Showing posts with label legal. Show all posts
Showing posts with label legal. Show all posts

Monday, February 25, 2013

farrakhan Calls Upon Chicago’s Thugs To Use Their Savagery To Protect nation of islam




http://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20130225/chicago/louis-farrakhan-gang-members-can-serve-as-protectors
http://iowntheworld.com/blog/?p=173750

Louis Farrakhan: Gang Members Can Serve As Protectors Updated February 25, 2013 9:47am

February 25, 2013 6:49am | By Quinn Ford, DNAinfo Reporter/Producer

UNIVERSITY VILLAGE — Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan told thousands of followers Sunday he was planning to reach out to gang leaders to help "protect" the Nation of Islam.
That came at the Nation of Islam's annual Saviours' Day convention. Farrakhan, 79, renewed the call for African Americans to pool money and buy as much land as possible, in order to "control means of production" and produce food and other goods, such as clothing.
Farrakhan said collectively owning land is a way for black people in America to prosper economically. The calls were part of a speech that lasted more than three hours and touched on topics including Libya's Moammar Gadhafi, U.S. Defense Secretary nominee Chuck Hagel and a national push for gun control.
Farrakhan told a crowd of more than 7,000 people at the UIC Pavilion that national lawmakers are using Chicago's violence epidemic to push for stronger gun control laws but said the Second Amendment has nothing to do with the spate of shootings in Chicago.
"The guns that every one of our young people have, are they legal? No!" Farrakhan said.
Instead, Farrakhan had a different idea for how to address gun violence. In addition to sending letters to black military leaders, Farrakhan said he planned to contact the city's gang leaders to recruit gang members to "protect" any land the Nation of Islam might buy in the future.
"All you gangbangers, we know you love to shoot, but you're killing yourselves," Farrakhan said. "All your weapons are illegal and you're using them like savages."
But Farrakhan said gangbangers are "natural soldiers" and could be taught "the science of war" to become protectors of the Nation of Islam's assets in the future.
On Monday, Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel weighed in on Farrakhan's gang plan.
"I don't think gang members are part of public safety," Emanuel said during a news conference. "They're the problem. And it's quite clear they're the problem."
Last summer, Farrakhan led 500 men known as the Fruit of Islam, who traditionally serve in his security detail, to the city's Auburn Gresham neighborhood in response to the spike in violence in the first half of 2012.
He praised the re-election of President Barack Obama as a significant historical milestone, but added that Obama's victory would not mean prosperity for black people.
Farrakhan also decried the death of Gadhafi, who was killed in 2011. He blamed the former Libyan leader's death on American and European governments, saying they wanted Gadhafi dead because he was an "impediment" to American and European interests having access to natural resources in Africa.
Farrakhan said he believes the American government also wanted to see black leaders like himself go away.
"You killed my brother [Gadhafi], and now you got the same thing in your mind for me," Farrakhan thundered as the crowd rose to its feet applauding. "You want to put your hands on me. In fact, you're plotting it as I'm speaking."
Regarding Hagel, Farrakhan said the Senate was holding up his confirmation because Hagel did not express unconditional support for Israel. He said Israeli lobbyists are applying pressure to senators to reject Hagel.

Farrakhan said the country needs a Defense secretary like Hagel, who will follow his own conscience.
Saviour's Day marks the Feb. 26, 1877, birthday of the Nation of Islam's founder, W. Fard Muhammad.
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , ,

Saturday, July 21, 2012

Internet free speech in Canada


FIGHT FOR INTERNET SPEECH RATCHETS UP

Open forum site fighting for right to political discourse

author-imageby 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.More ↓
rss feed Subscribe to author feed
Ads by Google
soapbox
The popularity of new homes of only 500 square feet, 500-million-year-old bacteria and Barack Obama telling those with successful businesses, “You didn’t build that.”
Those are just a few among the topics of discussion now at Free Dominion, a Canadian version of Free Republic in the U.S. where Internet users talk about, well, just about everything.
Ads by Google
Now website organizers are trying to raise a few thousand dollars to pursue arguments in a court case that would solidify the foundation for Internet free speech in Canada, a case they won at the trial court level but saw reversed on appeal because the judges wanted to address “a number of public interest and legal issues.”
The operators of the Free Dominion website are asking supporters for help in raising an estimated $14,000 they need right away for the fight.
“We need the support of the wider Internet community to continue our journey toward justice in order to maintain the principles of freedom of speech, thought and association for us all on the Internet,” site operators Mark and Connie Fournier have written in their appeal.
“The Ontario Court of Appeals asked us to bring expert witnesses to help them understand how defamation law should be applied to our Internet. This is an incredible opportunity for us to help shape the law. We have to ensure that our freedoms of association, thought, belief, opinion and free speech are properly protected,” they wrote.
“We need to raise $14,000 immediately to pay court costs and we will need to raise more funds for experts and for legal expenses for the trial. … Our track record shows that we will stand up for our Internet, we will not quit, and we can win! Through no choice of our own, we have been thrust into the front lines of this battle. We hope you will stand with us.”
The track record is important to understand, Connie Fournier told WND. The site has been around for more than a decade, but in the last few years has been targeted under Canada’s various laws that forbid expressing opinions about another individual or group.
Think of the U.S. “hate crimes” law, which enhances criminal penalties based on the thoughts of a perpetrator, on steroids.
But the site already has had success.
“Our legal cases have, so far, resulted in some excellent case law that protects Internet users,” the Fourniers reported.
Among the precedents that have been set are that plaintiffs “must now show that they have a real case of defamation, and a judge must consider free speech factors before the private information of anonymous posters can be demanded from website operators.”
Also, the fights have resulted in a determination that “excerpts from a copyrighted article are not considered a copyright violation.”
Thirdly, “forums” now can take advantage of a “news reporting” exemption for quoting from copyright works, and links to copyrighted material are not considered to be violations.
Lastly, and of concern in the case at hand, is that “Internet flame wars should not result in a successful defamation complaint when one flamer chooses to leave the online debate and file a lawsuit. This is vitally important to website operators who allow comments because, in Canada, they are liable for what others post on their sites.”
In the controversy, the couple was accused of defamation because of what a forum participant posted on their website, which some time ago was moved from Canada to a foreign ownership.
The district court judge ruled in a case brought by blogger John Baglow over comments by Roger Smith in a debate between the two that the case be dismissed.
Then the Ontario Court of Appeals got involved, deciding to hear the case.
“The appeals court did not overturn Justice Annis’ dismissal because he erred in finding that the comment was not defamatory, but because the case raised a number of political interest and legal issues that the higher court felt should be dealt with,” the Fourniers reported.
The site operators said it’s a good opportunity to establish ground rules for the ideas of free speech and freedom to comment.
“Oddly, although going through a full trial will be an expensive and time consuming process for us, we are pleased with their finding. We see it as a golden opportunity to make important fundamental law that will protect Internet users across Canada, and beyond our borders.”
Mark Fournier, in a statement on the website, explained that the appeals court has instructed parties to return to Superior Court with expert witnesses who can better inform the court of the many new issues related to the situation.
“Traditional defamation law is badly in need of an update in its application to the Internet,” Mark Fournier wrote.
“Unfortunately, and for reasons we do not understand, the high court ordered us to pay John Baglow $14,000 in costs. It is difficult because the appeals court wants us to help them examine these important issues, yet they placed a financial burden onus that could potentially knock us out of the game. If this happens it will be bad for Canadian Internet users.
“We will remain in an era where Internet arguments will be settled by SLAPP suits and lawfare, and, to us, that is completely unacceptable.”
Connie Fournier told WND that the issue is that in the United States, there is a different standard that what is used in Canada, where the law is based on British common law.
She said there are fewer protections for websites whose managers allow comments or posting.
“What’s happening is there’s a chill for website owners. When they get a complaint, they either have to take it down right away or face paying tens of thousands of dollars. There’s a … chill because of that.”
She said what the court has proposed – a review of the requirements and standards – is a good idea.
Without such review, Canada could end up being a shoppers’ forum for lawsuits over Internet statements, which could even threaten to reach across international boundaries and snag in Canadian courts American or other website operators.
She noted a Canadian Supreme Court decision just months ago now allows lawsuits in Canada based on the “connection” to Canada, such as if a person has business connections to Canada, lives there or such.
She said Free Dominion actually was transferred to a Panamanian corporate ownership and hosting service because of the threat to speech in Canada right now.
Several of the current disputes arose in a complaint that targeted a 2007 statement regarding radical Islam.
The idea of censoring a forum site, except for the truly abominable statements, is not something they would like to pursue, she said.
“We want people to do their own fact checking, take everything they read … and really think about it,” she said.

Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , ,
Subscribe to: Comments (Atom)