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 > Posts tagged "freedom of speech"

Damian Collins: Social media. We should act now to make the big tech companies more responsible.

Damian Collins is a former Chair of the DDCMS Select Committee, and is MP for Folkestone and Hythe.

The most popular media for some of the most vulnerable people in society, our children, is the least regulated.
For most social media accounts, you are required to be 13 to register to use the service, however there are no effective age verification tools when someone creates an account on Facebook, Instagram and Snapchat. They rely entirely on self-certification, which means it is as easy for a ten year old girl to pretend she is 18 as it is for a 50 year old man to claim he is 15.

Whilst there exists a ‘YouTube kids’ service, according to the media regulator Ofcom, for children over the age of five, the main YouTube platform is their favourite video streaming service. Young adults aged between 18 and 34 watch more YouTube on average each day than they do all of the traditional free to air broadcast channels combined, and even for all adults YouTube is the third most popular service, only sitting behind BBC 1 and ITV 1.

Over the years we have developed codes of practice for broadcasters to ensure good standards are met and introduced the 9pm watershed to try and keep younger audiences away from harmful content. For most people today, these rules are about as relevant as the Corn Laws.

Yet why should we accept that even though media habits are changing, our oversight and regulation of the content that people consume everyday should stay the same? This has led to a world where a small community radio station with a few thousand listeners requires a license from the media regulator Ofcom, but a social media channel with millions of individual subscribers does not.

That’s why I want us to act now to make the big tech companies more responsible, in law, for the content that is served to users on their platform. They should have a legal duty of care overseen by a regulator that has the power to investigate and act against those companies when things go wrong.

In response to our Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee inquiry on disinformation and fake news, the Government published an Online Harms White Paper last April and has released its response to the subsequent public consultation. In our Conservative manifesto, Boris Johnson committed to “make the UK the safest place in the world to be online”, protecting children and the most vulnerable in our society from abuse, whilst also going after terrorist content.

We will always need to balance the need for regulation with the imperative of freedom of speech, which is a pillar of our democracy. But freedom of speech is not the same as freedom of reach. People have the right to express their opinions, but I don’t believe that means they have the same unchecked right to use the tools of social media to proactively broadcast those views to millions of people, multiple times a day at the click of a button.

Johnson rightly says that we can make the UK the safest place in the world to be on the internet. Sensible principles striking the balance between protection of users and freedom of speech, determined and overseen by an independent regulator such as Ofcom, could allow us to do just that.

This article is from Bright Blue’s Spring 2020 magazine.

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Where We Are: Massachusetts Eyes a Bill Making it Illegal to Call Someone a ‘B-tch’

Westlake Legal Group dog-3071334_1280-620x349 Where We Are: Massachusetts Eyes a Bill Making it Illegal to Call Someone a ‘B-tch’ Uncategorized Politics Massachusetts law Front Page Stories freedom of speech Featured Story daniel hunt Culture crime Boston Allow Media Exception

 

 

Is there still freedom of speech, or are there only remnants of a once-unfettered liberty?

In Massachusetts, lawmakers have proposed making it illegal to call someone a “b*tch.”

Therefore, in this new paradigm, you’d be able to call somebody a _____, and a _____, and a _____, and a ______, and even a mother__ing ______ of a ______ like a ______ full of ______ and with their ______ up their _____ing big___ ________.

And everything’d be cool.

But then all of a sudden:

B___ OOM!!!!!!!!!!!!

You’re going to jail, smartypants.

State Rep. Daniel Hunt — a Democrat representing Boston’s Dorchester neighborhood — offered the submission in May. He did so in utilization of a Massachusetts-only provision allowing a legislator to introduce a bill on behalf of a constituent.

Subsections of the potential legislation indicate the possible punishment of a fine up to $200 or up to six months in jail.

Daniel forgot to check the box indicating his use of the constituent allowance, so lots of people think it was his idea.

#Consequences:

“I got at least 50 phone calls today calling me a ‘bitch’ or the ‘C’ word, and I’ve also gotten probably 50 e-mails.”

Here’s the official description of Bill H.3719 — “An Act Regarding the Use of Offensive Words”:

A person who uses the word “b*tch” directed at another person to accost, annoy, degrade or demean the other person shall be considered to be a disorderly person in violation of this section, and shall be subject to the penalties provided in subsections (a) and (b). A violation of this subsection may be reported by the person to whom the offensive language was directed at or by any witness to such incident.

Well, it’d certainly prevent Breaking Bad’s Jesse Pinkman from doing business in Beantown. I mean, a guy willing to break the law against selling meth wouldn’t dare violate the prohibition of saying a word. After all, people game to commit mass murder is nothing but a scared b*tch when it comes to ordinances against guns.

Crap…I think I just went to jail.

Fortunately for all involved, the law’s likely to never see the light of day, as it’s unconstitutional.

From The Daily Wire:

The bill, according to the [Boston Globe], was one of nearly 70 relating to criminal justice that was discussed by the Joint Judiciary Committee during a hearing. Other bills included changes in law regarding victims’ rights, juvenile offenders, and witness testimony. Hunt’s bill appears to be the only one suggesting an entirely new criminal act.

The bill is also “clearly unconstitutional,” according to Boston College law professor Kent Greenfield. He told the Globe that the “Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled in a bunch of cases that very offensive, very hurtful speech is nevertheless protected.”

Well, son of a gun.

Although, I think these days, the word “gun” is worse than the word “b*tch.”

-ALEX

 

See 3 more pieces from me:

If Global Warming Is Eating At You, A Swedish Professor Has A Recipe For Relief: Cannibalism

The Girl In The Bubble: Alyssa Milano Meets ‘Caricature Of A Villain’ Ted Cruz To Find Out If He’s ‘Really A Human With A Heartbeat’

‘Cause It’s The Best Way To Convince People: Ahead Of The Dem Debate, Climate Change Radicals Suspend Themselves From A Bridge

Find all my RedState work here.

And please follow Alex Parker on Twitter and Facebook.

Thank you for reading! Please sound off in the Comments section below. 

The post Where We Are: Massachusetts Eyes a Bill Making it Illegal to Call Someone a ‘B-tch’ appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group dog-3071334_1280-300x169 Where We Are: Massachusetts Eyes a Bill Making it Illegal to Call Someone a ‘B-tch’ Uncategorized Politics Massachusetts law Front Page Stories freedom of speech Featured Story daniel hunt Culture crime Boston Allow Media Exception  Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

The Left’s Reaction to Mark Zuckerberg’s Comments on Political Speech Shows Their True Agenda Is to Silence Their Opponents

Yesterday, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg was scheduled to give a speech on the future of free speech and free expression at Georgetown University. It was an interesting speech from a number of points of view.

He outlines some of the threats faced by free speech and expression on the internet. While he deserves credit for doing what Google will not do, that is, refuse to cooperate with the Chinese government in developing tools to enforce political conformity on a large population, he backhandedly admits that his own company has a huge issue with free speech and imagines that it has a role as a gatekeeper to keep free speech with acceptable boundaries.

(Read the whole speech)

To me, the contrast between Zuckerberg’s professed respect for free speech and the way Facebook actually operates is simply not reconcilable. In fact, Zuckerberg’s idea of free speech policed by a regime of contracted and highly partisan fact checkers enforcing ambiguous “hate speech” rules is clearly out of Noam Chomsky’s playbook (The Common Good, pg. 43):

The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum—even encourage the more critical and dissident views. That gives people the sense that there’s free thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the debate.

That is exactly what has been created. While Zuckerberg may have refused to be co-opted by the Chinese, he has created his very own little fascist empire in which there is free speech so long as you agree with the worldview and opinions of the vicious corps of SJW net-nannies that he has chosen to employ. The way the pro-life group Live Action was squashed because Facebook allowed pro-aborts to classify videos as having false information when they were true (there is literally no medical reason for an abortion) but strayed outside the pro-abort orthodoxy required by Facebook shows just how meaningless Zuckerberg’s statements are if they are not read through the lens of Chomsky.

I’ve made no secret of my hope that a brigade of vicious spiteful anti-trust lawyers who are compensated solely on the basis of the damage they inflict shows up at Facebook headquarters with a SWAT team and a 18-wheeler load of subpoenas and blank, signed arrest warrants. So I was taken a bit aback when the major criticism of Zuckerberg came from the left, the people who are net beneficiaries of his scheme.

Oddly enough, of all the problematic concepts that he touts as smoothly as any NewSpeak speech by Big Brother, the one that got the hormones flowing on the left was this:

We recently clarified our policies to ensure people can see primary source speech from political figures that shapes civic discourse. Political advertising is more transparent on Facebook than anywhere else — we keep all political and issue ads in an archive so everyone can scrutinize them, and no TV or print does that. We don’t fact-check political ads. We don’t do this to help politicians, but because we think people should be able to see for themselves what politicians are saying. And if content is newsworthy, we also won’t take it down even if it would otherwise conflict with many of our standards.

I know many people disagree, but, in general, I don’t think it’s right for a private company to censor politicians or the news in a democracy. And we’re not an outlier here. The other major internet platforms and the vast majority of media also run these same ads.

This apparently is a new development because in 2018, Facebook censored campaign videos by Elizabeth Heng which referred to her family’s escape from the kind of repressive dictatorship the Democrats are well on their way to establishing in California, see Facebook Blocks Republican Candidate Ad For Daring To Show Horrors Of Communism.

For instance, this is some of the criticism:

In a way this is a stunning level of dumbf***ery. Federal law currently makes it illegal for a broadcast station to alter or censor (that word, ‘censor,’ is in the law, so you libertarians who keep claiming that private business can’t censor, take a seat and be quiet) any ad by a political candidate. So long as the speech in the candidate ad is not illegal, per se, it is required to be run. The very idea that Facebook ever had any authority to police candidate ads is simply balderdash and it is quite an indictment of Department of Justice that they sat idly by and let this go on. The idea that any society, much less an ostensibly free one, should tolerate a corporation with a track record of lying to the public and constructing extremely opaque practices to punish WrongThink to control the speech of candidates for election in abhorrent.

It also gives away the real game. The fascists of the totalitarian left have given up on trying to convince people based on arguments, now they are going straight on to silencing ideas they can’t stand. Even Zuckerberg recognizes this impulse.

Increasingly, we’re seeing people try to define more speech as dangerous because it may lead to political outcomes they see as unacceptable. Some hold the view that since the stakes are so high, they can no longer trust their fellow citizens with the power to communicate and decide what to believe for themselves.

Make no mistake about it, I think that at its core, Facebook is at least as hostile to American values as China but in a different way. I also think the sooner the federal government acts to demolish Facebook the safer our freedoms will be. I also think that Zuckerberg’s change of direction on federal candidate ads is driven by fear of federal government action rather than his love of free speech because I think he’s as much of a SJW as any that he employs. As they say, a fish rots from the head down. What is illustrative about this is that the left is actually showing its true colors. It holds free speech and freedom of religion at least in as much disdain as it does the Second Amendment and the Electoral College and any other part of the Constitution that restricts their ability to impose their worldview on the rest of us.

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

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

The post The Left’s Reaction to Mark Zuckerberg’s Comments on Political Speech Shows Their True Agenda Is to Silence Their Opponents appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group mark-zuckerberg-georgetown-300x153 The Left’s Reaction to Mark Zuckerberg’s Comments on Political Speech Shows Their True Agenda Is to Silence Their Opponents Social Media Politics political speech Mark Zuckerberg Internet Censorship Front Page Stories freedom of speech Featured Story facebook democrats Culture Censorship Allow Media Exception  Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Freedom Of The Press Is Still Alive In Canada, Thanks To Andrew Lawton And True North

Westlake Legal Group Untitled-4-300x232 Freedom Of The Press Is Still Alive In Canada, Thanks To Andrew Lawton And True North True North Social Media Morning Briefing Media Justin Trudeau Front Page Stories Front Page freedom of speech Featured Story Featured Post Conservatives Canada Election October 21st Canada Andrew Lawton Allow Media Exception Abuse of Power 2019

Freedom of the press can be attacked anywhere at any time.

Normally when you read a statement like that you would think of places like China, Russia or parts of California that allow some freedom of the press but will crack down on it at a moment’s notice. The one place that most Americans would never think that statement would apply to is…

Canada.

Yeah, that one.

I’m not joking.

The Great White North, the land of Hockey and something called Poutine fries has also become home to some intolerant actions by people who claim to be just peace-loving tolerant souls only trying to get along.

Thanks to a group of Canadian patriots though, it looks like this abhorrent attitude will not be allowed to succeed.

Possibly you recall last month when the Prime Minister of Canada, Justin Trudeau, found himself in a bit of hot water because of his fondness of dressing up in “blackface” almost 20 years ago. Even though back then this was considered acceptable, today’s #WOKE crowd will allow for no acceptions.

This tweet from Time magazine was the beginning of the onslaught for Trudeau.

Enter Andrew Lawton, who works for a media outlet by the name of True North. Andrew is a seasoned veteran of Canadian politics and has dabbled in the goings-on of some of the crazy stuff that our political system has to offer. I met him a number of years ago at some event somewhere ( I’m 50 now so the memory fades) and he was a fellow podcaster so we had some mutual stories to share.

Long story short, the guy is a solid journalist who pulls no punches.

He also has an impressive resume of interviews because of his easy-going style and an impeccable reputation. Just a couple of the names he has talked with are former Canadain Prime Minister Stephen Harper and some guy named…

Justin Trudeau.

The same one that was not so woke just a couple years before.

Well imagine Andrew’s surprise when he applied for credentials to cover Trudeau on the Liberal media tour bus and he was not just given the cold shoulder he was flat out ignored. There is a cost of 8k a week to be on that bus and True North was willing to pay for two weeks to have Andrew on that vehicle right after the blackface controversy.

According to Candice Malcolm who is the Executive Director of the True North this is what happened…

We learned that the Liberals were intentionally blocking us from reporting and refusing to acknowledge True North as a media organization or Andrew Lawton as a journalist. They gave us inconsistent and contradicting reasons, and told Andrew that he needed “accreditation” to join the bus.

Here’s the thing, though, there is no institution in Canada that grants accreditation to journalists. It happens on a case by case basis. In this case, it would be the Liberals themselves who would grant accreditation. And they were refusing — because we weren’t accredited.

This is the equivalent of showing up at the DMV to get a driver’s license and them telling you that they can’t give a license because you’re not a licensed driver — even though you’re an experienced driver!

This is happening IN CANADA!?!?!?! Sacre Bleu!!

Why in the hell is Prime Minster dimples and his party blocking a journalist and his news organization from paying 16,000 Canadian dollars ( Don’t ask me what that is in U.S. money, been a while since I crossed the border) to ride on the bus and maybe get to ask some questions?

Did he pick that attitude up from summers with Fidel Castro?

Thankfully, that did not stop True North and Lawton from pursuing covering this campaign and the bus.

Literally.

According to Malcolm, True North was going to have Lawton follow that bus.

I told them we were not giving up, and that Andrew would follow the tour bus until they let him on. I don’t care if we have to spend every last dollar in True North’s budget, I will personally pay for Andrew, if need be, and he will follow the campaign — by car, train, plane, whatever means necessary — to report the other side of the story for Canadians.

Andrew did just that and the Prime Minister had the cops pull him over according to his boss.

That is when the Prime Minister sent the RCMP to detain Andrew and stop him from following the campaign bus. It was completely out of line — something that happens in a dictatorship not a free country like Canada.

Lawton, who is well known to his colleagues in the press and the staff working for the Prime Minister, was given the heavy hand of having the Canadian Mounties called on him for doing his job. Even though it was a 15-minute delay it was totally unnecessary and what weak-minded politicians and their campaigns do to try and keep their “messaging” on target.

The last hurdle that Andrew and his group had to face was being barred from a Leadership debate being held last Monday, October 7th in English. The Leaders’ Debates Commission handles these types of things and Andrew was denied accreditation to attend this event. Thankfully, they filed in court to remedy the situation.

As Andrew says in a post he did about this at andrewlawton.ca

I applied on September 24th for accreditation – one day after the Government of Canada accreditation portal for the debates opened up. I heard nothing until October 4th, which was the last business day before the Monday debate. The rejection was a mere two sentences long. The reasoning was that True North, in the eyes of the Parliamentary Press Gallery, to which accreditation had somehow been outsourced, is “actively involved in advocacy.”

So we did the only thing we could do by filing for an emergency injunction, which was granted after a hearing of less than 90 minutes, in which the presiding judge not only recognized True North and I as producers of journalism, but also accepted that we would be irreparably harmed, as would Rebel, by exclusion from a debate funded by Canadians for the benefit of Canadians.

The judge delivered his finding at about 4:45pm. Within 15 minutes I was in a car on the way to the debate location, where my press credentials were being printed off.

The good peeps won here.

When Andrew finally was able to get close enough to the Prime Minister to ask him a question he took the opportunity to try and find out what in the hell was going on with trying to limit Freedom of the Press with Trudeau campaign banning “certain” journalists.

Andrew’s question was this…

“This afternoon, a federal court judge ruled that I had a right to be here, to cover this debate as a journalist despite opposition from your Attorney General,” I said to Trudeau in the scrum. “This comes after two weeks of me being kicked out or not being allowed into your campaign rallies. The Conservatives have criticized you for being ‘not as advertised.’ You’ve advertised yourself as a champion of press freedom. Will you take a stand right now sir, as the leader of the Liberal party, and allow me to cover your campaign like every other journalist?”

Trudeau gurgled this response.

“We are a party, and we are a country that respects journalistic rights and who respects the freedom of the press and we will continue to,” Trudeau said.

Oh. Just like you respect all indigenous, black and brown people while slopping black shoe polish on your adorable mug?  How does one say “Actions speak louder than words” in French?

Aside from the fact that Trudeau seems like a guy who would need to google how to pull weeds and watch a video on YouTube to do it, I’m still wondering if this is actually his policy or is it some of the campaign hard heads that wanted to make this an issue. This was an incredibly dumb move on Team Trudeau’s part.

Since when do the self-declared intellects fear words and questions?

I asked Andrew what was the reaction of those in the press after he and True North won a huge victory for Freedom of the Press in Canada.

When I eventually got to the debate media room I had a few people congratulate me privately, which I appreciated. Having worked in media for years now I know a lot of these people. Though the public support from the mainstream media was pretty much nonexistent. There was hardly any coverage of it, and even on Twitter there was very little attention given, despite this ruling ultimately protecting the rights of all Canadian journalists.

The media response to this is quite frankly sad and this event should have never happened. When others in the media became aware that one of their own was being blocked they should have spoken up and demanded it be corrected. They should have been strong advocates for the principle of the press not being interfered with within a political campaign. If any of the Canadian press wants to see how it is done here in the states, here is an article about when a CNN Reporter was banned Fox News backs CNN lawsuit over Jim Acosta’s suspended press pass. ALL the other networks joined that lawsuit to protect a competitor. They wanted FREEDOM OF SPEECH to be protected, regardless of their biases.

Thankfully in the land of Canada today, we have people who are willing to put their reputations, money and time on the line to make sure that the rights are protected of those getting us the story from the bus, the train or anywhere news might be made affecting you. That is critical for any country to have to be able to thrive and succeed.

Lawton v. Canada is a shining example of how to get it done.

Canada is better for it!!

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 Freedom Of The Press Is Still Alive In Canada, Thanks To Andrew Lawton And True North appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group Untitled-4-300x232 Freedom Of The Press Is Still Alive In Canada, Thanks To Andrew Lawton And True North True North Social Media Morning Briefing Media Justin Trudeau Front Page Stories Front Page freedom of speech Featured Story Featured Post Conservatives Canada Election October 21st Canada Andrew Lawton Allow Media Exception Abuse of Power 2019  Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Sponsored Post. John Whittingdale: Britain must be the defender of free media at home, and its champion overseas

John Whittingdale is a former Culture Secretary, and is MP for Maldon. He is chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Media Freedom.

In 2004, while reporting on Islamist terrorism for the BBC in Riyadh, security correspondent Frank Gardner was shot. Six times. Twice from a distance, and four times at point-blank range. His cameraman, Simon Cumbers, was killed by their attackers. Incredibly, Frank survived, partially paralysed.

Frank took the assignment to go to Saudi Arabia knowing there would be risks. He was, after all, reporting on a campaign of terror and murder being waged by Al-Qaeda against Western expatriates. He took that decision as a journalist. But also, as a husband. As a man with a family. In his extremely moving account of the attack and his story of reporting from the Islamic world – Blood and Sand, he captures the moments spent with his wife Amanda the night he leaves London to fly to Saudi Arabia. Reading of his career reporting from some of the world’s most dangerous environments, you get a glimmer of the sacrifices and risks journalists and their families endure.

Because in some places, the conventions of media freedom – those that we accept – do not register. In some places, journalists themselves become the target. In 2012, The Sunday Times foreign affairs correspondent Marie Colvin and photographer Remi Ochlik were targeted by the Syrian government while reporting from the besieged district of Baba Amr in Homs – a city now synonymous with utter devastation.

They were both killed.

Earlier this year, a US court found the Assad regime liable for the murder of Colvin in what it ruled was a deliberate artillery attack carried out to silence her reporting of the massacre that was unfolding in Homs. Only hours before the attack that killed her, Colvin’s reports from Homs were broadcast by the BBC, ITV, Channel 4 and CNN.

In 2014, we were reminded again of the perils of reporting from Syria, when the Times journalist Anthony Loyd and photographer Jack Hill were kidnapped, beaten and Lyod shot twice in the leg before securing refuge in Turkey. Both survived the ordeal to return – as Frank Gardner did in Saudi – to report from Syria.

These journalists, like so many others around the world, have exhibited incredible bravery and courage to obtain and disseminate information. Stories, that were in not for their work, would go untold.

But, I am sad to say, their work is getting harder. According to the US-based non-governmental organisation Freedom House, over the past decade media freedom around the world has deteriorated. The Reporters Sans Frontières online barometer (at the time of writing) reveals that year-to-date, 30 journalists – including Lyra McKee who was murdered by republican dissidents in Northern Ireland, have been killed in the line of duty. A further 231 have been imprisoned around the world.

As parliamentarians – and indeed as Conservatives, we must be the champions of media freedom. As such, we have responsibilities to work with other like-minded parliamentarians around the world to not only defend the freedoms where they exist, but to promote them where they do not.

And that is why in my capacity as Chair of the British Group of Interparliamentary Union, I convened and chaired a seminar on media freedom in London earlier this month. Joined by distinguished advocates of press freedom like the award-winning war photographer Paul Conroy, parliamentarians from numerous countries gathered to develop a strategy for advancing media freedoms. This work, which continues, builds on the FCO freedom of the press programme launched by then Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt at the first Global Media Freedom Conference in July. We should be proud that our overseas aid budget is helping to strengthen the capacity of journalists working overseas to hold their Governments to account.

At home, where there are attacks on press freedom, we must continue to call them out. And as parliamentarians, we must do all we can to be its champion overseas.

This post is sponsored by Coalition for Global Prosperity.

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Bill Maher Blasts Cancel Culture: SJW’s Don’t Want Justice. They Want Scalps

Westlake Legal Group no-1532842_1280-620x413 Bill Maher Blasts Cancel Culture: SJW’s Don’t Want Justice. They Want Scalps woke Uncategorized Social Justice Real Time Politics Media Front Page Stories freedom of speech Free Speech democrats Culture Bill Maher Allow Media Exception 1st amendment

 

 

In a recent interview with The New York Times Magazine, Real Time host Bill Maher spoke out on the increasing intensity of cancel culture.

To Bill — and, possibly, you — this present generation is weak.

But here’s an oddity: a group known for their fragility has become a muscled monster.

As Bill sees it, a coddled bunch trying to protect their delicate feelings is, to a great degree, controlling the media:

“[The NYT] and The Atlantic had long articles in the last year saying that 80 percent of Americans think this politically correct BS has gone too far. But the people on Twitter are the people who control the media a lot. They’re the millennials who probably grew up with helicopter parents who afforded them a sense of entitlement. They are certainly more fragile than previous generations. Trigger warnings. Safe spaces. Crying rooms. Microaggressions. That crowd feels like anything that upsets their tender sensibilities is completely out of line.”

And Bill said the Democratic Party needs to prune said softies away in order to have a shot at 2020:

“The most important thing that the Democrats can do to win the next election is to broom this element out of their party and stand up to the Twitter mob and the ultrawoke.”

Bill is certainly a liberal, but the changing-by-the-minute-mores on the left side of the aisle have delivered, between Maher and conservatives, something that wasn’t likely to occur: common ground.

How ya like these apples:

“They’re pointing at other people who are somehow falling short of their standards, which could have changed three weeks ago. They’re constantly moving the goalposts so they can go, ‘Gotcha!’ For example, when I was growing up, the most liberal thing you could do is not see color. Well, that’s wrong now. You see color, always, so you can register your white privilege. But I grew up in the Martin Luther King era: Judge by the content of their character, not the color of their skin. I still think that’s the best way to do it. Not see it.”

Here’s another bit o’ goodness:

“If someone walks in the room, after a minute, I should not be thinking about color. And I am not. That’s how I have always been. I have actual black friends. I don’t think they want me to be always thinking: ‘Black person. Black person. I’m talking to a black person.’”

YES!

The controversial TV man also apologized:

“Look, I tried to drive a stake through political correctness in the ’90s. I obviously failed dismally. It’s worse than ever.”

I wrote Monday that tensions seem ever-greater in our society; we need civility (here).

And recently, I suggested “we’d all be a lot better off if less time was spent trying to prevent speech and more investment was made in listening” (here).

Bill seems to agree. The SJW’s are out for blood, not a round of “Kumbaya”:

“The politically correct people are not concerned about social justice. They care about putting scalps on the wall. I don’t see a lot of desire for people to talk to each other, to accept that, ‘O.K., this person doesn’t agree with me on a lot of stuff, but I don’t have to think he’s a monster.’ We want to beat our chests and vanquish the other side. Compromise seems like a dead concept.”

The left side of politics was once arm-in-arm with the free speech movement, and an embrace of individualism. Not so much anymore.

Here’s how Bill summed it up:

“The difference is that liberals protect people, and P.C. people protect feelings.”

-ALEX

 

Relevant RedState links in this article: here and here.

See 3 more pieces from me:

Activists At Boston University Demand Ben Shapiro Be Banned From Speaking – Hate Speech Is ‘Not Free Speech’

Rashida Tlaib Is Now Selling ‘Impeach The Motherf—–!’ T-Shirts

Gay Jewish Former Dem Dave Rubin’s Event Gets 86’D By Antifa Threats And Accusations That He’s Neo-Nazi Recruiter

Find all my RedState work here.

And please follow Alex Parker on Twitter and Facebook.

Thank you for reading! Please sound off in the Comments section below. 

The post Bill Maher Blasts Cancel Culture: SJW’s Don’t Want Justice. They Want Scalps appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group no-1532842_1280-300x200 Bill Maher Blasts Cancel Culture: SJW’s Don’t Want Justice. They Want Scalps woke Uncategorized Social Justice Real Time Politics Media Front Page Stories freedom of speech Free Speech democrats Culture Bill Maher Allow Media Exception 1st amendment  Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Adam Honeysett-Watts: After three years of gloom under May, it’s time for fun with Johnson

Adam Honeysett-Watts is Director of Conservatives in Communications and works in the financial technology sector. 

Before this leadership election got underway, I wrote that the next leader must be able to tell the Tory story – of aspiration and opportunity – and identified Boris Johnson as the person best-positioned to do that.

Having previously supported David Cameron and then Theresa May, I like to think I back winners – at least, in terms of those who reach the top. That said, while the former will be remembered for rescuing the economy – while giving people the power to marry who they love and an overdue say on Europe – the latter, much to my disappointment, has no real legacy. Johnson should avoid repeating that mistake.

His final column for the Daily Telegraph, ‘Britain must fire-up its sense of mission’, was jam-packed with the kind of Merry England* (or Merry UK) optimism that we experienced during the Cricket World Cup and that the whole country needs right now: “They went to the Moon 50 years ago. Surely today we can solve the logistical issues of the Irish border”. Quite right.

You’ve guessed it, I’m chuffed that Conservative MPs, media and members supported Johnson’s bid to become our Prime Minister. I’m looking forward to May handing him the keys to Number Ten and him batting for us after three, long years of doom and gloom. Sure, optimism isn’t everything – but it can set the tone. A detailed vision must be articulated and executed by a sound team.

Whichever side you were on before the referendum (or are on now), in the short term, we need to redefine our purpose, move forward with our global partners, unite the UK – and defeat Corbynism.

Mid-term, we should invest further in our national security and technology, improving education and life chances and encouraging greater participation in culture and sport, as well as boosting home ownership. Plus the odd tax cut here and there would be well-advised.

However, we must not put off having debates – for fear of offending – about controlling immigration and legalising drugs, and about funding for health and social care, as well as protecting the environment, for these issues matter and will matter even more in the future.

We should also avoid the temptation to ban political expression, alternative media and sugary foods, and celebrate instead free speech, press freedom and the right to choose.

Again, I look forward to Johnson peddling optimism and hope that people get behind him, because, ultimately, he will write our next chapter – and if we jump onboard and provide support, much more can be achieved by us all working together.

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Steven Crowder Live-Streams the Latest on His Situation As Vox’s Carlo Maza Keep Freaking Out

Westlake Legal Group Capture-2 Steven Crowder Live-Streams the Latest on His Situation As Vox’s Carlo Maza Keep Freaking Out youtube Wuss Whiney vox Strikethrough Steven Crowder Social Media Publisher Politics Front Page Stories Front Page freedom of speech Featured Story Demonetized Crybaby Censorship carlos maza banned

A few hours ago, Steven Crowder sat down for an hour plus live-stream discussing his current situation regarding being demonetized over the whining complaints of Vox’s Carlos Maza. This is in addition to a short update he did earlier in the afternoon, as reported on by RedState’s Brandon Morse.

Maza claims Crowder is harassing him by doing the occasional comedic rebuttal video to Maza’s silly, partisan claims on his show “Strikethrough.” Making jokes about someone on YouTube is not harassment by any definition, as the term indicates an active engagement with another person. Crowder has never directly addressed Maza and if critiquing and laughing at someone passively on a show is “harassment,” then every comedy and political production has to be shut down tonight.

These realities haven’t stopped Maza from leading a campaign to try to get Crowder banned from YouTube.

When YouTube first announced he wouldn’t be banned, Maza cried about it. Then when YouTube did an about face and said they were demonetizing Crowder, Maza still cried. Only complete banishment is good enough for our progressive hero with skin so thin he’s translucent.

As I’m writing this, the actual live stream Crowder did appears to have been taken off YouTube. I’m not sure the reason but it could simply be that it’s still uploading as a complete file (sometimes live streams are not immediately available). Hopefully, there’s no nefarious reason for its sudden absence.

I’ll be sure to add it when the actual video reappears, but the important thing is to note what was said.

Here’s the situation.

Crowder’s channel is currently demonetized completely. The old rule was to only demonetize videos that supposedly violated YouTube’s community standards. The new rule appears to be that entire channels are being demonetized over single videos.

The reason YouTube gave for Crowder’s demonetization is that he has two videos up, one of which discusses sexual assault via a survivor who describes some of the horror going on in the U.K. The other is a video that includes some jokes about homosexuality. Out of his thousands of videos, those are the only ones YouTube could come up with to justify their actions and there’s noway that YouTube actually did a real “review” in under 24 hours. They just found some stuff on the fly and flagged it.

The other issue is a shirt that Crowder has a link to that reads “Socialism is for figs.” Obviously, the shirt is meant make someone double take, but it does not actually contain the phrase Maza accused Crowder of putting on the shirt.

This is YouTube’s latest comment on the matter, along with a refresher of what an annoying clown Carlos Maza is.

We’ve gone around in circles a lot the past few days over this, but YouTube, after initially caving to Maza, appears to be softening their stance. This is probably a wink and a nod type outreach to Crowder. He does something simple like removing a link to a t-shirt and YouTube gets to save face by claiming they still enforced their rules.

Meanwhile, according to his stream, Crowder is preparing legal action if it comes to that.

This isn’t over by a long shot and in the long run, this could turn out to be a good thing. It’s time to have this fight and make social media companies pick a side. They are either publishers or platforms, but they can’t be both and escape liability.

————————————————-

Enjoying the read? Please visit my archive and check out some of my latest articles.

I’ve got a new twitter! Please help by following @bonchieredstate.

 

 

The post Steven Crowder Live-Streams the Latest on His Situation As Vox’s Carlo Maza Keep Freaking Out appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group Capture-1-300x179 Steven Crowder Live-Streams the Latest on His Situation As Vox’s Carlo Maza Keep Freaking Out youtube Wuss Whiney vox Strikethrough Steven Crowder Social Media Publisher Politics Front Page Stories Front Page freedom of speech Featured Story Demonetized Crybaby Censorship carlos maza banned  Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Rob Schneider Reminds Us Again of the Importance of Liberty – and Why Hollywood Needs More Like Him

Westlake Legal Group rob-schneider-50-first-dates-SCREENSHOT Rob Schneider Reminds Us Again of the Importance of Liberty – and Why Hollywood Needs More Like Him Uncategorized the hot chick the animal Television rob schneider Poynter Oscars Orwellian Movies Liberty Hollywood Front Page Stories freedom of speech Featured Story Entertainment duece bigalow donald trump democrats Censorship Allow Media Exception Adam Sandler 50 first dates

[SCREENSHOT FROM URL]

 

Rob Schneider, it seems to me, doesn’t get nearly enough credit. His movies — like the comedy projects of close friend Adam Sandler — are never going to make a splash at the Oscars; but the guy is a talented character actor. Look no further than his character in Adam’s 50 First Dates.

Rob’s also got it where it counts in the common sense department politically — please see my previous coverage of a great interview here.

The SNL alum took to Twitter this past weekend to fight the powers that be, citing an “Orwellian nightmare of censorship.”

Rob was commenting on the recently ridiculous Poynter list of “unreliable” news sites — RedState was among those dismissed (though we only received a goofy “Clickbait” label, as opposed to the perhaps worse “Bias” award).

The list was a pitiful exercise in media partisanship; after much castigation online, it was retracted.

Here’s Rob in response:

Thanks for standing up for RedState, Rob!

He was also quick to reiterate the breathtaking turn of the tide within the Democratic Party:

Check out Deuce Bigalow’s reaction — as per The Daily Wire — to Facebook’s banning of “several far-right figures from the platform, such as Alex Jones and Milo Yiannopoulos. The ban also included one far-left figure, Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan”…

In his tweet, Rob cited a truth that seems to be scarily escaping much of the millennial generation:

D*mn right!

The comedian left the Democratic Party years ago, which he’s discussed in the past. He’s also commented on the meanness — and, subsequently, hard-to-watch tone — of SNL’s treatment of Trump, compared to more good-natured days gone by (about which I wrote here and here).

Rob Schneider is a comedic talent and, for my money, enjoyable onscreen. The fact that he has a good head on his shoulders where it concerns American liberty and keeping the meanness of politics out of entertainment just makes it all the better.

What are some of your favorite Rob moments in the movies? He was great in 50 First Dates and Click, and I enjoyed The Hot Chick. His appearance in Grandma’s Boy is hilarious, and — though I never hear it referenced — I find The Animal very funny. I look forward to hearing from you.

-Alex

 

Relevant RedState links in this article: herehere and here.

See 3 more pieces from me:

Kuwaiti ‘Academic’ Cures Homosexuality: Gay Men Have A Worm That Lives In Their Rectum, & You Don’t Wanna Know What It Eats

AOC Dared To Use San Diego’s Synagogue Shooting To Push Her Politics. Twitter Dropped The Hammer

Virginia School Districts Claim ‘Thousands’ Of The State’s Pupils Are Transgende

Find all my RedState work here.

And please follow Alex Parker on Twitter and Facebook.

Thank you for reading! Please sound off in the Comments section below. For iPhone instructions, see the bottom of this page.



 

 

If you have an iPhone and want to comment, select the box with the upward arrow at the bottom of your screen; swipe left and choose “Request Desktop Site.” If it fails to automatically refresh, manually reload the page. Scroll down to the red horizontal bar that says “Show Comments.”

The post Rob Schneider Reminds Us Again of the Importance of Liberty – and Why Hollywood Needs More Like Him appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group rob-schneider-50-first-dates-SCREENSHOT-300x160 Rob Schneider Reminds Us Again of the Importance of Liberty – and Why Hollywood Needs More Like Him Uncategorized the hot chick the animal Television rob schneider Poynter Oscars Orwellian Movies Liberty Hollywood Front Page Stories freedom of speech Featured Story Entertainment duece bigalow donald trump democrats Censorship Allow Media Exception Adam Sandler 50 first dates  Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Will LGBT groups block *another* Chick-fil-A at an airport?

Westlake Legal Group will-lgbt-groups-block-another-chick-fil-a-at-an-airport Will LGBT groups block *another* Chick-fil-A at an airport? The Blog freedom of speech Freedom of Religion Chick-Fil-A ban airports

Westlake Legal Group ChickFilA Will LGBT groups block *another* Chick-fil-A at an airport? The Blog freedom of speech Freedom of Religion Chick-Fil-A ban airports

Here we go again. We were just discussing the subject of people trying to block Chick-fil-A restaurants from publicly owned airports yesterday. I found myself wondering if this wasn’t going to turn into a trend in other parts of the country. As the saying goes… that didn’t take long. There’s another push to prevent the franchise that makes those delicious chicken sandwiches from opening up at the airport in San Jose, California. And the complaints being raised are carbon copies of the last two in Texas and New York. (CBS San Francisco)

San Jose’s LGBTQ community is protesting the construction of a new Chick-fil-A restaurant inside Mineta San Jose International Airport. Chick-fil-A financially supports groups that oppose LGBTQ rights.

The restaurant was approved more than a year ago as part of a package deal with several other restaurants in a contract with the airport’s food and beverage concessionaire.

But to Ken Yeager, San Jose’s first openly gay councilmember and supervisor, the decision to allow it at the publicly owned airport is a head scratcher.

“This is going to be people’s very first impression of San Jose and what are they going to see? They’re going to see a store known for its anti-gay attitudes and for funding anti-gay groups.

Unfortunately for Councilman Yeager, it may be too late to prevent the store from opening. The council approved the plan for the new restaurant (along with a Shake Shack, Great American Bagel and Trader Vic’s) more than a year ago. The plan is already rolling out, so it might be tricky to try to force them out now. And not to put too fine of a point on this, but wasn’t Yeager on the council when the plan was approved? Couldn’t he have spoken up then?

For their part, the other members explained that they “somehow overlooked the issue” when approving the plan. That’s probably because banning Chick-fil-A from airports hadn’t become trendy among liberals yet back then and it probably didn’t even cross their minds. Now that it’s all the rage there are people who want to jump on the bandwagon. In what appears to be a compromise (at least for now) it looks like they will still allow the restaurant to open but they’ll install a rainbow flag near it.

The local coverage is full of quotes about how the restaurant “supports groups that oppose LGBTQ rights” and promotes “anti-gay attitudes.” In reality, of course, the franchise wants to attract as many people as possible and sell as much chicken as they can. They don’t discriminate against customers or refuse them service over being gay or anything else. It’s a business and a very popular one at that.

If Yeager and his friends are bothered by Chick-fil-A, don’t eat there. I’m all in favor of that sort of protest because it just means shorter lines for the rest of us when getting lunch.

The post Will LGBT groups block *another* Chick-fil-A at an airport? appeared first on Hot Air.

Westlake Legal Group ChickFilA-300x159 Will LGBT groups block *another* Chick-fil-A at an airport? The Blog freedom of speech Freedom of Religion Chick-Fil-A ban airports  Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com