Some not so random thoughts on this Duck Dynasty thing

Events have unfolded so quickly and there have been so many twists and turns
in the whole Duck Dynasty/Phil Robertson kerkuffle we haven't had sufficient
time to digest all the goings on in order to comment upon them.



A few observations, however, are in order:

1) A&E looks spineless and duplicitous in this whole affair. A&E wins
our Capt. Louis Renault award for being shocked... shocked that the star of
their reality... R-E-A-L-I-T-Y... show might just have views on
homosexuality and express them in a manner as would many other southern,
rural Christians. To our knowledge, Duck Dynasty was the highest rated
cable series ever, making A&E tons of money and they fold like a lawn chair
when push comes to shove.


2) Golly, did Cracker Barrel backpedal faster than a corner covering a go-route
when after removing from their restaurants anything Phil
Robertson-related, they put it all back up after hearing from their
constituents? How bizarre is it that Cracker Barrel, of all places, might
think their customer base of red-staters might give a hoot about what GLAAD
thinks?


3) Disappointed in our fellow travelers on the right, Louisiana Governor
Bobby Jindal being chief among those, who thought this was a free-speech
issue. In our way of thinking, for it to be a free speech issue, the
government would need to be involved. That's how it works. The
government wasn't involved via censoring or otherwise butting into A&E's
affairs, advocacy groups were so it wasn't a free speech issue rather a
we're-totally-offended-by-what-this-straight-guy-said-so-were-going-to-press
ure-A&E-to-shut-this-guy-down issue. Huge difference.


And speaking of speech... the following is an old post and a favorite of
ours as free speech has become a more and more valued right to us over the
years and which we believe has parallels to L'affaire Duck Dynasty.

Exceptional Speech


All free speech isn't created equally or interpreted equally everywhere as
the show trials of Canadian human rights commissions of Mark Steyn and Ezra
Levant have proven. But is our free speech better than Canadian and European
free speech? Some here think we need to revisit the concept that was deemed
important enough to be drafted No. 1 overall when it came time for our
nation's founders to make their selections of really, really important
rights.


But why does it seem that on the whole a more restrictive interpretation of
free speech, and thus a more liberal interpretation of hate speech, occurs
in countries that appear to have the most difficulties with restive
immigrant minority groups. Is there a causal relationship? We think there
may be.


The fact that the Canadian Human Rights Commission has a near 100%
conviction rate is proof-positive of giving an air of legitimacy to quite
anything that an aggrieved plaintiff may bring before it as "hate speech".
If you as the aggrieved are almost always guaranteed satisfaction from this
particular court system every time you cry foul, then the hate speech bar is
lowered to the point where being offended or feeling your group has been
incited against with respect to nearly anything written or said is indeed,
culturally and legally, justifiable.


The whole system both legally and culturally in Canada and much of Europe
thus invites grievances, promotes isolation and discourages assimilation.


Let's contrast that with the United States where Muslims don't riot or burn
American flags, where there are no fatwas declared against writers and
filmmakers are not murdered while walking down the street and the hate
speech bar is set much, much higher.


Precisely because the bar is set higher, the legitimization of hate speech
is much more infrequent. Rather than officially recognize alleged hate
speech in courts of law, the rantings of say, a Jeremiah Wright or the
suggestions by Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson that the acceptance of
homosexuality in this country was, in part, responsible for 9-11, it is
instead held up for public scorn, ridicule and mocking.. as it should. The
question of legitimacy is taken off the table and in fact, it is viewed not
as court-defined "hate speech" but rather, "illegitimate speech." In other
words, speech that is outside the legitimate circle of polite and civil
discourse.


We will not take you to court, we will, however, make fun of you and then
simply ignore you.


A perfect case-in-point for this is the Iranian mad-bomber, Mahmoud
Ahmedinejad, who came to New York last year to make a number of speeches and
appearances. We understood the calls for banning and/or boycotting his
speeches but we generally came down on the side of letting the man speak
knowing that the true Mahmoud would reveal himself and sho'nuff, the raving
lunatic, homophobe and anti-semite we knew him to be did not disappoint.


Despite the serious nature of what he said, we, collectively, mocked and ridiculed the guy,
essentially turning Ahmedinejad into a late-night punch line effectively
neutering and delegitimizing his message.


A Canadian, himself recognizes this exceptionalism. Jason Gratl a lawyer for
the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association:

"Canadians do not have a cast-iron stomach for offensive speech," Mr. Gratl
said in a telephone interview. "We don't subscribe to a marketplace of
ideas. Americans as a whole are more tough-minded and more prepared for
verbal combat."


And Mr. Steyn: "Western governments are becoming increasingly comfortable
with the regulation of opinion. The First Amendment really does distinguish
the U.S., not just from Canada but from the rest of the Western world."

This exceptionalism is worth preserving. We've seen how free speech
interpretation works elsewhere and the results are less than American.


Embrace the hatred of hate speech laws.

(end of old post)




Over the weekend it was reported that GLAAD now wants Robertson to spend
some time with gays there in Louisiana as if his current chastening wasn't
enough. This re-education camp mentality is troubling and would suggest we are losing the tough-mindedness of which Mr. Gratl speaks.

We'd better be careful...

.

... because we're in danger of becoming the only western industrialized nation without Gestapo-like speech police.



Via Charles Cooke at The Corner

A SHOP boss was arrested and quizzed by police for eight hours for cracking Nelson Mandela jokes on the internet.

Neil Phillips said he was fingerprinted, DNA-swabbed and had his computers seized.

The 44-year-old was held after posting: "My PC takes so long to shut down I've decided to call it Nelson Mandela."

Another read: "Free Mandela - switch the power off."

But police swooped after a councillor complained over the gags about the former South African leader, who passed away on Thursday, aged 95.

(italics, ours)

That's actually pretty damn funny. But now back to the unfunny part.

Mr Phillips, who runs Crumbs sandwich shop in Rugeley, Staffs, was arrested after complaints by Cllr Tim Jones about the one-liners, aired when the anti-apartheid hero was critically ill.

Mr Phillips who insisted he meant no harm, said: "It was an awful experience. I was fingerprinted, they took DNA and my computer.

"It was a couple of jokes, Bernard Manning type," he added. "There was no hatred. What happened to freedom of speech? I think they over-reacted massively."

Continue reading at the link where Cooke (a British ex-pat now making his living in the States) explains which speech law passed in 1986 Mr. Phillips was found suspected of violating (the article does not mention what, if any punishment, Phillips received. No matter. The damage had been done).


For years we have been warned that the chains of tyranny and theocratic autocracy would descend from the right. It's never happened. Quite to the contrary, what you read above is a progressive wet dream. After all, who would want to live in a society where one even runs the risk of being offended by someone's untoward choice of words? How can you talk of free speech when we're talking about feelings, here, man?


And please note that in crossing British speech laws, one does not even need to be the target of said hurled unpleasantries. One need only feel aggrieved on behalf of someone else... a dead person in this case... in order for the offender to be frog-marched to the local constabularies for questioning and DNA swabs.


It's frightening to think that this happened in the land of our closest ally and cultural Western civilization kin. This is why we have and will continue to opposes speech laws and particularly hate-speech laws at every turn. The progressive vision of controlling your speech and the thought that generates that speech is the goal here. Never forget this: it's not about potentially offending, embarrassing, shaming or even slandering someone else. Like "sensible" gun control laws, it's never about what they say it is - it's strictly about control pure and simple.


Freedom and liberty are concepts with which people outside the royal faculty lounge cannot be trusted. You, friends, are simply not advanced enough nor trustworthy enough to be entrusted with these constitutionally-enshrined guarantees.


Let's fight to make sure what you read above never happens here because western Europe appears to be more and more acceptance of the tyranny progressives have always warned us about yet it is their ideology from whence this tyranny springs.

.

The Senate getting into the definition business

Citing a bogus need to protect journalists, a Senate panel starts down a dangerous path with respect to a free press and free speech.



From the Associated Press:

A Senate panel on Thursday approved a measure defining a journalist, which had been an obstacle to broader media shield legislation designed to protect reporters and the news media from having to reveal their sources.

The Judiciary Committee's action cleared the way for approval of legislation prompted by the disclosure earlier this year that the Justice Department had secretly subpoenaed almost two months of telephone records for 21 phone lines used by reporters and editors for The Associated Press and secretly used a warrant to obtain some emails of a Fox News journalist. The subpoenas grew out of investigations into leaks of classified information to the news organizations.

The AP received no advance warning of the subpoena.

The vote was 13-5 for a compromise defining a "covered journalist" as an employee, independent contractor or agent of an entity that disseminates news or information. The individual would have been employed for one year within the last 20 or three months within the last five years.


The committee later approved the overall bill on a 13-5 vote.

Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., a chief proponent of the medial shield legislation, worked with Sens. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., and Dick Durbin, D-Ill., as well as representatives from news organizations, on the compromise.

The bill would protect reporters and news media organizations from being required to reveal the identities of confidential sources, but it does not grant an absolute privilege for journalists.

Everybody else... forget about it.

Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., complained that the definition of a journalist was too broad. Pushing back, Feinstein said the intent was to set up a test to determine a bona fide journalist.

"I think journalism has a certain tradecraft. It's a profession. I recognize that everyone can think they're a journalist," Feinstein said.

But Di-Fi and the rest of our betters will figure that out for the rest of us. Don't you worry.


If you are thinking like we are, we don't particularly feel comfortable with that pack of jackals in the Senate defining who is and is not a journalist, particularly if it comes down to what Schumer, Durbin and Feinstein think.


Now, one would think that news organizations as 4th estate pillars would be speaking out against this curtailment of free speech but that's not how things work in the rent-seeking culture of Washington D.C. Let's just say that if you are not at the table then you are on the menu and any chance outfits like Associated Press and Rueters can curry most-favored status from Congress they are going to jump at that opportunity.


And we have said this before as well: this isn't about protecting whatever arbitrary definition of "journalist" the Senate comes up with, this is all about control. Senate Democrats acting on the cue from their boss aren't concerned with transparency and responsible governance. Picking winners and losers with respect to who is and is not a "journalist", creating a caste system, if you will, makes it that much easier to control the messaging coming out of Washington D.C.


Pesky websites like HotAir or Instapundit can then be marginalized or worse yet, be acted against once we start travelling down this road of who does and doesn't deserve protection under the 1st amendment.


This is a horrible piece of legislation that if it does get out of Senate will die in the House and which is another reminder of how critical it is for the (R)s to hold said House in 2014.

Not all free speech created equally

If you think all western democracies view and think of free speech in tightly similar manners, you would be mistaken. A few years back, we chronicled the travails of Canadian publisher Ezra Levant who reproduced, in one of his publications, the depictions of Mohammed that originally stirred a violent row over in Denmark. He was hauled before something called the Alberta Human Rights Commission for questioning whereby he leveled some of the most inspiring free speech smack at the hapless bureaucrat assigned to question him before he was exonerated of any wrong-doing. Past blog posts on the subject can be found here.


This past July, an American was arrested by the London police for what was charged as "homophobic" speech.

An American evangelist preaching on the streets of London was arrested July 1 on a charge of using "homophobic" speech. Tony Miano, a pastor and retired 20-year Los Angeles County deputy sheriff, was arrested by London police in front of the stadium holding the Wimbledon tennis championships, after a woman told police she was offended by Miano's words concerning homosexual behavior.

The London Telegraph reported that Miano was speaking to passersby from the New Testament book of I Thessalonians (chapter 4), warning of the eternal dangers of sexual immorality, including homosexuality. A woman, who can be seen on a video of the incident on the Telegraph website, complained to police, who took the man into custody, arresting him for using "homophobic" speech. "During the subsequent questioning at Wimbledon police station," the Telegraph reported, Miano "was asked about his beliefs on what constitutes 'sin' and about how he would treat gay people in hypothetical situations."

Miano recalled that "as the questioning started it became apparent that the interrogation was about more than the incident that took place in the street, but what I believed and how I think." He added that "I was being interrogated about my thoughts."

Yeah, we'd be pretty freaked out as well coming to the realization that our British cousins were taking this notion of "thought police" in quite a literal sense. The police let Miano cool his heels in jail for 7 hours before releasing him without charge.


That no charges were filed, we do not find particularly comforting. The real crime is that he was brought in at all.


What's lost on many people including those on this side of the pond is the 1st amendment provides protection for speech that is unpopular or that we may find offensive, otherwise why have it. If we are all singing from the same sheet of music, so to speak, free speech protection becomes unneeded.


And as far as this sort of thing not happening over here, please recall the tweets/statements from people that should absolutely know better calling for the head of the man who made that crappy Youtube video (pictured) upon which the Obama administration tried to blame the Benghazi consulate attack. It was disgusting. Of course, Team O knew the video did not instigate the attacks but the man is still in jail for parole "violations". He is, indeed, a political prisoner.


The take-away here is that when this country's arbiters of what is correct thinking and proper speech espouse such a casual disregard for free speech, popular opinion shifts after a time and which makes passing speech-restricting laws that much easier.


We're hell-bent on copying Britain's wretched healthcare system, what makes you so sure we won't start adopting some of their horrible speech laws as well?




Update #1: Thanks for the Instalanche, Glenn! If you like, I can be followed on Twitter @deanriehm

Also, check out the SLOBs (San Diego Local Order of Bloggers) for news and opinion from a libertarian/conservative perspective.


.



.

Video clip of the day

Reason.com presents their Nanny of the Month:


(video approx. 2 minutes long)






Protected status? Protect from what? Are they endangered? If the city charter or ordinance has a blanket anti-discrimination policy, then who exactly needs special protection status?

Oh, that's right. We're talking municipalities here as the great incubators of leftist identity politics because regardless of what you may have been taught in school read in some ancient document somewhere, we are all created equal and some folks just a little more equal than others.



.

Wait, what?

One in a series where we take a look at the absurd, stupefying and clueless.



Alternate headline: Another elected politician having trouble with that whole 1st amendment thing.


Here’s Senator Dick Durbin (D-Illinois) explaining the concept of free speech and freedom of the press:

“Everyone, regardless of the mode of expression, has a constitutionally protected right to free speech. But when it comes to freedom of the press, I believe we must define a journalist and the constitutional and statutory protections those journalists should receive.”

There’s always a “but” with these people. Do you feel comfortable with people like Durbin defining who and who doesn’t qualify as a journalist? We didn’t think so.

Durbin, feeling good about his grasp of the Constitution, continues:

“A journalist gathers information for a media outlet that disseminates the information through a broadly defined ‘medium’ — including newspaper, nonfiction book, wire service, magazine, news Web site, television, radio or motion picture — for public use. This broad definition covers every form of legitimate journalism.”

Glenn Reynolds rightly describes Durbin as a “constitutional ignoramus.” Read his takedown of Durbin here.



As with most things in Washington D.C., idiotic statements like the above come from good intentions. The background for all this is proposed legislation that would give legal protection for media outlets that expose government secrets, whistleblower protection, if you will.


What Durbin won’t admit to, however, is that his high-mindedness is not about whistleblower protection, it’s about power. It’s about the power to have control over what information gets disseminated and who disseminates it.


You see, Durbin and the Beltway establishment don’t like the concept of blogs and other forms of social media informing and opining on Beltway goings-on in a rapid-fire, non-stop, 24/7 and completely uncontrollable manner.


Durbin and the beltway establishment are indeed freaked-out by the new media as they are placed under levels of scrutiny, accountability and deserved ridicule career hacks, such as, Durbin could not have imagined even as recently as 10 years ago.


Too bad, Dick. New media is not going anywhere and there is not a damn thing you can do about it. We look forward to participating vigorously in its democratizing ways for years to come.

Video clip of the day

Reason TV presents their Nanny of the Month:


(video approx. 1-1/2 minutes long)








From Reason TV:

School’s out for summer and Nanny of the Month is taking the opportunity to salute the zealots within the otherwise laudable anti-bullying movement. They take a real problem--few things are more loathsome than picking on the vulnerable--and bungle the response, as has been done with most every “get tough!” effort from D.A.R.E., the failed anti-drug program, to all the idiotic iterations of the “zero tolerance” fad.

Do we really need to ban trash talking at high school sporting events? Do we really need attorney general investigations of foul-mouthed jocks? And for the love of whatever remnants of common sense remain in our schoolhouses and statehouses, do we really need to fight bullying with jail cells?

Not only did this month’s top nanny introduce a bill that would criminalize speech deemed to be bullying--up to a year in the clink!--she introduced a bill that, according to UCLA First Amendment scholar Eugene Volokh, is not limited to speech about children (despite it being touted with the typical “for the children!” justifications). Volokh notes that the bill, if passed, could punish harsh speech directed at journalists, academics, celebrities, politicians, and the like, if the speech results in “substantial emotional distress.”

Presenting the Nanny of the Month for June 2013: New Mexico State Rep. Mary Helen
Garcia!

If you wonder why nothing has us heading for the exits quicker than legislation that is "for the children", what you saw and read above is a perfect example.


Good intentions hold no water when poorly-written legislation or back door attempts at power-grabbing are involved.






And on a related note, the following was passed along to us from W.C. Varones via Facebook:

As you are probably aware, we find no end to the deliciousness in irony that the ideological descendants of the free speech movement and New Left of the 60s have been at the forefront of attempts to squelch free speech and tamp down on dissent.


People that whine about the Citizens United decision do not, in our estimation, have an appreciation that it is the speech that is central to the 1st amendment and not differentiating who it is that is exercising that speech.


Forgive us our skepticism of any cautions against "shadowy money in politics" as we've been around too long to not take that as code for preserving the status quo of the political/ruling class in this country. If the intentional targeting and harassing of organizations of a particular political hue by this nation's tax collection agency hasn't warned you to all this, we scarcely know what will.



On the way out the door: Our friend, Leslie, at Temple of Mut has been doing a bang-up job of covering the massive demonstrations and current unrest in Egypt. Hey, maybe we can back the good guys this time around.

Speech for me but not for thee

A few years back while he was either a candidate or our newly-minted 44th President, the camp of Barack Obama floated the idea of making battlefield-wounded military personnel pay for their own medical expenses as a way to help defray the costs of war in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

So repulsive and sickening was this idea, it mattered not a whit to us that it was merely a trial baloon. That violating the sacred trust that exists between this country and the men and women in our armed forces was allowed to germinate into a fully-formed thought within Team O, we have never been able to shake the contempt and disdain we hold for the character of the man and that of the people he surrounds himself to this day.


Currently before us, we have yet another big idea that though perhaps not as viscerally revolting at the gut level, certainly represents a greater threat to our Republic.


Stung by the Citizens United decision Senators Tester (D-MT) and Murphy (D-CT) are proposing a Constitutional amendment that would regulate corporate speech at the whim of Congress.

Here is the text of the amendment (via Volokh Conspiracy):

Section 1. We the people who ordain and establish this Constitution intend the rights protected by this constitution to be the rights of natural persons.

Section 2. The words people, person, or citizens as used in this Constitution do not include corporations, limited liability companies or other corporate entities established by the laws of any State, the United States, or any foreign state, and such corporate entities are subject to such regulation as the people, through their elected State and Federal representatives, deem reasonable and are otherwise consistent with the powers of Congress and the States under this Constitution.

Section 3. Nothing contained herein shall be construed to limit the people's rights of freedom of speech, freedom of the press, free exercise of religion, freedom of association and all such other rights of the people, which rights are unalienable.

Bullshit!


Honestly can't recall ever reading more miserable dreck in our lives as Sections 1 and 3 are in complete and direct contradiction with Section 2.

Perhaps the good Senators would be pleased to know that many newspapers, churches, labor unions, non-profit political and charity organizations, etc., etc. are formed as corporations. It is the speech of these people Congress wishes to regulate? Are not these aforementioned groups merely individual people who have formed together freely as is also a constitutionally-protected right? How then can Congress lay claim to regulate the speech of multiple people as opposed to a single person?

Precisely what is it about the 1st amendment that is lost on these two?


This is what happens when statists get smacked down in court. They throw an infantile, yet Orwellian, legislative temper-tantrum with the desire to gut our first and most important amendment.


And ditching the overall narrative for a moment and getting into the nuts and bolts of the language: can anyone give us an operational definition of "deems reasonable"? The term "reasonable" in the context of its relation to Congress is tenuous at best. You would really trust Congress to behave in an impartial and august manner so as to not abuse the power they granted themselves? We didn't think so.


Not so hypothetically speaking then, we could have a situation where Congressman X objects to an ad being run in his home district by a PAC during election season and he would have the power to move forward to ban that ad. How is this a good idea?


This is precisely the opposite of what our Founders intended.


And if your argument is that we need some mechanism to get all that money out of politics, remember that all that money is merely a result of all that power that is in politics. That money is merely a method of purchasing the power that exists and continues to expand within politics and government.

We will not remove money from politics until we instead find a mechanism to remove that power from politics. Oh, wait. We do. It's called the ballot box. Unfortunately, too many of us would rather whine about Citizens United and champion idiotic legislation than doing anything constructive with respect to granting more and more power to the government.

When perceived attempts to bolster 1st amendment become cynical attempts to dismantle it

.


On Monday, we got into the curious case of a U.S. District Attorney making clear that federal civil rights laws would not tolerate people denigrating the Islamic faith on social media. In wrapping up the post we asked the following question:

Is this loser Killian suggesting that people on social media and "just bloggers" are not afforded the same 1st amendment protections as traditional media outlets? It would seem to be that way to us.

Now, consider what New York Times executive editor, Jill Abramson, called the "criminalization" of news gathering in the wake of the Department of Justice's seizure of the phone records of 20 Associated Press reporters and those of Fox News reporter, James Rosen, in two separate leak investigations.


What this has led to is the resurrection of the medial shield law which would protect media organizations from investigation and prosecution for the disclosure of government secrets. We can't have an effective 4th estate and thus an effective constitutional republic if that 4th estate is worried they are going to be thrown in jail for merely doing their job, right? So, everything sounds good so far, yeah?


Here's where we hit the pause button, however, as with nearly every piece of proposed legislation in Washington D.C., there will be winners and there will be losers. What it's looking like more and more is our vaunted defenders of democracy are, via the media shield law, engaging in some good old fashion rent-seeking to not only protect themselves but to make exclusive their status on the whole question of freedom of the press and free speech.



Here's the Weekly Standard explaining things (as you are reading this, please keep in mind our good friend, U.S. District Attorney Bill Killian):

More than 50 news organizations (Reuters, Gannett, the New York Times, and so on) signed a letter protesting the AP subpoenas, and of course journalism guilds like the Society of Professional Journalists are using the subpoenas to agitate on behalf of the Free Flow of Information Act—and for the same reason guilds always lobby the government for special privileges. The act will go a long way toward establishing a government-sanctioned journalistic class. There will be, on the one hand, approved reporters who are immune to certain kinds of governmental inquiry, and, on the other hand, everyone else, those less exalted citizens who, faced with the same governmental inquiry, would just have to suck it up. The act is a classic restraint of trade, protecting favored journalists from the pressure of competitors who lack the proper credential.

We don’t doubt there are admirable libertarian impulses behind the shield law, too, if it is intended to encourage the exposure of illicit uses of government power. But like so many libertarian impulses, admirable or otherwise, this one ends up extending rather than restraining the reach of the state’s sweaty and thick-fingered hand. Any shield law must turn on definitions. Who’s a journalist? Well, says one version of the act, a journalist is “a person who, for financial gain or livelihood, is engaged in journalism.” Leave aside for the moment why anyone in his right mind would go into journalism “for financial gain.” The next question is, And what is journalism? It is “the gathering, preparing, collecting” etc. etc. “or publishing of news or information that concerns local, national, or international events or other matters of public interest for dissemination to the public.” These are definitions without practical meaning. They will be refined on the fly, applied willy-nilly, by either unelected judges or self-interested legislators.

Even better, it reminds us of the advance our technology has made since the day of the great A. J. Liebling, author of the famous aphorism, “Freedom of the press belongs to the man who owns one.” Now, of course, we all own one. Liebling’s press baron could be anyone with a laptop and a connection to the free Wi-Fi at his local Starbucks. From even so modest a perch a budding Lord Beaverbrook or Colonel McCormick can gather “news and information” on “matters of public interest” and disseminate it to a readership beyond Liebling’s wildest dreams. The Free Flow of Information Act reminds us that the free flow of information—the freedom of the press—the First Amendment itself—will thrive so long as the government doesn’t try to protect it.

r


Imagine that: a federal registry of government-sanctioned reporters. Not sounding too free-speechy, now, is it? But it shouldn't be surprising as the poltical class in this country, comprised of Democrats and Republicans alike, are fully vested in and thus fully supportive of extending/expanding the status quo. Never make the mistake of thinking otherwise.


And with respect to Killian's not-so-veiled threats to sic the federal government on those who say nasty things about Muhammed on social media, he knows damn well he would not be able to say the same things regarding the main stream media with or without any media shield law.


So, it's happening already where you have free speech for some but not free speech for others and if you are reading this now, which you are, you don't need to be a rocket scientist to assume that bloggers and blogging would be in that latter category. But we've engaged in journalism here on this blog if you believe the practice of journalism involves the "gathering, preparing, collecting” and then publishing of information, etc., etc., ... The rent seekers, in the fourth estate and indeed the entirety of the political class of this country are more interested in defining free speech in terms of who is engaging in it rather than the existential being of the speech itself. Speech is, man.


This is reminiscent of the arguments made by those on the ideological losing end of the Citizen's United case. Corporations are not people so their massive spending on political causes/campaigns is not considered speech as per the 1st amendment is the argument we have heard. But are not corporations made up of multiple individuals? And even that misses the larger point of, it's not about corporations or people or labor unions... it's about the "speech", stupid? In the Citizen's United context, an attempt to curtail speech was being made, regardless of the source of that speech, thus it ran afoul of the 1st amendment.


As we intoned before, regardless of the media shield law, there is move afoot to, on one hand legitimize speech and thus, on the other hand, delegitimize political/free speech which is poisonous for a fully functioning constitutional republic. Needless to say, government-approved speech is not free speech in any sense or manner of the word.



Special shout-out to new followers: "Joe", "Stuart Spivey" and "Jennifer Schaffer"

U.S. District Attorney not detecting any irony with his takes on the 1st amendment

But first some exciting news out of Egypt.


From the Washington Times:

An Egyptian court has convicted a Coptic Christian lawyer in the southern province of Assiut on charges of blasphemy and sentenced him to one year in prison with hard labor.

The verdict against Roman Murad Saad was handed down on Saturday. It’s the latest in a surge of blasphemy cases following Egypt’s 2011 uprising.

Saad was sentenced in absentia. If he’s arrested or surrenders to authorities, he will be given a retrial and will have to pay 10,000 Egyptians pounds (around $1,400) in fines.

Court officials say Saad was found guilty of ridiculing Islam’s holy book, the Quran, at a lawyers’ union library. No further details were immediately available in the case.

The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to talk to media.

(italics, ours)

No further details were immediately available? No, were good with just those. Don't need to know more about that case.



Well, good thing we've got that whole Bill of Rights thing to protect against anything untoward like that from happening here, right?

Good thing that 1st amendment protects us from being punished by our own government for potentially "offending" anyone elses religious sensibilities, right?

Well, a government official charged with upholding the Constitution appears to be looking at a looser interpretation of the 1st amendment than our "reasonable person" model.

Special speakers for the event will be Bill Killian, U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Tennessee, and Kenneth Moore, special agent in charge of the FBI’s Knoxville Division.


Killian and Moore will provide input on how civil rights can be violated by those who post inflammatory documents targeted at Muslims on social media.

“This is an educational effort with civil rights laws as they play into freedom of religion and exercising freedom of religion,” Killian told The News Monday. “This is also to inform the public what federal laws are in effect and what the consequences are.”

(italics, ours)

Whaaaa?

Why does a talk about freedom of religion and federal laws and consequences seem a bit incongruous?

Killian gives a specific example of someone behaving poorly towards the Muslim community:

Killian referred to a Facebook posting made by Coffee County Commissioner Barry West that showed a picture of a man pointing a double-barreled shotgun at a camera lens with the caption saying, “How to Wink at a Muslim.”f

Killian said he and Moore had discussed the issue.r

“If a Muslim had posted ‘How to Wink at a Christian,’ could you imagine what would have happened?” he said. “We need to educate people about Muslims and their civil rights, and as long as we’re here, they’re going to be protected.”

Actually, we do. There is precedence for this. We know it was 4 years ago, but do you all remember this?


*


We do. And we also remember the rioting that took place across northern Europe when that and other alleged offensive cartoons of Muhammed were re-printed in a Danish newspaper.


And let's not forget about Salmon Rushdie who still has a bounty on his head for his "Satanic Verses" that was printed over 20 years ago.



We wonder if Killian remembers this from about the same time period as "Satanic Verses"?





Yep. Good ol' "Piss Christ". And the amount of riots, death threats and overall incidents of violence caused by this piece of "art" have a common number. For Mr. Killian's benefit, that number would be "zero". A demeaning and degrading image of the central figure of Christianity elicited a relatively big fat whateverburger from Christ's followers.



Back to the article:

Killian said he has made other presentations in the state about Muslim culture and civil rights laws, and the Muslims he’s become acquainted with are outstanding citizens.

“Some of the finest people I’ve met are Muslims,”

Awwww.... he has Muslim friends!



And now for the money paragraphs:

“We want to inform everybody about what the law is, but more importantly, we want to provide what the law means to Muslims, Hindus and every other religion in the country.

“It’s why we came here in the first place. In England, they were using Christianity to further their power in government. That’s why the First Amendment is there.”

That this man is in any position of authority scares the living hell out of us.

That he says what he says without any hint of irony simply blows our mind.

The first amendment is there precisely to protect U.S. citizens from clueless idiots like you, Killian, that are on some sort of P.C.-driven power trip.


Descending into some third world crap hole where the law is selectively applied before our very eyes.



We have to break this off but an exit question: Is this loser Killian suggesting that people on social media and "just bloggers" are not afforded the same 1st amendment protections as traditional media outlets? It would seem to be that way to us.



* It has occurred to us that we may very well have violated Mr. Killian's police state interpretation of the law with this post.

Holder: Say, how about we talk about that whole freedom of the press thing, on the down low, of course

Please feel free to file the following under "You Just Can't Make This Stuff Up"



So, the miserable hack that runs the Justice Department was reported to feel just awful about his people seizing the phone records of Associated Press employees after reading about how chapped people were regarding this development as reported in the newspaper.


To assuage his guilty conscience bruised ego, what does he propose? Of course, a closed door off-the-record meeting with bureau chiefs of any media outlet that would accept the invite to discuss how it was that the Justice Department was going to protect/prosecute free speech in the future.

The 90-minute meeting was attended by a small group of journalists after several news organizations objected to the Justice Department's insistence that it be held off the record. The participants, however, reached an agreement with the Justice Department under which they could describe what occurred during the meeting in general terms. The Justice Department is expected to meet with other news organizations and media lawyers in coming days.

Unreal. What you just read is something that should never have happened in a society that takes freedom of speech and freedom of the press seriously. It's apparent, by what was described above, we no longer do.

If you are keeping score at home, here's who did and did not choose to attend.


Those who did choose to attend should have stated going in that they fully intended on reporting out exactly, word for word, what was discussed and who it was that discussed it. Especially in light of the circumstances, those attending would be under neither legal nor ethical obligation to do otherwise.


The best read for this disgusting travesty was provided by HuffPo's Jason Linkins:

That said, everyone should just decline the opportunity to have this secret chat with Eric Holder about the Justice Department's bespoke approach to the "freedom of the press." Unless, of course, one of the attendees plans on going and then tossing the "off the record" rule in the garbage, which in my estimation would be an okay thing to do. Media organizations that conflate "journalistic ethics" with "bullshit political niceties" are conspirators in their own demise. So, you know, go right ahead and burn Eric Holder as a "source." What's he going to do? Petulantly deny you "access." Feh, who cares?

There are a number of good reasons for media organizations to avoid participating in this silly bavardage session with Holder. My bureau chief, Ryan Grim, cites the overarching principle guiding his decision: "A conversation specifically about the freedom of the press should be an open one. We have a responsibility not to betray that."

Eric Holder assures us he is all in for freedom of the press. He just doesn't want the media to say how much he is for or against it.

It's become blatantly obvious by this time, the Obama 2nd term agenda has been reduced to putting The Onion out of business.



While hanging out with B-Daddy last weekend, we noted that if we lay claim to nothing else in our blogging career, we correctly identified Eric Holder as the biggest hack in this administration a year into Obama's first term. Tell us we were wrong.

Not quite sure people involved with 60s free speech movement had this in mind...

... but then again, considering the oppressiveness into which modern liberalism has morphed from its live and let live days 40-50 years ago, maybe this is exactly what they had in mind.



Bad news for those of you out there that thought that perhaps college was a forum for freedom of expression and a place to exchange and debate different ideas and beliefs. The Department of Justice and Department of Energy have teamed up to issue broad and arbitrary speech codes that must be followed by any college or university that receives federal funding.


Reason.tv is approx. 3 minutes long:

"It is so broad that it turns every single student and every single faculty member on campus, at least arguably, into harassers," warns Greg Lukianoff, president of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE).

He's talking about sweeping speech codes just imposed by the Departments of Justice and Education on virtually every college campus in the United States.

The new mandate was revealed in a letter from the DOJ and DOE to the University of Montana that states "sexual harassment should be more broadly defined as 'any unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature," including "verbal conduct." The new rules apply to all colleges and universities receiving any sort of federal money, including Pell grants, federally backed student loans, and more. The letter contends the conduct in question need not be offensive to an "objectively reasonable person of the same gender in the same situation." That means that there is effectively no check on what might count as harassment. Course materials, overheard comments, stupid jokes - it's all potentially actionable.

You would be correct in assuming that this is what Jonah Goldberg was referring to in his book Liberal Fascism.


If sexually-themed speech is going to come under such broadly interpreted scrutiny, who's to say political speech won't be next? If we've learned anything at all this past week, it's that holding certain political views or voicing opposition to elements and characteristics of the government can get you bullied and harrassed by that same government.

Good to see any such incorrect speech will not be tolerated on our college campuses.

Free speech Saturday

.

One in a weekly series that features what's-happenings and goings-ons related to our cherished first amendment.




Alternate headline: What we've been tweeting


From this past Thursday:

Tweet: So, it's been precisely one week since they hauled in #Nakoula and uhhh... just thought I'd bring it up. No biggie.

The filmmaker of the alleged anti-Islam Youtube video that the administration has laughingly blamed for all the chaos in the Middle East was brought in by the authorities for alleged parole violations. It's over a week and, to our knowledge, no formal charges have been brought against him.


In fact, we googled "Nakoula" and the last reference to him was September 28. Today is October 6.



For an administration that has the power to detain, indefinitely, U.S. citizens without cause, please tell us why we shouldn't be suspicious of this black hole?

Everything you need to know about the United Nations...

.

... in one simple statement:

Free speech is a "gift given to us by the [Universal] Declaration of Human Rights," said Deputy Secretary General of the United Nations Jan Eliasson during a press conference on October 2nd at UN headquarters in New York. It is "a privilege," Eliasson said, "that we have, which in my view involves also the need for respect, the need to avoid provocations."

Dear Mr. Eliasson, kiss our lily-white suburban ass. Neither you nor any other two-bit hack bureaucrat in that pathetically counter-productive pack of braying jackals called the United Nations can grant us or guarantee us our natural and inherent free speech rights.

And hold it, just a second: We might've found what Eliasson offensive in itself if it weren't coming from someone obviously possessing a room temperature I.Q.

We will note that this recent spate of free speech qualifications, hedgings and outright lies comes amidst the manufactured outrage over a crappy Youtube video no one has seen that is alleged to be offensive to the Islamic faith. Trust us when we say that nothing other than "alleged offenses against the Islamic faith" could generate the quantity and quality of idiocy we've been hearing the past couple of weeks.

We shudder to think of what other violence and stupidity should befall us if some U.S. tax-payer funded "art" were to sponsor, say, putting an image of Christ in a jar of urine. What then?

.

Free speech Saturday

.

We returned from sea on Thursday evening to learn that the maker of the allegedly anti-Islam Youtube video had been arrested.


From ABC News:

The Southern California man who wrote and produced the controversial anti-Islam film "Innocence of Muslims" was ordered detained without bail by a federal judge for allegedly violating the terms of his probation.

Citing a "lengthy pattern of deception," Judge Suzanne Segal said that the court had a "lack of trust" in Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, and believed him to be a flight risk who posed "some danger to the community."

Nakoula, 55, appeared at the U.S. District Court preliminary hearing in Los Angeles. He had been asked to report to an office of the U.S. Probation Office, where U.S. Marshals officially arrested him.

Authorities have been investigating whether he violated the terms of his supervised release from a 2010 conviction in a bank fraud case.

Nakoula had met with federal probation officers on Sept. 14 about whether his involvement in the film violated the terms of his probation, which barred him from accessing the internet without prior approval and from using any name other than his legal name.

The inflammatory film has been blamed for violent protests across the Middle East, including in Benghazi, Libya, where four Americans died, including U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens, when militants attacked U.S. diplomatic facilities there on Sept. 11.

First off, it's good to know that the lap dog media continues to carry the regime's water in continually linking the violence in the Middle East, and particularly the sacking of the Benghazi consulate and the murder of our ambassador to a Youtube video no one has seen.


We've been told that Nakoula is a "flight risk" and that he is "some danger to the community".


When considering the regime has conferred upon itself the ability to detain U.S. citizens indefinitely without cause and the fact that wiretaps and other means of electronic surveillance has risen dramatically from that of the Bush years, you have what can be politely called a credibility gap.



And with respect to free speech, provocation and "fighting words", Allah Pundit at Hot Air has an excellent piece, here.




In related news, Leslie at Temple of Mut has a great piece on the abject failure of the U.S. media complex in their coverage of the shamble of lies the regime has cobbled together with respect to Benghazi.

.

Seeing is believing

.

From the President's speech yesterday in front of the General Assembly of the United Nations:

Efforts to restrict free speech can quickly become tools to suppress.

.

To which @JimGeraghty tweeted:

That's why the filmmaker had a completely coincidental parole meeting.

To those of you out there thinking that perhaps were over-blowing this whole thing just a little too much, fair enough. However, count us squarely in the camp of those over-reacting to what we see as suppression of our 1st amendment rights as opposed to under-reacting to the same.


.

More Chik-fil-A shenanigans

Last week we reported out on negotiations between Chik-fil-A and Chicago Alderman, Joe Moreno in what appeared to be a squeeze in getting the company to drop its financial support of pro-traditional marriage groups in return for being able to open a business in Moreno’s district.

From the comment section of the linked article, many people were not convinced at all that Chik-fil-A was making any such concessions whatsoever and, indeed were continuing their support of these groups. Chik-fil-A statements afterwards tended to support that contention but it still was not entirely clear to us what exactly Chik-fil-A had agreed to.

We tended to think that the mere fact that Chik-fil-A was even talking to this thug represented a victory for PC intimidation over free speech.
‘But back to Alderman Moreno because even he is now confused as to what, if anything, he was able to muscle Chik-fil-A into.

A Chicago alderman says Chick-fil-A's president is publicly contradicting what company executives personally assured him for months -- that the fast-food chain is changing its stance on gay marriage -- and he asked the company Sunday to clarify.

Alderman Joe Moreno made news last week when he announced Chick-fil-A has ceased making donations to anti-gay groups and has enacted workplace protections for its employees against discrimination.

Moreno said the two concessions were the result of 10 months of negotiations he had with Chick-fil-A executives as he weighed whether to support a new Chick-fil-A restaurant in his Chicago ward. He said the executives gave him documents backing up the new positions.

Chick-fil-A, in a statement Thursday, affirmed the workplace protections. Friday, however, company President Dan Cathy denied the company has ceased making donations to groups that oppose gay marriage and said Chick-fil-A "made no such concessions."

"There continues to be erroneous implications in the media that Chick-fil-A changed our practices and priorities in order to obtain permission for a new restaurant in Chicago," Cathy said in a statement to Mike Huckabee, the former Republican presidential candidate who now runs a conservative website. "That is incorrect."

Moreno said Sunday that Cathy's statement "at the least, muddied the progress we had made with Chick-fil-A and, at the worst, contradicted the documents and promises Chick-fil-A made to me and the community earlier this month."

Moreno said Chick-fil-A executives gave him a letter earlier this year saying the company's non-profit arm, the WinShape Foundation, will not support organizations with political agendas. "We were told that these organizations included groups that politically work against the rights of gay and lesbian people," Moreno said.

He said the executives confirmed to him that both the foundation and the company in 2012 has not given money and will not give money to those groups.

Cathy's conflicting statement, Moreno said Sunday, is "disturbing."

Moreno said Sunday he has yet to introduce legislation for the new Chick-fil-A restaurant in his ward and will wait for Cathy's response before moving forward.

No. What is disturbing is this continual thuggery displayed by Moreno in getting Chik-fil-A to bend to his will and his opinion of correct thinking in return for opening a restaurant there in Chicago.

We don’t understand Chik-fil-A’s thinking here. Why are they even speaking to this man? They have ample evidence that he is blocking them from opening a business there in his district based upon no acceptable legal reason. If they sued, we don’t see how they would lose. Yet, here they are playing this charade with this Windy City punk. We don’t get it. What are we missing?

And as for Moreno, you would think that someone running things in a town that has over 350 murders so far this year would prioritize bullying a private enterprise a little lower on this "to-do" list.

As always, your comments on the matter are welcome.

.

Yet another blow to free speech

.

When we first got wind of this we thought, “Wow, that kiss-in thing really worked?” Then we read about it and almost became physically ill.

We can’t begin to describe our disgust in the following:


From NPR, Chicago:

Chicago Alderman Joe Moreno says he will no longer stand in the way of Chick-fil-A opening a restaurant in his ward since it will stop making donations to groups that oppose gay marriage. It was a month ago that supporters filled Chick-fil-A restaurants and gay activists protested after the CEO of the restaurant chain said he opposed same-sex marriage.



RENEE MONTAGNE, HOST:

And Chick-fil-A fast food restaurants became the focus a few weeks ago of protests and counter-protests, after the CEO of the restaurant chain said he opposed same-sex marriage. Now, after a change in policy the chain, a Chicago alderman says he will no longer stand in the way of Chick-fil-A opening in his neighborhood.

NPR's Cheryl Corley reports.

CHERYL CORLEY, BYLINE: There's just one Chick-fil-A restaurant in Chicago. The second will be located here, on Chicago's northwest side. After months of negotiating, Alderman Joe Moreno says he's fine with the company locating here.

ALDERMAN JOE MORENO: They had funded groups that were outspokenly, in my opinion, hateful, and one of their offers was, look, we're not going to give to these groups anymore.

CORLEY: The Alderman says Chick-fil-A also took a step forward when it said, in an internal company document, the company will treat every person with respect, regardless of their beliefs or sexual orientation.

Anthony Martinez the executive director of the Civil Rights Agenda, an LGBT advocacy group in Illinois, also calls that a good first step, but says...

ANTHONY MARTINEZ: We would still like to see them have an anti-discrimination policy in their company manual.

CORLEY: That would address what Martinez says has been a culture of discrimination at Chick-fil-A.

The restaurant chain declined to comment beyond offering a statement saying it planned to leave the policy debate over same-sex marriage to the government and political arena.

This is not a matter of Chik-fil-A changing their stance with respect to who it is they give their money to. This isn’t about gay marriage. This isn’t even about a change of heart brought about by public pressure. The only thing this is about is a company caving to open threats made by elected officials. This is sickening. Chik-fil-A laid down and allowed thugs like this Moreno, the Chicago mayor, Rahm Emmanuel and the one from Boston, Thomas Menino, their victory of intimidation.

In the comment section of the article, there is a debate regarding whether or not Chik-fil-A is really going to shut down its funding to outfits like Focus on the Family. Guess what? It doesn’t matter. The moment that Chik-fil-A sat down at the table with Moreno, the damage had been done. The moment they sat down and gave even the appearance that they were negotiating in any way, shape or form, the thought police mentality of the statist thugs represented by Moreno and his ilk had won.

This is horrible. This sends a signal that the un-American and quite simply, the illegal behavior of denying a business license on the grounds that you don’t like what somebody thinks, says or does will be complied with. So, this went down with Chik-fil-A. What’s to stop tyrants like Moreno from squeezing other businesses? And what’s to stop him from, umm, broadening the aperture to muscle companies that give to outfits that advocate against abortion as an example.

From our vantage point, not a whole hell of a lot because we are shocked in the casual, ho-hum manner in which this was all handled.

We should have seen this coming

.

The White House and State Department continue to play film critic, blaming the violence in the Middle East which started on 9-11 on a "heinous" and "deplorable" Youtube video that had been up for months prior to said rioting.


And with the voluntary questioning of the alleged filmmaker over the weekend, we probably should have seen this administration's commitment to civil rights and free speech coming with the weaseling of a very simple question asked of Edward Perez, the assistant attorney general for the Department of Justice Civil Rights Division.

This is from a House of Representatives hearing from back in July and for the sake of clarification, Congressman Franks (R-AZ) is not questioning Perez about economic policy or immigration reform, rather a singular issue about which Perez, given his job title, ought to have some pretty damn strong convictions.






Disgraceful. There's no other word for that performance.



(h/t: Michael Totten via Instapundit)



.

Free Speech Saturday

In light of recent events that have occurred both in the Middle East and here on our very shores, we have decided to start a Free Speech Saturday series where we devote a post each Saturday to the 1st amendment and the protections to what we can shout from our rooftops that amendment affords us.

And, yes, we realize it’s Sunday… Events beyond our control prohibited us from getting this up and out before this morning.




On Friday, the filmmaker who is alleged to be responsible for the rioting and killing over in the Middle East was brought in for “voluntary questioning” by the L.A. Sheriffs Department.

Just after midnight Saturday morning, authorities descended on the Cerritos home of the man believed to be the filmmaker behind the anti-Muslim movie that has sparked protests and rioting in the Muslim world.

Los Angeles County sheriff's deputies escorted a man believed to be Nakoula Basseley Nakoula to an awaiting car. The man declined to answer questions on his way out and wore a hat and a scarf over his face. He kept his hands in the pockets of a winter coat.

Sheriff's officials could not be reached by The Times, but department spokesman Steve Whitmore told KNBC News that deputies assisting the federal probation department took Nakoula to the sheriff's substation in Cerritos for interviewing.

(image courtesy Leslie at Temple of Mut whose views on the matter can be found here).



Because nothing says “police state” like “Just after midnight Saturday morning, authorities descended on the Cerritos home…”.



And we care not a lick that Nakoula was released without being further detained or arrested. We care not a lick that he is a previously convicted felon and that the Sheriffs were just doing some potential parole violation follow-up. It doesn’t matter anymore. The man has been outed by his own government, aided and abetted by a media who has done more leg work in getting into this man’s background than they did in vetting a certain presidential candidate back in 2008.

In the aftermath of 9-11 we came to the quick realization that the jihadists would prevail not by felling our buildings nor by killing our people but by making us question that which we formerly valued. When authorities are swooping in on you in the dead of night for some “voluntary questioning” because of a crappy Youtube video you made, the 1st amendment is in the “formerly” cross-hairs. Congrats, jihadists, you've got first and goal at the one.

People who should absolutely know better like a religious studies associate professor from Penn, Anthea Butler, are penning articles titled:

Opposing view: Why 'Sam Bacile' deserves arrest

Our favorite line from the horrible article:

If there is anyone who values free speech, it is a tenured professor!

Anthea, the exclamation point won't detract from the deplorable state of higher education in this country demonstrated by your excrable article.

Her logic that the crappy Youtube video provoked a violent response from believers in Islam sent us scrambling for our own copy of the Constitution to see if there was some sort of "incitement exemption" in the 1st amendment. She definitely has a different version than we for there are no such qualifiers in our copy.




With Nikoula’s release, it reminded us of a quote from Canadian journalist/publisher, Ezra Levant who was eventually acquitted of any wrongdoing by the Alberta Human Rights Commission after a 900 day investigation for his role in reproducing the Mohammed-as-terrorist Danish cartoons.

Pardeep Gundara – a second-rate bureaucrat, a nobody – had to give me his approval for me to be allowed to go back to my business. For 900 days I was in the dock, waiting for this literary giant to pronounce his judgment on me. And I found favour in his eyes – but barely.

Sorry. I don’t give a damn what Gundara or the HRC says. Getting his approval is not a success. I won't legitimize his arrogant "authority" by saying "thank you, master". I'll say: "who the hell are you? Besides a busy-body bureaucrat?"

Look at his rationale for acquitting me: because the Western Standard met Gundara’s home-made tests of reasonableness. We published the cartoons in “context”; we published letters that “criticized” them; and my favourite, the cartoons weren’t “simply stuck in the middle” of the magazine. Gundara must have thought for ten whole minutes to come up with that list of journalistic do’s and don’t’s. And – phew! – he likes me. He really likes me!

Sorry again, I don’t give a damn if he likes me. In fact, it rather creeps me out that a whole squad of teat-sucking bureaucrats spent 900 days inspecting me and the Western Standard. I positively want to offend them. In fact, that’s pretty much the only test of my freedom: can I do exactly what Gundara says I shouldn’t? I’m not interested in publishing recipes or sports scores. I’m interested in bothering the hell out of government.

(italics, ours)


A man to be admired, this Ezra Levant - we could not have said it better ourselves.


We hope you enjoyed this initial installment of Free Speech Saturdays of which we hope our resolve and this country's respect for the most fundamental right continues to make happen.

.