Politically Correct Speech Gone Amok

Discussion in 'Judicial Interpretation' started by Flanders, Mar 17, 2017.

  1. Flanders
    Offline

    Flanders ARCHCONSERVATIVE

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2010
    Messages:
    7,596
    Thanks Received:
    739
    Trophy Points:
    205
    Ratings:
    +2,015
    Judicial interpretation is coming after the Internet:

    March 15

    From New York Assembly Bill 5323, introduced by Assemblyman David I. Weprin and (as Senate Bill 4561 by state Sen. Tony Avella), a bill aimed at securing a “right to be forgotten”:

    XXXXX

    But the deeper problem with the bill is simply that it aims to censor what people say, under a broad, vague test based on what the government thinks the public should or shouldn’t be discussing. It is clearly unconstitutional under current First Amendment law, and I hope First Amendment law will stay that way (no matter what rules other countries might have adopted).

    XXXXX

    Instead, the “right” this aims to protect is the power to suppress speech — the power to force people (on pain of financial ruin) to stop talking about other people, when some government body decides that they should stop.

    Analysis | N.Y. bill would require people to remove ‘inaccurate,’ ‘irrelevant,’ ‘inadequate’ or ‘excessive’ statements about others
    By Eugene Volokh

    Analysis | N.Y. bill would require people to remove ‘inaccurate,’ ‘irrelevant,’ ‘inadequate’ or ‘excessive’ statements about others

    Assembly Bill 5323 takes Hillary Clinton and Cass Sunstein further:

    Hillary Rodham Clinton said IN 1998 during a meeting with reporters said that "we are all going to have to rethink how we deal with" the Internet because of the handling of White House sex scandal stories on Web sites.

    Clinton was asked whether she favored curbs on the Internet, after the DRUDGE REPORT made headlines with coverage of her husband's affair with a White House intern. "We are all going to have to rethink how we deal with this, because there are all these competing values ... Without any kind of editing function or gatekeeping function, what does it mean to have the right to defend your reputation?" she said.​

    FLASHBACK: HILLARY CLINTON SAYS INTERNET NEWS NEEDS 'RETHINK'
    Drudge Report ^ | 9/25/05 | Matt Drudge

    FLASHBACK: HILLARY CLINTON SAYS INTERNET NEWS NEEDS 'RETHINK'

    Imagine what the Clinton image would be today had the Internet never been invented! Look at what Hillary got away with in the Internet’s early years:​

    XXXXX

    Just prior to his appointment as President Obama’s so-called regulatory czar, Cass Sunstein wrote a lengthy academic paper suggesting the government should “infiltrate” social network websites, chat rooms and message boards. Such “cognitive infiltration,” Sunstein argued, should be used to enforce a U.S. government ban on “conspiracy theorizing.”

    Such “cognitive infiltration,” Sunstein argued, should be used to enforce a U.S. government ban on “conspiracy theorizing.”

    Obama czar proposed government ‘infiltrate’ social network sites
    Sunstein wants agents to 'undermine' talk in chat rooms, message boards
    Published: 01/12/2012 at 10:56 PM
    by Aaron Klein

    Obama czar proposed government ‘infiltrate’ social network sites

    Hillary Clinton Proves Fake News Is Newspeak

    Get a bet down on this one. If passed in NY, 5323 will make it to the U.S. Supreme Court. Regardless of which way the Nifty Nine leans on other issues they will uphold 5323 for one reason above all others. Freedom of speech on the Internet is specifically the High Court’s enemy more than it is the enemy of the entire federal government and the media.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  2. gipper
    Online

    gipper Libertarian/Anarchist Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2011
    Messages:
    16,716
    Thanks Received:
    3,369
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Ratings:
    +16,686
    Without the internet, Americans would get nearly all news from government controlled media sources, as it was before the internet.

    In regard to the Clinton's, they are still rock stars in the minds of many Democrats and the lying criminal in a pantsuit, nearly won the presidency. This indicates a lack of independent thought, by many Americans.

    Many Americans still believe whatever the government and the big media tell them, ignoring the fact that both entities have a very long history of lying and deception.

    Thanks to the internet some of us who seek the truth, can find news sources outside the control of the government.


    [​IMG]
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 17, 2017
  3. emilynghiem
    Offline

    emilynghiem Constitutionalist / Universalist Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2010
    Messages:
    17,184
    Thanks Received:
    2,215
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    National Freedmen's Town District
    Ratings:
    +5,358
    Re: "Hillary Rodham Clinton said IN 1998 during a meeting with reporters said that "we are all going to have to rethink how we deal with" the Internet because of the handling of White House sex scandal stories on Web sites."

    Simple. Just don't create sex scandals that you don't want spread all over the Internet. And maybe you won't HAVE these problems!!!!
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  4. Flanders
    Offline

    Flanders ARCHCONSERVATIVE

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2010
    Messages:
    7,596
    Thanks Received:
    739
    Trophy Points:
    205
    Ratings:
    +2,015
    Politically correct speech is incorrect. Democrats alone could not have made that transformation stick. It was judges that codified politically correct speech when they punished politically incorrect speech.

    Democrats began attacking freedom of speech decades ago when they invented hate speech, and that masterpiece of doublespeak —— politically correct speech. The beauty of politically correct speech is that it is never punished when the education industry forces children and university students to listen to it. Conversely, politically INCORRECT speech will get you killed if Democrats have their way.


    [​IMG]
    http://www.theblaze.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/GettyImages-140457243-1280x720.jpg

    Democrats took politically correct speech to its inevitable end in the violent country they created:

    Nearly every op-ed writer at The New York Times has compared Trump to Hitler. (The conservative on the op-ed page merely called him a “proto-fascist.”) If Trump is Hitler and his supporters Nazis, then the rational course of action for any civilized person is to kill them.

    That’s not just a theory, it’s the result.​

    Ann Coulter: The Left Has One More Argument: Kill Them!
    by Ann Coulter
    21 Jun 2017

    Ann Coulter: The Left Has One More Argument: Kill Them!

     

Share This Page