Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Posts tagged ‘Free Speech’

SUMMING UP THE WEEK


August 12, 2022

SUMMING UP THE WEEK


August 4, 2022

Sorry I Murdered You With My ‘Hate Speech’


Ann Coulter | Posted: Aug 03, 2022

Read more at https://townhall.com/columnists/anncoulter/2022/08/03/sorry-i-murdered-you-with-my-hate-speech—p–n2611237/

The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Townhall.com, WhatDidYouSay.org.

Sorry I Murdered You With My 'Hate Speech'

Source: AP Photo/Ben Margot

It’s not every day that I praise a book by the former head of the American Civil Liberties Union, let alone the longest-serving president of that organization.

But I was delighted to have Nadine Strossen on my Substack recently to talk about her book, “HATE: Why We Should Resist It With Free Speech, Not Censorship” — and not just because I am one of America’s leading “hate speakers.” (Oh, settle down, girls. That’s according to woke college liberals, the only humans more infantile and narcissistic than Donald Trump.)

Her book is a thoroughgoing, no-holds-barred defense of free speech. This makes her the rarest of creatures: a principled liberal. We should get her DNA in a lab and study it.

Being a liberal herself, Strossen pitches her argument to the left. That’s fortunate, I’d say: These days, the most enthusiastic advocates for censorship are liberals.

Thus, she repeatedly notes that censorship has historically been used by the powerful to crush the “marginalized.”

I couldn’t agree more! On the other hand, the two of us have very different ideas about who’s “marginalized.” Strossen means feminists, gays, Muslims, blacks, Hispanics, immigrants, transgenders, nonbinaries and so on, whereas I mean everybody else, to wit: “cisgendered” white Americans.

Not a certified victim? Don’t even think of applying to Harvard, Princeton or Yale — unless you’ve made a spectacle of yourself carrying on about gun control. Don’t be funny, use hyperbole or engage in any conversation at all with bratty East Coast private-school kids on a college resume-building trip to Peru. (See Pulitzer Prize-winning science reporter Donald McNeil, fired by The New York Times for this reckless error.)

Every time I’d read a description of this or that “hate speech” ban in Strossen’s book, what leapt to mind wasn’t someone saying only women have two X chromosomes, but the nonstop venom that is directed at white people.

“Hate speech” has been defined as expression that is:

— “persecutorial, hateful and degrading”;

— “insulting [or] holding up to ridicule … specific groups”;

— “likely to expose” people to “hatred or contempt”: “unusually strong and deep-felt emotions of detestation, calumny and vilification” …

Throughout the country, white schoolchildren are being browbeaten about their “white privilege” and instructed to “unpack” their “white privilege knapsack.” Does that count?

How do you think it would go over if I wrote books with titles like: “Black Fragility,” “Dear Black People” and “The White Friend: On Being a Better Black Person.”

My guess is, not very well. And yet the Priests of High Culture at the Times have effusively — and repeatedly — praised books titled “White Fragility,” “Dear White People” and “The Black Friend: On Being a Better White Person.”

These, and dozens more with similar titles — “My Beautiful Black Hair,” “Why I’m No Longer Talking to White People About Race,” “Black Girl Magic” and on and on and on — do not bring their authors into disrepute. To the contrary, they are rewarded with instant fame, unbridled praise and immense wealth. (Naturally, their books are assigned reading in college courses throughout the nation.)

Is all this loathing for white people simply the cry of the powerless against the powerful?

Here’s some power for you: Since at least 1973, when Allan Bakke was rejected from the University of California Medical School at Davis with grades and scores that would have won him a fast-track admission had he been black, white Americans have been openly and aggressively discriminated against by the government — and with even greater zeal by corporate America.

White people, if I may call you that, you suck at oppression.

Making both my point and hers, Strossen says that wherever hate speech laws have been tried, it’s the “marginalized” — not the “oppressors” — who get nailed.

Duh. People who think it’s cool to publish books with titles like “Why I’m No Longer Talking to White People About Race” don’t exactly exude sweetness and light when talking to actual white people.

Thanks to the University of Michigan being forced to release documents in response to an ACLU lawsuit challenging its “hate speech” code in the late 1980s, Strossen reveals that, during the brief time it was in effect, more than 20 cases were brought against black people for racist speech.

The “irony” of hate speech laws being applied to the people who engage in most of the hate speech has led law professor Charles Lawrence to argue for “hate speech” codes that would apply only to those “in dominant majority groups,” i.e., white people.

See? To me, that sounds like the rule of an “oppressor.”

But like Strossen, I believe in free speech. It’s not the “hate speech” that bothers me; it’s the physical violence and intentional race discrimination against white Americans that’s beginning to get on my nerves.

SUMMING UP THE WEEK


July 29, 2022

SUMMING UP THE WEEK


Friday, July 22, 2022

GETTING THE WEEK STARTED


Monday, July 18, 2022

SUMMING UP THE WEEK


Friday, July 15, 2022

LOOK WHAT I FOUND ON THIS SATURDAY


July 9, 2022

Summing Up the Week


July 6, 2022

Starting This Week Why Some Politically INCORRECT Thoughts


July 5, 2022

SUMMING UP THE WEEK


July 1, 2022

SOME POLITICALLY INCORRECT STUFF TO CHEW ON


June 29, 2022

SUMMING UP THE WEEK


June 24, 2022

MISCELLANEOUS THOUGHTS


June 20, 2022

SUMMING UP THE WEEK


Friday, June 17, 2022

MORE POLITICALLY INCORRECT STUFF


June 13, 2022

SUMMING UP THE WEEK


June 10, 2022

MORE POLITICALLY INCORRECT STUFF


June 7, 2022

ENDING THE WEEK WITH SOME POLITICAL INCORRECTNESS


June 3, 2022

MORE POLITICALLY INCORRECTNESS


June 2, 2022

MORE POLITICAL INCORRECTNESS


June 1, 2022

FOUND EVEN MORE POLITICALLY INCORRECT STUFF


May 26, 2022

FOUND SOME MORE POLITICALLY INCORRECT STUFF


May 21, 2022

SUMMING UP THE WEEK


Friday, May 20, 2022

Today’s Politically INCORRECT Cartoon by A.F. Branco


A.F. Branco Cartoon โ€“ Technoking in Shining Armor

A.F. BRANCO |ย onย May 20, 2022 | https://comicallyincorrect.com/a-f-branco-cartoon-technoking-in-shining-armor/

Elon will join the fight against the Democratโ€™s war of Division and Hate on the American people by voting Republican.

Elon Musk To Vote Republican
Political cartoon by A.F. Branco ยฉ2022.

DONATE to A.F.Branco Cartoons โ€“ Tips accepted and appreciatedย โ€“ $1.00 โ€“ $5.00 โ€“ $25.00 โ€“ $50.00 โ€“ $100 โ€“ it all helps to fund this website and keep the cartoons coming. Also Venmo @AFBranco โ€“ THANK YOU!

A.F. Branco has taken his two greatest passions, (art and politics) and translated them into cartoons that have been popular all over the country, in various news outlets including โ€œFox Newsโ€, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, and โ€œThe Washington Post.โ€ He has been recognized by such personalities as Dinesh Dโ€™Souza, James Woods, Sarah Palin, Larry Elder, Lars Larson, Rush Limbaugh, and President Donald Trump.

NOT ASHAMMED TO BE POLITICALLY INCORRECT


May 17, 2022

SUMMING UP THE WEEK


May 13, 2022

JUST FOR SOME LAUGHS


May13, 2022

SEEN AROUND THE WEB


May 10, 2022

Today’s Politically INCORRECT Cartoon by A.F. Branco


A.F Branco Cartoon โ€“ Deplorable

A.F. BRANCO |ย onย May 9, 2022 | https://comicallyincorrect.com/a-f-branco-cartoon-deplorable/

Biden says MAGA is the most extreme group in recent American history ignoring Antifa and BLM riots.

MAGA the Most Extreme
Political cartoon by A.F. Branco ยฉ2022.

DONATE to A.F.Branco Cartoons โ€“ Tips accepted and appreciatedย โ€“ $1.00 โ€“ $5.00 โ€“ $25.00 โ€“ $50.00 โ€“ $100 โ€“ it all helps to fund this website and keep the cartoons coming. Also Venmo @AFBranco โ€“ THANK YOU!

A.F. Branco has taken his two greatest passions, (art and politics) and translated them into cartoons that have been popular all over the country, in various news outlets including โ€œFox Newsโ€, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, and โ€œThe Washington Post.โ€ He has been recognized by such personalities as Dinesh Dโ€™Souza, James Woods, Sarah Palin, Larry Elder, Lars Larson, Rush Limbaugh, and President Donald Trump.

SUMMING UP THE WEEK OF MAY 6, 2022


MORE POLITICALLY INCORRECT CARTOONS & MEMES FROM AROUND THE WEB


Wednesday May 4, 2022

SUMMING UP THE WEEK


April 29, 2022

University unlawfully stops Christian students from debating gay marriage: lawsuit


Reported Byย Michael Gryboski, Mainline Church Editorย | Thursday, April 28, 2022

Read more at https://www.christianpost.com/news/christian-students-sue-university-of-idaho-for-censoring-speech.html/

The University of Idaho, located in Moscow, Idaho. | University of Idaho Photo Services

Three Christian college students have sued the University of Idaho for alleged wrongful punishment for expressing traditional views on marriage and sexual ethics on campus. Students Peter Perlot, Mark Miller and Ryan Alexander of the Christian Legal Societyย sued the universityย in the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho, Central Division on Monday.

The defendants named in the suit include University President C. Scott Green, Dean of Students Brian Eckles, Office of Civil Rights & Investigations Director Erin Agidius and OCRI Deputy Director Lindsay Ewan. According to the lawsuit, the three students went to an LGBT event on campus seeking to represent a biblical perspective on marriage and sexuality. When a student approached to ask their views, they offered their perspectives and gave the student a note expressing an interest in continuing the dialogue. Soon after, however, the Christian students were given โ€œno-contact ordersโ€ from the OCRI, which prohibited them from communicating with the student.

โ€œThe CLS members did not receive notice that anyone had complained about them and were not given an opportunity to review the allegations against them or defend themselves,โ€ according to the suit.

โ€œInstead of allowing the students to disagree civilly and respectfully with one another and to discuss these important issues, the University chose instead to censor Plaintiffs.โ€

The students are being represented by Alliance Defending Freedom, a law firm that has argued religious liberty cases at the U.S. Supreme Court on numerous occasions. ADF Legal Counsel Michael Ross said inย a statementย released Tuesday that he believed students โ€œmust be free to discuss and debate the important issues of our day, especially law students who are preparing for a career that requires civil dialogue among differing viewpoints.โ€

โ€œYet the University of Idaho is shutting down Peter, Mark, and Ryan because of their religious beliefs. This is illegal behavior from any government official, and we urge the university officials to right their discriminatory actions immediately,โ€ Ross stated.

Jodi Walker, the university’s senior communication’s director, told The Christian Post that the academic institution โ€œcannot discuss pending litigation or specific student cases.โ€

Walker explained that the no-contact order was โ€œa supportive measure available to a student under Title IXโ€ and that โ€œthese supportive measures must be enactedโ€ when a student requests them.

โ€œWhen a complaint is made that qualifies under Title IX, the university must make the student aware of the supportive measures available,โ€ noted Walker. ย 

Walker directed CP to a July 2021 guidance document from the U.S. Department of Education titled โ€œQuestions and Answers on the Title IX Regulations on Sexual Harassment.โ€

Under the question on โ€œsupportive measures,โ€ the guidance explained that schools have โ€œdiscretion and flexibility to determine which supportive measures are appropriate.โ€

โ€œThe preamble states that a school must consider โ€˜each set of unique circumstancesโ€™ to determine what individualized services would be appropriate based on the โ€˜facts and circumstances of that situation,โ€™โ€ stated the guidance.

Follow Michael Gryboski on Twitter or Facebook

Mandatory Face Coveringsโ€™ Only Purpose Was Promoting Fear


REPORTED BY:ย HRAND TOOKMAN | APRIL 21, 2022

Read more at https://thefederalist.com/2022/04/21/mandatory-face-coverings-only-purpose-was-promoting-fear/

woman in a face mask

A lot of people will claim the masks were about establishing and maintaining control. Thatโ€™s fair, but it wasnโ€™t their primary purpose.

Author Hrand Tookman profile

HRAND TOOKMAN

MORE ARTICLES

Now that a judge has stayed the federal mask mandate on public transportation, itโ€™s important to have an honest accounting of what this entire mask situation was truly all about. A lot of people will make a lot of claims. A tiny sliver will continue to claim mask mandates actually helped mitigate the spread of Covid-19. They will be the outliers because, in terms of stopping the spread of Covid or any other virus, wearing a maskย is the equivalentย of doing a rain dance: it might make you feel better, and some quacks will tell you it works, but ultimately it does nothing except make you look foolish and give you a false sense of security.ย (Vaccine mandates were the modern equivalent of burning witches at the stake.)

It was all so stupid and foisted on us by people weโ€™re supposed to trust, which is why we need this honest accounting of what it was really all about. A lot of people will claim the masks were about establishing and maintaining control. Thatโ€™s fair, but it wasnโ€™t their primary purpose. The primary purpose of the mask mandates was to make every person who wore one a walking advertisement for fear. If you were wearing a mask, then you were doing your job, because you had given up your right to free expression and replaced it with one, constant sentiment: โ€œIโ€™m afraid, and you should be too.โ€

That was the main purpose of the masks. Thatโ€™s why they wanted everyone to keep wearing them. It was about control, yes, but far more than that, it was about promoting fear. Thatโ€™s why they lied about the threat Covid poses. Thatโ€™s why they inflated the number of deaths, counting so often all who diedย withย as having diedย from. Thatโ€™s why they convinced so many Americans that the threat of hospitalization or death is exponentially higher than it actually is. (For the record, the survival rate for Covid is 99.7 percent for unvaccinated adults, 99.9 percent for vaccinated adults, and 100 percent for unvaccinated children.)

All they did the entire time was work as hard as they could to promote as much fear as possible, and masks were an excellent weapon they could force on you to help spread their message of constant fear, division, and dehumanization.ย The mask stripped you of your right to free expression and replaced whatever you wanted to communicate with one single piece of speech: โ€œBe afraid.โ€

That was the primary purpose. Thatโ€™s why they were all so fired up about it. Thatโ€™s why they were all so desperate for you and everybody else to wear them.

Itโ€™s important we have our heads around that because it will help us avoid letting them do it again in the future. It wasnโ€™t just about control. It wasnโ€™t just about dividing and dehumanizing us. It wasnโ€™t just about turning us against each other and forcing us to deny science so we could devastate each otherโ€™s social, psychological, and emotional health.

All of those were welcome byproducts to the โ€œpublic health expertsโ€ and other elites who to this day claim masking provides value. But the primary purpose was to promote fear, and to stifle your speech and expression so you perpetually signaled that fear to everyone else.

You were obedient, yes. But more than that, you were afraid. That was the message, whether you wanted to send it or not. It was the primary reason they made everyone wear them, and itโ€™s important we never let them do that to us again.


Hrand Tookman is a Cleveland, Ohio native with a background in interpersonal communications. He writes with an objective of exposing media bias, and inspiring unity in defiance of so many forces today that thrive off of division.

FOUND IN MY IN-BOX


April 20, 2022

Elon Musk diagnoses Netflix’s big problem after platform sheds subscribers, stock tumbles: ‘Woke mind virus’


Reported by CHRIS ENLOE | April 20, 2022

Read more at https://www.theblaze.com/news/elon-musk-diagnoses-netflixs-big-problem-after-platform-sheds-subscribers-stock-tumbles-woke-mind-virus/

Elon Musk, the world’s richest man, has diagnosed the disease that he believes is causing Netflix’s foreboding financial woes.

Netflixย announcedย on Tuesday that it experienced its first net loss of subscribers in more than a decade during the first quarter of 2022. The streaming platform disclosed that 200,000 users dropped the service between January and March. The news caused shares of Netflix stock to tumble more than 25%, CNBCย reported. Netflix previously told shareholders the company would experience a net gain of 2.5 million subscribers in the first quarter of 2022. To make matters worse, Netflix is now forecasting the loss of another 2 million subscribers in the second quarter of this year. Netflix’s stock further cratered more than 30% as of Wednesday afternoon.

Musk pointed to woke ideology as the source of Netflix’s subscriber and impending financial woes.

Responding to news of the significant stock tumble, Musk said, “The woke mind virus is making Netflix unwatchable.”

In response to another Twitter user whoย said theย “woke mind virus is the biggest threat to the civilization,” Muskย affirmed, “Yes.”

Indeed, Netflix has platformed provocatively progressive content. For example, Netflix hosts the show “Dear White People,” whichย is describedย as addressing the “complexities of prejudice that take different forms โ€” whether itโ€™s white or light-skinned privilege, sexism, or homophobia.”

Netflix is also scheduled to release a new show on Thursday calledย “He’s Expecting.”ย As the title suggests, the show is centered on a pregnant male character. Netflix describes the show: “When a successful ad executive who’s got it all figured out becomes pregnant, he’s forced to confront social inequities he’d never considered before.”

Netflix is alsoย working with Ibram X. Kendiย to adapt his anti-racist work into film projects, and the platformย released a show about Colin Kaepernickย last year. The platform attributed its subscriber decline and bleak forecast to market factors outside the company’s control, account sharing, competition (from Amazon, Disney, YouTube, Hulu, and others), and other “macro factors” including “sluggish economic growth, increasing inflation, geopolitical events such as Russiaโ€™s invasion of Ukraine, and some continued disruption from COVID.”

Today’s Politically INCORRECT Cartoon by A.F. Branco


A.F. Branco Cartoon โ€“ TDS, Truth Derangement Syndrome

A.F. BRANCO |ย onย April 19, 2022 | https://comicallyincorrect.com/a-f-branco-cartoon-tds-truth-derangement-syndrome/

Democrats and the mainstream media are having a meltdown over the possibility of Elon Musk buying Twitter.

Democrates Meltdown over Elon Musk
Political cartoon by A.F. Branco ยฉ2022.

DONATE to Branco Toons โ€“ Tips accepted and appreciatedย โ€“ $1.00 โ€“ $5.00 โ€“ $25.00 โ€“ $50.00 โ€“ $100 โ€“ it all helps to fund this website and keep the cartoons coming. Also Venmo @AFBranco โ€“ THANK YOU!

A.F. Branco has taken his two greatest passions, (art and politics) and translated them into cartoons that have been popular all over the country, in various news outlets including โ€œFox Newsโ€, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, and โ€œThe Washington Post.โ€ He has been recognized by such personalities as Dinesh Dโ€™Souza, James Woods, Sarah Palin, Larry Elder, Lars Larson, Rush Limbaugh, and President Donald Trump.

The Only Way to Fight Disinformation Is to Fight Political Censorship


REPORTED BY:ย STELLA MORABITO | APRIL 18, 2022

Read more at https://thefederalist.com/2022/04/18/the-only-way-to-fight-disinformation-is-to-fight-political-censorship/

Chicago Disinformation Conference

The surest way to kill a democracy is to practice political censorship under the guise of protecting society from disinformation.

Author Stella Morabito profile

STELLA MORABITO

VISIT ON TWITTER@STELLA_MORABITO

MORE ARTICLES

If outfits like the Aspen Instituteโ€™s โ€œCommissionย on Information Disorder,โ€ along with Big Techโ€™s faceless โ€œfact-checkers,โ€ ever get a total monopoly on dictating reality, the result will be a 24/7 mix of falsehoods with the occasionalย limited hangoutย to cover up their lies. The icing on this fake cake is the use of conferencesย aboutย disinformation, such as theย recent stuntย at the University of Chicago that served as cover for justifying political censorship. There former President Obama presented the perfect picture of psychological projection: a panel of propagandists accusing others of wrongthink.

The Atlanticโ€™s Anne Applebaum, for example,ย sought to censorย the reality of the Hunter Biden laptop scandal byย announcingย she didnโ€™t find it โ€œinteresting.โ€ See how that works? Truth depends upon how our elites personallyย feelย about what should be true. But it gets much worse, because political censorship creates deep dysfunction in society. In fact, the surest way to kill a democracy is to practice political censorship under the guise of protecting society from disinformation.

Censorshipย causesย disinformation. Itโ€™s the grandaddy of disinformation, not a solution to it. The sooner everyone recognizes this obvious fact, the better off weโ€™ll be. Whenever a self-anointed elite sets up a Ministry of Truth, the link between censorship and disinformation becomes clear. Before long, they invent reality and punish anyone who expresses a different viewpoint.

So, itโ€™s no small irony that those who claim to be protecting โ€œdemocracyโ€ from disinformation are the biggest promoters of disinformation and greatest destroyers of real democracy. Their dependence on censorship obstructs the circulation of facts. It prevents any worthwhile exchange of ideas.

Unchecked Censorship Isolates People

Consider what happens if a society is only permitted one propagandistic narrative while all other ideas and information are silenced. People start self-censoring to avoid social rejection. The result is a form of imposed mental isolation. Severely isolated people tend to lose touch with reality. The resultingย conformityย also perpetuates the censorship. This is unnatural and dangerous because human beings depend on others to verify whatโ€™s real. People werenโ€™t able to verify reality in Nazi Germany, during Joseph Stalinโ€™s Reign of Terror, or during Mao Zedongโ€™s brutal Cultural Revolution. All were societies in the grip of mass hysteria because of ruthless censorship to protect a narrative.

As psychiatrist Joost Meerloo noted in his book โ€œThe Rape of the Mind,โ€ no matter how well-meaning political censorship might be, it creates dangerous conformity of thought: โ€œthe presence of minority ideas, acceptable or not, is one of the ways in which we protect ourselves against the creeping growth of conformist majority thinking.โ€

The only way we can strengthen ourselves against such contagion is through real freedom of speech that allows fully open discussion and debate. However, if weโ€™re confined by Big Tech to a relentless echo chamber and punished for expressing different thoughts, weโ€™ll just keep getting more and more disinformation. In fact, we are now drowning in the distortions produced by โ€œfact-checkers.โ€ Take, for example, narratives that promote the gender confusion and sexualization of children. Public school teachers routinelyย post TikTokย videos of themselves spewing forth theirย gender confusion. And if someone calls out Disney for its open grooming of children, Twitterย suspendsย them.

If we never push back against such absurdities, we ultimately end up in a state of mass delusion, each of us a cell in a deluded hive mind, obedient to commands about what to say, how to act, and what to think. To get an idea of what that looks like in a population, check out this clip from North Korea:

Censorship-Invoked Social Contagion Is Real

One of the most telling incidents of censorship over the past year was YouTube and Twitterโ€™s take-down of virologist and vaccine inventor Dr. Robert Malone, claiming he was โ€œspreading misinformationโ€โ€”i.e., spreading a second opinionโ€”about Covid vaccines and treatments. But big tech saw an even bigger threat in Maloneโ€™s discussion ofย Mattias Desmetโ€™sย study of Mass Formation Psychosis (MFP) onย Joe Roganโ€™s popular podcast. This is a big reasonย Spotifyย was under pressure to de-platform Rogan entirely. Open discussion of such things would erode the illusions big media and big tech so doggedly prop up.

Malone explained how a propaganda-saturated population can end up in a state of mass hypnosis that renders people incapable of seeing reality. He described Desmetโ€™s theory about how social isolation, a high level of discontent, and a strong sense of free-floating anxiety are keys to the development of this psychosis.

The anxiety is so painful that it causes people to cling, trancelike, to any narrative that seems to offer stability. Once all other views are censored, people become so invested in the narrative that they cannot consider any alternative views. They will even mob anyone who endangers the narrative. This phenomenon was prevalent in the German population under Nazism. Their obedience to the propaganda rendered them incapable of understanding any opposing narrative.

Mass psychosis should not sound farfetched. Thereโ€™s nothing new about it. Hundreds of instances of mass hysteria are documented. In the 19th century, Scottish journalist Charles MacKay wrote upย a whole catalog of them.ย In 2015 medical sociologist Robert Bartholomew co-authored aย compendiumย of popular delusions or โ€œmass sociogenic illness.โ€

Most past incidents of mass hysteria have been confined to geographic regions, such as the witch trials in 17th century Salem, Massachusetts. But with the internet accessible and addictive in the 2020s, the possibility of mass delusion on a global scale is upon us. Censorshipโ€”in the name of protecting โ€œdemocracyโ€ from disinformationโ€”is the key to creating it.

Propagandists Guard Their Illusions Like Magicians

By definition, propaganda aims to psychologically affect people and change their attitudes. So, our social survival depends upon becoming aware of such phenomena. Building self-awareness about our vulnerability to crowd psychology would serve as a sort of psychological vaccine. Of course, elites do not want us even entertaining the possibility that we can be manipulated or vulnerable to social and psychological pressures. Propagandists are illusionists by nature. If their illusion falls apart, then the game is over for them. This is why they depend so heavily on the slur โ€œconspiracy theoristโ€ to distract us from the truth and from their use of censorship to cut us off from other ideas.

The late Nobel laureate Doris Lessing spoke against the dangers ofย social conformity and censorshipย in 1986. She noted there was a great body of knowledge that was continuing to be built about the laws of crowd psychology and social contagion. It was odd that we werenโ€™t applying this knowledge to improve our lives. Lessing concluded that no government in the world would willingly help its citizens resist group pressures and learn to think independently. We have to do it ourselves. Fast forward to the twenty-first century, and it sure looks like the keepers of this secret knowledge use it as a means of social control.

No sane person would want to live inside the boxes that the censors who claim to be fighting disinformation are building around us. If we want to escape this Twilight Zone existence, we must destroy that canard and insist on real freedom of speech everywhere.


Stella Morabito is a senior contributor at The Federalist. Her essays have also appeared in the Washington Examiner, American Thinker, Public Discourse, Human Life Review, New Oxford Review. In her previous work as an intelligence analyst, she focused on various aspects of Russian and Soviet politics, including communist media and propaganda. She has also raised three children, served as a public school substitute teacher, and homeschooled for several years as well. She has a B.A. in journalism and international relations from the University of Southern California and a Masterโ€™s degree in Russian and Soviet history, also from USC. Follow Stella on Twitter.

JUST FOR LAUGHS


April 13, 2022

Today’s Politically INCORRECT Cartoon by A.F. Branco


A.F. Branco Cartoon โ€“ Free Bird

A.F. BRANCO |ย onย April 13, 2022 | https://comicallyincorrect.com/a-f-branco-cartoon-free-bird/

Many are hoping that Elon Musk owning a majority of Twitter shares will bring back free speech to its platform.

Elon Musk and Twitter
Political cartoon by A.F. Branco ยฉ2022.

Donations/Tips accepted and appreciatedย โ€“ $1.00 โ€“ $5.00 โ€“ $25.00 โ€“ $50.00 โ€“ $100 โ€“ it all helps to fund this website and keep the cartoons coming. Also Venmo @AFBranco โ€“ THANK YOU!

take our poll – story continues below

  • Will You Be Voting In Person November 3rd?  

A.F. Branco has taken his two greatest passions, (art and politics) and translated them into cartoons that have been popular all over the country, in various news outlets including โ€œFox Newsโ€, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, and โ€œThe Washington Post.โ€ He has been recognized by such personalities as Dinesh Dโ€™Souza, James Woods, Sarah Palin, Larry Elder, Lars Larson, Rush Limbaugh, and President Donald Trump.

Biden official would reinterpret labor law to deprive companies of established free speech rights


Reported by CHRIS PANDOLFO | April 12, 2022

Read more at https://www.theblaze.com/news/biden-official-would-reinterpret-labor-law-to-deprive-companies-of-established-free-speech-rights/

In a move designed to appease pro-union progressives and strike a blow against Amazon, the National Labor Relations Board’s general counsel will ask the board to strip companies of certain free speech rights, which would overturn more than seven decades of legal precedent.

In aย memoย sent last week, NLRB general counsel Jennifer Abruzzo declared her intention to ask the board to reconsider an employer’s right to hold “captive audience” meetings, mandatory meetings that companies sometimes use to argue against worker efforts to form a union. Progressives argue that requiring employees to listen to anti-union rhetoric while at work is a coercive and unlawful practice, while their opponents say companies have a recognized and statutorily protected First Amendment right to express their opposition to unionization.

Abruzzo’s memo makes the progressive argument. She wrote to NLRB field offices across the country on April 7 that captive audience meetings “inherently involve an unlawful threat that employees will be disciplined or suffer other reprisals if they exercise their protected right not to listen to such speech.โ€ She claims that NLRB case precedent โ€” settled law โ€” was wrongly decided and that the board should “reconsider such precedent and find mandatory meetings of this sort unlawful.”

The specific case Abruzzo refers to is the NLRB’s 1948 decision inย Babcock & Wilcox, where the Board concluded that companies could compel employees to attend anti-union meetings without violating the National Labor Relations Act. That decision was based onย part of the lawย that says, “The expressing of any views, argument, or opinion, or the dissemination thereof … shall not constitute or be evidence of an unfair labor practice.”

Abruzzo argues the Board’s decision 74 years ago is “inconsistent” with labor law.

โ€œThis license to coerce is an anomaly in labor law, inconsistent with the Actโ€™s protection of employeesโ€™ free choice. It is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of employersโ€™ speech rights,โ€ she wrote in the memo. โ€œI believe that the NLRB case precedent, which has tolerated such meetings, is at odds with fundamental labor-law principles, our statutory language, and our Congressional mandate. Because of this, I plan to urge the Board to reconsider such precedent and find mandatory meetings of this sort unlawful.โ€

Progressive attacks on captive audience meetings have become something of a cause cรฉlรจbre during the labor dispute at Amazon. As Amazon warehouse employees in Bessemer, Alabama, and New York City haveย tried to unionize, the companyย has held meetingsย to dissuade them. The New York Timesย reported in Marchย that Amazon has held “hundred of meetings with workers to discourage them from supporting a union.”

Union supporters say they want to improve health and safety conditions at Amazon warehouses and receive better pay and treatment from management. They’ve accused Amazon of misrepresenting the benefits of unionization at these mandatory meetings and filed complaints with the NLRB accusing the company of trying to coerce workers against unionization.

Abruzzo’s memo, however, has been criticized for attempting to rewrite settled law on this question without input from Congress. The Wall Street Journal editorial boardย wrote in an editorialย that the general counsel’s memo “is a thumb in the eye of Congress and the Constitution.”

“Companies can clearly require employees to attend meetings โ€” say, to discuss productions goals or workplace morale. Banning any mention of unionization at a meeting, or its impact on company performance, is blatant speech regulation. Congress has been aware of theย Babcock & Wilcoxย decision for decades and has never overruled it,” the Journal’s editorial board argued.

SUMMING UP THE WEEK


Friday April 8, 2022

NO A.F. BRANCO TODAY. SO, HERE ARE SOME OTHER POLITICALLY INCORRECT IMAGES


Tuesday, April 5, 2022

SUMMING UP THE WEEK WITH SOME POLITICALLY INCORRECT STUFF. Some You Might Have Seen, Some????


Friday April 1, 2022

Disagreement is not hatred. Censorship is.


Commentary Byย Editorial Board | Tuesday, March 29, 2022

Read more at https://www.christianpost.com/voices/disagreement-is-not-hatred-censorship-is.html/

The Christian Post wasย canceledย last week by Twitter, over referring to Biden administration official Rachel Levine with an unsanctioned but arguably accurate descriptive pronoun. It was both unsurprising and surprising; unsurprising since CP regularly covers the controversy surrounding trans-identified individuals and surprising since Twitter thought this particular story was more “hateful” than other stories and warranted suspension.

CP appealed, and so far, Twitter has been silent. It actually brings a Pink Floyd lyric to mind:ย  โ€œWelcome to the Machine.โ€

There is much to say in arguing that our pronoun was accurate, but the larger question is: who is the hater here? Eliminating the voice of a publication because of a description that likely more than half of the worldโ€™s population would not object to is, in fact, hating that segment of the world. Granted, Twitter is a private company and can play by the rules it establishes within the confines of the law. But if we are having a conversation about hate, how is it kind to eliminate a voice that disagrees, especially if there is no rancor involved?

Consider this illustration. If an individual sees green because of a blue-yellow tritanomaly, yet many, many others disagree because they see blue, is it hate to point that out? Or would it be hate to eliminate those who see blue on grounds that the only valid standard is what that individual sees? How does that promote community, a word Twitter throws around without restraint.

What this exposes is that Twitter doesnโ€™t believe in the U.S. constitutional protection of free speech. Even The New York Times, a bastion of liberal thought, has begun to warn that support for free speech is dangerously eroding, arguing that their own opinion polling finds onlyย 34 percentย of Americans said they enjoyed the freedom to disagree because of the threat of โ€œretaliation or harsh criticism.โ€ Those words connote hate.

According to The New York Times editorial board: โ€œPeople should be able to forward viewpoints, ask questions and make mistakes and take unpopular but good-faith positions on issues that society is still working through โ€” all without fearing cancellation.โ€

Hear that Twitterati?

We at CP suspect the vast majority of our readers โ€” Christians who lean right or left, LGBT+ (yes, we have readers in this community), secularists, and atheists โ€” believe it is right to stand against retaliation, harsh criticisms, and ultimately cancellation of speech, because of the hate it represents.

So now we know Twitter doesnโ€™t believe in free speech. Here is the real question: Do you believe in Twitter?

The best remedy to speech you donโ€™t agree with is more speech, not less, and the best way to exercise free speech is to use it. So we will continue to use it with or without Twitter. Will you join us?

FOUND IN MY IN-BOX


March 14, 2022

FOOD FOR THOUGHT


March 11, 2022

SEEN AROUND THE WEB


Monday, February 28, 2022

SEEN AROUND THE WEB


Friday, February 25, 2022

Tag Cloud