In an open letter to SPLC posted online and to be “delivered to your offices by certified mail and then turned over to our attorney for further action,” Gheen said SPLC’s claims are “demonstrably false.”

“This letter is to inform you that we have Internet posts and emails containing threats and death threats against my life and the lives of my family members in reaction to your false claims that we are a hate group,” he said. “The threats we have received specifically cite SPLC claims that suggest we are somehow motivated by racism and advocating violence against minorities, both of which are demonstrably false.”

The issue of “hate,” “hate crimes” and “hate speech” has moved back into the headlines now because of a proposal in Congress to evaluate online speech for “hate” and then take action based on that assessment.

As WND reported, if two Democratic lawmakers have their way, Barack Obama’s Justice Department soon will submit a report for action against any Internet sites, broadcast, cable television or radio shows determined to be advocating or encouraging “violent acts.”

That’s from the text of a new bill from Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass., and Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y.

The Hate Crime Reporting Act of 2014 “would create an updated comprehensive report examining the role of the Internet and other telecommunications in encouraging hate crimes based on gender, race, religion, ethnicity, or sexual orientation and create recommendations to address such crimes,” stated a news release from Markey’s office.

Gheen said SPLC is “fully aware” that ALIPAC is “racially inclusive … and that a substantial percentage of our supporters are minorities.”

“The SPLC is fully aware that ALIPAC has openly and eagerly worked with minority organizations and leaders,” he said. “The SPLC is fully aware that I have a background in registering and transporting minority and student voters and working to elect women and minorities to public office in the ’90s. The SPLC is fully aware that we never intentionally work with any racist or violent groups or individuals, and you are aware that we have publicly spoken out against racism and racist groups and individuals on numerous occasions.”

The letter, he wrote, is to “serve as your official notice of all of the factors I’ve listed here including your official notice that your designation of ALIPAC as a hate group, while no evidence exists that anyone in our organization has ever engaged in racism, hate, or violence against minorities, has crossed the line of civil discourse and is now directly encouraging people to threaten violence against me and my family.”

He charged that SPLC was “attempting to mislead our donations company, PayPal, by telling them that we are one of the 91 ‘hate groups’ using their services in the hopes they will stop allowing us to accept donations which pale in comparison to your multimillion dollar yearly budget.”

“Let this letter serve as notice to each of you at the Southern Poverty Law Center including Morris Dees, Mark Potok, and Heidi Beirich that I personally intend to hold you each legally responsible and personally responsible for any physical harm that befalls me, my organization, or my family due to your intentional lies and distortions.”

Gheen said the organization’s “false characterization of groups has led to violence such as the D.C. shooter Floyd Corkins, who tried to kill as many people as possible at the Family Research Council.”

“I believe it is time we put to the test in the courts your false claims and attempts to stir people and companies up against us by mischaracterizing a peaceful multiracial organization such as ALIPAC as similar to Neo-Nazis and the KKK,” he said.

Corkins, a homosexual activist, told investigators he had obtained his information about the Family Research Council from the Southern Poverty Law Center, which publicly had labeled FRC a “hate group” because of its biblical position on homosexuality.

SPLC lists the American Family Association, a traditional Christian ministry focusing on helping families, and the Family Research Council, in the same category as groups like the “Aryan Nations,” because of their biblically based opposition to homosexuality.

“White nationalist” and “racist skinhead” groups are posted in a warning list alongside the family organizations. It was the SPLC’s “Hate Map” that apparently was used by Corkins to identify Christians to kill in 2012.

Spencer told WND the listing of his group by SPLC was “bitterly ironic.”

“The SPLC has a multimillion-dollar budget, gathered by frightening leftists with smear propaganda about right-wing ‘hate groups,’” he said. “They have artificially inflated their list of such groups by including mainstream and reputable conservative groups and groups fighting for the defense of constitutional freedoms and human rights (like Jihad Watch), while largely turning a blind eye to genuine hate groups on the left, as well as Islamic jihad groups.”

Spencer noted that SPLC has “a huge endowment and massively inflated salaries – and now, in their authoritarian quest to stamp out all dissent, they’re targeting tiny organizations that rely on small ($25, $50) donations from PayPal and Amazon to finance their small blades-of-grass-through-the-concrete challenges to the stifling leftist political orthodoxy that currently dominates the public discourse, and of which the SPLC is a thuggish defender.”

Author Pamela Geller, who writes at Atlas Shrugs, told WND the SPLC is a “far left group that uses its hate group listings to demonize conservatives and anyone who dissents from its statist, authoritarian agenda.”

“Its hate group list is so tendentious and politically motivated that they were recently removed from a government website’s listing of resources on hate groups,” she said.

“The ill-gotten wealth of the SPLC amounts to tens of millions of dollars, while those whom they target, the supporters of freedom, are meagerly financed by average Americans who want freedom preserved in this country. The SPLC is highlighting Amazon and PayPal because they are the online means for Average Joes to send money to pro-freedom groups. These subversive destroyers mean to shut us down.”

Judson Phillips, whose Tea Party Nation also was listed, said SPLC is “the ultimate left-wing hate group. This is a group that is somewhere to the left of Karl Marx, and they hate real Americans.”

WND Editor and CEO Joseph Farah, who long as been personally targeted by SPLC, along with the news site he founded, said, “The Southern Poverty Law Center is hardly a credible watchdog on so-called ‘hate groups.’ In fact, it is a hate group. But, sadly, with its budget of hundreds of millions of dollars and its cozy relationship with government and the media elite, it has more power and influence than most Americans realize. Its hateful finger-pointing at companies and organizations has actually resulted in real acts of violence, as is the case of the Family Research Council shooting attack. I actually consider it a badge of honor to be targeted by the SPLC. But their attacks do come at a price, because they actually do place real targets on the backs of their enemies.”

WND previously reported on the wide range of groups the SPLC labels as “hate groups,” including the World Congress of Families.

SPLC even has attacked the Drudge Report and Breitbart Editor Ben Shapiro.

The looming “hate crimes” reporting plan has been supported by the National Hispanic Media Coalition, as well as the SPLC.

WND reported that the new one-page bill calls for the Justice Department and the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights to “analyze information on the use of telecommunications, including the Internet, broadcast television and radio, cable television, public access television, commercial mobile services, and other electronic media, to advocate and encourage violent acts and the commission of crimes of hate.”

The bill does not define which actions by broadcasters would be considered to have encouraged violence, seemingly leaving that open to interpretation.

Once the report is compiled, the bill calls for “any recommendations” for action “consistent with the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States” that is determined to be an “appropriate and necessary” way to address the purported encouragement of violent acts.

The Boston Herald took issue with the bill, calling it “frankly chilling” that Markey is seeking to “empower an obscure federal agency to begin scouring the Internet, TV and radio for speech it finds threatening.”

“Perhaps he could crack a briefing book on the crisis in Ukraine rather than looking for his own extra-constitutional methods of punishing speech he finds unacceptable,” added the Herald editorial.

http://www.wnd.com/2014/04/amazon-now-urged-to-blacklist-haters/print/
Report Spam   Logged

What can you do for Jesus?  Learn what 1 person can accomplish.

The Man from George Street
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkjMvPhLrn8
Mark
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 21729



View Profile
« Reply #7 on: May 06, 2014, 07:25:16 am »

"The grimmest dictatorship is the dictatorship of the prevailing orthodoxy" - George Galloway



Hate Laws Intended to Silence Truth

In a relativism culture of social permissiveness, the non-judgmental attitude, held out as the suitable standard for conduct, has become the politically correct behavior. One might think that anything goes under this mindset. However, the exact opposite practice and enforcement, under the most rigid conditions, is championed as necessary for enlighten and tolerant liberalists. The proliferation of demands that hate speech is the new capital crime, actually is counter iterative in building a civil society. This orthodoxy of the fanatical, proudly presents this illuminated and required deportment, as obligatory for all citizens.

So what exactly is hate for the neo-Jacobins? Obviously, whatever the "Society of the Friends of the LIVING Constitution" deems it to be, because under the color of law, the self-proclaimed pure of heart, are justified to off the heads of anyone who dares speak out in inappropriate terms. Remember "thinking progress" for the greater good, must be imposed on anyone who dare defies the wisdom of the gatekeepers for the collective.

Racism has to go, unless practiced by Negros against whites, or is the mere mention of such a term a slight to African-Americans? Once upon a time cries of anti-Semitism would be heard if Donald Sterling was made a pariah after the NAACP did an about face after awarding him for promoting civil rights. Not in today’s world, such a distasteful zealot no longer has the protection of his tribe from the scrutiny of the thought police. The almost total condemnation of his recently private remarks has the entire sports world clambering for his forced sale of the LA Clippers.

Such broad-minded fans in a league that made homies multimillionaires and took them out of the hood, must not be dis. No wonder the attraction of not just the NBA, but sports in general, have serious minded buffs of the Wide World of Sports looking for, "The Thrill of Victory..." in other arenas. Why not demonstrate that sporting enthusiasm and jock celebrity worship, by starting a grassroots campaign to install America’s favorite redneck, Phil Robertson and his Duck Dynasty clan, as the new ownership of the team.

Surely, good standing Democrats should have no problem supporting a bunch of good old boys from the South. Frances Rice writes in the National Black Republicans Association site that, KKK Terrorist Arm of the Democratic Party. "This ugly fact about the Democrat Party is detailed in the book, A Short History of Reconstruction, (Harper & Row Publishers, Inc., 1990) by Dr. Eric Foner, the renowned liberal historian who is the DeWitt Clinton Professor of History at Columbia University. Dr. Foner in his book explores the history of the origins of Ku Klux Klan and provides a chilling account of the atrocities committed by Democrats against Republicans, black and white."
Carole Emberton, an associate professor of history at the University at Buffalo adds:

    "The party lines of the 1860s/1870s are not the party lines of today. Although the names stayed the same, the platforms of the two parties reversed each other in the mid-20th century, due in large part to white ‘Dixiecrats’ flight out of the Democratic Party and into the Republican Party after the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. By then, the Democratic Party had become the party of ‘reform,’ supporting a variety of ‘liberal’ causes, including civil rights, women’s rights, etc. whereas this had been the banner of the Republican Party in the nineteenth century."

holderracist.jpg

Fast forward to today’s conductor Eric Holder, of selective bigoted racism, when describing "his people", who "seem to get a pass on hate crime charges when they select whites for their blood sport", one needs to question who the real haters are. David Risselada provides a valid assessment in the essay, Hate Crimes Legislation . . . Racial Identity Politics and the Institutional Racism of the Left.

    "The institutional racism that is built in our society is the responsibility of the left. Throughout history it has been the democrats who have supported segregation and slavery while continuously voting against civil rights legislation. Today, they attempt to hide their history through racial identity politics, and the creation of a system where inequality is the new equality. By creating laws based on racial preferences, the left is telling minorities that they believe they are not as capable as white men and therefore need their programs in order to stand a chance in the racist United States of America. This does little but reinforce hatred while attempting to justify black on white violence."

Once upon a time and in a place long ago, the Democratic Party defended the rights of the individual to associate with individuals of their choosing and speak their minds openly and without concern of censor. Since the conversion to ecumenical orthodoxy, the authoritarians that gave you the New Deal and the Great Society have a long record of creating their own hatred of Free Speech. The example of the New York Times vicious attack on Cliven Bundy illustrates another trumped-up incident ripe to exploit.

The New American, author William F. Jasper makes the point:

    "Much of what Mr. Bundy is saying closely parallels what even many black leaders, authors and intellectuals — such as Prof. Walter Williams, Rev. C.L. Bryant, Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson, Bill Cosby, Alveda King, Star Parker, and Alan Keyes — have been saying. But Cliven Bundy’s "sin" is that he is an elderly white man who is unschooled in traversing the minefield of political correctness — and he was careless in failing to make important distinctions and clarifications. He "sinned" by being born when he was born, and failing to keep up with the constantly changing terminology for ethnic designations. He still uses the terms "Negro," "colored people," and "Mexican," instead of "black/ African American" or "Hispanic/Latino" — but then, race activists still argue amongst themselves concerning the "proper" ethnic label to apply to their lineage and group identity."

When Senator Ed Markey, D-Mass., introduces legislation called the "Hate Crime Reporting Act of 2014," it is another partisan concerted attempt to silence voices and views entirely protected under the First Amendment, by monitoring radio, television and Internet speech. Can one say arbitrary and capricious, or will Big Brother now prey on any convenient and moving target to label anyone as a hate monger, that does not conform to the "PC" orthodoxy?



The excellent video from Ben Swann identifies in New "Hate Crime" Bill Will Attempt To Control Speech On Internet, Radio and TV, that the real objective is to censor the internet.

Well, this development should concern any student of inquiry, but the real world often fosters political threats that seem to be so implausible, if they were not true. The case of the arrest of Paul Weston should alarm everyone. In the Michael Coren interview or Mr. Weston, the vanguard of British lunacy once again blazes new trails in the annals of hate speech. If quoting Winston Churchill is now a crime, what does that make Winnie?

The British Bulldog is his own words:

    "How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property — either as a child, a wife, or a concubine — must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the faith: all know how to die but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome."

Move over denial ridden Americans; the English have a talent in leading the civilized world in false guilt. For the rest of humankind, they are perceptive enough to admit that the normal human condition acknowledges Discrimination as a Virtue.

    "Discrimination has been characterized as racism. Quite to the contrary, discrimination is an ally in the struggle to end bigotry and injustice. When Liberty is suppressed in a quest for equality; hatred and revulsion breeds, for different groups, cultures and ideologies. All attempts to force equal treatment are futile, even when severe penalties are imposed."

Condemning a person, solely by his beliefs, bias and predisposition – that fanatical frenzy will surely bring about the fall of our cherished tradition of Free Speech. For those who fear Sharia Law, you had better be more concerned about the progressive despots, who are the model for imposed intolerance through a government, which hates everyone that refuses their Groupthink.

- See more at: http://batr.org/autonomy/050514.html#sthash.w1uZ6VWA.dpuf
Report Spam   Logged

What can you do for Jesus?  Learn what 1 person can accomplish.

The Man from George Street
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkjMvPhLrn8
Mark
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 21729



View Profile
« Reply #8 on: August 27, 2014, 07:06:22 am »

Feds Creating Database to Track ‘Hate Speech’ on Twitter
$1 Million study focuses on internet memes, ‘misinformation’ in political campaigns


The federal government is spending nearly $1 million to create an online database that will track “misinformation” and hate speech on Twitter.

The National Science Foundation is financing the creation of a web service that will monitor “suspicious memes” and what it considers “false and misleading ideas,” with a major focus on political activity online.

The “Truthy” database, created by researchers at Indiana University, is designed to “detect political smears, astroturfing, misinformation, and other social pollution.”

The university has received $919,917 so far for the project.

“The project stands to benefit both the research community and the public significantly,” the grant states. “Our data will be made available via [application programming interfaces] APIs and include information on meme propagation networks, statistical data, and relevant user and content features.”

“The open-source platform we develop will be made publicly available and will be extensible to ever more research areas as a greater preponderance of human activities are replicated online,” it continues. “Additionally, we will create a web service open to the public for monitoring trends, bursts, and suspicious memes.”

“This service could mitigate the diffusion of false and misleading ideas, detect hate speech and subversive propaganda, and assist in the preservation of open debate,” the grant said.

“Truthy,” which gets its name from Stephen Colbert, will catalog how information is spread on Twitter, including political campaigns.

“While the vast majority of memes arise in a perfectly organic manner, driven by the complex mechanisms of life on the Web, some are engineered by the shady machinery of high-profile congressional campaigns,” according to the website.

“Truthy” claims to be non-partisan. However, the project’s lead investigator Filippo Menczer proclaims his support for numerous progressive advocacy groups, including President Barack Obama’s Organizing for Action, Moveon.org, Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, Amnesty International, and True Majority.

Menczer, a professor of informatics and computer science at Indiana University, links to each of the organizations on his personal page from his bio at the Center for Complex Networks and Systems Research.

The government-funded researchers hope that the public will use their tool in the future to report on other Twitter users.

“Truthy uses a sophisticated combination of text and data mining, social network analysis, and complex networks models,” the website adds. “To train our algorithms, we leverage crowdsourcing: we rely on users like you to flag injections of forged grass-roots activity. Therefore, click on the Truthy button when you see a suspicious meme!”

The project also seeks to discover why certain Internet memes go viral and others do not. Funding is not expected to expire until June 30, 2015.

http://freebeacon.com/issues/feds-creating-database-to-track-hate-speech-on-twitter/
Report Spam   Logged

What can you do for Jesus?  Learn what 1 person can accomplish.

The Man from George Street
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkjMvPhLrn8
Mark
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 21729



View Profile
« Reply #9 on: June 29, 2016, 05:33:41 pm »

Fox targeted by FEC Dems in first-ever vote to punish debate sponsorship

Finally making good on long-harbored anger at conservative media, Democrats on the Federal Election Commission voted in secret to punish Fox News' sponsorship of a Republican presidential debate, using an obscure law to charge the network with helping those on stage.

It is the first time in history that members of the FEC voted to punish a media outlet's debate sponsorship, and it follows several years of Democratic threats against conservative media and websites like the Drudge Report.

The punishment, however, was blocked by all three Republicans on the commission, resulting in a 3-3 tie vote and no action.

A Republican FEC commissioner leading that fight, Lee E. Goodman, revealed the vote to Secrets Wednesday and said the official report of the May 26 executive vote will be released Thursday.

Goodman has led the fight against several other efforts to censor conservative media by Democrats on the FEC.

"The government should not punish any newsroom's editorial decision on how best to provide the public information about candidates for office," he said. "All press organizations should be concerned when the government asserts regulatory authority to punish and censor news coverage."

At issue was the August 6, 2015 Fox presidential debate. Initially, the network planned to host one debate featuring 10 candidates. But as the date got close and the nearly two dozen GOP presidential candidates were close in the polls, Fox added a second debate that included seven other candidates.

One of the candidates left out filed a complaint to the FEC, charging that Fox was essential making an contribution to the 17 candidates in the debate by letting them have a voice in the debate.

CNN did the same thing, but there is no indication that they faced a complaint.

Goodman provided details about the vote to Secrets in hopes of highlighting the anti-conservative agenda pushed by Democratic FEC Commissioners Ann Ravel, Ellen Weintraub and Steven Walther.

In a statement, Goodman wrote:

A complaint was filed with the FEC alleging that Fox News' editorial decision to expand the debate from one debate to two debates, and to include 7 candidates in the undercard debate, constituted an illegal corporate contribution by Fox News to the candidates who participated in the debate. The FEC had to decide whether to enforce the corporate contribution ban against Fox News.

Astonishingly, three FEC commissioners (Weintraub, Ravel, Walther) concluded that Fox News violated the Federal Election Campaign Act by making a prohibited corporate contribution to the 7 candidates invited to the debate. That is, by expanding the debate format to a broader group of candidates, Fox News violated the law.

He added:

Three FEC commissioners (Lee Goodman, Matthew Petersen, Caroline Hunter) blocked this regulatory overreach into newsroom editorial judgments. Commissioners Petersen and Hunter and I voted to free Fox News' editorial judgments from the FEC's regulatory jurisdiction under the Free Press Clause of the Constitution and the Press Exemption in the Federal Election Campaign Act. Congress included in the Act an explicit exemption for the press and we respect Congress' decision.

Only once has the commissioned threatened sponsorship of debates. In 1980, the commission moved to censor the Nashua, N.H. Telegraph for planning a debate between Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush. The paper pulled out, so Reagan paid the costs himself. It is a debate famous for Reagan barking "I'm paying for this microphone" when a moderator tried to cut him off.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/fec-dems-vote-to-punish-fox-news-in-major-move-to-muzzle-conservative-media/article/2595240
Report Spam   Logged

What can you do for Jesus?  Learn what 1 person can accomplish.

The Man from George Street
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkjMvPhLrn8
Mark
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 21729



View Profile
« Reply #10 on: June 30, 2016, 05:44:18 pm »

Federal regulation of Internet coming, warn FCC, FEC commissioners

Democrats targeting content and control of the Internet, especially from conservative sources, are pushing hard to layer on new regulations and even censorship under the guise of promoting diversity while policing bullying, warn commissioners from the Federal Communications Commission and Federal Election Commission.

“Protecting freedom on the Internet is just one vote away,” said Lee E. Goodman, a commissioner on the FEC which is divided three Democrats to three Republicans. “There is a cloud over your free speech.”

Freedom of speech on the Internet, added Ajit Pai, commissioner of the Federal Communications Commission, “is increasingly under threat.”

Pai and Goodman cited political correctness campaigns by Democrats as a threat. Both also said their agencies are becoming politicized and the liberals are using their power to push regulations that impact business and conservative outlets and voices.

“One of the things that is critical for this country is to reassert the value of the First Amendment, the fact that robust discourse, that is sometimes cacophonous, is nonetheless a value, in fact it creates value,” said Pai.

At a CATO Institute discussion on online speech Wednesday night, both said that regulators are eager to issue new rules that could put limits on what people could say on blogs, online news and even YouTube. Washington Examiner reporter Rudy Takala and Cato’s digital manager Kat Murti were also on the panel.

Goodman drew attention to the political divide on the FEC and how Republicans have been able to block Democrats from moving against conservative media. He noted a new decision expected to be released today in which Democrats in executive session voted for the first time ever to punish a TV outlet, Fox News, for its handling of presidential debates.

That 3-3 vote killed any action against Fox, but he warned that protecting further regulation is “held together by just one vote.”

Pai said that at the FCC, “bipartisan consensus has unraveled over the last couple of years,” most notably the recent vote on net neutrality. Democrats are in control, 3-2.

Pai, addressing Goodman, added, “The common thread of our experiences I think is this impulse of control, whether it’s the FCC and the impulse of the government to want to control how these networks operate, and the FEC to control the content of the traffic that traverses over those networks, and I think that certainly highlights the importance of the First Amendment.”

Goodman concluded, “We need to be ever mindful and vigilant not to let governmental agencies through 3-2 votes, or 4-2 votes at the FEC take that away from us.”

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/energy-group-talking-to-clinton-more-than-trump/article/2595393
Report Spam   Logged

What can you do for Jesus?  Learn what 1 person can accomplish.

The Man from George Street
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkjMvPhLrn8
Pages: [1]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by EzPortal
Bookmark this site! | Upgrade This Forum
Free SMF Hosting - Create your own Forum

Powered by SMF | SMF © 2016, Simple Machines
Privacy Policy