Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
ADVERTISEMENT
OPENING ARGUMENT
Troubling Signals On Free Speech
IN HIS EAGERNESS TO PLEASE INTERNATIONAL OPINION, PRESIDENT OBAMA HAS TAKEN A SMALL BUT SIGNIFICANT STEP TOWARD CENSORING FREE SPEECH.
Saturday, Oct. 31, 2009
by Stuart Taylor Jr.
It was nice to hear Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton say on October 26, "I strongly disagree" with Islamic countries seeking to censor free speech worldwide by making defamation of religion a crime under international law.
But watch what the Obama administration does, not just what it says. I'm not talking about its attacks on Fox News. I'm talking about a little-publicized October 2 resolution in which Clinton's own State Department joined Islamic nations in adopting language all-too-friendly to censoring speech that some religions and races find offensive.
The ambiguously worded United Nations Human Rights Council resolution could plausibly be read as encouraging or even obliging the U.S. to make it a crime to engage in hate speech, or, perhaps, in mere "negative racial and religious stereotyping." This despite decades of First Amendment case law protecting such speech.
To be sure, the provisions to which I refer were a compromise, stopping short of the flat ban on defamation of religion sought by Islamic nations, and they could also be construed more narrowly and innocuously. It all depends on who does the construing.
Is it "negative stereotyping" to say that the world's most dangerous terrorists are Islamists, for example? Many would say yes....
Obama's friends see censorship as the only way to control the masses. It's coming...
Along with bankrupting the country...
Obama's friends see censorship as the only way to control the masses. It's coming...
Along with bankrupting the country...
It's the only way they could bankrupt us ... if we keep all sides of the argument going they know they have no power, once they silence all but their own side they will have absolute power.
Along with bankrupting the country...
It's the only way they could bankrupt us ... if we keep all sides of the argument going they know they have no power, once they silence all but their own side they will have absolute power.
Point well taken.
Obama and Robert Bauer, Anita Dunn's husband, Bauer who intimidated media people not to run campaign ads that tied Obama to Bill Ayers, Bauer who threatened the media stating the FCC would take their liscence if they ran the ads.
Obama's net neutrality is word speak for cencorship of the internet
The reason they can't get such things past is right now there are still too many people enjoying this freedom, so they know that pushing this issue too hard will result in a revolt that they could not recover from ... our government would be completely over thrown. Us net "geeks" would attack their computer systems while others would actually fight. This is one reason I am also very glad our government is too stupid to switch to Linux or Unix. 
As long as they have MS servers ... they're easy targets.Obama is counting on his zombie-like "followers" to support ANYTHING he does. Do you think any of them will notice this will affect them, their children and all future generations of the USA?
Interesting piece, but I'd like to read the resolution itself before spouting an opinion. Does anyone have more information that would be helpful in locating it? There's no title or link in the article.
Any threat to free speech is the biggest threat to our country.
