The Alex Jones Show(Commercial Free AUDIO) Thursday February 12 2015: Free Speech
SUBSCRIBE TO PRISONPLANET.TV-- -- Share With 20 People -- http://tv.infowars.com/ -- http://www.youtube.com/TheAlexJonesChannel/ -- http://www.infowars.co...
By: Ron Gibson
Read the original:
The Alex Jones Show(Commercial Free AUDIO) Thursday February 12 2015: Free Speech - Video
US Gov/Central Bankers Getting Ready To Limit Free Speech - Episode 591
Get economic collapse news throughout the day visit http://x22report.com More news visit http://thepeoplesnewz.com Report date: 2.13.2015 ECB give another 5 ...
By: X22Report
Go here to see the original:
US Gov/Central Bankers Getting Ready To Limit Free Speech - Episode 591 - Video
Police Kill Suspect in Denmark Shootings
Danish police shot and killed a man early Sunday suspected of carrying out shooting attacks at a free speech event and later at a Copenhagen synagogue. (Feb. 15) Subscribe for more Breaking...
By: Associated Press
Continued here:
Copenhagen Attack Witness Inna Shevchenko Debates Scholar Tariq Ramadan on Religion and Free Speech
http://democracynow.org - Danish police have shot and killed a man they say carried out attacks on a synagogue and an event promoting free speech in Copenhag...
By: democracynow
Read the original post:
If you said something really controversial, or created an incredibly offensive page on Facebook, whats the worst that could happen? In other words, what is Facebooks recourse?
It could block your content. It could remove your page. It could suspend your account. Facebook cant throw you in jail.
Facebook cannot violate your First Amendment rights to free speech because Facebook isnt bound by the nations oldest set of laws to protect your free speech rights. Facebook is a company with the ability to set its own rules on what kind of content it wants on its site. End of story. Facebook can say that its all about protecting free speech and if it wanted to protect the idea of true free speech, then it could. But that would be a choice. Facebook doesnt owe you First Amendment protections.
Should Facebook remove certain content if it feels its a danger to public health? Let us know in the comments.
This has been said over and over again, but it bears repeating because were about to get into another Facebook censorship debate. No, Facebook hasnt done anything. Instead, a rather prominent figure from a rather prominent publication has suggested nay demanded that Facebook shut down an entire group of people on the site because what they say is a danger to the public at large.
TIME magazines editor-at-large Jeffrey Kluger has just called on Facebook to shut down the anti-vaxxers.
One thing that would helpsomething Zuckerberg could do with little more than a flick of the switch, as could Twitter CEO Dick Costolo and the other bosses of other sitesis simply shut the anti-vaxxers down. Really. Pull their pages, block their posts, twist the spigot of misinformation before more people get hurt, he says.
His argument is that Facebook supposedly bans content thats harmful, specifically a direct threat to public safety. He says that the anti-vaccination movement is just that a direct threat to public safety. Thus, Facebook should just yank their pages and block their posts before more people get hurt.
Its not as if the folks at Facebook arent clear about the kinds of things they will and wont allow on the site, providing a brief listing and a detailed description of what are considered no-go areas. You may not credibly threaten others, or organize acts of real-world violence, is one rule, so nobody would get away with posting instructions for, say, how to build a pressure cooker bomb. There is nothing in the regulations that specifically prohibits trafficking in bogus medical information, but the first section of the policy statement begins, Safety is Facebooks top priority, and then goes on to say We remove content and may escalate to law enforcement when we perceive a genuine risk of physical harm, or a direct threat to public safety, says Kluger.
Do you think the anti-vaccine movement is a direct threat to public safety? I do. But if I didnt, it wouldnt matter. The point is that Facebook can pull every single anti-vaccination page off its site and you shouldnt really bat an eye. You shouldnt cry censorship! and you should bitch about Facebook and free speech.
Go here to read the rest:
Reddit, the long-time haven of weirdos, perverts and miscreants the Internet over, has been, from its beginning, the mainstream bulwark for free speech online.
But in a strange twist that perfectly illustrates the current culturewide debate around online speech, a group of disgruntled users has begun an exodus off the site claiming, against all odds, that Reddit is censoring them as a matter of corporate policy.
This is, for the record, the same Reddit that defended Violentacrez, the Texas man who ran forums on beating women and sexualizing underage girls. The Reddit that allowed rampant speculation about the Boston bombing, even when it became dangerous. The Reddit that, just this past fall, supported a booming trade in stolen celebrity nude photos, and still, even now, hosts a variety of racist, misogynistic, homophobic and otherwise NSFL content that I dare not link to.
If this isnt enough free speech, what is?
To understand that question (let alone the answer to it), you have to start with a working knowledge of Reddits labyrinthine depths. The site is, for the uninitiated, basically a social news service divided into tens of thousands of themed forums, called subreddits. Users submit links, photos and in-jokes to the forums, which are voted up or down by other users.
The forums themselves are run by volunteer moderators, or mods, who can basically make and enforce rules as they see fit. In general, corporate Reddit Advance Media-owned Reddit, $50-million-funding-round Reddit, only-35-employees Reddit doesnt step in unless the company is at risk of being sued.
The core philosophy, co-founder Alexis Ohanian explained in a book on Reddits early days, was giving the people what they want. Whatever they want. Accordingly, each forum looks a little different. In r/aww one of my personal favorites mods ban slurs, harassing comments and anything sad. In r/thefappening, where users shared the celebrity nudes that ruled Septembers news cycle, slurs and harassing comments were basically the norm. (And that was, on its own, pretty sad.)
We will not ban questionable subreddits, Reddits CEO, Yishan Wong, wrote in the aftermath of that catastrophe. You choose what to post. You choose what to read. You choose what kind of subreddit to create and what kind of rules you will enforce. We will try not to interfere not because we dont care, but because we care that you make your choices between right and wrong.
That echoed Reddits official line on the Violentacrez scandal in 2012: We stand for free speech. This means we are not going to ban distasteful subreddits.
That said, Reddit doesnt necessarily stand for absolute free speech i.e., free speech above/to the detriment of every other human right in existence. Its important to note that corporate Reddit does explicitly prohibit five types of speech, including child pornography, personal information and requests for up-votes, which manipulate post rankings. It also allows, and even encourages, individual moderators to make their own rules, which can range from dont post the same thing twice to no disrespectful commentary.
Read more from the original source:
How the Reddit exodus illustrates the state of free speech on the Web
FRANKFORT, Ky. (AP) Wading into the volatile issue of invoking God at graduations and ball games, the Kentucky Senate on Thursday passed a bill touted as providing a guide to public schools on the religious and political free-speech protections of students.
A leading supporter, Kent Ostrander, executive director of The Family Foundation, said after the Senate's 30-4 vote that the bill would put "a stake in the ground for free speech and religious liberty" for students.
An online service is needed to view this article in its entirety. You need an online service to view this article in its entirety.
If you subscribe to home delivery of the Advocate Messenger newspaper, please click here to activate your free online access to the articles, videos, photo galleries and more.
Need an account? Create one now.
kAmQxEVD 32D:42==J E@ 2==@H DEF56?ED E@ 92G6 E96 D2>6 C6=:8:@FD 7C665@> E92E 2?J3@5J 6=D6 92D[Q 96 D2:5]k^Am
kAm%96 3:== 😀 @AA@D65 3J E96 p>6C:42? r:G:= {:36CE:6D &?:@? @7 z6?EF4
kAmQqJ 255:?8 >@C6 8@G6C?>6?E C68F=2E:@? :?E@ E96 2C62 @7 DEF56?EDV 7C66 DA6649 C:89ED[ E96 3:== H:== C6DF=E 😕 ?665=6DD 2?5 4@DE=J =:E:82E:@?[ A2CE:4F=2C=J @G6C DEF56?EDV 23:=:EJ E@ :?E6C;64E C6=:8:@FD @C A@=:E:42= G:6HD :?E@ D49@@= 2DD:8?>6?ED E92E 92G6 ?@E9:?8 E@ 5@ H:E9 6:E96C[Q 96 D2:5 😕 2 DE2E6>6?E]k^Am
kAm!2DD286 😕 E96 #6AF3=:42?=65 $6?2E6 D6?5D E96 3:== E@ E96 s6>@4C2E:4CF? w@FD6 7@C 4@?D:56C2E:@?] t77@CED 😕 C646?E J62CD E@ AC@E64E C6=:8:@FD 2?5 A@=:E:42= DA6649 @7 DEF56?ED 92G6 DE2==65 😕 E96 v6?6C2= pDD6>3=J]k^Am
kAmp>@?8 @E96C E9:?8D[ E96 3:== DE2E6D E92E 2 DEF56?E D92== 36 A6C>:EE65 E@ G@=F?E2C:=J AC2J @C 6?8286 😕 C6=:8:@FD 24E:G:E:6D 😕 2 AF3=:4 D49@@= E@ E96 D2>6 6IE6?E 2D 2 DEF56?E 😀 A6C>:EE65 E@ 6?8286 😕 ?@?C6=:8:@FD >2EE6CD] xE D2JD E9@D6 C:89ED 2C6 E@ 36 4@?D:DE6?E H:E9 E96 DE2E6 2?5 7656C2= 4@?DE:EFE:@?D]k^Am
See the rest here:
OPINION: The problem with defending free speech is that if you go to bat for the dead and heroic cartoonists of Charlie Hebdo, you also have to defend Hollywood's right to make jokes about killing the leader of North Korea and a daft heavy metal band's right to insult a chunk of the public simply because they feel like it.
It was apt that the story about the Canterbury Museum's display of an offensive anti-Christian T-shirt broke on Black Friday. On February 13, the world learned that among the hundreds of collectable shirts in the T-Shirts Unfolding show, there was an infamous one produced by UK band Cradle of Filth in the 1990s.
On the front of the black shirt, there is a picture of a sexualised nun. On the back, in large white letters, the slogan "Jesus is a c...".
The T-shirt was ruled objectionable in 2008 by the Office of Film and Literature Classification which said that it degraded and demeaned women and represented Christians as "inherently inferior to other members of the public". It crossed the censorship threshold and was "injurious to the public good".
If you own one, you risk up to five years in jail. An Invercargill retailer was fined $500 in 2012 for owning eight, which were then destroyed.
The shirt is not just a problem in New Zealand. There have been several convictions in the UK, with one man pleading guilty to the arcane crime of religiously aggravated offensive conduct. The judge in that case told the 35-year-old to "grow up".
Even Cradle of Filth's drummer was charged with creating a public disorder after being caught in his band's shirt. But you expect that kind of tomfoolery from an attention-seeking metal act. What about a responsible institution like the Canterbury Museum?
"We bent over backwards to follow the letter of the law," says Canterbury Museum director Anthony Wright.
We met in his office on Wednesday morning. There had been an incident at the museum just the day before when a woman got past a guard and into the small booth where the T-shirt is displayed in a perspex case. She produced a can of paint and began spraying the case black. The paint was cleaned off and the matter is now with the police, Wright says.
There is a strong element of deja vu about all this. The display case containing Tania Kovats' Virgin in a Condom, which featured a condom on a statue of the Virgin Mary, was attacked in 1998 when it was in a show of contemporary British art at Te Papa.
See the original post here:
"McCann Trolling" v "Freedom of Speech"
"McCann Trolling" v "Freedom of Speech"
By: Esmond Eshman
See the article here:
Alex Jones is Right! Snowden is Right! Government Crooks Via FaceBook!
Alex Jones at Info Wars, Snowden, and others have warned us about the NSA, CIA, and other Governmental Crooks listening to private calls, emails, and shutting down freedom of speech. I just...
By: Evangelist K L Rich
Originally posted here:
Alex Jones is Right! Snowden is Right! Government Crooks Via FaceBook! - Video
Oh No Is Atheism Destroyed
A recent Christian video promises to prove atheism wrong in one minute... did it? http://www.splinterbook.com.
By: Todd Reinhardt
Read more:
Sol 0 - Mars Colonization - Season 2 Finale - Part 17 - Last Episode Forever
Subscribe to stay up-to-date with all the latest videos - youtube.com/subscription_center?add_user=orbitalpotato Get it here - http://www.solzerogame.com/ Links N #39; Stuff! Twitter - twitter.com/o...
By: Orbital Potato
Read more from the original source:
Sol 0 - Mars Colonization - Season 2 Finale - Part 17 - Last Episode Forever - Video
Galaxy Merger Caught by Hubble Telescope
A spiral galaxy gets twisted out of shape after coming too close to a cosmic neighbor in a gorgeous photo captured by NASA #39;s Hubble Space Telescope. The spir...
By: WochitTech
See the original post here:
The Hubble telescope has already taken a picture of the Beta Pictoris, a 20-million-year-old star surrounded by a large disk of dust and gas located 63.4 light years from our solar system, back in 1997. But in 2009, scientists discovered a giant planet orbiting that star once every 18 to 20 years -- the first planet they've ever seen that's embedded in a debris disk. So in 2012, they used the Hubble again to take a clearer picture of the star in visible light, which they've just released to the public. The image reveals that the disk has barely changed since 1997 and that the giant planet's gravity has distorted its inner part.
Due to this debris disk, the Beta Pictoris is a great example of what a young solar system looks like. All those rocks and gas, which are also the biggest source of interstellar meteoroids in our system, could be forming more new planets, and thus could lead to new insight on how planets are born.
[Image Credit: NASA, ESA, University of Arizona]
The rest is here:
Hubble photo of a star can help scientists study how planets are born
The threat of Putin to the stability of Europe's borders is a very real one, writes Fox [AP]
Liam Fox is a former UK secretary of state for defence and member of parliament for North Somerset.
It is unsurprising that events in Syria and Iraq have dominated western foreign policy interest and activity in recent months. The civil war, coupled with the failure and incompetence of the Nouri al-Maliki government in Iraq, which led to increased resentment and tensions in the region, are a tragedy of international proportions. In our media, we are repeatedly exposed to the latest barbaric and medieval atrocities of ISIL, leading to justifiable public and political outrage.
This is, of course, exactly what their communication strategy was intended to achieve. Yet, while all of this has been occurring, another international threat has increasingly loomed on the horizon, one which is much more potentially dangerous for those members of NATO.
The Russian annexation of Crimea, by force, has brought the prospect of military confrontation in continental Europe closer than at any time since the end of the Cold War. The continued involvement of Russian troops in Eastern Ukraine adds to growing tension in the region and should act as a wake-up call to even the most craven of Russian President Vladimir Putin's apologists in the West.
Ukraine fighting rages despite efforts to revive truce
The current crisis in Ukraine is not a unique situation, but part of a continuum that has been evolving in recent years. Behind the actions of Russia lie attitudes to the accepted norms of international law and behaviour to which Putin adheres.
Cold War doctrines
The first of these is that Putin still clings to Cold War doctrines which puts him on a collision course with the free world. In particular, the insistence on the concept of a "near abroad", in other words, a veto on the foreign and security policies of its immediate geographic neighbours, is a remnant of a bygone era. Or, at least, it should be.
Many of the former Soviet satellite states, such as Poland or those in the Baltic, gravitated towards the West precisely because they believed that sovereign nations should be able to exercise self-determination. It is this concept which Russia rejects and is his excuse for his actions in Ukraine. Ukraine considered a closer political and economic relationship with the EU, something Putin objected to and so he simply took control of Crimea, part of Ukrainian sovereign territory.
The rest is here:
NATO will wait and see how Afghan forces perform in the upcoming fighting season before assessing whether they'll need the help of foreign forces, including Australians, beyond the end of next year.
General Knud Bartels, Danish chairman of NATO's military committee, said Afghanistan was on the right track to become a stable and secure nation.
The general, who's visiting Australia for talks on security issues, said that for the first time Afghan National Security Forces were responsible for their entire country.
About 12,000 foreign troops including 400 Australians remain in Afghanistan to train and assist Afghan forces under the NATO Resolute Support Mission.
That ends at the end of 2016, raising concerns that Afghan forces will struggle as they confront a resurgent Taliban without foreign assistance.
General Bartels said this was just the start of Resolute Support, and there was a year to assess how the situation was unfolding.
'There is no doubt we need to have a pragmatic approach as to timelines in 2015 and particularly the fighting season in 2015,' he said.
'During this process we will conduct consultations with the 28 allies who are our partners in this endeavour to define we are going to move beyond the end of 2016.'
General Bartels said Afghanistan was moving in the right direction.
'It doesn't mean there are no challenges. It doesn't mean that there is a 100 per cent guarantee at the end of the day. But I would say the chances are increasing on a daily basis for positive outcomes on Afghanistan.'
See the original post:
GCHQ Unlawful NSA and The Apostle Paul #39;s Experience
By: Edifying Others
Original post:
Google Gagged and Ordered by NSA and FBI to Release Personal Data of Wikileaks Staffers
Michael Ratner says that US government is still pursuing criminal investigations against Wikileaks Editor and staffers, not just because of what they have al...
By: TheRealNews
View original post here:
Google Gagged and Ordered by NSA and FBI to Release Personal Data of Wikileaks Staffers - Video
Interview with NSA Whistleblowers on Privacy and Metadata
On January 22nd, the Ceremony for the Sam Adams Award was held in Berlin. This year #39;s awardee William Binney gave us an interview, as well as the Whistleblow...
By: samuel ezerzer
See the original post:
Interview with NSA Whistleblowers on Privacy and Metadata - Video