For making those comments, the young man was swiftly given a two-month prison sentence, upheld on appeal last week.
At his original trial, he had pleaded guilty to ‘racially aggravated public disorder’ by ‘inciting racial hatred’ through posting his comments. In upholding his sentence, the presiding magistrate at the appeal justified it by saying of the man that:
He was intending to say what he said and was intending to produce the effect that he did.
When I first heard the term "Hate Crime" in my youth, I thought it odd that thought or feeling was being criminalized. If fact, it wasn't being criminalized at the time.
What the terminology did, though, was to open the door to accepting thought, feeling, and ultimately speech as criminal acts. In the years since my first introduction to the term my first impression has been proven correct.
When you hear a liberal complain about the loss of free speech remember that their concern is conditional on the party in power, therefore always political.
Interviews are not only much better when they flow naturally from those involved, but they are more informative than edited versions due to the inherently greater degree of honesty in the presentation.
But CNN doubles down on that dishonesty. Note the CNN logo in the corner. It is clear that CNN was aware of what truly transpired during this interview, yet when an untrue story describing Paul as having stormed off CNN chose to remain silent in the face of that untruth.
Way to exercise that freedom of speech power to bend the truth, CNN
The Disclose Act (H.R. 5175) failed in the Senate. The failure of this bill is a win for free speech. Before it failed in the Senate, though, it passed in the house with GK Butterfield's support.
That is correct; GK Butterfield sided with limiting free political speech. Oh, he would argue that my free speech is fine and that your free speech is OK as well, but if the two of us were to incorporate and engage in political speech GK Butterfield would prefer us silenced and voted to that effect.
Polifrog asks Rep GK Butterfield, how many people engaged in political speech does it take before you think we should be silenced?
Neither Franklin D Roosevelt nor John F Kennedy would have drifted so far from the definition of American as to be asked such question.
Under a little-noticed provision of the recently passed financial-reform legislation, the Securities and Exchange Commission no longer has to comply with virtually all requests for information releases from the public, including those filed under the Freedom of Information Act.
The Supreme Court decided in Citizens United in favor of a strengthened 1st. amendment for all.
Polifrog believes political speech to be sacred whether it spills from the mouths of politicians, individuals, or corporations. We all have a stake in governance as it can impact us with the cold hand of intolerant, unrestrained bureaucracy. Being able to influence government goes to the heart of our representative system. Ours is a government that derives its power from the governed but David Price it seems would prefer that some have influence while other do not.
Today, David Price(D) has proven he believes in weakened free speech for some and has lent his vote (NC-4's vote) toward, the Disclose Act, which seeks to blunt the Citizens United Supreme Court decision. This is a blatant slap in the face of free speech and it has been done behind locked bathroom doors. According to The Daily Caller,
... the key architect of the bill, said June 15, “Our key objective in responding to the Supreme Court’s radical ruling in Citizens United has been to increase transparency and disclosure, and the final bill achieves that goal.”
Interestingly for a transparency bill, the process of writing it was kept secret, even from key Democrats.
As in Obamacare, David Price seems willing to lend his vote to any bill written outside the light of day as long as it passes power to government while weakening the governed.
Secondly, according to Slate the Citizens United decision had been on its way for some time as indicated by a previous case,
...FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life. That case, which interpreted the same provision of the same law as Citizens United, held that corporate and union ads were constitutionally protected so long as they did not explicitly endorse or oppose candidates. The difference now is that corporations and unions can tell you directly who to vote for.
The Disclose Act which is supported by David Price attempts to silence corporations while cutting out loopholes for Unions. Again from The Daily Caller,
...restrictions on companies that received government bailouts during the financial crisis apply to businesses, but not unions: Under the DISCLOSE Act, General Motors can’t tell you who to vote for, but the United Auto Workers union can.
Yes, it is David Price's vision that some have freer speech than others. David Price, once again proving himself incredibly un-American in legislating inequality.
The Disclose Act (H.R. 5175) failed in the Senate. The failure of this bill is a win for free speech. Before it failed in the Senate, though, it passed in the house with David Price's support.
That is correct; David Price sided with limiting free political speech. Oh, he would argue that my free speech is fine and that your free speech is OK as well, but if the two of us were to incorporate and engage in political speech David Price would prefer us silenced and voted to that effect.
Polifrog asks Rep David Price, how many people engaged in political speech does it take before you think we should be silenced?
Neither Franklin D Roosevelt nor John F Kennedy would have drifted so far from the definition of American as to be asked such question.
Under a little-noticed provision of the recently passed financial-reform legislation, the Securities and Exchange Commission no longer has to comply with virtually all requests for information releases from the public, including those filed under the Freedom of Information Act.
The Supreme Court decided in Citizens United in favor of a strengthened 1st. amendment for all.
Polifrog believes political speech to be sacred whether it spills from the mouths of politicians, individuals, or corporations. We all have a stake in governance as it can impact us with the cold hand of intolerant, unrestrained bureaucracy. Being able to influence government goes to the heart of our representative system. Ours is a government that derives its power from the governed but Brad Miller it seems would prefer that some have influence while other do not.
Today, Brad Miller(D) has proven he believes in weakened free speech for some and has lent his vote (NC-13's vote) toward, the Disclose Act, which seeks to blunt the Citizens United Supreme Court decision. This is a blatant slap in the face of free speech and it has been done behind locked bathroom doors. According to The Daily Caller,
... the key architect of the bill, said June 15, “Our key objective in responding to the Supreme Court’s radical ruling in Citizens United has been to increase transparency and disclosure, and the final bill achieves that goal.”
Interestingly for a transparency bill, the process of writing it was kept secret, even from key Democrats.
As in Obamacare, Brad Miller seems willing to lend his vote to any bill written outside the light of day as long as it passes power to government while weakening the governed.
Secondly, according to Slate the Citizens United decision had been on its way for some time as indicated by a previous case,
...FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life. That case, which interpreted the same provision of the same law as Citizens United, held that corporate and union ads were constitutionally protected so long as they did not explicitly endorse or oppose candidates. The difference now is that corporations and unions can tell you directly who to vote for.
The Disclose Act which is supported by Brad Miller attempts to silence corporations while cutting out loopholes for Unions. Again from The Daily Caller,
...restrictions on companies that received government bailouts during the financial crisis apply to businesses, but not unions: Under the DISCLOSE Act, General Motors can’t tell you who to vote for, but the United Auto Workers union can.
Yes, it is Brad Miller's vision that some have freer speech than others. Brad Miller, once again proving himself incredibly un-American in legislating inequality.
The Disclose Act (H.R. 5175) failed in the Senate. The failure of this bill is a win for free speech. Before it failed in the Senate, though, it passed in the house with Brad Miller's support.
That is correct; Brad Miller sided with limiting free political speech. Oh, he would argue that my free speech is fine and that your free speech is OK as well, but if the two of us were to incorporate and engage in political speech Brad Miller would prefer us silenced and voted to that effect.
Polifrog asks Rep Brad Miller, how many people engaged in political speech does it take before you think we should be silenced?
Neither Franklin D Roosevelt nor John F Kennedy would have drifted so far from what it means to be American as to be asked such question.
Under a little-noticed provision of the recently passed financial-reform legislation, the Securities and Exchange Commission no longer has to comply with virtually all requests for information releases from the public, including those filed under the Freedom of Information Act.
The Supreme Court decided in Citizens United in favor of a strengthened 1st. amendment for all.
Polifrog believes political speech to be sacred whether it spills from the mouths of politicians, individuals, or corporations. We all have a stake in governance as it can impact us with the cold hand of intolerant, unrestrained bureaucracy. Being able to influence government goes to the heart of our representative system. Ours is a government that derives its power from the governed but Bob Etheridge it seems would prefer that some have influence while other do not.
Today, Bob Etheridge has proven he believes in weakened free speech for some and has lent his vote (NC-2's vote) toward, the Disclose Act, which seeks to blunt the Citizens United Supreme Court decision. This is a blatant slap in the face of free speech and it has been done behind locked bathroom doors. According to The Daily Caller,
... the key architect of the bill, said June 15, “Our key objective in responding to the Supreme Court’s radical ruling in Citizens United has been to increase transparency and disclosure, and the final bill achieves that goal.”
Interestingly for a transparency bill, the process of writing it was kept secret, even from key Democrats.
As in Obamacare, Bob Etheridge seems willing to lend his vote to any bill written outside the light of day as long as it passes power to government while weakening the governed.
Secondly, according to Slate the Citizens United decision had been on its way for some time as indicated by a previous case,
...FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life. That case, which interpreted the same provision of the same law as Citizens United, held that corporate and union ads were constitutionally protected so long as they did not explicitly endorse or oppose candidates. The difference now is that corporations and unions can tell you directly who to vote for.
The Disclose Act which is supported by Bob Etheridge attempts to silence corporations while cutting out loopholes for Unions. Again from The Daily Caller,
...restrictions on companies that received government bailouts during the financial crisis apply to businesses, but not unions: Under the DISCLOSE Act, General Motors can’t tell you who to vote for, but the United Auto Workers union can.
Yes, it is Bob Etheridge's vision that some have freer speech than others. Bob Etheridge, once again proving himself incredibly un-American in legislating inequality.
The Disclose Act (H.R. 5175) failed in the Senate today. The failure of this bill is a win for free speech. Before it failed in the Senate, though, it passed in the house with Bob Etheridge's support.
That is correct; Bob Etheridge sided with limiting free political speech. Oh, he would argue that my free speech is fine and that your free speech is OK as well, but if the two of us were to incorporate and engage in political speech Bob Etheridge would prefer us silenced and voted to that effect.
Polifrog asks Rep Bob Etheridge, how many people engaged in political speech does it take before you think we should be silenced?
Neither Franklin D Roosevelt nor John F Kennedy would have drifted so far from the definition of American as to be asked such question.
Under a little-noticed provision of the recently passed financial-reform legislation, the Securities and Exchange Commission no longer has to comply with virtually all requests for information releases from the public, including those filed under the Freedom of Information Act.
I've listened to NPR/PBS all my life. It gives me non shrill insight into the liberal mind and without it I feel lost. Most liberal outlets are so extreme, so bias, so shrill that the arguments being made are lost in the din. No so with NPR.
Juan Williams has worked for NPR for, seemingly, decades and in recent years has become a staple on FOX for his fairly moderate left wing views. Working for FOX, of course, is his first sin.
Around a year ago NPR asked him to stop referring to NPR as one of his credits when appearing on FOX. From what I could see, Williams did not comply as he should not have. Only in the distorted world view of a liberal organization would such a request seem remotely appropriate. Williams was using his employment with NPR as a credential and was (and is) fully within his rights to do so.
NPR takes issue with Williams' earlier statements in the segment and claims that they were “were inconsistent with our editorial standards and practices, and undermined his credibility as a news analyst with NPR.”
In other words, the remarks were politically incorrect.
Government is obligated to respect the right to free speech, whereas a private company is not. Is NPR , therefore,within their rights to fire him?As a private company they would be, but as GM, Chrysler, and the big banks found, accepting government funding changes the rights a company has. According to Wikipedia:
According to the 2005 financial statement, NPR makes just over half of its money from the fees and dues it charges member stations to receive programming. Public funding accounts for 16% of the average member station's revenue, with 10% of this coming in the form of grants from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, a federally funded organization.[14][15][16] Some more of that money originates from local and state governments and government-funded universities subsidizing member stations' fees and dues to NPR.[17] Member stations that serve rural and "minority" communities receive significantly more funding from the CPB; in some cases up to 70%.[14] About 2% of NPR's non-membership created funding comes from bidding on government grants and programs, chiefly the Corporation for Public Broadcasting; the remainder comes from member station dues, foundation grants, and corporate underwriting.
So it appears NPR, as a recipient of government money, may not have the right to fire Juan Williams for the reasons they claim to be firing him.
Of course, NPR's real issue with Juan Williams was his being on FOX News.
The Disclose Act (H.R. 5175) failed in the Senate today. The failure of this bill is a win for free speech. Before it failed in the Senate, though, it passed in the house with Brad Miller's support.
That is correct;Brad Miller sided with limiting free political speech. Oh, he would argue that my free speech is fine and that your free speech is OK as well, but if the two of us were to incorporate and engage in political speech Brad Miller would prefer us silenced and voted to that effect.
Polifrog asks Rep Brad Miller, how many people engaged in political speech does it take before you think we should be silenced?
Neither Franklin D Roosevelt nor John F Kennedy would have drifted so far from what it means to be American as to be asked such question.
Under a little-noticed provision of the recently passed financial-reform legislation, the Securities and Exchange Commission no longer has to comply with virtually all requests for information releases from the public, including those filed under the Freedom of Information Act.
...according to the owner of a free WordPress platform which hosts more than 73,000 blogs, his network of sites has been completely shut down on the orders of the authorities.
The arrogance of the Obama Administration continues unabated despite our Constitution:
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; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Polifrog has been slow picking up on this bill and is still researching it but the fact that this has been under consideration is an indication that all our lawmakers should be replaced.
The NC legislature is considering a bill (HB 748) tonight that could force many people communicating through the Internet and mentioning a political candidate to file reports with the state.
This means a blog that does regular political analysis could be forced to send in reports to the state.
Almost any web site that just mentions a political candidate in any context could be forced to file reports.
The law specifically exempts print and broadcast media from this reporting requirement, but picks on the "new media."
These four representatives and any that cosponsored or supported this bill with their vote should loose their position regardless of party affiliation. Conservatives in particular should go for their blatant attempt to squelch individual free speech.
I recently wrote about the ongoing lack of leadership in our country.
Nothing new to report, yet... We continue to be driven by unknowing, no "skin-in-the-game," income-redistributing, progressive-spendthrift members of Congress and White House staff. They have no respect for the private sector, for manufacturing or for our country.
It is a shame our corporations are so liberal-weenie whipped that they find safety in silence. Our more liberal corporations are vocally liberal; so should it be for our more conservative corporations. None should be silenced, yet it has become taboo to give voice to conservative thought outside politics.
A damaged nation we are that we find such double standards acceptable.
The Supreme Court decided in Citizens United in favor of a strengthened 1st. amendment for all.
Polifrog believes political speech to be sacred whether it spills from the mouths of politicians, individuals, or corporations. We all have a stake in governance as it can impact us with the cold hand of intolerant, unrestrained bureaucracy. Being able to influence government goes to the heart of our representative system. Ours is a government that derives its power from the governed but Brad Miller it seems would prefer that some have influence while other do not.
Today, Brad Miller(D) has proven he believes in weakened free speech for some and has lent his vote (NC-13's vote) toward, the Disclose Act, which seeks to blunt the Citizens United Supreme Court decision. This is a blatant slap in the face of free speech and it has been done behind locked bathroom doors. According to The Daily Caller,
... the key architect of the bill, said June 15, “Our key objective in responding to the Supreme Court’s radical ruling in Citizens United has been to increase transparency and disclosure, and the final bill achieves that goal.”
Interestingly for a transparency bill, the process of writing it was kept secret, even from key Democrats.
As in Obamacare, Brad Miller seems willing to lend his vote to any bill written outside the light of day as long as it passes power to government while weakening the governed.
Secondly, according to Slate the Citizens United decision had been on its way for some time as indicated by a previous case,
...FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life. That case, which interpreted the same provision of the same law as Citizens United, held that corporate and union ads were constitutionally protected so long as they did not explicitly endorse or oppose candidates. The difference now is that corporations and unions can tell you directly who to vote for.
The Disclose Act which is supported by Brad Miller attempts to silence corporations while cutting out loopholes for Unions. Again from The Daily Caller,
...restrictions on companies that received government bailouts during the financial crisis apply to businesses, but not unions: Under the DISCLOSE Act, General Motors can’t tell you who to vote for, but the United Auto Workers union can.
Yes, it is Brad Miller's vision that some have freer speech than others. Brad Miller, once again proving himself incredibly un-American in legislating inequality.
President Obama spoke at a commencement address at Hampton University Virginia this morning. According to Obama Americans are distracted by information....
"With iPods and iPads and Xboxes and PlayStations, -- none of which I know how to work -- information becomes a distraction, a diversion, a form of entertainment, rather than a tool of empowerment, rather than the means of emancipation," Obama said.
...
"All of this is not only putting new pressures on you, it is putting new pressures on our country and on our democracy."
But within the very same speech laments the uninformed citizen through the thoughts of Jefferson...
"What Jefferson recognized... that in the long run, their improbable experiment -- called America -- wouldn't work if its citizens were uninformed, if its citizens were apathetic, if its citizens checked out, and left democracy to those who didn't have the best interests of all the people at heart.
"It could only work if each of us stayed informed and engaged, if we held our government accountable, if we fulfilled the obligations of citizenship."
What is one to make of such contradictory utterances?
My first thought is that Obama's heart is more accurately reflected in his own words rather than Jefferson's.
But if we accept the two thoughts as equally weighted and that Obama appreciates an informed electorate, then it seems that only certain information qualifies as appropriate to Obama, the kind that he agrees with, the state sanctioned sort of 'news'.
One comes away with a sense of wistfulness, a desire for information control that other leaders employ in more remote parts of the world in these contradictory statements.
