Monthly Archives: July 2022

Will the New Assault Weapons Ban Make it to the Senate? – Free Speech TV

Posted: July 23, 2022 at 12:52 pm

The House Judiciary Committee considered the first assault weapons ban. This ban will ban future sales, manufacturing, etc. of several different semi-automatic weapons. Randi gives her thoughts on whether this will make it to the Senate.

The Randi Rhodes Show delivers smart, forward, free-thinking, entertaining, liberal news and opinion that challenge the status quo and amplify free speech. Dedicated to social justice, Randi puts her reputation on the line for the truth. Committed to the journalistic standards that corporate media often ignores, The Randi Rhodes Show takes enormous pride in bringing the power of knowledge to her viewers.

Watch The Randi Rhodes Show every weekday at 3 pm ET on Free Speech TV & catch up with clips from the program down below!

Missed an episode? Check out The Randi Rhodes Show on FSTV VOD anytime or visit the show page for the latest clips.

#FSTV is available on Dish, DirectTV, AppleTV, Roku, Sling, and online at freespeech.org.

assault ban Assault Weapons Congress Gun Laws gun responsibility Gun safety House Senate

Originally posted here:
Will the New Assault Weapons Ban Make it to the Senate? - Free Speech TV

Posted in Free Speech | Comments Off on Will the New Assault Weapons Ban Make it to the Senate? – Free Speech TV

The Online Safety Bill wont survive the Tory contest – The Spectator

Posted: at 12:52 pm

At yesterday's Spectator hustings for the final three Tory leadership candidates, each one of them ended up committing to overhauling the controversial Online Safety Bill. The Spectator and many Conservative MPs have expressed serious concerns about the impact of this legislation, drawn up with the best of intentions, on free speech.

Each acknowledged that there was a real problem with the current drafting, which creates a new definition of legal but harmful. Kemi Badenoch, who was knocked out yesterday, had described this as cracking down on free speech to prevent hurt feelings, which is something none of them fully accepted. But they all saw that legal but harmful as it currently stands is a bit of a one mans meat is another mans poison situation.

Its worth noting that both Liz Truss and Rishi Sunak said their approach to the legislation was based on their own experiences as parents and their fears about their daughters accessing damaging things online. It is why Culture Secretary Nadine Dorries and her opposite number Lucy Powell are both confident about defending the Bill: they know that parents are desperate for something to be done about the Wild West of the online world for children.

The problem is that when politicians create Something Must Be Done bills, they often end up with legislation that creates a lot of new problems that werent properly addressed because everyone was so focused on the principle, not the detail.

You can read below what each candidate said in full on this matter, or watch it here.

Rishi Sunak:

'I come at this first as a parent. I have two young girls who are at the age where they're starting to go online more. And I've got to tell you, I'm quite worried about all of that. And I sit down with my wife and we talk about it. I'm concerned about what they could end up looking at. And I think the exposure to explicit, sometimes horrific material at such a young age is wrong. And we've got to find a way to protect children against that in the same way as we do in the offline world, so to speak. So that's my first start. So I think we do need to have something that does that. But with the bill, I think the challenge we've got, and that's why I'm glad the government's paused the bill so we can refine our approach here, that the challenge is whether it strays into the territory of suppressing free speech. And the bit in particular that has caused some concern and questions is around this area where the government is saying, look, here's some content that's legal but harmful, and it's that that's this kind of area, which I think people rightly have said, well, what exactly does that mean? And that's the bit that I would want as prime minister to go and look at to make sure that we get that right.'

IH: So you're pledging to potentially scrap the legal but harmful section.

RS: 'Again, I know you're trying to push me into the direction of getting a firm pledge. What I'm saying is I do think we need to have a way to protect children against harm, as I said and I say that first and foremost as a parent. But I do want to make sure that we are also protecting free speech and the legal but harmful bit is the one that I would want to spend some time as prime minister going over and making sure that we're getting that bit exactly right. And I can't tell you what the right answer at the end of that process will be. But I think it's fair that people have raised some concerns about that and its impact on free speech. And I think it's right that those concerns are properly addressed.'

Penny Mordaunt:

'I do support the Bill. I would want to make progress on it, but I do understand the concerns that there are around how you define particular things in law and the chilling effect that it might have on freedom of speech. I think our government's got a good track record on freedom of speech. I think that there's always more we can do, but we have taken a real stand in a real grip on some of the issues affecting particularly on campuses and and elsewhere. I'm confident that we will be able to put a bill through that provides those reassurances. But clearly there are some pretty horrible things that need to be gripped, and that's what the Bill does.'

IH: So the issue of concern for The Spectator is that it would outlaw free speech by creating a new category of legal but harmful. What does legal but harmful mean to you?

'So it is difficult to define. This is the weak point because it is difficult to define these things in law because what you know, what might offend one person might be perfectly all right for another. And I think unless you can really define that in law, there's a problem. But we do have existing laws where people are causing real material harm to people, when people are stalked, for example, that I think we could draw on. But I do recognise the need that any law we're putting through has to have clarity. And if we can't provide that clarity, it's not going to work. So I'm prepared to look at those issues.'

IH: Someone being followed and monitored online is very different to somebody being distressed, as the bill itself puts it in one of its clauses by something that somebody else is saying online. I mean, we all have our different trigger points, so how would you protect that? That's one of the issues that one of your rivals, Kemi Badenoch, has referred to the hurt feelings clause, I think she's put it.

'Yes. But I don't think this is about hurt feelings. I think this is about elements of stalking or causing really severe distress to people. But again, this bill is very targeted at other issues. I think we also need to look at the business model of some of the platforms that we're talking about, platforms that one suspects don't have real people on them, and how some of those accounts and bots are being weaponised to to cause distress or spread misinformation. But I, I think the bottom line is, unless you can define this categorically in law, it's not going to be a good law and therefore best not make it.'

Liz Truss:

'I'm a believer in freedom of speech. I also believe that we need to protect particularly the under 18s from harm. And what I want to make sure with the Bill, and I know it's now going to the House of Lords, is that it strikes the balance correctly between those two things.'

IH: Do you think it does at the moment?

'Well, I need to look into more detail about exactly how it is implemented and have discussions with my colleagues. But the principles I believe in are the protection of free speech, but also making sure that we're not exposing under 18s to harm online. And, you know, I've got two teenage daughters. I am very, very concerned about the effect particularly social media has on teenage girls or mental health. So I will want to look at that and make sure that that is in the right place, as well as protecting freedom of speech, freedom of the press. I'm a great believer that those are core freedoms that a healthy society depends on.'

IH: There's a big difference, though, isn't there, between social media outlets that promote eating disorders, that display sexually explicit content and so on? And one of the things that The Spectator is particularly worried about in the Bill, which is this new category of legal but harmful, which we think is going to basically outlaw legal free speech. Do you know what legal but harmful means?

'There's more nuance in the Bill than that. But I'd be very keen to talk to The Spectator and others to make sure the Bill delivers what we want it to deliver. And this is a complicated area. I speak to colleagues around the world who are looking at how to legislate for online spaces, you know the fundamental principle is the rules should be the same online as they are in real life. I think that's a fundamental principle and that's what I will make sure I apply.'

IH: You don't agree with the hurt feelings characterisation that some of your fellow candidates have used to describe this Bill?

'Well, as I've said, I'll need to look at exactly, you know, these issues are necessarily complex and nuanced. And I think there is a place for further amendments to this legislation to make sure we're delivering it and also make sure that everybody is aware of the intention of the Bill as well, which is also important. So I'm committed to doing that, but I think I've set out very clearly the principles I believe in.'

Visit link:
The Online Safety Bill wont survive the Tory contest - The Spectator

Posted in Free Speech | Comments Off on The Online Safety Bill wont survive the Tory contest – The Spectator

Jan. 6th Committee Could Not Retrieve the Text Messages – Free Speech TV

Posted: at 12:52 pm

Even though the secret service received four Congressional committees to reserve any and all data from Jan. 5th and 6th, they still chose to have their migration which would delete any evidence that could've corroborated possibly a lot of the testimonies given in during the Jan. 6th hearings. They were asked to preserve data on January 16th, and their migration was planned for the 25th of January.

The Randi Rhodes Show delivers smart, forward, free-thinking, entertaining, liberal news and opinion that challenge the status quo and amplify free speech. Dedicated to social justice, Randi puts her reputation on the line for the truth. Committed to the journalistic standards that corporate media often ignores, The Randi Rhodes Show takes enormous pride in bringing the power of knowledge to her viewers.

Watch The Randi Rhodes Show every weekday at 3 pm ET on Free Speech TV & catch up with clips from the program down below!

Missed an episode? Check out The Randi Rhodes Show on FSTV VOD anytime or visit the show page for the latest clips.

#FSTV is available on Dish, DirectTV, AppleTV, Roku, Sling, and online at freespeech.org.

deleted messages Donald Trump House Select Committee Insurrection Jan 6th jan 6th hearing Secret Service

Read the rest here:
Jan. 6th Committee Could Not Retrieve the Text Messages - Free Speech TV

Posted in Free Speech | Comments Off on Jan. 6th Committee Could Not Retrieve the Text Messages – Free Speech TV

I Don’t Want to Say the Election Is Over: Video Outtakes Show Trump Refused to Admit Loss on Jan. 7 – Free Speech TV

Posted: at 12:52 pm

The January 6 committee aired never-before-seen outtakes of President Trumps speech on January 7, one day after the insurrection. He is seen initially reading a script that read this election is now over. Congress has certified the results. But Trump insisted on changing the script. I dont want to say the election is over, Trump says in the video. I just want to say Congress has certified the results, without saying the election is over.

Democracy Now! produces a daily, global, independent news hour hosted by award-winning journalists Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzlez. Our reporting includes breaking daily news headlines and in-depth interviews with people on the front lines of the worlds most pressing issues.

On DN!, youll hear a diversity of voices speaking for themselves, providing a unique and sometimes provocative perspective on global events.

Missed an episode? Check out DN on FSTV VOD anytime or visit the show page for the latest clips.

#FreeSpeechTV is one of the last standing national, independent news networks committed to advancing progressive social change.

#FSTV is available on Dish, DirectTV, AppleTV, Roku, Sling, and online at freespeech.org.

#democracynow Amy Goodman Congress January 6 committee January 7 Juan Gonzalez Trump

Read more from the original source:
I Don't Want to Say the Election Is Over: Video Outtakes Show Trump Refused to Admit Loss on Jan. 7 - Free Speech TV

Posted in Free Speech | Comments Off on I Don’t Want to Say the Election Is Over: Video Outtakes Show Trump Refused to Admit Loss on Jan. 7 – Free Speech TV

Donald Trump Still Wants the 2020 Election Overturned – Free Speech TV

Posted: at 12:52 pm

Just last week former President Donald Trump reached out to Assembly Speaker of Wisconsin, Robin Vos. During this call, Trump wanted Vos to decertify Wisconsin's 2020 election votes. Though this can not be constitutionally done that is not something that Trump is worried about.

The Randi Rhodes Show delivers smart, forward, free-thinking, entertaining, liberal news and opinion that challenge the status quo and amplify free speech. Dedicated to social justice, Randi puts her reputation on the line for the truth. Committed to the journalistic standards that corporate media often ignores, The Randi Rhodes Show takes enormous pride in bringing the power of knowledge to her viewers.

Watch The Randi Rhodes Show every weekday at 3 pm ET on Free Speech TV & catch up with clips from the program down below!

Missed an episode? Check out The Randi Rhodes Show on FSTV VOD anytime or visit the show page for the latest clips.

#FSTV is available on Dish, DirectTV, AppleTV, Roku, Sling, and online at freespeech.org.

2020 Election 2020 votes Donald Trump Robin Vos wisconsin votes

Go here to see the original:
Donald Trump Still Wants the 2020 Election Overturned - Free Speech TV

Posted in Free Speech | Comments Off on Donald Trump Still Wants the 2020 Election Overturned – Free Speech TV

Pence’s Secret Service Team Feared for Their Lives as Trump Egged On Mob to Target VP on Jan. 6 – Free Speech TV

Posted: at 12:52 pm

During their eighth and final hearing until the fall, the January 6 House select committee aired new testimony from an anonymous national security official detailing how Mike Pences Secret Service agents feared for their lives during the breach of the Capitol. There were calls to say goodbye to family members, said the anonymous official. Despite knowledge of the growing mob, Trump decided to publish a tweet at 2:24 p.m. saying Mike Pence lacked the courage to stop the certification. The tweet poured gasoline on the fire, said Trumps ex-deputy press secretary, Sarah Matthews, who testified live on Thursday. Meanwhile, Trump was still reaching out to Republican senators, including Senator Josh Hawley, who was seen in footage racing to safety just hours after he raised his fist to the massing mob.

Democracy Now! produces a daily, global, independent news hour hosted by award-winning journalists Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzlez. Our reporting includes breaking daily news headlines and in-depth interviews with people on the front lines of the worlds most pressing issues.

On DN!, youll hear a diversity of voices speaking for themselves, providing a unique and sometimes provocative perspective on global events.

Missed an episode? Check out DN on FSTV VOD anytime or visit the show page for the latest clips.

#FreeSpeechTV is one of the last standing national, independent news networks committed to advancing progressive social change.

#FSTV is available on Dish, DirectTV, AppleTV, Roku, Sling, and online at freespeech.org.

#democracynow 2:24 p.m Amy Goodman January 6 Juan Gonzalez Mike Pence Secret Service Trump

Link:
Pence's Secret Service Team Feared for Their Lives as Trump Egged On Mob to Target VP on Jan. 6 - Free Speech TV

Posted in Free Speech | Comments Off on Pence’s Secret Service Team Feared for Their Lives as Trump Egged On Mob to Target VP on Jan. 6 – Free Speech TV

Malcolm Nance is Live in the Studio! – Free Speech TV

Posted: at 12:52 pm

Malcolm joins Stephanie and the crew in the studio. They discuss the Jan. 6th Committee not being able to retrieve the deleted secret service text messages. Even though the secret service received four different Congressional orders to keep all data and paperwork, they still got rid of evidence that could've helped the investigation. Malcolm also talks about how he predicted the January 6th insurrection 16 days before it happened. He believes the Republican party is an insurgence party.

The Stephanie Miller Show discusses politics, current events, and pop culture using a fast-paced, impromptu style. Prior to going nationwide, The SM Show pulled #1 ratings at KABC and KFI in Los Angeles and other radio stations in New York and Chicago. You know her from tons of exposure on TV, and on comedys prime stages: host of CNBCs Equal Time, Oxygen TVs Ive Got a Secret, and many others. Stephanie has also appeared on CNNs Joy Behar, Larry King Live, and Reliable Sources, as well as MSNBCs The Ed Show, Hannity and Colmes and Neal Cavuto on Fox News, the Today Show, The Tonight Show, and Good Morning America, among many others. Her humor and snappy political wit draw listeners from all sides and makes her the perfect antidote to cantankerous conservatives.

Missed an episode? Check out The Stephanie Miller Show on FSTV VOD anytime or visit the show page for the latest clips. #FreeSpeechTV is one of the last standing national, independent news networks committed to advancing progressive social change. As the alternative to television networks owned by billionaires, governments, and corporations, our network amplifies underrepresented voices and those working on the front lines of social, economic and environmental justice. #FSTV is available on Dish, DirectTV, AppleTV, Roku, Sling and online at freespeech.org.

#thestephaniemillershow Congress deleted text messages Insurrection Investigation Jan 6th Malcolm Nance Secret Service

The rest is here:
Malcolm Nance is Live in the Studio! - Free Speech TV

Posted in Free Speech | Comments Off on Malcolm Nance is Live in the Studio! – Free Speech TV

British drugs policy is punitive and contradictory. And now itll go backwards – The Guardian

Posted: July 21, 2022 at 1:15 pm

Despite the irrepressible love that Boris Johnsons government has shown for illegal parties, it is now taking the opportunity to tighten drug laws on its way out of the door. There is perhaps no more fitting tribute to the hypocrisy of this government than the latest drugs proposal from the Home Office.

Swift, Certain, Tough: New consequences for drug possession is a word-salad of a white paper and a last-gasp attempt to codify the Johnson governments preoccupation with punishing middle-class coke-heads and recreational drug users. The only certainty is that the prime minister and home secretary behind the paper will have been evicted from office by the time it progresses through the legislative process.

But we shouldnt downplay the significance of this attempt to penalise drug users. This style of punitive politics has become increasingly characteristic of the British state, at the same time as our politicians are failing to find answers to the big economic and constitutional questions of the day. While countries such as Georgia, Germany, Uruguay and the US have all been moving away from the failed war on drugs strategy forged in the 1970s, which sought to prohibit drugs and criminalise drug users, the Johnson administration has spent much time trying to breathe new life into these discredited policies.

Research shows these policies disproportionately affect the poorest and most vulnerable communities and racial minorities, and contribute to higher rates of imprisonment among these groups. Yet the government has spent the last few years taking every opportunity to insist that drug prohibition would magically work if it instead targeted middle-class drug users. The white paper was meant to be the moment when we found out how this new plan would be achieved. Perhaps arresting someone for drug possession would now be followed by a test of their middle-class credentials: could they distinguish the salad fork from the dessert fork? Whats their reaction to Mumford & Sons? In the end, it turns out that the strategy for attacking recreational users is just a mix of tough language and overt cruelty wrapped around a tacit recognition that the mass criminalisation of drug users is utterly pointless.

One of the ideas here is to give fixed-penalty notices to first-time offenders, and refer them to drug-awareness courses. There isnt much difference between this proposal and Sadiq Khans plan to pilot diversion schemes for cannabis possession in Lewisham, Greenwich and Bexley. Similar schemes are already being run by a number of police forces, including Durham and Avon & Somerset. They allow police officers to divert people from the criminal justice system and towards rehabilitation or counselling programmes. Yet when Khan announced his plans in London, Priti Patel condemned the London mayor and said he has no powers to legalise drugs (diversion schemes do nothing of the sort).

The basic argument behind diversion schemes is that its impossible for the police and courts to try to criminalise everyone caught in possession of drugs. In the white paper, the government seems to accept this obvious premise. Even so, the paper includes a pointless, punitive directive that people should be made to pay for rehabilitation courses. And just in case anyone mistakenly thought this policy showed compassion towards drug users, the paper even explores the feasibility of setting the payment for rehabilitation courses above cost, meaning those attending would be paying more than it costs to run the programme, and the government would be profiting from their misfortune.

These new proposals also include a three-tier system of escalating punishment, which echoes the notorious three strikes system in the US that resulted in waves of incarceration during the 1990s. This white paper policy is less extreme but nonetheless draconian: if the offender doesnt pay the fixed-penalty notice or attend the drug-awareness course, they could be prosecuted. If arrested a second time, theyre issued with a caution alongside another drug-awareness course and a period of mandatory drug testing. Finally, if caught a third time, the offender would be charged and, if convicted, subject to new civil court orders that could exclude them from bars, confiscate their passport or driving licence and place them in ankle tags to monitor their blood for drugs. Any failure to comply could result in prison.

This paper is a mess of contradictory objectives: it attempts to increase the punishments imposed on drug users while also diverting drug users from the criminal justice system. It reflects the utterly confused approach that Britains politicians show towards drugs. They know the system doesnt work, but cant let go of it because they have little to offer voters beyond promises to be tough on crime. They want to speak to the persistence of inequality but are unwilling to implement reforms that would reduce the wealth gap so instead proffer an attack on middle-class drug users. This is cynical, performative politics: the government has no intention of dealing with the problems afflicting Britain, so instead it produces soundbite policies that play to public fears while leaving the status quo untouched.

In reality, making drug users pay to undertake drug-awareness courses will mean the wealthy dodge the three-strike system, while those without the means to pay will face further punishment. Meanwhile, any rise in stop and search that results from this punitive approach to drug possession will affect poor and minority communities far more than middle-class users. In short, if these policies become law, they will lead to the incoherent punishment of a small minority. Its an appropriate last will and testament for the Johnson regime.

Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a letter of up to 300 words to be considered for publication, email it to us at guardian.letters@theguardian.com

Continued here:

British drugs policy is punitive and contradictory. And now itll go backwards - The Guardian

Posted in War On Drugs | Comments Off on British drugs policy is punitive and contradictory. And now itll go backwards – The Guardian

‘One Pill Can Kill’: How Fentanyl changed the war on drugs – – KUSI

Posted: at 1:15 pm

SAN DIEGO (KUSI) The fentanyl epidemic in the US is unprecedented, and the DEA has seized enough fentanyl to give a lethal dose to every person in America.

San Diego is the gateway for the majority of those pills coming over the border, and the special agent in charge of the DEA says everyone in the community needs to be aware of the fentanyl epidemic, before you make a deadly mistake.

KUSIs Ginger Jeffries has spent endless hours getting to the bottom of this epidemic, getting facts on how it is impacting Americans, specifically our children.

Fentanyl is a synthetic opioid 50 to 100 times stronger than morphine. It was originally developed for pain management applied in a patch on the skin. However, because of its high-powered ability drug dealers started to add it to heroin to either increase the potency or even disguise it as a cheap alternative.

It works by binding the areas of the brain that control pain. Someone on fentanyl will experience sedation, often confusion, and extreme emotions. A lethal dose is as small as 3 granules of salt.

The DEA launched the One Pill can Kill public awareness campaign in September of last year, to attack this growing problem on every level.

The majority of the counterfeit drug production is happening in other countries, mainly China and Mexico, and then trafficked here to the US.

Common emojis for fake prescription drugs include, a blue dot, or a banana for Oxy and Percocet.

Other signs to watch out for is how a dealer will try to advertise by using the plug or money bag and how potent a batch is and if they have a lot or a little.

As a parent, knowing what your kids are communicating about could be the difference between life and death!

See the original post:

'One Pill Can Kill': How Fentanyl changed the war on drugs - - KUSI

Posted in War On Drugs | Comments Off on ‘One Pill Can Kill’: How Fentanyl changed the war on drugs – – KUSI

OPINION: Honor our lost loved ones by ending the war on drugs – HubcitySPOKES.com

Posted: at 1:15 pm

My son, Robert, passed away in January 2017. He died of an accidental overdose of opioids. For me and my family, the last five years have been filled with minutes, hours, and days of tremendous sadness with grief gripping every ounce of us. How can we use our horrific loss and heartbreak? We can wield it in anger and bitterness, or we can use it to support life-giving solutions.

Recently I recalled some of my thoughts from the night of Roberts death. I thought of all the moms who lost their sons and daughters in war. Someone had appeared at their doorstep with the horrific life-altering news that their precious child had died in battle. The one held most dear to their heart had passed from this world. I remember thinking they died for a cause.

Our present-day battle is the War on Drugs, where we are using our criminal justice system to handle a health crisis. For the loved ones we lost in its collateral damage, bringing an end to it is perhaps the best way to honor them.

I can't help but wonder what our lost loved ones would say if they were able to speak. Would their message be for more jailing to heal the problem? Would their message be for long sentences? Or would it be listening to the stories of people using drugs and in addiction?

Would our loved ones want more and more punitive reactions? Or would they want us to look for the best way to keep people in the struggle alive and functioning?

What would those who have died want for other people using drugs who are still here?

Perhaps they would challenge us to sit in on an open AA meeting or any support group, coming face to face with people who are in the struggle. Those who are walking the walk. The people in these groups are real people exposing their thoughts and fears. Each one can share and is understood. Being able to totally relate gives strength and courage.

I pray those we have lost have not died in vain. And their legacy collectively can be for more understanding and compassion and less shame. Maybe they will be known in years to come as trailblazers in the fight against the War on Drugs. And their lives will be viewed as a sacrifice to upend the old way of using the criminal justice system to tackle our drug problems. Maybe this is part of the battle. Maybe our loved ones have died for a cause. I feel that would be the most amazing blessing that could develop from this tragedy that is being played out before us.

Will apathy progress us? Will turning a blind eye advance solutions? Will the same old path of punishment lead us to a better place? It hasn't yet. How can we fight for the betterment of those still on earth, those still enveloped in the struggle? I think I know what our loved ones would say. Let's give them a voice.

Lee Malouf is an advocate for health-centered responses to drug use. She can be reached at missyazoo@aol.com

See the rest here:

OPINION: Honor our lost loved ones by ending the war on drugs - HubcitySPOKES.com

Posted in War On Drugs | Comments Off on OPINION: Honor our lost loved ones by ending the war on drugs – HubcitySPOKES.com