Tag Archives: Media

Free Speech and Hate Speech


David Solway writes for PJ Media about a conference in Canada:

There is obviously a grey area between free speech and hate speech — human life cannot be reduced to a scientific formula enabling precise distinctions — but there should be no doubt that critical speech, analytical speech, satirical speech, spontaneous speech and offensive speech should not be legislated. Free speech is not a speech act. The term “hate speech” in its current acceptation, however, is merely a pretext for the eventual passage of blasphemy laws, envisaging the death of a free and democratic society.

Canada and the U.S. have different ways to deal with speech which might become an illegal act. The First Amendment still covers Americans whose speech is insulting, critical, even racist.

The trend worldwide is actually to punish so-called hate speech. Germany, the UK and other so-called free countries are now battlegrounds in this war.

It is a war. Or at least the first salvos.  

If blasphemy laws, hate speech rules and anti-free speech codes are a part of the U.S. legal system ten years from now, I wouldn’t be surprised. At that point, opposing illegal immigration, or maintaining some semblance of liberty will be in jeopardy. 

If you can silence someone, then you can silence anyone.  That never ends well.

How many teenagers and young adults get this? And how can they learn it, before it is too late.

The young people who justify violence, seek to enforce conformity of thought, and the media who treat the phrase “hate speech” as if it is already illegal…they’ve gone in the wrong direction. Somehow, through education and conversation, this must be turned around.

David Solway:

To return to the U of T symposium. The event was scheduled to conclude with a talk by controversial author and founder of The Rebel Media Ezra Levant, the highlight of the convention. Books like Ethical Oil, Shakedown and Trumping Trudeau, and the fact that Levant is frequently embroiled in legal battles with aggrieved Muslims (and ethically compromised judges), have made him a major draw on the conference circuit. Right on cue, as Levant stepped to the podium, a throng of protestors, plainly neither conferees nor students, swarmed past a detail of useless security guards and proceeded to wreak havoc. The fire alarm was pulled and the entire building (the Sandford Fleming Engineering Building) had to be evacuated. Classes were disrupted as well as the lectures in the auditorium seating hundreds of paying attendees — and that was the end of the affair. This, as noted, is a standard tactic of the dysfunctional and anarchy-loving student left.

 

Quote of the Day


They don’t like the conspiratorial nature of populism — such as the allegation that the game is “rigged” by powerful, hidden forces who would never permit a Trump to win (or govern).

They’re so offended by this charge that, like Islamists protesting the claim that Islamists are violent by murdering you, they immediately set out to brag that there are indeed powerful, hidden forces who will run this country as they see fit whether you peons like it or not. — Ace

Lots of Other Questions


The Washington Post:

With Flynn’s departure, the intrigue only deepens. Many questions still need to be answered: Why did Trump, who apparently was aware of Flynn’s dissembling for weeks, wait so long to force his adviser out? What did Trump himself know directly about Flynn’s conversations with Russian officials? Did Flynn potentially make false claims to the FBI, who quizzed him in the first days of the administration? Could Flynn face prosecution?

Where are the leaks coming from? If there were phone calls between Trump advisers and spooks for the Kremlin, were they recorded, and if so will they also be leaked? Will Democrats find other people whose malfeasance is tiny compared to Bill and Hillary Clinton’s, and destroy them?  

How many ways can the press remind us about Russia tampering with the election, without pointing out that at worst, the Russians leaked private email, which is a shadow of the leaks involved here? If the worst tampering they did was to show what schmucks the Democrats are, is that really a big deal?

I don’t like this crap from any angle. Flynn screwed up, and I don’t want somebody that careless advising the president. It’s not as if he lost thousands of emails, or deleted them from a server stored in the bathroom.

I really don’t like the fact that in Washington, taking someone’s scalp is a partisan blood sport. And I really didn’t like seeing Wolf Blitzer with that sanctimonious smirk on his face. 

 

News Writing by Dummies


Journalistic quandry: You want to call something improper or illegal, but it isn’t. In fact, it is entirely normal. 

The Washington Post put this in my email.

LOGO.png

 The article contains this gem:

LEGALLY.png

So, the writer notes that the action is legally defensible. But it raises fresh questions about the president’s commitment to the rule of law.

Image result for elbow

Elbow.

Now, I’m no hotshot Washington Post writer, but if something is legal, it really does not raise fresh questions about a commitment to the rule of law. Actually, doing things legally reinforces a commitment to the rule of law.

The crap about the campaign is just unrelated junk. Only the weak-minded and Trump-haters will fall for this.

__________________________________________

These headlines raise fresh questions about the Washington Post writers’ ability to tell their asses from their elbows. 

__________________________________________

The American people are increasingly walking away from news sources like the Washington Post, exactly because of this nonsense.

 

I Condemn the Guy Who Cut Me Off in Traffic This Morning


…which comes amid heightened tensions worldwide over President Donald Trump’s travel ban on several Muslim countries.

___________________________________________________

I wanted to write a post about condemning the attack on a Canadian mosque, so I turned to a newspaper for details and quotes.

Chicago Tribune:

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Quebec Premier Philippe Couillard both characterized the attack as a terrorist act, which came amid heightened tensions worldwide over President Donald Trump’s travel ban on several Muslim countries.

Yes. Amid is the new buzzword.  Reporters are also using something like “…the anti-immigrant sentiment swirling around the Trump campaign…” or “with anti-Muslim sentiment being fueled by Trump supporters…” or even “…since the election of President Trump…” 

Donald Trump has said nothing about going out and shooting Muslims — except I’m pretty sure he’s not in favor.  This constant and reflexive connection between Trump and anything to do with Muslims, Hispanics and LGBTQ people is unfair.  

The shooting is terrible, and we don’t yet know the motives. It happened in a completely different country — which has a long history of being quite accepting of immigrants and Muslims. For now, is it asking reporters too much to wait until the identities and motives of the shooters is known?

By the way, Canada’s PM Justin Trudeau has at least been clear-headed enough to call the attack “an act of terror.” The former U.S. president would have waited, just in case it was an act of something else.

For the record. I condemn this act of evil.

Update: I added a few words.

Update #2: New York Times:

Mr. Couillard [Quebec Premier] declined to comment on the possibility that anti-Islamist remarks by Mr. Trump during the presidential campaign had played a role. But he did add: “We live in a world where people tend to divide themselves rather than unite. Our country, Canada and Quebec, has to remain a beacon of tolerance.”

Yeah, he declined to comment, but some reporter asked. Does anybody remember the “let’s burn the mosques and kill the Muslim’s” speech, because I’m drawing a blank.

The authorities initially said that there had been two suspects, but Quebec’s provincial police agency said on Monday that only one man was a suspect and that another man — also arrested Sunday evening — was a witness. Court officials in Quebec identified the two men arrested as Alexandre Bissonnette, 27, and Mohamed el Khadir, who was said to be in his late 20s or early 30s.

I’m not an expert on Canadian law, but let’s assume they don’t arrest innocent witnesses, which would have been a great follow-up question, New York Times… Is there any significance to the fact that one of the young men is named Mohamed? 

I condemn myself for that question, which I typed amid heightened tensions worldwide over President Donald Trump’s travel ban on several Muslim countries.