web analytics
a

Facebook

Twitter

Copyright 2015 Libero Themes.
All Rights Reserved.

8:30 - 6:00

Our Office Hours Mon. - Fri.

703-406-7616

Call For Free 15/M Consultation

Facebook

Twitter

Search
Menu
Westlake Legal Group > First Amendment

Clyburn: I’m not too sure we’d hold on to the Bill of Rights if it were up for debate today.

Westlake Legal Group c Clyburn: I’m not too sure we’d hold on to the Bill of Rights if it were up for debate today. The Blog second amendment James Clyburn First Amendment Constitution Bill of Rights

A few days old, but it’s never too late to pay a little attention to one of the most powerful people in government musing that basic constitutional freedoms might go down the toilet if the country had to reenact them now.

I’m unclear on what he’s imagining here exactly. If he means that the country might not reauthorize the Bill of Rights in a take-it-or-leave-it up-or-down vote to either keep the first ten amendments or do away with written guarantees of core rights, he’s obviously wrong. Americans would vote overwhelmingly to affirm their current rights.

But if he means something more like a constitutional convention, where we’re not just voting to scrap old rights but to replace/supplement them with new ones, he’s obviously, obviously right. Are you kidding? I mean, just run through the list.

First Amendment: No clause would escape unscathed. We’d end up having a national conversation about whether to exclude “hate speech” from the protections afforded free speech. We’d have a wrenching argument about whether religious freedom should extend beyond the church door and into business places. No doubt social conservatives would want a narrower reading of the word “establishment” in the Establishment Clause. Freedom to petition the government for a redress of grievances would receive caveats related to lobbying. On and on. The amendment would be a shadow of itself by the time we were done.

Second Amendment: Again, are you kidding?

Third Amendment: Wouldn’t exist because it’s never been a concern.

Fourth Amendment: Natsec hawks would want some exceptions included for the surveillance state in forbidding unlawful searches and seizures. Libertarians would want the provisions expanded to include prohibitions on things like facial-recognition technology in public. Another hash.

Fifth Amendment: We’d have another loooong national conversation about what “due process” means, specifically, with plenty of horse-trading between left and right on what should and shouldn’t count.

Can we stop here? I’m getting depressed. Needless to say, there’d be another long and depressing conversation about what “cruel and unusual punishment” in the Eighth Amendment means too. The new Bill of Rights would be 10 or even 100 times wordier than the old one for the simple reason that both parties would be trying to tie the hands of future Supreme Court justices appointed by the other party as best they can. “Do you really want me to rule the country?” said Neil Gorsuch to CNN in an interview this week about the Court’s outsized power over American life. No, Americans say. One obvious way to prevent rule by judiciary in a scenario in which fundamental constitutional provisions are on the table is to be much more specific with those provisions and narrow the Court’s interpretative discretion accordingly. For that reason alone, Clyburn’s clearly correct.

The post Clyburn: I’m not too sure we’d hold on to the Bill of Rights if it were up for debate today. appeared first on Hot Air.

Westlake Legal Group c-300x159 Clyburn: I’m not too sure we’d hold on to the Bill of Rights if it were up for debate today. The Blog second amendment James Clyburn First Amendment Constitution Bill of Rights   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

U.S. military looking to fight #fakenews

Westlake Legal Group SemaFor U.S. military looking to fight #fakenews The Blog First Amendment DARPA #FakeNews

The next war for the U.S. military will involve destroying #fakenews. DARPA’s plan involves a new program called Semantic Forensics which involves using technologies to automatically find and label fake text, audio, images, and video in hopes of keeping “large-scale, automated disinformation attacks” from ever happening. DARPA’s Broad Agency Announcement documents include this table looking at how they believe the program will work.

Westlake Legal Group SemaFora U.S. military looking to fight #fakenews The Blog First Amendment DARPA #FakeNews

It appears the government will be using four Technical Areas to develop the SemaFor program.

The first TA puts together the algorithms used to detect, attribute, and characterize falsified news. DARPA’s BAA includes asking the algorithms to “analyze the content of media assets with respect to a purported source to determine if the purported source is correct.” The main goal is looking at media asset content to decided if it falsified with malicious intent “to significantly alter its tone, polarization, content, or real-world impact.”

The second TA will take TA1’s algorithms and develop a single method or score to detect falsified news. The goal for TA2’s algorithms is to automatically disseminate which media reports need to be examined by an analyst to determine whether it’s real or fake.

“This work will support TA2’s development of algorithms that leverage scores and evidence from the TA1 performers to prioritize falsified media for human review,” the author of DARPA’s BAA stresses while also noting TA2 will work with hackers to make sure the system is as secure as possible. “Such prioritization is critical for scaling up to real-world volumes of media.”

It’s TA3’s work which is the most interesting. This group appears to be the primary beta testers and evaluators of the SemaFor project by testing the algorithms with humans and fake news and social media posts. They’ll collect news and social media posts, then falsify a portion of the collected information. It will be TA3 which creates the data to test against humans and looks at their responses.

“News articles should span a range of local, national, and international events with a particular focus on stories where falsification could have significant real-world impact,” DARPA’s description of the project states while also asking for context including URLs, author, and media outlet. “Social media assets should also focus on local, national, and international events where falsification could have a significant real-world impact…All collected or falsified assets should be multi-modal, containing at least two media modalities. TA3 proposers should describe the content their collection and falsification strategies will focus on, and how that content will inform the evaluation design.”

TA3 will also try to prevent any knowledge of what’s been falsified from leaking to the outside.

TA4 is more making sure the SemaFor project is ready for the present and the future, plus troubleshooting. The crews will come up with potential problems and work with TA2 and 3 on fixing the issues.

“TA4 performers will deliver [state-of-the-art] challenges (and supporting threat models if relevant) to DARPA and TA3 starting at month 4 of the program and then at least every 6 months following for the duration of the program,” DARPA’s proposal states while noting TA4 will make sure other groups have a clear understanding of SemaFor issues. “Support for the hackathons will involve working with TA3 to curate additional generated or manipulated media for the challenge problems. If existing media is not sufficient to support the challenge, TA4 will work with TA3 to generate new media to support the challenge.”

The curious part will be TA4’s study of how humans decipher fake news along with their response to it. One would guess the work will probably involve looking at the role of confirmation bias within news reading or viewing and how people respond to learning if something is real or fake. It will also look at how a computer program could be used to help detect fake news.

The justification for the DARPA SemaFor program is to make sure humans can spot fake news quicker. DARPA is rather confident SemaFor will work because it would force those who create fake news to be perfect. “A comprehensive suite of semantic inconsistency detectors would dramatically increase the burden on media falsifiers, requiring the creators of falsified media to get every semantic detail correct, while defenders only need to find one, or a very few, inconsistencies.”

Skepticism remains. Syracuse University professor Jennifer Grygiel seemed to tell Bloomberg the idea was sound but wanted Congress to pass legislative oversight. She noted social media was being used to influence elections and found it interesting DARPA was looking at the issue. Grygiel appears to be in favor of social media regulation by saying, “Educating the public on media literacy, along with legislation, is what is important.”

She has a point on public education, but there are still other issues worth investigating. The chief question is who determines what news is fit to air or broadcast? The common notion is news entities should determine what stories end up published. Yet, multiple different newsgroups can take different angles on a story as is their wont. What Fox News may see as an important detail in a story, CNN or MSNBC may not. The same goes for local or online entities covering stories or getting quotes from people who may have witnessed an event. Sometimes ‘facts’ end up changing due to the circumstances of the event or the information given out. Even fact check websites have bias hence why so many of them exist.

The bigger question is whether a government computer program should be used to help people ‘determine’ what’s real or not. Facebook and Twitter’s algorithms are awful partially due to the agenda of those who work in their halls. It’s why alternatives exist. Doesn’t the government also have an agenda and narrative? Is it not full of individuals who may decide to follow policy or not?

This must be considered before trusting a government-created computer program to decide what’s fit to print, view, or post and what’s not.

The post U.S. military looking to fight #fakenews appeared first on Hot Air.

Westlake Legal Group SemaFor-300x144 U.S. military looking to fight #fakenews The Blog First Amendment DARPA #FakeNews   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

AOC: I have every right to block your harassing tweets

Westlake Legal Group a-3 AOC: I have every right to block your harassing tweets tweets The Blog ocasio-cortez Knight First Amendment Institute harassment Free Speech First Amendment Columbia University block AOC

Not true, although I share her basic mystification at the idea that a Twitter block somehow might implicate the First Amendment in the year of our lord 2019.

Consider this another of the many ways in which she and Trump are alike. He too went to court recently claiming that he had every right to send the trolls populating his Twitter replies packing via the block feature. Twitter is a private entity, is it not? The blocked trolls can still see Trump’s tweets by logging out of their accounts and viewing his publicly available Twitter account homepage, can they not? Well, then, how the hell are anyone’s First Amendment rights being violated by blocking them?

He made that case to the Second Circuit — and lost, just last month. AOC will lose too if she’s stupid or stubborn enough to force a lawsuit about it.

This dispute started with a letter sent to her by Columbia University’s Knight First Amendment Institute, the same outfit that beat Trump in court. Maybe you haven’t heard, said the Institute, but it’s now the law that politicians who use their Twitter accounts to engage extensively on official/policy matters are operating a “public forum.” And public forums are covered by the First Amendment, which means you’re not allowed to discriminate against people based on their viewpoint. No blocking allowed.

Westlake Legal Group 1-3 AOC: I have every right to block your harassing tweets tweets The Blog ocasio-cortez Knight First Amendment Institute harassment Free Speech First Amendment Columbia University block AOC   Westlake Legal Group 2-2 AOC: I have every right to block your harassing tweets tweets The Blog ocasio-cortez Knight First Amendment Institute harassment Free Speech First Amendment Columbia University block AOC

Until now, Ocasio-Cortez’s pitifully lame defense has been that the AOC Twitter account which five million people follow isn’t her “official” account. The official account is RepAOC — which has all of 188,000 followers or so and is updated infrequently. That’s the public forum, she claims. The AOC account she uses every day for political matters various and sundry is a personal account and therefore shouldn’t be subject to First Amendment restrictions. Trump made the same argument to the Second Circuit, though, and they laughed him off. Right, he has an official POTUS Twitter account in addition to the realDonaldTrump account that the entire world reads, but he can’t duck the reality that he’s running a public forum on his main account simply by designating some other, less newsworthy account his official one. We have to look at how an account is being used to decide if it’s a public forum, said the Second Circuit:

Westlake Legal Group 3-1 AOC: I have every right to block your harassing tweets tweets The Blog ocasio-cortez Knight First Amendment Institute harassment Free Speech First Amendment Columbia University block AOC   Westlake Legal Group 4 AOC: I have every right to block your harassing tweets tweets The Blog ocasio-cortez Knight First Amendment Institute harassment Free Speech First Amendment Columbia University block AOC   Westlake Legal Group 5 AOC: I have every right to block your harassing tweets tweets The Blog ocasio-cortez Knight First Amendment Institute harassment Free Speech First Amendment Columbia University block AOC

Virtually all of that is true for Ocasio-Cortez and her AOC account. She operates it personally, her staff has claimed, and her Twitter bio makes clear that it belongs to a federal legislator: “Congresswoman for NY-14 (the Bronx & Queens).” The account is her main conduit for communicating with the public about congressional business, including votes on particular bills. And she too uses “likes” and “retweets” copiously to signal agreement with the political opinions of others. The only potentially meaningful difference between Trump’s account and hers is that his staff have acknowledged that he conducts “official” business from the account, but that difference may be due more to a distinction in their offices than in how they’re using the platform. Trump can act unilaterally as executive; Ocasio-Cortez, a legislator, can’t. But by using her account to build public support for and against specific bills, she’s also performing a quasi-official duty of her job through her account.

Bottom line: She’s going to lose in court if this ends up there and anyone who’s read the Second Circuit opinion would know that. So … why is she insisting on fighting the Knight Institute on this?

The idea that “harassment is not a viewpoint” for First Amendment purposes is reminiscent of some progressives’ mistaken belief that “hate speech isn’t free speech.” Extreme forms of harassment, like true threats, aren’t protected speech. Petty forms, like tweeting at AOC that she’s a dimwitted commie symp, are. “Harassment” is a bro-o-ad term; doubtless Trump would dub every unflattering comment about him as “harassment” if he thought he could use that as a First Amendment workaround. If Ocasio-Cortez believes that certain nasty tweets at her rise to the level of criminal harassment, she should report them to the FBI. Otherwise, what’s left to say?

The punchline here is that if you know anything about Twitter you know that AOC can easily achieve her goal of tuning out trolls without blocking anyone. That’s what the “mute” function is for. Simply by muting instead of blocking, she can instantly exclude all tweets from a trollish user from her “replies” column while ensuring that that user can continue to see and interact with her own tweets, which is what the Second Circuit was worried about in Trump’s case. She’s supposed to be the most savvy social-media user in all of government. How is it that she doesn’t understand that this simple solution is available to her? Any casual Twitter user would know.

The post AOC: I have every right to block your harassing tweets appeared first on Hot Air.

Westlake Legal Group a-3-300x153 AOC: I have every right to block your harassing tweets tweets The Blog ocasio-cortez Knight First Amendment Institute harassment Free Speech First Amendment Columbia University block AOC   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Beto O’Rourke, Joel Pollak, and tribalism

Westlake Legal Group beto-memememe Beto O’Rourke, Joel Pollak, and tribalism Tribalism The Blog Joel Pollak Freedom of the Press First Amendment Beto O'Rourke

Joel Pollak is a writer for Breitbart and one who has written a long list of articles praising President Donald Trump for his work in the White House. He’s been with Breitbart for years having served as the website’s in-house counsel following a failed run against Chicago Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky in 2010. He was once editor-in-chief of the website but is now a senior editor-at-large. Pollak is currently spending plenty of time in South Carolina following Democratic presidential candidates Beto O’Rourke and Joe Biden’s treks through the state.

Pollak’s work on the O’Rourke beat got under the skin of at least two campaign staff members enough to have a Benedict College police officer boot him from an event this week. He wrote about it, of course, generating plenty of defense from other journalists including Matthew Rosenberg and Elizabeth Williamson from The New York Times. Josh Dawsey from The Washington Post tweeted out Pollak’s story and The Poynter Institute decried O’Rourke’s move by calling it a major mistake.It also received coverage from CNN, POLITICO, the Associated Press, and other news outlets. Breitbart fans, such as Donald Trump Jr., have filled social media with Pollak’s recollection of the events. One Trump fan quipped “there would [be] none left” if Trump removed Democrat reporters from his events.

Yet, it didn’t take long for a multitude of other writers and bloggers to defend the Texas Democrat’s action. One declared factual reporting was being devalued by allowing a “propaganda outlet” to blend in with news organizations. Another criticized Breitbart as a “glorified blog” () and it was the site’s “greatest trick” to be considered a news site. A third cried Breitbart had been eroding American democracy for years by “posing as legitimate news” while a fourth accused journalists of “grotesque” behavior for accepting Pollak and Breitbart in the Beltway. There was hope from a fifth that other candidates will follow O’Rourke’s lead.

The O’Rourke campaign promised to return access to Pollak although the future will probably not contain an apology. A spokesperson declared Breitbart is on a tightrope between “being news and a perpetrator of hate speech.” The organization did promise it believed in the right to free press but desired a safe space for HBCU students to talk about sensitive issues.

A friend of mine recently mentioned he believed tribalism was killing America. Another lamented the current American political scene was “all about the damn jersey.” Michigan Congressman Justin Amash raised the same concerns when discussing leaving the Republican Party while heaping a heavy dose of scorn on Democrats. All these observations come to mind when I consider any situation involving a news entity and “not real journalism” claims.

The question worth considering is whether this push from certain parties and politicians to somehow de-legitimize and deny news outlets access because of their reporting flies in the face of freedom of speech and freedom of the press in the Constitution. The next question is what the proverbial ‘next step’ might be if those who believe in ostracizing and de-legitimizing news organizations, regardless of slant, take over both parties.

The post Beto O’Rourke, Joel Pollak, and tribalism appeared first on Hot Air.

Westlake Legal Group beto-memememe-300x162 Beto O’Rourke, Joel Pollak, and tribalism Tribalism The Blog Joel Pollak Freedom of the Press First Amendment Beto O'Rourke   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Eighth Circuit Rules That Videographer Doesn’t Have To Make That Video

Westlake Legal Group constitution-620x326 Eighth Circuit Rules That Videographer Doesn’t Have To Make That Video telescope media religion Politics minnesota human rights act Minnesota Front Page Stories Freedom of Religion First Amendment Featured Story donald trump democrats Courts Alliance Defending Freedom

The right of Christians to be free from the state coercing them into actively participating in events that they consider reprehensible won a major victory in the Eighth Circuit.

Carl and Angel Larsen run a video business called Telescope Media in St. Cloud, MN. The are observant Christians but the Minnesota Human Rights Act unambiguously requires them to provide video services of basically any event. They could be forced to memorialize the drag queen story hour at the local library or day care center or record for posterity a sham wedding ceremony.

In innumerable cases courts interpret laws that prohibit discrimination against homosexual persons to prohibit discrimination against homosexual behavior, and thus to require complicity in behavior Scripture declares to be sinful. Pointing to the many types of behavior one can legally object to in the marketplace, and the obvious wrong of having to facilitate activity deemed immoral, is met with the claim that discrimination against homosexual behavior is discrimination against homosexual persons.

A very recent case of this type concerns Telescope Media Group videography company in St. Cloud, Minnesota. Influenced by Reformed theologian John Piper’s comparison of telescopes magnifying distant stars and microscopes magnifying small objects with our reason for being, which is to magnify God, Telescope Media Group founders and owners Carl and Angel Larsen endeavor to glorify God in all their work and present his truth through their video skills. Although they have a clear religious and expressive purpose in their work, and desire to use their talents to tell stories with their videography about “the historic, Biblically orthodox definition of marriage,” they are unable to use their narrative skills with weddings because of Minnesota’s sexual orientation anti-discrimination law. Not only does the law provide for severe civil and criminal penalties (triple compensatory and punitive damages to the aggrieved party up to $25,000, and up to 90 days in jail), but it is aggressively enforced by the state attorney general with “testers” who seek out merchants who will decline services that contribute to homosexual behavior.

Rather than wait around for the obvious set-up as has happened to Jack Phillips and his Masterpiece Cakeshop and then litigate with tens of thousands of dollars in potential damages hanging over their heads, the Larsens, with the assistance of the Alliance Defending Freedom, filed a suit in federal court seeking injunctive relief. Unsurprisingly, the case was tossed by the district court judge who was pretty much in the “bake that cake” camp. The Larsens and ADF appealed to the Eighth Circuit and last Friday they won in a big way.

(Read the whole decision.)

In its opinion in Telescope Media Group v. Lucero, the 8th Circuit wrote, “Carl and Angel Larsen wish to make wedding videos. Can Minnesota require them to produce videos of same-sex weddings, even if the message would conflict with their own beliefs? The district court concluded that it could and dismissed the Larsens’ constitutional challenge to Minnesota’s antidiscrimination law. Because the First Amendment allows the Larsens to choose when to speak and what to say, we reverse the dismissal of two of their claims and remand with instructions to consider whether they are entitled to a preliminary injunction….”

“Indeed,” the 8th Circuit continued, “if Minnesota were correct, there is no reason it would have to stop with the Larsens. In theory, it could use the MHRA to require a Muslim tattoo artist to inscribe ‘My religion is the only true religion’ on the body of a Christian if he or she would do the same for a fellow Muslim, or it could demand that an atheist musician perform at an evangelical church service. In fact, if Minnesota were to do what other jurisdictions have done and declare political affiliation or ideology to be a protected characteristic, then it could force a Democratic speechwriter to provide the same services to a Republican, or it could require a professional entertainer to perform at rallies for both the Republican and Democratic candidates for the same office.”

I think the court gets this exactly right. The Minnesota statute essentially makes any business owner and any employee a serf to any customer. Carried to its logical conclusion you could have a situation were a demented pre-op transsexual could demand that a women’s salon wax and moisturize his balls.

Just some thoughts here.

The decision was 2-1. A Trump and a Bush appointee finding in favor of religious freedom, an Obama appointee demanding that the cake be baked. The Trump appointee wrote the opinion. You people who laughed about folks voting for Trump because of judges and who actively pushed for a Clinton presidency, you should be feeling pretty ridiculous right now…but I know you aren’t.

I don’t know what kind of legs this decision will have but the majority lays out an easily understandable and defensible position in the face of totalitarian laws like the one in Minnesota.

Every time we get one of these cases to the Supreme Court, we’ll gain some ground. The recent decisions out of SCOTUS on parochial school funding, management of church personnel, and the display of religious symbols have stopped the bleeding. Even though Jack Phillips did not have a clear win, his partial victory certainly makes these little fascists on state “human rights” boards and commissions be more inventive in their deliberations.

This is a struggle that will go on for years but I think in the end we’ll be able to carve out sufficient space for people of faith to be able to live a life comporting with that faith in the public square.

=========
=========
Like what you see? Then visit my story archive.

I’m on Facebook. Drop by and join the fun there.
=========
=========

The post Eighth Circuit Rules That Videographer Doesn’t Have To Make That Video appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group constitution-300x158 Eighth Circuit Rules That Videographer Doesn’t Have To Make That Video telescope media religion Politics minnesota human rights act Minnesota Front Page Stories Freedom of Religion First Amendment Featured Story donald trump democrats Courts Alliance Defending Freedom   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Did CNN Put One Of Its Contributors Who Supports Trump On Ice?

Westlake Legal Group cnn-building-300x225 Did CNN Put One Of Its Contributors Who Supports Trump On Ice? white house washington D.C. Social Media racism Race progressives President Trump Prager University Oliver Darcy Morning Briefing Media Mainstream Media Hollywood Front Page Stories Front Page Fredo First Amendment Featured Story Featured Post fake news donald trump democrats corruption Conservatives CNN Allow Media Exception Abuse of Power 2019

Would CNN ( also known as the Fredo Network) put a paid contributor on ice for defending President Trump in a safe, honest venue like a Prager University video? Damn right they would. The way that Trump jackhammers them on a daily basis you really can’t blame them.

According to various reports around the interwebs, Trump’s 2020 advisory board member and CNN contributor Steve Cortes might have been put on ice from commentary on the network. President Trump has noticed.

From Mediaite…

“Where’s Steve?” Trump has repeatedly asked — according to two unnamed officials who have heard the president make the remark in the White House.

The Trump surrogate recently got in some hot water with his colleagues over his characterization of media reporting on the president’s comments about Charlottesville. In a video for PragerU, Cortes accused the media of committing “journalistic malfeasance” by saying that Trump described Nazis as “very fine people.”

“Calling this a ‘malicious lie’ (which it’s not) and ‘journalistic malfeasance’ (which it’s also not) is a weird thing for someone who is a paid CNN commentator to say, given the network’s accurate reporting on the matter,” said CNN’s Oliver Darcy, in response.

I love how Darcy just says this is not true out of hand. If you actually watch the Prager University video it makes some points that Darcy and his pals would have trouble refuting without a teleprompter. Which means words that someone else wrote and or approved for them. ( Prager university video below for YOU to take a look.)

Now if my understanding is correct on how most contracts work on the news side of things in cable T.V. than Steve is getting paid no matter if they use him or not. Each contract is individualized to a certain degree but generally, that is how they go. Plus he is an at-will employee so if they want to pay him to sit they can do that until his contract runs out and then he can shop his services elsewhere.

I absolutely believe that CNN would “punish” someone this way for putting out an argument that goes against the narrative that is peddled and might deserve a fair debate. The powers at CNN don’t want any part of that. They just wanna cover-up for Fredo and Don and hope they can get a bigger share live than Rachel Maddow gets in re-runs.

Check out the video below and let me know what you think about it or if the Fredo network would do such a thing as freeze out a Trump surrogate that they are paying for his point of view.

Check out my other posts here on Red State and my podcast Bourbon On The Rocks plus like Bourbon On The Rocks on Facebook and follow me on the twitters at IRISHDUKE2 

The post Did CNN Put One Of Its Contributors Who Supports Trump On Ice? appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group cnn-building-300x225 Did CNN Put One Of Its Contributors Who Supports Trump On Ice? white house washington D.C. Social Media racism Race progressives President Trump Prager University Oliver Darcy Morning Briefing Media Mainstream Media Hollywood Front Page Stories Front Page Fredo First Amendment Featured Story Featured Post fake news donald trump democrats corruption Conservatives CNN Allow Media Exception Abuse of Power 2019   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Snopes Continues Whining that Satire Site Babylon Bee is ‘Factually Incorrect’

Gather ’round, kids, for story-telling time so your Aunt Sarah can tell you tales from her Generation X-era of the early days of the World Wide Web — that’s what we used to call the internet!

Westlake Legal Group giphy Snopes Continues Whining that Satire Site Babylon Bee is ‘Factually Incorrect’ Social Media Snopes Satire Politics Media Front Page Stories Front Page First Amendment Featured Story Featured Post Babylon Bee Allow Media Exception

Way back in 1994 — before many of you were even born! — David and Barbara Mikkelson created a website called Snopes.com and it was a lot of fun for trivia nerds, settling office debates about whether combining Pop Rocks and Coca-Cola really killed Little Mikey from the Life Cereal ads (it didn’t!), and just wasting time online researching random urban legends.

Today, sadly, Snopes is much less fun. They’ve been spending an absolutely absurd amount of time fact-checking not actual claims of fact, but a satire site known as The Babylon Bee.

Just so we’re all clear, here’s the definition of satire, from dictionary.com:

satire; noun

1. the use of irony, sarcasm, ridicule, or the like, in exposing, denouncing, or deriding vice, folly, etc.
2. a literary composition, in verse or prose, in which human folly and vice are held up to scorn, derision, or ridicule.
3. a literary genre comprising such compositions.

Satire is not real. It’s making fun of something by using over-the-top absurdities and sarcasm. Satire might comment on the news, but it is not news.

Normal people with normally functioning levels of brain cells understand this.

The Babylon Bee is satire. They do not hide this fact.

When you Google “babylon bee,” the description says “Your Trusted Source For Christian News Satire.” Likewise, their “About Us” page begins, “The Babylon Bee is the world’s best satire site…” As Reason noted, their newsletter signup is labeled as “Fake news you can trust, delivered straight to your inbox.”

And yet, Snopes has been repeatedly attempting to “fact check” Babylon Bee articles, to the point that they were characterizing them as “fake news” and temporarily risked The Babylon Bee losing their status on Facebook (understandably, they are considering legal action).

Recently, there have been multiple news articles mocking Snopes for their overzealous attempt to fact-check The Babylon Bee (including here at RedState), but that apparently has not dissuaded them. Here they are today, complaining that The Babylon Bee is “factually inaccurate”:

Stellar investigative journalism, y’all. The satire site is factually inaccurate.

Maybe next, Snopes can blow open Kareem Abdul-Jabbar’s scam pretending to be an airline pilot!

Or perhaps a helpful explainer about how banging two coconuts together is not an adequate way to travel around medieval England?

Do we need to be told that Charlie Chaplin wasn’t actually showing real scenes from Adolf Hitler’s life in The Great Dictator?

Thank goodness we have Snopes to let us know that Kim Jong Il was not actually an alien cockroach operating a puppet!

All joking aside, it appears that Snopes’ real problem with The Babylon Bee is not that they don’t understand satire, but that The Babylon Bee’s particular brand of satire — coming from a Christian, conservative perspective — annoys them. They haven’t engaged in a vigorous, scorched-earth fact-checking of Saturday Night Live, The Daily Show, or Real Time with Bill Maher, or any number of liberal-leaning comedy shows and websites.

Politics is divisive enough. Attacking the creative minds who are approaching the news of the day with humor leaves us all worse off.

Read my RedState article archive here.

Follow Sarah Rumpf on Twitter: @rumpfshaker.

The post Snopes Continues Whining that Satire Site Babylon Bee is ‘Factually Incorrect’ appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group Journalism-300x200 Snopes Continues Whining that Satire Site Babylon Bee is ‘Factually Incorrect’ Social Media Snopes Satire Politics Media Front Page Stories Front Page First Amendment Featured Story Featured Post Babylon Bee Allow Media Exception   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Rashida Tlaib Gives Donald Trump And Benjamin Netanyahu HUGE P.R. Victory

Westlake Legal Group AP_17143610916487-300x186 Rashida Tlaib Gives Donald Trump And Benjamin Netanyahu HUGE P.R. Victory washington D.C. The Squad Social Media rashida tlaib progressives President Trump Politics political correctness News Morning Briefing Middle East Israel International Affairs Front Page Stories Front Page Foreign Policy First Amendment Feminism Featured Story Featured Post fake news Entertainment donald trump democrats Cybersecurity Congress communism antifa anti-semitism Allow Media Exception 2020 2019

(AP Photo/Evan Vucci)

How the “Public Relations” wheel spins round and round.

As I mentioned here yesterday in my piece here at Red State , I was worried that while Israel had every right to ban people coming into their country, they would get smeared P.R. wise.

From my article…

Pelosi is going to have to walk a fine line here. The one HUGE advantage she has is that Donald Trump has already mixed it up with these two. The media will run with picking on people of color nonsense and that he got Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to play along.

While I had people arguing with me about the point, I still stand by it. Everything is run through a P.R. lense and if you want to win the war you better understand these battles. Just saying it doesn’t matter is not enough and quite frankly wishful thinking.

Well, what a difference 24 hours can make.

One of the stated reasons for this visit was for Congressperson Rashida Tlaib to visit her 90-year-old Grandma. As she stated in her request for a humanitarian waiver from the Israeli government she may never get to see her Granmum again who resides in the West Bank of Israel.

(Sorry folks, there is no Palestine. You can blame the body double to former Beatle Ringo Starr, Yasser Arafat, for that debacle.)

As my colleague Bonchie covered here earlier today in this piece Rashida Tlaib Shuns Her Own Grandmother To Trash Israel maybe she was not expecting that waiver to be granted.

That request was granted by Israel with the only condition being that she not promote BDS. Within hours though, Tlaib had changed her mind.

Think about what she’s saying.

Her position is that she values promoting the anti-Semitic BDS movement so much that she’d rather let her grandmother die before visiting her if it means not getting to savage Israel for a few days. Who thinks like this?

Oops.

That backfired quickly.

I’m going to run with the theory that they believed not only would Israel block both of them from going to protest but also block the humanitarian request. When the government of Israel granted her request to visit her Grandmum she was put in a position she NEVER anticipated and she had to come up with some screwball excuse.

Yet that worked perfectly in favor of Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu from a P.R. standpoint.

Yesterday they ganged up on some harmless ladies just wanting to go on a tour of the Holy Land. Today with Tlaib scrambling to come up with an excuse for NOT visiting her 90 yr old Matriarch she turned the whole narrative around.

In less than 24 hours. That is Trump-like impressive in terms of running a news cycle.

I can’t wait to see what the ladies of the “Progressive Cheer Squad” come up with next to do to not only try to knock Trump down a notch but also give Nancy Pelosi such a splitting headache she might send them overseas and not allow them back into the country. Which would be very Trump-like also and be another P.R.victory for POTUS 45.

God Bless America.

Check out my other posts here on Red State and my podcast Bourbon On The Rocks plus like Bourbon On The Rocks on Facebook and follow me on the twitters at IRISHDUKE2 

The post Rashida Tlaib Gives Donald Trump And Benjamin Netanyahu HUGE P.R. Victory appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group AP_17143610916487-300x186 Rashida Tlaib Gives Donald Trump And Benjamin Netanyahu HUGE P.R. Victory washington D.C. The Squad Social Media rashida tlaib progressives President Trump Politics political correctness News Morning Briefing Middle East Israel International Affairs Front Page Stories Front Page Foreign Policy First Amendment Feminism Featured Story Featured Post fake news Entertainment donald trump democrats Cybersecurity Congress communism antifa anti-semitism Allow Media Exception 2020 2019   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

GOP Chair Ronna McDaniel Just Mic Dropped On Justin Amash

Westlake Legal Group justin-amash-victory-speech-300x150 GOP Chair Ronna McDaniel Just Mic Dropped On Justin Amash washington D.C. Target Races President Trump Morning Briefing Michigan Government gop Front Page Stories Front Page First Amendment Featured Story Featured Post Entertainment donald trump Conservatives Congress Allow Media Exception 2019

Now that Justin Amash is no longer a card-carrying member of the GOP the party chair feels like she can tee off on him whenever she wants. Being Ronna and Justin are from the same home state I think this might have been building up for some time.

After the whole hullaballoo yesterday about Israel not allowing two U.S. citizens going to visit Israel to do political protesting you had people from all sides speak out. I wrote about it also yesterday right here at Red State and will again today.

There were a LOT of hot takes.

The one, however, that caught my eye was current Representative Justin Amash of Michigan and also recently departed member of the GOP. I left the “official” GOP back in 1992 so I fully understand the frustration there.

His tweet and the response from current GOP Chairperson Ronna McDaniel was a perky exchange.

Here is what Amash tweeted.

Israel should stand up to President Trump and allow our colleagues to visit. Nobody has to agree with their opinions, but it will inevitably harm U.S.-Israel relations if members of Congress are banned from the country. We must find ways to come together; there’s enough division.
McDaniels came right back with this.

Come together?

398 Rs+Ds came together to condemn a boycott of Israel, you voted present.

424 Rs+Ds came together to condemn anti-Semitism, you voted present.

395 Rs+Ds came together for Iron Dome funding, you voted no.

Spare us the lecture on unity.

Ronna did a lil homework.

Tlaib and Omar at the end of the day United States citizens. Yes, they are also elected officials which grants them cool perks on overseas junkets but still, they are citizens of this country. The First Amendment does not cover any other country but ours. You want to stifle their speech here, I will fight that all day long. They are not entitled to go rabble rouse in another country because they feel morally justified.

Also, the whole rah rah speech of being united is odd coming from the guy that just ditched his party. As I said I ditched the whole party apparatus 27 years ago. Amash worked the system, was elected as a Republican and just now is realizing that the party hierarchy sucks?

Sounds like blatant opportunism to me.

So sitting here as a non wild eyed never screams about the dollar being tied to GOOOLD libertarian, who believes that countries have borders…..I’m going to give this round to Ronna.

Hopefully, Justin finds his footing his term in Congrees ends next year. He has not announced whether he will try to fight off those vying for his seat and the GOP challengers he would face or if he is going to try for the Senate seat here open here next year. We need voices like his in the public arena.

Check out my other posts here on Red State and my podcast Bourbon On The Rocks plus like Bourbon On The Rocks on Facebook and follow me on the twitters at IRISHDUKE2 

The post GOP Chair Ronna McDaniel Just Mic Dropped On Justin Amash appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group justin-amash-victory-speech-300x150 GOP Chair Ronna McDaniel Just Mic Dropped On Justin Amash washington D.C. Target Races President Trump Morning Briefing Michigan Government gop Front Page Stories Front Page First Amendment Featured Story Featured Post Entertainment donald trump Conservatives Congress Allow Media Exception 2019   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com