Tag: 1st amendment

AG pushes state level ‘Ministry of Truth’ critics say could jail conservatives who express mainstream views

A state attorney general is advocating for a bill some critics argue could punish outspoken conservatives as domestic extremists, KTTH‘s Jason Rantz reported Wednesday.

“Some conservative views, or anything [Washington state Attorney General Bob Ferguson] deems as ‘misinformation,’ are examples of ‘domestic extremism,'” Rantz said.

It’s the “most dangerous bill in legislative history,” the Seattle radio host added.

Washington is creating a state version of the ill-fated “Ministry of Truth,” according to Rantz and others who have analyzed the bill.

The controversial bill proposes the establishment of a commission on domestic violence extremism. Rep. Bill Ramos, a Democrat, sponsored the bill which would create the 13-member commission.

HB 1333 describes the duties of the proposed commission as involving efforts to “combat disinformation and misinformation” and collecting data on incidents of “domestic violent extremism,” the Center Square explains.

Though DVE is not explicitly defined in the bill, Ferguson has described the term as including noncriminal activities or speech, the outlet also says.

Keep reading

Is The Left Harnessing Fake Antisemitic Attacks To Silence Americans’ Speech?

“Speech, expression and assembly” represent the triumvirate for truth.  Short of breaking existing laws around physical violence and incitement to physical violence, the more we have of all three, the closer we come to that more perfect union, offering the most freedom for the most people with the least government interference.  But in an age of internet technology with deep fakes, bots, hacks, and myriad pathways to craft and deliver mis- and dis-information, radical left-wingers can abuse and use those liberties to tarnish conservatives, desensitize our communities to certain phenomena, and squelch our freedoms.  It behooves individuals, our government, and even watchdog organizations to pause before reacting to information from somewhere on the internet.  

As an example, did you know that, on February 25, America’s neo-Nazi and White Supremacist groups sponsored a national “Day of Hate”? You probably didn’t hear anything about it unless you are Jewish and your inbox was inundated with emails from various Jewish organizations, synagogues, and even local condo boards, warning of “an online campaign by domestic violence extremists, calling for an anti-Semitic “Day of Hate.”

As it turned out, despite the terror this announcement caused in Jewish households and houses of worship across the country and as far away as Israel, the “Day of Hate” passed without incident, as reported in The Forward, a progressive Jewish publication.

It’s good that nothing happened. The last thing anyone wants, including this skeptic, is more violence. But anti-Semitism is on the march, and we must monitor and be aware of it no matter the source—white supremacists, non-white supremacists, Antifa, or Islamic extremists. The problem for Jews and non-Jews alike, as evidenced by the “Day of Hate” that never happened, is that America’s politicians, journalists, and activists are only concerned with anti-Semitism coming from white people.

Keep reading

US State Department entity flagged thousands of accounts to Twitter for censorship

A United States (US) government department and a government-funded think tank collectively flagged tens of thousands of tweets to Twitter for censorship.

This secret censorship was exposed in the latest batch of “Twitter Files” (internal communications from the previous Twitter regime that reveal numerous examples of clandestine censorship) which was published by journalist Matt Taibbi.

One of the entities that compiled lists of accounts for Twitter to censor was the Global Engagement Center (GEC) — a State Department entity that was established through a President Barack Obama Executive Order in March 2016.

Taibbi said that the GEC flagged 5,500 accounts to Twitter because it believed they were Chinese accounts engaging in “state-backed coordinated manipulation and 499 accounts to Twitter because they had been branded as “foreign disinformation.” Yet many of the accounts on the Chinese list were non-Chinese. Some were Western government accounts and three accounts were those of CNN employees based abroad.

Twitter also deduced that many of the accounts were not Chinese with then-Twitter Head of Trust and Safety Yoel Roth describing the list as “a total crock.”

Keep reading

Is Religious Freedom And Freedom Of Speech And Worship Dead In Biden’s America?

On February 10, 2023, Jason S. Miyares, Attorney General of Virginia, along with 19 other Attorneys General, issued their own response. 

The attorneys general seven-page letter was addressed to Attorney General Merrick Garland and FBI Director Christopher Wray. 

“This country was founded on the right of all people to worship in the church, mosque, or synagogue of their choice, free from government. Countless millions were drawn to our country because of that very right. Indeed, some of our first States were founded as safe havens for religious dissenters. There is no right more sacred to American democracy than the right to worship freely,” reads the letter. 

In further response, Bishop Knestouts of the Richmond, Virginia  Catholic diocese issued a statement on Feb. 13, 2023. 

“I was alarmed to read the reports written late last week about the contents of the internal memo created by the Richmond Field Office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. I was also surprised to learn of the mention of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter (FSSP), a religious order, which celebrates the traditional form of the Catholic Mass. FSSP has served with devotion for many years the parishes within our Catholic community and to the faithful of our diocese who appreciate this form of the Catholic Mass in our diocese,” wrote Bishop Knestouts. 

“The leaked document should be troubling and offensive to all communities of faith, as well as all Americans. I am grateful for the Virginia Attorney General and 19 attorneys general who have called upon the government to publicly release all materials related to the production of this memo. If evidence of extremism exists, it should be rooted out, but not at the expense of religious freedom. A preference for traditional forms of worship and holding closely to the Church’s teachings on marriage, family, human sexuality, and the dignity of the human person does not equate with extremism, the Bishop added. 

Keep reading

Most Important First Amendment Case You’ve Never Heard Of: Biden Regime Tries to Toss a Young Man in Jail for 10 Years for Anti-Hillary Memes

Douglass Mackey is alleged to be one of the many anonymous Twitter users who made the 2016 election so different, so memorable, and so important.

Like other anonymous internet memesmiths (anons), Mackey had no external reason that anyone should care what he said. He held no office. He had no byline at an elite publication. He had no vast pool of wealth that conferred legitimacy, deserved or undeserved, on what he had to say.

Mackey’s notability, like that of Bronze Age Pervert or Libs of TikTok, came exclusively from what he had to say, and that people found it funny and compelling. Over the summer and fall of 2016, Mackey allegedly went by the nom-de-tweet Ricky Vaughn (after Charlie Sheen’s character in Major League) and collected tens of thousands of followers who found him funny and compelling. Mackey was not single-handedly responsible for getting Donald Trump elected. But the work he allegedly did along with dozens of others is what made Trump’s victory possible. An MIT analysis estimated that Ricky Vaughn was a bigger influence on the 2016 election than NBC News.

But for the regime, the specter of anonymous individuals making the system tremble was too much. And so, for more than two years, the regime has been battling to send Mackey to prison.

You might not know much about Mackey’s case. It’s far less notorious than the January 6 prosecutions, or the murder trial of Kyle Rittenhouse. But in terms of how much the speech matters for American liberty, it is as important as either of those — perhaps more so. 

In January 2021, shortly after the January 6 incident inaugurated a national anti-MAGA crackdown, the Department of Justice charged Mackey with “conspiring … to deprive individuals of their constitutional right to vote.”

Mackey’s offense? Illegal memes.

Keep reading

Virginia Democrat Introduces Bill to ‘Remove Hate Speech From Public Places’

A Virginia Democrat has introduced a bill to “remove hate speech from public places.”

Del. Suhas Subramanyam introduced the bill in response to “antisemitic incidents” in the state.

If passed, the bill will require the government to remove any graffiti that is deemed to be hateful on the taxpayer’s dime, including on private property, if the owner fails to do so themselves.

“It’s been bad enough that we had to endure these incidents of racist and antisemitic graffiti, but it’s made worse when no one takes responsibility for the clean up and they remain in the public’s eye,” Subramanyam told WUSA9. “This bill would address that. Hate has no place in Virginia, and our diversity and unity is what makes us strong.”

Keep reading

Dem Rep Lauds Bill To Make It Criminal For White People To Criticise Non White People

Democratic Representative Sheila Jackson Lee suggested Monday that Tucker Carlson could be the first to be prosecuted under legislation she has introduced that would see any white person talking about ‘replacement theory’ be criminalized.

As previously noted, the legislation, known as The Leading Against White Supremacy Act of 2023, would categorise any speech that is found to have “inspired” a racially motivated crime as a ‘hate crime’.

The draconian law would effectively make an individual responsible for someone else’s crime if prosecutors were able to successfully argue that their political rhetoric was a motivating factor.

The bill also targets speech that “vilifies or is otherwise directed against any non-white person or group” on social media.

If such content is “read, heard, or viewed by a person who engaged in the planning, development, preparation or perpetration of a white supremacy inspired hate crime,” even if misinterpreted, the creator of such content is guilty of conspiracy.

Appearing on perpetual race baiter Joy Reid’s show, Jackson Lee was asked “Does this bill allow potential prosecution of people like Tucker Carlson?”

“Because he is one of the people who promotes white supremacist ideology,” Reid further claimed.

“The bill has nothing to do with speech,” Lee asserted, adding “I was thinking about the pledge of allegiance and it says justice and equality for all. and I would offer to say that everyone deserves justice and equality.”

“It seems that the right wing extremists, the violent extremists, don’t want that to happen,” she further suggested.

Keep reading

When Does an Ugly Facebook Message Qualify as an Illegal ‘True Threat’ of Violence? SCOTUS Will Decide.

“If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment,” the U.S. Supreme Court said in Texas v Johnson (1989), “it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.” What that principle means in practice is that all sorts of vile and despicable speech—including hate speech—are constitutionally protected.

But the Court has also said that the First Amendment has its limits. One of them involves “true threats” of violence, which the Court in Virginia v. Black (2003) defined as “those statements where the speaker means to communicate a serious expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence to a particular individual or group of individuals.” The First Amendment, the Court held, “permits” the government “to ban a ‘true threat.'”

Deciding what actually counts as a “true threat” is not such an easy task, however, as the Supreme Court seems to recognize. Last week, the Court agreed to hear arguments in Counterman v. Colorado, which asks, in the question presented to the Court, “whether, to establish that a statement is a ‘true threat’ unprotected by the First Amendment, the government must show that the speaker subjectively knew or intended the threatening nature of the statement, or whether it is enough to show that an objective ‘reasonable person’ would regard the statement as a threat of violence.”

Keep reading

Democrat Introduces Legislation to Make White People Criticizing Minorities a Federal Crime

It may be MLK Day, but Democrats aren’t here for all that “content of character” stuff.

Rep. Shelia Jackson Lee, long in the running for being the vapidest member of Congress (oops, did I just commit a crime?), has introduced legislation that could make political criticism by white people against minorities a federal crime.

In what can only be called a convoluted mess, the bill proposes that a white person who “vilifies” any non-white person and has their words end up on social media, accessible by “persons who are predisposed to engaging in any action in furtherance of a white supremacy inspired hate crime,” would themselves be committing a federal crime.

The provision is so broad that you could drive a Mack truck through it. What is a “white supremacy-inspired hate crime” under this statute? How is “replacement theory” defined? Because what Democrats call “replacement theory” as a way to silence Republicans is often not replacement theory at all but is just a reiteration of Democrat-admitted aims to use immigration to influence elections.

Further, the use of “or” in section (B) is important because it leaves “vilifies” as a stand-alone qualifier. What is the limiting principle there? If I post on social media that Shelia Jackson Lee is an incredibly ignorant, abusive person who has a long history of treating her staff like dirt, does that mean I’ve “vilified” her under this proposed law? It would certainly seem so.

Then there’s the conspiracy angle to deal with. It does not appear that there’s actually any requirement that the “two or more persons” targeted under this statute have any real connection to one another. If someone commits a “white supremacy-inspired hate crime” against a person and I’ve likewise been politically criticizing that same person on social media, even justifiably, I would have now committed a federal crime myself.

Keep reading

Louisiana’s new law requiring age verification on adult websites is driving uptake of digital ID

Downloads of Louisiana’s state digital ID app have substantially increased because of a new Republican law requiring adult websites to verify the age of visitors with ID.

Since Dec. 31, the day before the law took effect, downloads of LA Wallet increased from a daily average of between 1,200 and 1,500 to over 5,000.

The increase in downloads and site visits coincided with the Jan. 1 implementation of the state law requiring adult websites to verify the age of visitors or be held responsible for distributing harmful content to children.

The law was sponsored by Republican state Rep. Laurie Schlegel, who said that she saw the harm caused by pornographic content while working as a couples therapist and decided that websites should start requiring users to show ID.

Keep reading