http://theyoungcons.com/video-blog/2013/1/2/next-time-youre-on-twitter-be-thankful-youre-not-french

Next Time You're On Twitter, Be Thankful You're Not French

January 02, 2013 Amy Lutz

Every loyal internet user knows that crazy people pop up everywhere online. Social media outlets like twitter give people a platform to present ideas, express opinions, and communicate with others all over the world. However, there's also a dark side to twitter. Internet trolls prowl the popular social media platform looking to start up controversy. This is particularly common in the political realm where extreme liberals and conservatives alike look to take cheap shots at their opponents without actually having to formulate an argument.
Furthermore, twitter gives us glimpses of swaths of humanity we would rather not see on a daily basis. And by "swaths of humanity," I mean rabid Justin Beiber and One Direction fans. Honestly, has a day ever gone by when something along the lines of #ILoveJustinBeiber or #OneDirectionFollowBack hasn't been trending? Say hello to our future uninformed voters, America.
Apparently France has had it up to here with the insanity that takes place on twitter. France's Women's Rights Minister (Really?? I digress...) Najat Vallaud-Belkacem has suggested that "hateful tweets are illegal" and the government should step in to regulate what can be said and what can trend on the social media platform. This pro-censorship movement might have legs in socialized France, but for many Americans, it seems utterly ridiculous.
Yes, there are hateful tweets on twitter. People say insane things, what are you going to do? Twitter monitors threats and abuses of its policy and usually takes swift action. However, in most cases, free speech is free speech, no matter how hateful or insane it might be. Do I truly hate rhetoric from anti-semetic neo-Nazis or hard core white supremacists? Of course I do, However, as long as they don't include direct threats, they're covered under the First Amendment. There are limits to free speech (think "fire in a crowded theater" analogy) but these limits don't even touch most of what is said on twitter and other social media platforms. The First Amendment was designed for situations like this. Regardless of how you might feel about the statements of others, banning them outright is down right illegal.
...in America at least. In this country, we have a long tradition of respecting free speech (with a few dark marks of course). The French don't have that luxury. They lack the essential liberty written in to the US Constitution and the freedoms that we enjoy everyday. While I believe the suggestion to "regulate" twitter is absurd, it certainly doesn't surprise me. We are talking about the French after all.
Free speech as a whole guards liberty and produces wisdom, even when you might not like everything that is said. On that note, I'll leave you with this:

"Without freedom of thought there can be no such thing as wisdom; and no such thing as public liberty, without freedom of speech." -Benjamin Franklin

We feel the moral obligation to intervene and help steer the country away from the false promises of progressivism and the utopian state.  In order to save this country from certain economic and cultural implosion this battle must be fought.  If you would like to help support our mission, donations are greatly appreciated and allow us to continue advocating for conservative principles.

The caliph خليفة Benedict Arnold Owns It - He Helped to Build That!

 [Reader Post]

By: Paul Acosta

Much like the previous attacks on Romney for having had the audacity of visiting New Orleans after the storm, and several days before the campaigner-in-chief saw fit to do the same, Romney is once again under sieged by Obama’s campaign and by the media for stating the obvious, defending our sovereignty and standing up for one of our most sacred values, our freedom of speech.

Romney was correct to deride the Obamateurish statement out of our embassy in Cairo:

The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims – as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions. Today, the 11th anniversary of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States, Americans are honoring our patriots and those who serve our nation as the fitting response to the enemies of democracy. Respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy. We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others.

(“Condemn efforts to offend believers”, Tell that to the Catholics…)

In America we respect the right to free speech, regardless of how insensitive or stupid the speaker may be, anyone doubtful of our commitment to this concept, need not look any further than to our Vice President Joe Biden.

But what I still can’t believe after reading the Cairo statement, is that there are so many people in our state department who are so stuck on stupid as to actually believe, that by saying to a bunch of rabid fanatics that “we don’t want to hurt their feelings”, a pre-orchestrated planned attack to test America’s will, would somehow be averted. Worse yet, is the naiveté of not securing our embassies on the eleventh anniversary of September 11; it is as if this administration truly believes its own rhetoric about “man-made-disasters”, “oversea contingency plan” and that the Fort Hood massacre was nothing more than a “workplace violence” case.

At this point we don’t know if the revolts will spread or be contained, about the only thing that we can say with certainty, is that regardless what happens next, the media will not hold this administration accountable for any of this. On the contrary, as we heard today thanks to an open microphone incident, the Islamofascist are not the media’s swore enemy, their number one enemy is Romney, whom they were all conspiring to discredit and ridicule prior to his press conference today. Never mind that Obama’s press conference consisted of a read a statement and as customary refused to take any questions from the press.

It is said that prior to going into Iraq, Colin Powell told Bush that “if you brake it you own it”, the same is true of Obama’s Arab Spring, he promised us Hope and Change in the Middle East and actively involved us in the removal of Mubarak and Kaddafi. I can’t say that I had any sympathy for either one of them, but at the moment their alternatives seem a lot worse. We changed two dictators who considered themselves our allies or at the very least collaborated with our interests in the region, with two other dictators who hate us and seek to undermine our interests and that of our allies in the region.

Try as he may to distance himself from the “Arab Spring” at this time, the reality is that Obama helped to build that.

PJ Acosta

http://floppingaces.net/2012/09/14/he-helped-to-build-that-reader-post/

http://iowntheworld.com/blog/?p=149749

El Presidente suppress free speech

Hope everyone keeps forwarding this to all that are in their address book.    What else can this so called president do to us.   He is taking away all our rights and now this.    We need to get rid of him this Nov.    Keep reminding everyone of this and to vote.................

New law

 

YOU DID SEE THIS ON CNN, RIGHT? 

This is a new law signed by Obama in early March 2012 which makes it illegal to protest in his presence..  Regardless of where you stand politically, this is very scary.  Please at least watch this before you delete it. The law means that wherever Obama is you do not have a right to ask him anything you want to. His secret service can have you arrested, fined, and imprisoned for more than a YEAR if you ask him something he doesn't like or doesn't want to answer.  This sounds as if he's becoming more like Hitler than Lincoln.  THIS IS HIS LATEST ATTEMPT TO STAGE A TAKE OVER OF AMERICA. May the Lord have mercy on us!!!!  http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=7SGWH3kirzg&vq=medium h/t MK

DNC security rules trigger free speech worries

September 1, 2012 4:00 AM

• PRINT
 
• TEXT 

• comments
  103
• inShare3
• More

Visitors take photos of the main stage during the public unveiling of Democratic National Convention's facilities at Time Warner Arena in Charlotte, N.C., Friday, Aug. 31, 2012. (AP Photo/Chuck Burton) (Chuck Burton)

CHARLOTTE, N.C. — Starting Saturday, someone walking through Charlotte's central business district could run afoul of the law by carrying water bottles, hair spray, socks or magic markers under sweeping security rules enacted ahead of the Democratic National Convention.

It would take a particularly strict reading of the rules for someone to be arrested simply for possessing one of those items, but the possibility exists — which worries protesters and free speech advocates. They fear authorities could trample on people's constitutional rights in the name of protecting public safety.

The changes to city ordinances adopted earlier this year for "extraordinary events" ban a long list of actions and items that would otherwise be legal from a more than 100-square-block zone. The area includes spots as much as a mile from the sports venues where the Democratic Party events are to be held.

The new rules have already been used for events before the convention and will remain on the books after it's over.

The special rules that went into effect at 12:01 a.m. Saturday could also bar anyone other than government employees from carrying handbags and backpacks or possessing soda cans, drink coolers, scarves, bike helmets, baby strollers or pets not specifically permitted as service animals.

A section banning "a container or object of sufficient weight to be used as a projectile" could be interpreted to include almost anything, from an apple to an iPhone.

Those caught violating any of these prohibitions could be subject to arrest and jail.

Similar prohibitions have been in place at past conventions, especially those following the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

Outside the Republican National Convention in 2004, New York City police carried out mass arrests, detaining hundreds of people for days in miserable conditions on a Hudson River pier. Most of those charges were later dropped or thrown out, triggering dozens of lawsuits against the city.

At the rain-soaked Republican Convention in Tampa earlier this week, officials banned umbrellas, baseballs and puppet-making materials. There, the rules went largely untested after only a fraction of the expected protesters showed up due to worries about Hurricane Isaac.

Charlotte's Uptown business district is home to the headquarters of Bank of America and substantial operations for Wells Fargo, two of the nation's largest financial institutions. The "March on Wall Street South" scheduled for Sunday is expected to draw thousands of protesters.

Members of Occupy Charlotte, who are helping to organize the march, said turnout for that and other protests could get a boost from demonstrators deterred from Tampa by the weather. At the other end of the political spectrum, tea party activists and other right wing groups are also planning protests.

City and police officials stressed that it's their responsibility to maintain law and order. There has been street violence at some recent high-profile events, such as the 2008 GOP convention in Minneapolis and the NATO Summit in Chicago this year.

"History has shown, unfortunately, that while the vast majority are law-abiding and peaceful, expressing their First Amendment rights, a number of folks use the opportunity of large crowds and a platform to cause harm and violence," said Charlotte City Attorney Robert Hagemann, who helped draft the extraordinary event ordinance.

Chris Brook, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union of North Carolina, said that some of Charlotte's new measures could violate constitutional protections, depending on how they are enforced. Brook said he's especially concerned by language that bars bags "carried with the intent to conceal weapons or other prohibited items."

One way for an officer to determine whether an opaque bag held by a person contains a prohibited item would be to search it.

But if the person declines to submit to a warrantless search, which is a citizen's protected right, the officer is left to either let the person go or decide that the person is intending to conceal any of the dozens of prohibited items. That could trigger an arrest, during which a search could occur.

"I think it's exceptionally difficult to divine whether someone is carrying a backpack for their books or carrying a backpack with the intent to conceal weapons," Brook said. "I think that could easily lead to standardless searches. I think it could easily lead to situations where there is some profiling going on, for example a person wearing a business suit might be far less likely to be searched than some other individuals who might be downtown."

Hagemann said officers will use their training, experience and common sense to enforce the ordinances fairly. He said there could be reasonable suspicion to search someone's bag based on body language or demeanor, or if the bag appears to be especially heavy or have sharp, protruding edges. Possession of knives, chains sticks and pipes are banned the ordinance.

Somewhat counter-intuitively, handguns and rifles are not included in the long list of potential weapons banned by the city. North Carolina state law specifically grants the right to carry firearms in public places, either in plain view or, if the person has a special permit, concealed.

However, Hagemann said that state law doesn't allow guns for those participating in parades or marches, or for spectators of those events.

Since the new ordinances were approved in January, officials have already applied the "extraordinary" designation to other events where protesters were expected, including recent shareholder meetings for Bank of America and Duke Energy. Hagemann said the rules may be revisited after the DNC.

Protest leaders fear some the more than 1,750 Charlotte police officers might abuse their enhanced powers during the convention. Another concern is whether the 3,400 officers on loan from other departments have received adequate training on the Charlotte ordinances.

Mark Newbold, the attorney for the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department, said out-of-town officers received about 2.5 hours of special training for the convention, including 20 minutes on the city's extraordinary event ordinances.

Michael Zytkow, an activist with Occupy Charlotte, was arrested after he spoke beyond his allotted 3 minutes during the meeting where the ordinances were approved. The misdemeanor charge against him was later dropped.

He said he tried to test the new rules at one of the shareholder meetings by wheeling a large cooler filled with water bottles down the sidewalk. He said the police left him alone.

"I think this is an attempt to vilify protesters," he said of the ordinances. "I think it's an attempt to prevent us from coming out and joining and expressing our rights to march on the street and express our grievances."

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-501363_162-57504782/dnc-security-rules-trigger-free-speech-worries/

http://visiontoamerica.com/11922/dnc-security-rules-trigger-free-speech-worries/

What's with the "leadership" of Wendy's?

Wendy’s:Intolerant of Free Speech in Support of Chik-Fil-A

Posted on August 2, 2012 by The Compassionate Conservative

Wendy’s: Intolerant of Free Speech in Support of Chik-Fil-A

Across the nation yesterday, Chick-fil-A stores were filled to capacity with patrons supporting the restaurant chain’s freedom of speech. In an interesting twist, the Wendy’s chain also got in on the action. An owner of more than 85 Wendy’s franchises in North Carolina, decided to show his support for Chick-fil-A with the following note on his stores’ signs: “We Stand with Chick-fil-A.” Wendy’s corporate offices were not amused.

The North Carolina owner, Jim Furmen, was apparently told by Wendy’s corporate stiffs to take down the sign and then went into defensive mode to deflect what they perceived to be negative publicity. Wendy’s corporate tweeted: “An independent franchisee posted the sign, which he’s taken down. We proudly serve ALL customers!” Kind of makes you wonder what “independent” means to Wendy’s corporate offices.

Wendy’s initial tweet set off a flurry of responses on Twitter, most of which were aimed at their statement about serving “all.” It was quickly pointed out that up until last week, Chick-fil-A was never known as being a restaurant that DID NOT “proudly serve all customers.” In fact, I can say without fear of contradiction that no customer who braved the crowds and long wait times at Chick-fil-A yesterday were asked by any company employee if they were for or against gay marriage. Chick-fil-A will “proudly serve” anyone who wants a chicken sandwich, regardless of personal beliefs or convictions, Wendy’s electronic protests to the contrary notwithstanding.

While the gay agenda-setters tried to spin the Chick-fil-A situation as being about marriage, the real issue is one of free speech and expression. Many supporters who came out yesterday were not necessarily expressing their views on traditional marriage, but on whether a company president has the right to speak his mind publicly and to answer questions from the media honestly. By forcing “independent franchisee” Jim Furmen to remove his signs, Wendy’s has shown that they will NOT tolerate the freedom of speech at their restaurants. They say they will “proudly serve ALL customers,” yet they will not allow their store owners to have the constitutional right to free speech. Who’s the bigot now?

What’s more is that Wendy’s may have stepped in it far more than they realize. As was already pointed out, the support for Chick-fil-A was not univocal. Many were supporting Chick-fil-A as a private entity over against a government one. Their presence and money were sending the message that political correctness can take a hike when it comes to private enterprise. By publicly isolating and distancing themselves from Chick-fil-A, Wendy’s has sent a message much louder than their intended message of “inclusiveness and tolerance.” Their intolerance to be counted among the Chick-fil-A supporters could very well affect Wendy’s economic bottom line. The overwhelming amount of eaters who waited patiently to spend money at Chick-fil-A yesterday are just as prone to not spend money at Wendy’s as they are to spend money at Chick-fil-A.

Further, if the long lines and open wallets are any indication of what America really thinks, the Democratic party could be in for a long campaign season. It has been said that time and money are the only two limited resources. If one is willing to work harder and more often (i.e. sacrificing time), more money can be made, which means that, in reality, time is the only true limited resource. We each have the same amount of it (unlike money) and we each choose how we will spend it. Since so many chose to spend their time and money yesterday in long lines at a fast-food restaurant, this should be an indication—rather than useless political polls and questionnaires—about what Americans really think. This should (but won’t) be a warning to the Democratic party, who have overwhelmingly chained themselves to supporting the gay agenda. Americans, when given the chance to “vote” with their time and wallets, have spoken. Is anyone listening?

TCC: YOU BETTER WAKE UP AMERICA! I’ll have a Chik-Fil-A with Fries and a LARGE SWEET HIGH CALORIE POP-48 Oz. SIZE!

This entry was posted in Society in Turmoil. Bookmark the permalink.

http://www.therightofway.net/2012/08/wendysintolerant-of-free-speech-in-support-of-chik-fil-a/

Are you willing to put your freedom of speech in the hands of El Presidente's DOJ?

How comfortable are you with your free speech and the El Presidente's doj

Subscribe by email

DOJ won't promise to protect free speech

Spokesman refuses congressman's question over and over

Published: 1 hour ago

by Bob UnruhEmail | Archive

Bob Unruh joined WND in 2006 after spending nearly three decades writing on a wide range of issues for several Upper Midwest newspapers and the Associated Press. Sports, tornadoes, homicidal survivalists, and legislative battles all fell within his bailiwick. His scenic photography has been used commercially, and he sometimes plays in a church worship band.

Thought your free speech rights, those given by God and protected by the U.S. Constitution, were assured in the United States?
Well, maybe.

A representative of Barack Obama’s Department of Justice has refused – over and over – to answer a question from a member of Congress about the agency’s dedication to freedom of speech.
It was during this week’s hearing by the House Constitution subcommittee, headed by Rep. Trent Franks, R-Ariz., where Tom Perez, of the DOJ’s civil rights office, repeatedly wouldn’t respond to Frank’s question.
In fact, Franks repeated the question four times: “Will you tell us here today simply that this administration’s Department of Justice will never entertain or advance a proposal that criminalizes speech against any religion.”
WND has reported on the issue multiple times in the past. The issue primarily revolves around the idea contained in a proposal that has been made many times in the United Nations by the Islamic-led interests there.
The concept is that there should be a “Defamation of Religions” law internationally that would make it criminal to speak negatively about any “religion,” although the proposals always have focused on Islam.
The idea is “nothing more than an effort to achieve special protections for Islam – a move to stifle religious speech,” according to an analysis by Jay Sekulow of the American Center for Law and Justice.
The Human Rights First organization has chimed in, saying the idea simply violates fundamental freedom of expression norms.
Tad Stahnke, of Human Rights First, said the concept is “unfortunate for both individuals at risk whose rights will surely be violated under the guise of prohibiting ‘defamation of religions,’ as well as for the standards of international norms on freedom of expression.”
The issue also has been addressed by Carl Moeller, chief of Open Doors USA, in an interview with WND at the time, because of the pending threat to the freedoms in America.
“This is a battle for our basic freedoms,” he warned. “This [U.N. idea] is Orwellian in its deviousness. To use language like the anti-defamation of a religion. It sounds like doublespeak worthy of Orwell’s 1984 because of what it really does.”
He said Muslim nations would use it as an endorsement of their attacks on Christians for statements as simple as their belief in the divinity of Jesus Christ, which Muslims consider an affront.
Worse would be the “chilling” effect on language that the U.N. plan would create worldwide, he said.
“This would be a huge blessing to those who would silence dissidents in their countries, Islamic regimes,” he said. “This stands as a monument to the gullibility of the masses in the United States and other places who don’t see this for what it is.”
See Franks’ questions:

Perez stumbled in responding, then referenced the context of the question. When Franks noted it was not a hard question, Perez responded that, in fact, it was, because “when you make threats…”
“If you have a proposal that you are considering we will actively…,” Perez said.
“Here’s my proposal,” Franks said. “I’m asking you to answer a question. That’s my proposal. I’m proposing you answer this question.”
He wouldn’t.
WND asked the Justice Department for some answers today, and a spokesman refused to respond, and said Perez was not and would not be available.
According to a report in the Daily Caller, the current round of questioning by Franks was prompted by its report from last year on a meeting between Perez and “hardcore Islamists, including Mohamed Magid, the Sudan-born, Saudi-trained head of the Islamic Society of North America.”
The report said Perez expressed a desire for more meetings with Islamists, “even though he had watched while Magid called for legal punishment of people who criticize Islamic texts that all for violence against non-Muslims and for the subordination fo women to men.”
The report continued, “Perez also listened while another Islamist called for the Justice Department to redefine religious free speech as illegal discrimination.”
The Daily Caller quoted Sahar Aziz, who spoke at that October 2011 meeting, saying the DOJ’s “civil rights lawyers are top of the line – I say this with utter honesty – I know they can come up with a way” to classify criticism and discrimination.
The Daily Caller called Perez “one of President Barack Obama’s most aggressive advocates.”
“For example, during an October meeting in Alabama intended to rally opponents to the state’s successful enforcement of immigration laws, Perez suggested that Alabama residents score lower on education tests than poorly educated immigrants from Mexico and other Latin American countries.”
The report continued, “‘State school performance may decline,’ he said, because ‘some of the [illegal immigrant] kids who are leaving [the state] are some of the highest performing kids,’ he told reporters.”
Trent’s office confirmed today to WND that at last year’s meeting, “Perez reportedly ended the meeting with an enthusiastic closing speech and was quoted as saying, ‘I sat here the entire time, taking notes…I have some very concrete thoughts … in the aftermath of this.’”

http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=4617455359759364984#editor/target=post;postID=2063203221995247048