Tag Archives: #FreedomOfThePress

Posted on by

John Kerry lets us know that the Democrats have not given up on the idea of regulating speech

My daily diary informed me that September 30th is Canada’s National Day for Truth and Reconciliation, and my immediate thought was: whose truth?

John Kerry, the 2004 Democratic Presidential nominee, Secretary of State during the last half of the Obama Administration, and recently President Biden’s Special Presidential Envoy for Climate, said:

“But, look, if people go to only one source, and the source they go to is sick and has an agenda, and they’re putting out disinformation, our First Amendment stands as a major block to the ability to be able to hammer it out of existence,” Kerry said.

“What we need is to win the ground, win the right to govern by hopefully winning enough votes that you’re free to be able to implement change,” he added, while acknowledging that different people have other visions for change.

It was 2004, and CBS News, certainly one of our traditional media sources, tried to torpedo the younger President Bush’s re-election campaign, and if it weren’t for two blogs, Powerline and Little Green Footballs — the latter of which has gone off the deep end whacko — spotting that the documents used to buttress the story were forged, and were able to publish that on the internet, it is at least possible that Mr Bush would have lost the election.

Thus, you can see why Mr Kerry doesn’t really like Freedom of Speech, at least not the kind of speech which doesn’t support Democrats.

It’s not just the 80-year-old Mr Kerry. President Biden wanted to set up a Ministry of Truth Disinformation Governance Board in the Department of Fatherland Homeland Security, to be run by the highly partisan Nina Jankowicz, but that effort was first paused and then dropped due to the fiery reaction it received. Naturally, The Washington Post’s Taylor Lorenz waxed wroth!

Jankowicz’s experience is a prime example of how the right-wing Internet apparatus operates, where far-right influencers attempt to identify a target, present a narrative and then repeat mischaracterizations across social media and websites with the aim of discrediting and attacking anyone who seeks to challenge them. It also shows what happens when institutions, when confronted with these attacks, don’t respond effectively.

Those familiar with the board’s inner workings, including DHS employees and Capitol Hill staffers, along with experts on disinformation, say Jankowicz was set up to fail by an administration that was unsure of its messaging and unprepared to counteract a coordinated online campaign against her.

The lovely Miss Lorenz told us everything we needed to know about how Miss Jankowicz was expected to run her Ministry of Truth Disinformation Governance Board: she expected it to block “far-right influencers” and “the “right-wing Internet apparatus.” The left were aghast when the world’s richest man, Elon Musk, bought Twitter — sorry, I absolutely refuse to call it 𝕏 — because Mr Musk wants it to be a free speech site, not one which censors some — mostly conservative — arguments.

Mr Kerry’s comments at the World Economic Forum, that private jet set gathering of the hoitiest and the toitiest in Davos, Switzerland to talk about Other People not being able to use fossil fuels, tell us one thing: today’s Democrats have not given up on the idea that they can somehow circumvent the First Amendment and regulate people’s speech. They are so invested in telling people what they want them to hear, and not wanting them to hear anything else, that they actually do thing that regulation of speech, to control ‘disinformation,’ of course, is actually the freedom of speech. And if Kamala Harris Emhoff wins in November, we’ll simply see further efforts to regulate speech.

Posted on by

USA Today sports columnist is incredibly butthurt that two top athletes didn’t speak out the way she wanted

For whom Patrick Mahomes and Caitlyn Clark intend to vote has absolutely no bearing on for whom I intend to vote, but sports columnist Nancy Armour apparently believes that it’s their duty to open their secret ballots to me.

Caitlin Clark, Patrick Mahomes’ bland answers evoke Michael Jordan era of athlete activism

by Nancy Armour | September 13, 2024

Not every athlete can be LeBron James or Megan Rapinoe.

Remember Michael Jordan’s comment about Republicans buying shoes? There’s a long history of athletes putting as much space as possible between themselves and controversy, and what Caitlin Clark and Patrick Mahomes did this week was no different.

Asked about the upcoming presidential election Wednesday and who they might be supporting, both Clark and Mahomes dodged the question and instead found a safe space in encouraging people to register and to vote.

“It’s more than nothing, but it doesn’t put them on the front lines of the discussion,” said David Niven, an associate professor of political science at the University of Cincinnati who teaches a course on sports and politics.

Perhaps, just perhaps, Mr Mahomes and Miss Clark were not thinking about Mr James or Miss Rapinoe; perhaps they were thinking about Colin Kaepernick, and the activism that persuaded NFL owners not to sign him.

Mr James did himself no favors with his political statements, which only exacerbated people looking at him as an opportunist and a flop artist in the NBA. Miss Rapinoe’s political activism didn’t serve her or women’s soccer very well, either. The fact that Mr Mahomes plays in deeply conservative Missouri, and Miss Clark in very red Indiana might have contributed to their decisions, and Miss Clark, who has led the WNBA from near-obscurity to sold-out arenas when and where she plays, makes her hugely valuable to the league. Miss Armour was saying that it’s a shame the athletes weren’t openly supporting Kamala Harris Emhoff.

Clark’s Instagram account is now flooded with nasty comments from supposed fans who are upset she liked Taylor Swift’s post endorsing Kamala Harris. Mahomes is getting backlash both from people who want him to disassociate himself from his wife’s (presumed) political beliefs and people angry he didn’t defend them.

Perhaps Mr Mahomes disagrees with Mrs Mahomes, who ‘liked’ an Instagram post from former President Trump, and perhaps he doesn’t. That’s really kind of a ‘who cares’ thing as far as I am concerned.

We have a long tradition of a secret ballot in the United States, and while a lot of people, including me, are willing to tell others how they will vote — I will vote the straight sensible ticket, meaning Republican, over the blithering idiots, the Democrats — a lot of other people are not.

The Democrats have even tried to exploit the secret ballot, with comments that women do not have to tell their husbands or boyfriends how they voted, and that they can even lie and support Mrs Emhoff, when the men in their lives vote more sensibly. And when it comes to the presidential contest, it almost doesn’t matter: President Trump will carry the states in which Mr Mahomes and Miss Clark live, and it will not be close.

Outkick noted that Miss Armour did not support Tom Brady speaking out on politics, because Mr Brady supported Mr Trump. It seems as though Miss Armour is really only interested in athletes speaking out on politics if they happen to support the politicians she likes. Miss Armour was similarly upset when Kansas City Chiefs kicker Harrison Butker spoke in favor of conventional, Catholic morals at a Catholic college. She just retweeted a post in which Mr Butker missed a kick, which said, “Harrison Butker is, once again, a little too far right.”

And she has taken the far-left position that ‘transgender women’ — meaning males who have deluded themselves into thinking that they are girls — should be able to compete in women’s sports. Neither her Wikipedia profile nor her Twitter bio say anything about her ever having played sports.

Miss Armour has, as we all do, the absolute freedom of speech and of the press, and she can say whatever she wishes. But the freedom of speech and of the press carries with it the freedom not to say something, and the columnist is just wholly upset that a couple of well-known athletes didn’t say what she wanted them to say.

Posted on by

Blogging from France! Freedom of speech for he, but not for thee, or me

Ville de Nice, France (4:08 PM local time) — My Twitter feed has recently been full of calls from people using their freedom of speech to stifle other people’s freedom of speech. Jay Michaelson, “author and journalist,” as he describes himself, wrote:

Like a pack of anguished Austrian nuns, progressives can’t stop singing this tune on talk shows and Twitter feeds. And for good reason: the world’s richest man has turned a once-essential social media platform into a far-right propaganda machine.

Despite his lofty libertarian claims of a year ago, X (formerly Twitter) CEO Elon Musk has put his finger on the scale in countless ways to boost far-right posts and deprecate others — starting with his own posts.

There’s more at the MSNBC original.

Even though I do not follow many leftist sites and people at all, my Twitter feed is full of posts supporting the Communist from California, and the antiSemites wishing death upon Israel and total victory for the ‘Palestinians’ and Hamas. It’s pretty laughable when I read tweets by people in the United States whining about ‘stolen land’ and ‘white settler colonialists’ when that’s exactly how and why the US exists: white settler colonialists, white Christian settler colonialists, came to these shores and conquered the Indians who were here before them. If you are an American, if you live in the US, everything you have is something you owe to those white settler colonialists.

Somehow, some way, those opinions get expressed in my feed on Twitter. I am, of course, free to block them, but I haven’t.

Mr Michaelson wants us all to boycott Twitter, but it’s his self description as a journalist, paid and fed by MSNBC, which tells us something. The credentialed left have long hated that major thing about this internet thingy that Al Gore invented, that we commoners, we riff-raff, can extend our voices beyond local shouting distance, without the need to get approval by an editor of The New York Times or MSNBC. Their gatekeeping function has been lost.

Freedom of speech and of the press are, for people like Mr Michaelson, reserved for those who have been approved by the powers who control the media, and Elon Musk’s (mostly) libertarian attitude is just another, another very large, medium for the Little People to say things, sometimes things of which Our Betters disapprove. Freedom of speech and of the press for he, but not for thee, and me.

Posted on by

Apparently your Freedom of Speech is dependent upon which side you support

Many on the left decried efforts to curtail anti-Semitic and pro-Hamas demonstrations, and backed the not-so-peaceful demonstrations by Black Lives Matter and Antifa during the 2020 Summer of Hate, shouting about freedom of speech. But now we have the amusing spectacle of The New York Times fretting about how cities can fight “hateful speech” when it comes from the right.

What Can a City Do When Neo-Nazis Start Marching Down Its Streets?

The brazen appearance of white supremacist groups in Nashville left the city grappling with how to confront hateful speech without violating First Amendment protections.

by Emily Cochrane | Thursday, August 1, 2024

They first arrived at the beginning of July: dozens of masked white supremacists, shuffling out of U-Hauls, to march through Nashville carrying upside-down American flags.

A week later, members of a separate neo-Nazi group, waving giant black flags with red swastikas, paraded along the city’s famed strip of honky-tonks and celebrity-owned bars. The neo-Nazis poured into the historic Metro courthouse to disrupt a City Council meeting, harassed descendants of Holocaust survivors and yelled racist slurs at young Black children performing on a downtown street.

The appearance of white nationalists on the streets of a major American city laid bare the growing brazenness of the two groups, the Patriot Front and the Goyim Defense League. Their provocations enraged and alarmed civic leaders and residents in Nashville, causing the city to grapple with how to confront the groups without violating free speech protections.

“I can’t imagine having a mimosa on Fifth and Broadway, and 400 Patriot Front members walk out of a U-Haul — it has to be one of the most jarring experiences as an American and as a tourist in the city,” said State Representative Aftyn Behn, who represents the city’s downtown. “Nashville is a microcosm of the greater country, and we are at a moment where we have to decide who we are.”

I’m not sure how 400 Patriot Front members would fit in “a U-Haul,” but whatever. But it seems to me that the best response to groups advocating things you hate is to ignore them, at least as long as they aren’t setting buildings on fire or physically assaulting people. These groups usually demonstrate with well-disciplined and orderly marches, then get back in their vehicles, and return to their homes.

Both of the groups that visited Nashville this summer have become more visible since the 2017 “Unite the Right” rally in Charlottesville, Va, and are now among the top sources of white supremacist propaganda. At the same time, the leadership of the other far-right groups like the Proud Boys has been disrupted by prosecutions over their involvement in the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the Capitol.

White supremacists have appeared in Nashville before and have increasingly promoted racist and antisemitic messages across the country. Those include plotting to riot at a Pride event in Idaho, disrupting city council meetings in New England and protesting at the opening New York performances of “Parade,” a musical about the 1915 lynching of a Jewish man in the South.

Did you catch that? They were “plotting to riot,” not that they actually started a riot. According to the embedded Times story, police “received a tip that a group of people had jumped into a U-Haul van near a Pride event.”

Many of the men also had shields and wore shinguards, and the police recovered one smoke grenade, they said. They did not mention other weapons.

So, other than a “smoke grenade,” something which could be used to have a group of marchers emerge from a cloud of smoke, the 31 arrested men were unarmed. That Times story concluded with this gem:

The action in Coeur d’Alene was not the only threat that involved a far-right group and an L.G.B.T.Q. event on Saturday. In San Lorenzo, Calif., members of the Proud Boys disrupted the “Drag Queen Story Hour,” a reading event at the San Lorenzo Library that was attended by children, parents and other community members, the Alameda County Sheriff’s Office said on Facebook.

The men shouted homophobic and transphobic slurs at the event organizer and were described as having a violent demeanor, authorities said. Deputies arrived and de-escalated the situation, but a hate crime investigation is underway, the sheriff’s office said.

So, the men in that protest “shouted” mean things at the organizers of the event, and “were described as having a violent demeanor,” but the story does not say that they actually committed any violent acts.

Back to the article originally cited:

(Nashville) City officials said they were reviewing ordinances related to face coverings, littering and permit requirements for parades, as well as consulting a First Amendment expert to ensure that any crackdown would withstand a legal challenge.

The white supremacist groups, city officials said, strategically navigate city regulations to avoid arrest or police interference. Often, they are penalized with littering citations for distributing antisemitic pamphlets; in one instance, a leader of the Goyim Defense League spent a few weeks last fall in a Florida jail.

If you follow the last link, which is behind a paywall, you’ll see that the man listed as having spent a few weeks in jail was sentenced to thirty days for littering. From what little I could see before the paywall blocked everything, there were no charges against him of any violent crimes.

Today’s left in America very much support protests and rallies by the far left, cheering on the Black Lives Matter and Antifa demonstrations which caused multiple millions in damage in break-ins and arson, and they still call Kyle Rittenhouse a murderer for having defended himself against three previously convicted criminals assaulting him during that famous “Fiery but mostly peaceful protest” in Kenosha, Wisconsin. But when a group of men, in “which members generally wear masks and ‘khaki pants and a blue or white polo shirt,’ and sometimes employ smoke bombs,” for dramatic effect, and even have an operational plan consisting of marching in an orderly column until they reach barriers are encountered, and disengage and march back to a pre-arranged spot “once an appropriate amount of confrontational dynamic has been established.”

They might be confrontational, and they might be unpleasant, but they proceed without weapons to exercise their freedom of speech and peaceable assembly. Liberal urban governments really hate that, but let’s tell the truth here, American liberals really do hate the freedom of speech when it isn’t speech they like.

Posted on by

Journolism: How can we call the credentialed media actually credentialed these days? They deliberately concealed Joe Biden's descent into dementia because they hate Donald Trump so much

No, that’s not a typo in the headline! The spelling ‘journolism’ or ‘journolist’ comes from JournoList, an email list of 400 influential and politically liberal journalists, the exposure of which called into question their objectivity.

Jennifer Rubin is the former ‘neoconservative’ columnist and warmonger for The Washington Post, always agitating for more money and weapons to keep the Russo-Ukrainian War going, and completely infected by #TrumpDerangementSyndrome. On May 19th, she wrote:

President Biden took the media and political world by surprise in challenging Donald Trump to two debates — and then swiftly accepting offers from CNN and ABC. Trump accepted the debates, on June 27 and Sept. 10, but whether he will show up is another matter.

Yup, Mr Trump showed up! Oops!

Trump has done Biden a favor over the past few months by painting the president as an infirm, doddering old man. If Biden appears even remotely sane, alert and engaged at the debates, he will have defied expectations. Moreover, Biden already accomplished an important component of a successful debate. In getting out in front to reach quick agreements with CNN and ABC, the president might have snagged, for the CNN-hosted June 27 debate in Atlanta, two of the most competent moderators available. Continue reading →

Posted on by

MSNBC worried that their talking heads’ #TrumpDerangementSyndrome will be exposed even more

MSNBC was widely mocked after they sidestepped their AM show, Morning Joe, on Monday, due to fears that one or more of hosts Joe Scarborough’s and Mika Brzezinski Scarborough’s guests, or perhaps the couple themselves, might say something just boneheadedly crazy following the assassination attempt aimed at former President Donald Trump. That fear was hardly unreasonable, given that Chaya Raichik of Libs of TikTok has shown us dozens of statements the haters have posted on social media lamenting that the would-be assassin failed. Miss Raichik succeeded in many regards, as some of these #TrumpDerangementSyndrome-addled people have now found themselves unemployed. The bosses at MSNBC knew that Mr and Mrs Scarborough were deeply affected and infected with that disease, as many of their guests are as well. Continue reading →

Posted on by

Killadelphia: The Inquirer isn’t fooling anyone by censoring the news

We have previously reported about how the rest of the credentialed media in Philadelphia despise Fox 29 News reporter Steve Keeley. They just don’t like the fact that Fox 29 reports on crime in the City of Brotherly Love, and they publish mugshots, which are public records.

My reaction upon seeing Mr Keeley’s tweet about the story? What a great mugshot! He has an expression on his face that very clearly says, “Oh, what did I do?” Or perhaps, “I am so f(ornicated).” If he’s guilty, Title 18 §2505(b), second-degree murder, Title 18 §1102(b), life in prison.

Too bad Graterford was closed!

Arrest made after Philadelphia store clerk shot, killed during robbery

By FOX 29 Staff | Wednesday, July 17, 2024 | 9:20 AM EDT

PHILADELPHIA – A man is charged with murder after a robbery at Philadelphia convenience store took a deadly turn last week.

Kharee Simmons, 37, is accused of shooting Kenneth Kennedy-McLeod to death inside Frankford Convenience Store on Pratt Street.

The 37-year-old victim was found gunned down behind the counter with several shell casings surrounding his body.

He was pronounced dead minutes later with multiple gunshot wounds to his shoulders.

An open register and several loose bills led police to believe the shooting stemmed from a robbery.

Simmons was arrested Tuesday and charged with Murder, Criminal Conspiracy, Robbery, Theft-Unlawful Taking, and Theft-Receiving Stolen Property.

That’s all there was, six short paragraphs on the robbery and murder.

Though there was a story in The Philadelphia Inquirer on the robbery and murder, published last Friday, the newspaper doesn’t have anything on the arrest of Mr Simmons. If there is a story published later, you can bet euros against eclairs — my version of dollars against doughnuts 🙂 — that Mr Simmons’ mugshot will not be included. [Update: Story published at 2:34 PM EDT. And, no, there was no mugshot published.]

My far too expensive Philadelphia Inquirer subscription. I could use a senior citizen’s discount right about now.

Inquirer publisher Elizabeth ‘Lisa’ Hughes decided, a couple of years ago, that the the newspaper would be an “anti-racist news organization,” and the paper ceased noting the race of suspects and victims, or publishing the mugshots of accused criminals, because mugshots somehow leave the impression that some minority groups are more closely identified with crime, but let’s tell the truth here: simply publishing Kharee Simmons’ name tells the reader that he is black. And the location of the murder, Pratt Street near Frankford Avenue and SEPTA’s Frankford elevated train depot, tells anyone familiar with the city that the suspects would probably be black.

Why, then, should people be paying $285.48 a year for a newspaper that doesn’t report all of the news? It’s not as though the Inky is actually fooling people. I would argue that, by trying — and failing; it’s not as though the Inquirer is the only news source in town — to conceal the news, the newspaper is actually pushing an impression that all criminals are black.

Posted on by

Now it’s The New York Times’ turn to attack the publisher of The Washington Post.

We have previously reported on Will Lewis, the newly-brought-in published of The Washington Post, and how The Philadelphia Inquirer’s capitalism and Donald Trump hating columnist, Will Bunch, went frothing-at-the-mouth angry about Mr Lewis pointing out that people just weren’t reading what the newspaper’s reporters and writers were producing.

On Fathers’ Day, The New York Times, the most credentialed of our credentialed news media, and the ones who retained reporter Ali Watkins after it was discovered that she had been fornicating one of her sources, told us what a horrible, horrible person Mr Lewis is. Continue reading →

Posted on by

Unsubscribe, huh?

It was just a month ago that the NewsGuild of Greater Philadelphia criticized The Philadelphia Inquirer’s “Unsubscribe” ad campaign, after the newspaper laid off yet another five employees. I’ve mostly ignored that campaign, but this one caught my eye this afternoon. If by “Unsubscribe from ‘I (heart) NYC'” actually means “Unsubscribe from The New York Times,” I’d point out that my subscription to the Times is $20.00 every four weeks, or $260.  a year is less expensive than my subscription to the Inquirer, $5.49 per week, billed at $21.96 every four weeks, or $285.48 per year.

Yeah, I have reasons to subscribe to both, primarily for my blog supporting documentation, but if it’s a simple economic decision, and the better newspaper costs less than the poorer one, . . . .