” The announcement of a Prophet Muhammed cartoon contest and a suspected arson attack on an Islamic centre building have put a Texas town on edge.
The controversial ‘Draw the Prophet’ contest is scheduled to be held in Garland, Texas, in May, the organizers have announced.
The contest will take place at the same venue where the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) had held the “Stand with the Prophet” conference following the Charlie Hebdo attack in January.
Pamela Geller, the President of the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI), told Brietbart News that she will conduct the cartoon contest and an art exhibit at the Curtis Culwell Center in Garland on 3 May.”
” The problem comes with the form the rules will take. With heavy nudging from the White House, the FCC has opted to repurpose an authority it was given under an old telecoms law, known as Title II, to make it apply to the internet era.
Like all deeply technical issues that become political footballs, it has not been hard for the rival camps to turn this into opposing talking points. Depending on where you stand, it is either bold action to protect an open internet or inappropriately sweeping, utility-style regulation.
What is indisputable is that the legislation the FCC is relying on was designed for circuit-switched telephone networks in a different age. The only way to adapt it to modern times is to suppress certain parts of Title II and implement it piecemeal. The FCC promises a light touch: in particular, it says it will avoid price regulation or any requirements that might force operators to unbundle their networks.
If history is any guide, a challenge in the courts will follow. There is simply too much at stake for the regulations not to be tested. And, as was the case with the last approach to net neutrality, it is not beyond the courts to reject the FCC’s compromise as unduly arbitrary.
This is where things could become dicey for companies such as Google and Facebook. Who knows how some future FCC would interpret its new Title II powers, or whether a court would order a different implementation of the law. Price regulation of the internet’s interconnection agreements would always be a looming threat.
It is not just the impact in the US itself that is at stake. There is also the question of what message US regulators are about to send to the rest of the world. The risk is that Washington will be seen to be giving a nod of approval to the idea of extending traditional telecoms rate regulations to the internet.”
Read the whole piece at Financial Times
Published on Nov 7, 2014
” We’re paralyzed by Islam.
1400 cases of “appalling” sexual exploitation revealed in UK report
UK Christian street preacher charged for offending Islam.
Football fans convicted for tearing pages from the Koran
Ex-soldier jailed for burning the Koran
Election candidate arrested for Churchill speech
My previous video about the Rotherham child rape scandal and the sinister Common Purpose organisation
Rotherham child abuse investigator “had data stolen”
Police put a cap on number of arrests. Dozens of child rapists are still on the street
Back in 2006 Manchester police were told to avoid Ramadan arrests while gang rapes were going on all around them
Rotherham’s Joyce Thacker follows Common Purpose’s progressive agenda
Rotherham Council spent thousands of pounds on Common Purpose training for staff
A secret society?
You can download audio versions of all my videos at
Subscribe via iTunes at http://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZ… “
” The FEC deadlocked in a crucial Internet campaign speech vote announced Friday, leaving online political blogging and videos free of many of the reporting requirements attached to broadcast ads — for now.
While all three GOP-backed members voted against restrictions, they were opposed by the three Democratic-backed members, including FEC Vice Chair Ann M. Ravel, who said she will lead a push next year to try to come up with new rules government political speech on the Internet.
It would mark a major reversal for the commission, which for nearly a decade has protected the ability of individuals and interest groups to take to engage in a robust political conversation on the Internet without having to worry about registering with the government or keeping and reporting records of their expenses.
Ms. Ravel said she fears that in trying to keep the Internet open for bloggers, they’ve instead created a loophole for major political players to escape some scrutiny.
“ Some of my colleagues seem to believe that the same political message that would require disclosure if run on television should be categorically exempt from the same requirements when placed in the Internet alone,” said FEC Vice Chair Ann M. Ravel in a statement. “As a matter of policy, this simply does not make sense.”
She said the FEC should no longer “turn a blind eye to the Internet’s growing force in the political arena,” and she vowed to force a conversation next year on what changes to make.
The three Republican-backed commissioners, though, said in a joint statement that Ms. Ravel’s plans would stifle what’s become the “virtual free marketplace of political ideas and democratic debate.”
” This morning, the Supreme Court announced two unanimous decisions, both of them defeats for the Obama Administration and victories for the Constitution.
In the first, Canning v. NLRB, the Supreme Court struck down President Obama’s “recess appointments” to the powerful National Labor Relations Board. The question was simple: Was the Senate in recess or in session when it was in a so-called “pro forma” session. The Supreme Court’s conclusion was sensible:
In our view, however, the pro forma sessions count as sessions, not as periods of recess. We hold that, for purposes of the Recess Appointments Clause, the Senate is in session when it says it is, provided that, under its own rules, it retains the capacity to transact Senate business. The Senate met that standard here.
We represented the Speaker of the House, John Boehner, in the case, filing a brief on his behalf. The case represented a key victory for the Speaker and the House itself, since the House has a high degree of control over even the Senate’s schedule.
The bottom line is simple: The President will not be able to circumvent the Senate’s “advise and consent” through recess appointments without the consent of both houses of Congress.
Today is a good day for the separation of powers.
It is also a good day for free speech and the pro-life movement.
In the day’s second decision, McCullen v. Coakley, the Court struck down Massachusetts’ buffer zone law, a law that prohibited any person within a 35-foot radius of an abortion clinic entrance or driveway from approaching another person “for the purpose of passing a leaflet or handbill to, displaying a sign to, or engaging in oral protest, education, or counseling with such other person.”
Justice Roberts wrote the opinion for the Court, and once again the Court’s reasoning was sensible and constitutionally sound:
Petitioners wish to converse with their fellow citizens about an important subject on the public streets and sidewalks—sites that have hosted discussions about the issues of the day throughout history. Respondents assert undeniably significant interests in maintaining public safety on those same streets and sidewalks, as well as in preserving access to adjacent healthcare facilities. But here the Commonwealth has pursued those interests by the extreme step of closing a substantial portion of a traditional public forum to all speakers. It has done so without seriously addressing the problem through alternatives that leave the forum open for its time-honored purposes. The Commonwealth may not do that consistent with the First Amendment.
This case is a watershed in the movement to undo the infamous “abortion distortion,” the judicial distortion in free-speech jurisprudence that effectively denies full free speech rights to the pro-life movement. At the ACLJ we have a decades-long history of battling for pro-life free speech at the Supreme Court, and today’s victory sends an important message.
The Obama Administration and pro-abortion state governments are on notice: pro-life speech is free speech, fully protected by the First Amendment. The pro-life movement is now more free to take its life-saving message to the people who need to hear it the most.”
Add these victories to the recent decision voiding the practice of warrantless cell phone searches and you have a great week for liberty from the Supreme Court .
” From the First Circuit’s decision Friday in Gericke v. Begin (1st Cir. May 24, 2014):
This case raises an important question about an individual’s First Amendment right to film a traffic stop by a police officer. Carla Gericke attempted to film Sergeant Joseph Kelley as he was conducting a late-night traffic stop. Shortly thereafter, she was arrested and charged with several crimes, including a violation of New Hampshire’s wiretapping statute. Gericke was not brought to trial. She subsequently sued the Town of Weare, its police department, and the officers who arrested and charged her, alleging in pertinent part that the wiretapping charge constituted retaliatory prosecution in violation of her First Amendment rights….
Based on Gericke’s version of the facts, we conclude that she was exercising a clearly established First Amendment right when she attempted to film the traffic stop in the absence of a police order to stop filming or leave the area…. “
” In a surprising move, a commencement speaker at Haverford College on Sunday used the celebratory occasion to deliver a sharp rebuke to students who had mounted a campaign against another speaker who had been scheduled to appear but withdrew amid the controversy.
William G. Bowen, former president of Princeton and a nationally respected higher education leader, called the student protestors’ approach both “immature” and “arrogant” and the subsequent withdrawal of Robert J. Birgeneau, former chancellor of the University of California Berkeley, a “defeat” for the Quaker college and its ideals.
Bowen’s remarks to an audience of about 2,800 that gave him a standing ovation added a new twist to commencement speaker controversies playing out increasingly on college campuses across the nation. Bowen faced no opposition, but chose to defend a fellow speaker who was targeted, calling the situation “sad” and “troubling.”
Rutgers University also held commencement on Sunday without former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who withdrew after professors and students there protested her appearance for her role in the Iraq war. Smith and Brandeis, too, saw the loss of speakers this year.
At Haverford, the controversy arose over Birgeneau’s leadership during a 2011 incident in which UC Berkeley police used force on students protesting college costs. A group of more than 40 students and three Haverford professors – all Berkeley alums – objected to Birgeneau’s appearance and receipt of an honorary degree, noting that many of them had participated in Occupy protests as well and wanted to stand in solidarity with Berkeley students.”
” A Morgan Hill high school has constructed a fence to block protesters from disrupting classes on Cinco de Mayo, after plans were announced by a Tea Party group to protest the school’s 2010 decision to send students home for wearing the American flag on the Spanish holiday.
Calls for demonstrations and counter-demonstrations, and even suggestions that a group of motorcyclists will arrive prompted authorities to put the fence around the front of Live Oak High.”
More at Rightwing News
” In most places, the parking enforcement officer reflects the municipal compact. Armed only with a gadget that can spit out a ticket at the forgotten drop of a dime, the officer quietly serves civic and commercial life by ensuring that meters are fed.
In most places, yes. But not here in charming Keene, where parking officers figure in a philosophical tug of war between a small band of activists who live by the motto “Free Keene,” and the great majority of residents who were unaware that their city was in bondage.”
Keene’s two parking officers, both women, are often videotaped by young adults known as “Robin Hooders.” They track the whereabouts of the officers by two-way radio, feed expired meters before $5 tickets can be written, and leave a business card saying that “we saved you from the king’s tariff.”
Welcome to Sherwood Forest, N.H., where these acts of charity have led to some donations and gratitude, but also to sidewalk tensions, harassment allegations and litigation. They are part of a broader effort by about two-dozen activists, most of them from someplace else, to unshackle Keene from the “violent monopoly” of government and its enforcers, including these parking officers who work in weather fair and foul.”
” California state government departments will be prohibited from selling or displaying items with an image of the Confederate flag under a bill that passed the Assembly on Monday.
AB2444 by Assemblyman Isadore Hall, D-Compton, is headed to the Senate after passing on a 72-1 vote. Hall introduced the bill after his mother saw replica Confederate money being sold at the state Capitol gift shop.
He called the image a symbol of racism meant to intimidate.
“ Its symbolism in history is directly linked to the enslavement, torture and murder of millions of Americans,” Hall said of the Confederate flag. “The state of California should not be in the business of promoting hate toward others.”
The only lawmaker to vote against the bill was Assemblyman Tim Donnelly, the leading Republican candidate for governor.
“ We shouldn’t be here picking the kind of speech we like,” he said. “I am not standing here defending the symbol. I am standing here defending the principle that the First Amendment principles should apply in all state buildings, of all places.”
” Two Long Island high school students have been suspended for allegedly bringing a Confederate flag to school.
Brother Gary Cregan, principal of St. Anthony’s High School in South Huntington, said the two seniors walked in with a Confederate flag draped around their shoulders during an after-hours sporting event at the school.
The students were initially suspended for 10 days, but Cregan decided Tuesday they won’t be allowed back, Brown reported.
Cregan wrote a letter to parents saying the use of any symbols “designed to revive past injustices or to inflame discrimination or racial intolerance, is completely unacceptable and profoundly offensive,” Newsday reported.
The students haven’t explained why they did it. St. Anthony’s is a private Catholic school and isn’t bound by the First Amendment right to free speech.
Still, the New York Civil Liberties Union said all people should be able to express their views freely, even the offensive ones.
“ Our motto is more speech, not censorship or punishment,” NYCLU director Donna Lieberman told Brown. “Helping children understand the impact of this patently offensive expressive activity.” “
” The federal government used draconian methods in its raid involving Cliven Bundy in an attempt to scare the Nevada rancher in their dispute over grazing rights, said former Judge Andrew Napolitano.
” The draconian, authoritarian way that the government is going after Mr. Bundy is obviously to try and scare him, and scare ranchers, and send a message which is utterly un-American and not consistent with a free people,” Napolitano, a former New Jersey Superior Court judge, told “Fox & Friends” on Tuesday.
Napolitano said the proper procedure for resolving a dispute would be to file documents in the court system, not through the use of force by the government.
” When you owe the government money, they don’t come with guns and troops. And they don’t threaten the media that are there to cover it. You file a document in the courthouse, and it’s a judgment on the property,” Napolitano said.
Napolitano said he was “shocked” to see federal agents dressed like troops “in camouflage and with M-16s” adding that the BLM is not “a military or a law-enforcement entity.” “
Read more at Newsmax
” A gun control group is currently putting pressure on organizers of a summer music and food festival in Maumee, Ohio, to nix the Motor City Madman from the lineup.
Citing examples of Ted Nugent’s inflammatory rhetoric, including at the 2014 SHOT Show where he called the president a “subhuman mongrel” in an interview with Guns.com, CSGV Executive Director Josh Horwitz is urging Buckeye State residents to sign a petition in protest of Nugent’s scheduled appearance.
“ If we can make a strong show of opposition, I am certain we can sway [The Blade] towards the right decision,” Horowitz wrote in an email about the anti-Nuge campaign.”
Guns.com has more
“Mozilla believes both in equality and freedom of speech. Equality is necessary for meaningful speech,” Baker said. “And you need free speech to fight for equality. Figuring out how to stand for both at the same time can be hard.”
I heard a lot of this stuff during my free-speech battles in Canada. The country’s chief censor, the late Jennifer Lynch, QC, was willing to concede that free speech was certainly a right, but it was merely one in a whole range of competing rights – such as “equality” and “diversity” – that needed to be “balanced”. What the “balancing” boils down to is that you get fired if you are an apostate from the new progressive groupthink. Underneath the agonized prose, Mitchell Baker is a bare-knuckled thug.
~ It’s the thuggishness and bullying that ought to disgust people, even those who support gay marriage. My final appearances at National Review Online were a spat with my editor, Jason Lee Steorts, over “two jokes one can no longer tell on American television” that I quoted in a column on Phil Robertson’s suspension for “homophobia”. First, Bob Hope, touring the world in the year or so after the passage of the 1975 Consenting Adult Sex Bill:
“I’ve just flown in from California, where they’ve made homosexuality legal. I thought I’d get out before they make it compulsory.”
Second, Frank Sinatra and Dean Martin on stage in Vegas throughout the Sixties and Seventies:
Frank: “How do you make a fruit cordial?”
Dino: “Be nice to him.”
As usual Steyn’s take is priceless and a do not miss read.
MRCTV’s Dan Joseph interviews Obamacare supporters on why HobbyLobby should be forced to pay for their birth control . Ignorance , hypocrisy and selfishness rules the day as one might expect .
The key thing to remember here though is that birth control is not healthcare . Pregnancy isn’t a sickness it is a choice just as abortion is a choice .
” The Obama administration’s decision to relinquish oversight over the group that manages the Internet’s architecture has raised an early red flag with Republicans, who blast the move as a threat to free speech.
Exactly who would regulate the Web’s back-end is unclear, but the decision already has sparked backlash among some in the GOP, who warn it could allow the United Nations or authoritarian countries to step in and seize control of the Web.
U.S. lawmakers have long warned about the dangers of ceding ICANN’s authority to the International Telecommunication Union, a United Nations agency. They see the U.N. as a vehicle for countries with tight constraints to allow even greater online censorship. Congress unanimously passed Bono’s resolution ahead of a 2012 ITU meeting to reinforce America’s commitment to an open Internet.”
At first glance the Obama administration’s promise to relinquish control over ICANN seems like a good idea … one less thing the government controls … but given that this administration is not known for championing liberty and the free markets one is left wondering if this is a back-handed way for the Statists to cede control over the free flow of information to the UN or some other Statist body while appearing to do the opposite .
There is much talk as well that this new move opens the door to an internet tax and censorship which should be of concern to us all . If there is one thing we know about the Obama administration it is that it loves both taxes and regulation so we cannot help but wonder that something larger is at play here than “fairness” and freedom .
” Julie Burchill, my old boss at The Modern Review many years ago, has a bracing column in this week’s Speccieon the difference between the left she grew up with and the left today:
While working-class left-wing political activism was always about fighting the powerful, treating people how you would wish to be treated and believing that we’re all basically the same, modern, non-working-class left-wing politics is about… other stuff. Class guilt, sexual kinks, personal prejudice and repressed lust for power.
That’s why, as Kathy Shaidle observes here, the concept of free speech is no longer widely accepted. If you believe in “treating people how you would wish to be treated”, then it’s natural to accord them the same rights of freedom of expression that you yourself wish to exercise. But, if you believe (as I discussed with Steve Madely on the radio yesterday) that what matters is what identity group you belong to (the New Tribalism), then it’s natural to demand that members of non-approved groups should not be permitted to make their case.”