The Left Ultimately Just Wants To Throw Conservatives In Prison

Did you know that in America you can be criminally charged for using a racial slur? The First Amendment is supposed to protect our freedom of speech (even the use of racial slurs!) and in theory it should prevent such a gross violation of our civil liberties.

But apparently it happens anyway — and it happens because the revolutionary left doesn’t care about free speech. What they care about is power, and if they have enough power they will throw their ideological opponents in prison for the crime of disagreeing with them. 

Consider the case of Lauren Noble, a Yale graduate and the founder and executive director of the Buckley Institute, named for conservative icon William F. Buckley, Jr. Two years ago, Noble was arrested in New Haven, Conn., for allegedly using a racial slur in an argument with a black parking attendant.

The parking attendant, 60-year-old Gerno Allen, claimed that Noble repeatedly called him the N-word during a dispute in July 2023. Allen didn’t file a complaint with the police until February 2024, and Noble was arrested that May and charged at first with disorderly conduct and then three counts of breach of the peace.

Noble maintained her innocence throughout, and the misdemeanor charges against her were dropped last month. The state prosecutor cited “insufficient evidence … inconsistencies in the witness’ statements,” and “video evidence clearly contradicting the complaining witness’ statements.” In other words, Allen made up the entire story.

It’s great that Noble is no longer facing criminal charges, but the fact that she was forced to go through two years of this appalling legal ordeal based on an accusation with no evidence to support it is outrageous.

Even more outrageous is that she was arrested and charged in the first place for allegedly uttering an offensive word. Even if Noble had called Allen the N-word, and there was video evidence of it, that’s not a crime. You’re free to use whatever racial slurs you like, even lazy ones like the N-word. Contrary to what many college students seem to think at places like Yale, there’s no such thing as “hate speech” in America. It might be offensive, but it’s not illegal — at least it’s not supposed to be. 

But this was a just-so narrative that was apparently too good for the left-leaning police and prosecutors in deep-blue New Haven to ignore: a conservative woman who runs an organization promoting intellectual diversity and freedom of speech at Yale, caught using the N-word against a working-class black man. Perfect.

As Noble herself wrote in a recent New York Post op-ed: “The interest in my case seemed to have more to do with what the Buckley Institute represents than anything I ever did, or was accused of doing. Headlines in local newspapers made much of both Buckley and conservatism generally, as left-leaning media outlets welcomed the opportunity to advance the dishonest narrative that everyone on the right is racist.”

That’s really what Noble’s case was about. Concocting a race-based “crime” out of thin air to tarnish the reputation of a conservative activist and ruin her good name.

For the left, conservatives aren’t just wrong or misguided, but evil. They should be silenced. If they can be silenced by jailing them on bogus charges stemming from a made-up story, so be it. Even better if the story exposes them as racist.

Keep reading

Rochester Man Who Filmed Mom Using N-Word Toward Child Was Previously Arrested for Sex Abuse of Minor

A viral video that ignited a social media firestorm and led to widespread condemnation of a Minnesota mother is now facing serious scrutiny—not only because of the woman in the video, but also because of the man who filmed it.

Shiloh Hendricks, the mother seen in a now-deleted video allegedly calling a child the N-word after he reportedly stole her 18-month-old son’s diaper bag, has raised nearly $500,000 through a GiveSendGo fundraiser to protect her family amid escalating threats, harassment, and doxxing.

According to Hendricks’ fundraising campaign:

“My name is Shiloh and I have been put into a very dire situation. I recently had a kid steal from my 18month old sons diaper bag at a park. I called the kid out for what he was. Another man, who we recently found out has had a history with law enforcement, proceeded to record me and follow me to my car. He then posted these videos online which has caused my family, and myself, great turmoil. My SSN has been leaked. My address, and phone number have been given out freely. My family members are being attacked. My eldest child may not be going back to school. Even where I exercise has been exposed.

I am asking for your help to assist in protecting my family. I fear that we must relocate. I have two small children who do not deserve this. We have been threatened to the extreme by people online. Anything will help! We cannot, and will not live in fear!

UPDATE: Where do I even begin?? The overwhelming support that my family and myself have received is unbelievable! I’ve never felt so scared, yet reassured in my life. It’s truly a whirlwind of emotions!

We are currently doing okay. No one has been harmed, and we are getting by. We are taking the proper procedures in order to stay safe from these constant threats. I’m still very frightened, and I don’t think I will feel safe until we can escape completely.

I am so grateful to all of you who have donated to my family. I never would have imagined that we would be supported to such an extreme. It still feel as if it’s too good to be true, and it’s all going to disappear. It’s such a strange feeling to be living in a blissful dream and a nightmare simultaneously.

Thank you all for your continuous support and love. We have to keep fighting for the safety of all our families, not just mine.”

The City of Rochester and Democrat officials were quick to condemn Hendricks, with Mayor Kim Norton and local NAACP leaders piling on the outrage and urging charges against her. The Rochester Police Department launched an investigation into the video.

Keep reading

Police investigate after white mother used racist slur at Minnesota park

Video taken at a Minnesota public park this week shows a white woman apparently admitting she used a racist slur against a Black youth she accused of taking an item that belongs to her child.

The man who recorded the video, Sharmake Omar, 30, said in an interview Friday that the 5-year-old child was called the N-word by the woman Monday.

“The Rochester Police Department is aware of the video that was posted on social media and has received multiple calls related to it,” it said Friday. “We are gathering information and actively looking into the matter.”

Omar said that when he saw the woman berating the child of Somali heritage, a background he shares, he intervened and she turned her apparent anger on him, using the slur repeatedly, which was captured on the video.

In the video, verified by NBC News, the woman, apparently carrying her child away, answered, “Yeah” when asked if she called the youth the slur.

“He took my son’s stuff,” she said.

Keep reading

US wants UK to ditch ‘hate speech’ laws to secure trade deal – media

The administration of US President Donald Trump wants the UK government to repeal hate speech laws in order to secure a trade deal between the two nations, the Independent reported on Wednesday, citing claims by sources close to US Vice President J.D. Vance. 

In a recent interview, Vance spoke of his admiration for the UK and expressed optimism about the negotiations.

Washington and London are “working very hard on a trade deal” within the new US tariff regime, he told the British website UnHerd on Tuesday. 

However, the sources reportedly claimed to the Independent that Vance’s optimism on a trade deal “is a way of putting further pressure on the UK over free speech.” 

“If a deal does not go through, it makes Labour look bad,” they reportedly said. 

Keep reading

South African Constitutional Court: “Kill the Boer, Kill the Farmer” is Not Hate Speech – Trump Administration Drops Military Aid to South Africa

The South African Constitutional Court has rejected a lawsuit by civil rights org AfriForum against the song “Kill the Boer” as sung by the Marxist “Economic Freedom Fighters”, saying it has “no reasonable prospects of success.” The Trump administration has cut all aid and military assistance to South Africa over its blatantly racist and discriminatory laws.

According to the Sunday Times, the Trump administration has cut military assistance and cooperation with the South African National Defence Force (SANDF) and expelling its military attache Brigadier Gen. Richard Maponyane. The paper cited a memo dated March 13 from the US State Department to Aaron Harding, the CFO of America’s Defense Security Co-operation Agency (DCSA). Any South African military personnel in the US for training will be sent back to South Africa ASAP, Business Insider reported.

The Trump administration announced it was suspending US aid to South Africa February 8 over its race-based expropriation law and pertsecution of ethnic minorities. South Africa’s US Ambassador Ebrahim Rasool was kicked out of the USA after accusing US President Donald Trump of leading a “global white supremacy movement.”

EFF leader Julius Malema called everyone who complains of a “white genocide” in South Africa “racist” and told them to leave the country on “Human Rights Day” March 21 before singing the “struggle song  Kill the Boer, Kill the Farmer with a crowd of 60,000 dancing supporters.

30-year old farmer was tortured to death by 3 men in police uniforms the next day.

In a post on X March 24, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio criticized the song: “Kill the Boer” is a chant that incites violence. South Africa’s leaders and politicians must take action to protect Afrikaner and other disfavored minorities. The United States is proud to offer those individuals who qualify for admission to our nation amid this continued horrible threat of violence,” Rubio wrote.

Keep reading

Germany’s Shocking War on Online Speech: Armed Police Raids for Online “Insults,” “Hate Speech,” and “Misinformation”

A shocking discussion on CBS News’ 60 Minutes has highlighted the stark limits of online speech in Germany, where oppressive scenes once thought to be relegated to history and dystopian fiction, show law enforcement has been conducting pre-dawn raids and confiscating electronics from individuals accused of posting content deemed as “hate speech.”

In typical Orwellian fashion, despite these speech raids, officials insist that free speech still exists.

Dr. Matthäus Fink joined host Sharyn Alfonsi to explain how these laws operate and how those targeted by authorities typically react. According to Fink, most individuals are initially shocked when police confront them over online posts.

“They say — in Germany we say, ‘Das wird man ja wohl noch sagen dürfen,’” Fink remarked, illustrating the disbelief many express when they realize their statements can result in legal action. He noted that many Germans assume they are protected by free speech laws but learn too late that specific kinds of speech are punishable.

Alfonsi delved deeper, questioning the scope of these restrictions. Beyond banning swastika imagery and Holocaust denial, Fink pointed out that publicly insulting someone is also a criminal offense.

“And it’s a crime to insult them online as well?” Alfonsi asked.

Fink affirmed that online insults carry even steeper penalties than face-to-face insults. “The fine could be even higher if you insult someone in the internet,” he elaborated. “Because in internet, it stays there. If we are talking face to face, you insult me, I insult you, OK. Finish. But if you’re in the internet, if I insult you or a politician…”

Keep reading

State ‘Bias Response Hotlines’ Encourage People To Snitch on Their Neighbors for ‘Hate Speech’

By the end of this year, as many as 100 million Americans could live in a state where they can be reported to a “bias response hotline” for a wide range of protected speech. While states claim that these reporting mechanisms don’t punish people for non-criminal speech acts, many also claim to attempt to stop hateful speech incidents “before they occur.”

According to a recent report in The Washington Free Beacon by reporter Aaron Sibarium, these reporting systems allow people to “snitch” on their neighbors. Connecticut allows people to report “hate speech” they “heard about but did not see.” Vermont encourages citizens to call the police over “biased but protected speech.” Philadelphia actually directs people to give the names of alleged offenders so they can be contacted.

“If it is not a crime, we sometimes contact the offending party and try to do training so that it doesn’t happen again,” Saterria Kersey, a spokeswoman for the Philadelphia Commission on Human Relations, told Sibarium.

Oregon’s Bias Response hotline encourages citizens to report not only hate crimes, but also “non-criminal hostile expression motivated in part or whole by” someone’s protected identity. These incidents can include “hate speech,” “displaying hateful symbols or flags,” and “telling or sharing offensive ‘jokes’ about someone’s identity.”

What happens when someone calls this hotline? The Free Beacon called the hotline and reported a fictional incident—a man, identifying himself as a Muslim said that he felt “targeted” by his neighbor’s Israeli flag. 

“Within 20 minutes, a hotline operator had logged the display in a ‘state database,’ referred to it as a ‘warning sign,’ and suggested installing security cameras in case the situation ‘escalates,'” Sibarium writes. “He also informed this reporter that, ‘as a victim of a bias incident,’ he could apply for taxpayer-funded therapy through the state’s Crime Victims Compensation Program, which covers counseling costs for bias incidents as well as crimes.”

Even though nothing criminal had allegedly occurred—or even something that could be fairly described as objectively offensive—the operator nonetheless treated the report with immense gravity.

“Even if it is not very explicit, we go with whatever the victim is experiencing,” the operator said during the call. “And if your sense is that this is based on discrimination against your faith or your country of origin…that’s how I would document it.”

Keep reading

EU Updates Digital Rules Requiring Big Tech To Allow ‘Reporters’ To Monitor Hate Speech

Under a revised code of conduct on online speech, the European Commission says that Big Tech signatories need to allow a network of “monitoring reporters” to regularly monitor hate speech notices.

On Jan. 20, the European Commission announced that updated hate speech guidelines will be folded into the Digital Services Act (DSA).

The DSA is an EU-wide regulation that regulates the obligations of digital services.

Part of this requires social media platforms to remove, and take other specified steps to deal with, what is deemed disinformation. The DSA fully came into force in 2024.

Under the revised code, companies that are signed up must allow a network of “monitoring reporters” that are nonprofit or public entities with expertise on illegal hate speech to regularly monitor how the signatories are reviewing hate speech notices.

They will have to review at least two-thirds of hate speech notices received from monitoring reporters within 24 hours.

The EU said that the updated code of conduct, a voluntary instrument, builds on a 2016 code on “countering illegal hate speech online.”

European Commission Spokesperson Thomas Regnier told The Epoch Times by email that Facebook, Instagram, and X are among the signatories of the new code of conduct. These platforms were also part of the previous code of conduct, initiated in 2016, he said.

It was also signed by Dailymotion,  Jeuxvideo.com, LinkedIn, Microsoft-hosted consumer services, Snapchat, Rakuten Viber, TikTok, Twitch, and YouTube.

The EU also wants signatories to present “country-level data broken down by the internal classification of hate speech (such as race, ethnicity, religion, gender identity or sexual orientation).”

Some of the monitoring reporters include Amnesty International Italia, German organisation HateAid, and the French Ministry of the Interior’s dedicated portal to cybercrime, PHAROS.

Keep reading

Great Britain Cracks Down On “Non-Crime Hate” Speech, Including Playground Taunts

In my book, The Indispensable RightI discuss how free speech is in a free fall in Great Britain, where officials continue to crack down on an ever-widening array of viewpoints. Some of these actions are designated as “non-crime hate” but are still the subject of law enforcement actions. According to the Daily Mail, they now include children who have been pulled in for calling other children schoolyard names like “retard” or saying that other children smell “like fish.”

According to the Daily Mail:

“A nine-year-old child is among the youngsters being probed by police over hate incidents… Officers recorded incidents against the child, who called a fellow primary school pupil a ‘retard’, and against two schoolgirls who said another student smelled ‘like fish.’ The youngsters were among multiple cases of children being recorded as having committed non-crime hate incidents (NCHIs), The Times discovered through freedom of information requests to police forces.”

“Non-crime hate” was introduced in 2014 as part of the Hate Crime Operational Guidelines.

It is chilling in its ambiguity and scope. It only requires the perception of either a victim or a third party that a statement is motivated by hostility or prejudice based on a person’s race, religion, sexual orientation, disability, or transgender identity.

The HCOG stresses, “The victim does not have to justify or provide evidence of their belief, and police officers or staff should not directly challenge this perception. Evidence of the hostility is not required.”

Keep reading

EU’s Věra Jourová Labels Elon Musk a “Promoter of Evil” for Permitting “Hate Speech” on X

Věra Jourová is not a psychologist but she decided to play one during an interview, by “diagnosing” X owner Elon Musk as a person unable to “recognize” good and evil.

But then, he apparently can, after all – because Jourová in the same breath accused him of being “a promoter of evil.”

Jourová is an EU bureaucrat on her way out, after serving as Vice President of the Commission for Values and Transparency for the past five years.

“Good riddance. If she wants to see evil, I suggest she use a mirror,” Musk shot back in a post on X, adding that Jourová is the “epitome of banal, bureaucratic evil.”

Jourová is known for pushing anti-free speech legislation such as enabling mass surveillance of private messages (which she claims is “privacy-preserving” and “not breaking encryption”), combating “disinformation and hate speech,” and even going after whoever the EU decides is a conspiracy theorist by using law enforcement.

Keep reading