Archive for the ‘War on Free Speech’ Category

Thoughts on Donald Sterling: In America, Jerks Have Rights Too

Freedom of speech and thought means protecting the right of people to say and think ignorant offensive things. 

If you want to tattoo a swastika on your forehead, you’re free to do that.

This leads to the case of one Donald Sterling, who made racist remarks in private while in an argument with his ex-mistress Vanessa Stiviano — more than 50 years his younger.

Before launching into my main points, it’s worth noting that Sterling is a loyal Democrat. The real racism in America resides in the Democrat Party.

The Ku Klux Klanis a Democrat organization. Opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 came not from Republicans, but from Democrats — led by Senator Robert Byrd (a leader of the KKK, recruiter for the KKK). Byrd led a filibuster against the Civil Rights Act, personally speaking against the Act for 14 hours and 13 minutes on the Senate floor. He went on from there to become Senate Majority Leader for the Democrats. Byrd was President Pro Tempore of the U.S. Senate and continued to be a leading voice of the Democrat Party in the Senate (affectionately referred to as the “Lion of the Senate” by Democrats and the Media) until his death in 2010.

Byrd really was a racist. He really did hate blacks, Jews, Hispanics, Catholics, and the rest of the KKK’s enemies list. The KKK really was lynching blacks. Yet Byrd was revered by Democrats.

Whatever Sterling is guilty of, at least he’s never been a member of the KKK, like Senator Robert Byrd.

So why was Byrd revered by Democrats and the media up until 2010, but Sterling’s offense is considered unforgivable?

There’s some selective outrage here — something out of proportion, out of whack.

Is Sterling a racist? I don’t know. What he said certainly sounded racist. I won’t print his comments here because they are offensive.

In summary, what he told his ex-mistress over the phone was to stop bringing her black friends to LA Clippers games.

She secretly recorded the conversation, which is a crime in California and in most states.

California’s wiretapping law makes it a crime to record or eavesdrop on any confidential communication, including a private conversation or telephone call, without the consent of all parties to the conversation.

By “confidential,” this means the people talking have a “reasonable expectation” of privacy.

So you can record a public lecture. You cannot record a private conversation without all parties agreeing to be recorded.

Arguing with one’s mistress would certainly fall under the category of private conversation.

It’s also clear from the context of the conversation that what he was upset about is his mistress flaunting in public the fact that she’s sleeping with these basketball players, bringing them to LA Clippers games – the team he owns.

If the people she was sleeping with happened to be Jewish instead of black, he might have made anti-Semitic comments in anger.

He was angry, and used very offensive language — which might or might not reflect his true views during what he thought was a private fight with his mistress.

He has been found guilty of a thought crime. He has now been apprehended in Orwellian fashion by the Thought Police.

Is this the society in which we want to live – where every private utterance might be recorded, shared with the world, and then used to deprive you of your livelihood?

Not that Sterling will be deprived of his livelihood. He’s a billionaire.

He’ll be fine.

But something like this can happen to you – could happen to anyone.

Everyone says things in anger they don’t really mean and would like to take back.

Everyone says things in private they would prefer not go out to the public.

That’s why we have laws against the secret recording of conversations.

Otherwise, there’s no end to where this can lead.

Would it also have been fine if the mistress had stolen Sterling’s private diary to have the more salacious entries published on the front pages of the tabloids?

After listening to this recording, it’s obvious to me the ex-mistress set him up – probably as a way to show the world what a bad guy Sterling is, or perhaps as part of a blackmail scheme Sterling refused to cooperate with. Or maybe she just wanted to make a few bucks by selling the recording to TMZ.

Who knows?

So the NBA has now stepped in to ban Sterling from attending NBA basketball games for the rest of his life.

What? Huh?

He can never again attend another NBA basketball game, for life!?

But wait, many of these arenas are funded and owned (at least in part) by taxpayers. They’re public places — which means open to the public. These arenas are not the property of the NBA.

Can he also be banned from public parks, from riding the subway, from lying on the beach, from viewing the Grand Canyon, from driving on the roads?

Can he be stopped from eating at restaurants, buying groceries, going to the movies?

Will the utility companies now turn off his power and water for his racist remarks?

You see where this can lead.

He can also never enter the offices of the LA Clippers. He can never again have any connection or association with the NBA again.

But he’s the owner of the team!

He actually built the LA Clippers into the playoff team it is today.

No doubt convicted felons attend NBA games all the time. Sterling has not committed any crimes.

What also struck me is the glee the media expressed after NBA Commissioner Adam Silver “dropped the hammer” on Donald Sterling.

Silver stood in front of microphones to announce what “I” (meaning Adam Silver) am doing to Sterling.

No trial. No hearing. No due process. Apparently, just Adam Silver decides — based on one day of news reports.

It’s strange how authoritarianism and dictatorship are all the rage on the liberal side these days.

Obama regularly boasts that he’s going around Congress, going it alone. Paul Krugman of The New York Times praises China’s authoritarian political model . . . because they get things done.

I have not read the NBA bylaws.  Apparently, a three-fourths vote by the owners can force Sterling to sell his team.

It’s hard to believe the owners would set this kind of a precedent — forcing a fellow owner to sell his team for saying something offensive in a private conversation that was illegally recorded.

A precedent like this would put all the owners in jeopardy of losing their teams.

Have we reached a point in America where you can’t even speak in your own house anymore?

Liberals used to defend the “right to privacy.”

Wasn’t the “right to privacy” the entire basis of the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade ruling legalizing abortion? — not that abortion has anything to do with the “right to privacy.”

But the “right to privacy” used to be a big deal to liberals.

Sterling’s ex-mistress certainly appears to be in a heap of trouble. Not only has she apparently violated California’s wiretapping laws (a crime), but she’ll be liable for triple civil damages if Sterling sues her – which he probably will.  Damages might be Sterling’s loss of his NBA team.

Don’t get me wrong. I am in no way defending Sterling’s abhorrent remarks. He appears to be a scoundrel.

He had to settle a racial discrimination suit with the U.S. Justice Department. He was sued for racial discrimination by NBA great Elgin Baylor, though Baylor’s suit was dismissed.  So this isn’t the first time the race issue has come up with Sterling.  

But in a free society, jerks have rights too.

The free market has a way of dealing with situations like this.

Advertisers will boycott the Clippers. People will stop showing up at the games. Players won’t play for the team. The team’s value will plummet. He might then want to sell the team.

I doubt the NBA will be able to force him to sell his team under these circumstances. Sterling says he’s not selling the team. And it’s almost impossible to believe the NBA has the legal right to prevent Sterling from attending NBA basketball games for the rest of his life.

Sterling looks like he has a strong lawsuit in the making against the NBA. I can see a judge ruling that the jury can’t hear the recorded conversation because it was obtained illegally and that Sterling is the victim of a crime.

12 Signs That Americans Who Love Liberty Should Watch Their Backs

END OF THE AMERICAN DREAM:

#1 A 55-year-old man in Arizona was recently ordered to turn in all his guns because of things that he wrote on his blog.  Fortunately, after WorldNetDaily covered the story there was an outpouring of outrage and the order was overturned, but what would have happened if WorldNetDaily had not covered the story?

#2 According to Mike Adams of Natural News, the CDC is starting to call parents all over the nation to question them about the vaccination status of their children….

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control, which has been comprehensively exposed as a vaccine propaganda organization promoting the interests of drug companies, is now engaged in a household surveillance program that involves calling U.S. households and intimidating parents into producing child immunization records. As part of what it deems a National Immunization Survey(NIS), the CDC is sending letters to U.S. households, alerting them that they will be called by “NORC at the University of Chicago” and that households should “have your child’s immunization records handy when answering our questions.”

You can see a copy of the letter that the CDC is sending out to selected parentsright here.

#3 According to blogger Alexander Higgins, students in kindergarten and the 1st grade in the state of New Jersey are now required by law to participate “in monthly anti-terrorism drills”.  The following is an excerpt from a letter that he recently received from the school where his child attends….

Each month a school must conduct one fire drill and one security drill which may be a lockdown, bomb threat, evacuation, active shooter, or shelter-in place drill. All schools are now required by law to implement this procedure.

So who in the world ever decided that it would be a good idea for 1st grade students to endure “lockdown” and “active shooter” drills?

To get an idea of what these kinds of drills are like, just check out this video.

#4 According to licensed private investigator Angela V. Woodhull, hospitals are increasingly using “guardianship” to strip elderly Americans of their liberty and to rapidly drain their bank accounts.  The following is one story that Woodhull included in a recent article….

Ginger Franklin, Hendersonville, Tennessee, fell down the stairs in her condo and suffered a bump on her head.  She was declared “temporarily mentally incapacitated” and a guardian was appointed through the courts.  Within six weeks, the guardian had sold Franklin’s home, car, furniture, and drained her bank account.  Today, Franklin has her freedom back, but she is having to start all over.

#5 In a sign of just how far individual liberty in the United States has declined, a judge in Wisconsin has actually ruled that citizens do not have a right to grow and eat whatever foods they want to.  The following is a short excerpt from his recent decision….

1) no, Plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to own and use a dairy cow or a dairy herd;

2) no, Plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to consume the milk from their own cow;

3) no, Plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to board their cow at the farm of a farmer;

4) no, the Zinniker Plaintiffs’ private contract does not fall outside the scope of the State’s police power;

5) no, Plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to produce and consume foods of their choice;

#6 The freedom to raise our pets as we want to is also being greatly curtailed in many areas of the country.  For example, a new law in St. Louis would require nearly all dogs and cats to be sterilized and microchipped….

Board Bill 107 would require all pet owners to spay or neuter their dogs and cats and microchip them for identification. Those who don’t want to sterilize their pets would be assessed a fee of $200 per year.

Will the control freaks that run things want to start sterilizing and microchipping humans someday?

#7 Whenever any politician suggests that we should “suspend elections”, that should be a major red flag.  North Carolina Governor Bev Perdue recently made national headlines when she made the following statement….

“I think we ought to suspend, perhaps, elections for Congress for two years and just tell them we won’t hold it against them, whatever decisions they make, to just let them help this country recover

#8 As I wrote about recently, many NFL teams are now performing “enhanced pat-downs” of fans before they enter the stadiums.  In Green Bay, the Packers are using hand-held metal detectors on fans before they are allowed to enter Lambeau field.

What is next?  Will they soon insist that we all undergo full body cavity searches before we are permitted to attend the games?

Read more here >>>

 

Here’s Ron Paul’s CPAC speech

Algeria shuts down Internet and Facebook as protests mount

U.K. TELEGRAPH: Internet providers were shut down and Facebook accounts deleted across Algeria on Saturday as thousands of pro-democracy demonstrators were arrested in violent street demonstrations.

Plastic bullets and tear gas were used to try and disperse large crowds in major cities and towns, with 30,000 riot police taking to the streets in Algiers alone.

There were also reports of journalists being targeted by state-sponsored thugs to stop reports of the disturbances being broadcast to the outside world.

But it was the government attack on the internet which was of particular significance to those calling for an end to President Abdelaziz Boutifleka’s repressive regime.

Protesters mobilising through the internet were largely credited with bringing about revolutions in Egypt and Tunisia.

Read more here >>>

In defense of “toxic rhetoric”

What if Jared Loughner had been a Tea Partier?

Would this have been the end of free speech in America?

JUSTIN PAULETTE-AMERICAN SPECTATOR: Within hours of the Arizona massacre, as we know, unprincipled partisans accused conservatives of responsibility. Nothing was known of the gunman or his motives, but ignorance was no impediment to their predetermined verdict. “We don’t have proof yet that this was political,” admitted guilt-peddler Paul Krugman in the New York Times, “but the odds are that it was.”

Those sharing Krugman’s exploitative intent advanced his politically motivated supposition by indicting Sarah Palin, the Tea Party and all-things-conservative for cultivating a “culture of hate” through “toxic” rhetoric.

The facts subsequently exonerated conservatives of culpability. Jared Loughner is demonstrably anti-conservative, an apolitical anarchist influenced more by communist and Nazi ideologies than anything in the American spectrum. More significantly, Loughner is insane, motivated by delusions of mind-control and hallucinations rather than politics.

Read more here >>>

Jon Stewart on censoring Mark Twain

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart Mon – Thurs 11p / 10c
Mark Twain Controversy
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog</a> The Daily Show on Facebook

LOUGHNER FRIEND: “He did not watch TV. He disliked the news. He didn’t listen to political radio. He didn’t take sides. He wasn’t on the left. He wasn’t on the right.”



ABC NEWS: This morning on “Good Morning America,” ABC’s Ashleigh Banfield sat down with Zach Osler, a high school friend of Jared Loughner, the suspect in the Tucson massacre.

Osler says his friend wasn’t shooting at people, “he was shooting at the world.” Regarding the high-pitched talk radio and cable news political rhetoric, Osler says his friend didn’t even watch the news.

He did not watch TV. He disliked the news. He didn’t listen to political radio. He didn’t take sides. He wasn’t on the left. He wasn’t on the right.

Read more here >>>

Walking Short: The Life and Lies of Sheriff Dupnik

SELWYN DUKE-CANADA FREE PRESS: The obvious villain in theGabrielle Giffords tragedy is the man who caused it, the very disturbed Jared Lee Loughner. Sadly, though, there have been villains in the response to it, too—many villains. And while it’s hard to make a pick for this Black Hat Award, one man who has certainly distinguished himself is Pima County, Arizona, Sheriff Clarence Dupnik.

As you may know, Dupnik has been busy warning of how speech has consequences while in the same breath blaming conservatives for the actions of Loughner. Now, I don’t blame the sheriff for asking why. It is fine to look for reasons. It is not fine to be reckless and wrong. And it’s a sin when it’s born of indifference to Truth.

To be precise, Dupnik implicates right-wing talk radio—he mentioned Rush Limbaugh—and cable news in the Giffords shooting. Yet a number of obvious things seem to have eluded this man, this supposed professional investigator. For starters, if we’re actually going to analyze the politics of Loughner, we should note that one of his former classmates describes him as a “left wing” “political radical” and “pot head” and that Loughner had listed The Communist Manifesto among his favorite works on his YouTube page. Then, many know about Loughner’s bizarre YouTube video. What few know, however, is that he apparently posted it to DemocraticUnderground.com before its appearance on YouTube. Yes, sheriff, that’s “democratic” as in Democratic Party—not as in Republican, Tea, or Animal House.

Read more here >>>

Targeting Free Speech: Here Come the Regulations

UNION LEADER: With perfect predictability, a top Democratic member of Congress responded to the tragic shootings in Tucson, Ariz., by proposing dramatic restrictions on free speech.
Speaking on National Public Radio on Monday, U.S. Rep. James Clyburn, D-S.C., the third-ranking Democrat in the House, blamed the shooting on irresponsible political discourse.

“I think that those of us who are armed with the gift of gab are responsible for what we say and how we say it. And when people hear things and feel that they can make a martyr out of themselves because of the discourse around the political arena, they sometimes react with ways that are socially unacceptable. But that does not absolve us.”

His solution? Why, silencing the opposition, of course. He explained that violent rhetoric wasn’t to blame for the violence in the 1960s because of federal regulations. Noting that the state has the authority to impose some limits on speech, Clyburn said we need more regulations now to prevent people from saying inflammatory things.

“We had restraint on speech back then. I came up in a time that the Fairness Doctrine did not allow media outlets to say things about a candidate or a person in public office without giving that person equal time to respond.”

Read more here >>>

Dem Congressman Says: If harsh political rhetoric did not cause this shooting, it will cause the next one

CONGRESSMAN BRAD SHERMAN: “Whether [political rhetoric] caused what happened in Tucson or not, it’ll cause the next tragedy.”

Read more here >>>

Login to Join Discussion!



Categories