The Suppression Of Ideas & The Closing Out of Debate

CensorshipFreedom
Source: NoMoreFakeNews.com | JonRappoport.wordpress.com
Jon Rappoport
April 18, 2017

Let’s start with an extreme case. A case that has been roiled in emotion for decades. A case that triggers people into making all sorts of comments.

At quora.com, there is an interesting Q and A. The subject is the Nazi holocaust.

The question is: Why is holocaust denial a crime in some countries?

One answer is offered by Olaf Simons, who states he is an “historian at the Gotha Research Centre.” Here is an excerpt:

“Anyone who tells you it [the holocaust] is ‘not real’ (because he has found something to support his doubt) is manipulating you with a political agenda.”

That’s quite a far-reaching assertion. It’s obvious that a) someone might come to the conclusion that the holocaust didn’t happen and b) he has no political agenda. Whether that person’s conclusion about the holocaust is true or false is beside the point. And even if that person did have a political agenda, why should his comments about the holocaust be suppressed?

Olaf Simons takes his argument further: “Holocaust denial is different. It is telling you that all the historical victims are actually cheating the public. It denies families the right to mourn the loss of grandmothers and grandfathers, mothers and fathers, friends and loved ones. It is an attempt to deny Jews the right to remember their collective history – and usually the right to have a Jewish state as a consequence of this, their history. All the Holocaust denier has to do is claim his right of free speech and tell the Jew, who has lost his family, that he is simply a liar. That is the point where we as societies must intervene…”

Doubting or denying the holocaust “denies families the right to mourn” their loss. I’m talking about a person who claims the holocaust didn’t exist. A person who would make an argument against the holocaust by presenting what he believes is evidence. This approach is against the law in Germany and other countries. I fail to see how such an argument denies victims the right to mourn.

Because you believe you are a victim, because you know you are a victim (use any formulation you want to), someone else who claims you’re not a victim actually prevents you from mourning your loss?

I think we can look at groups all over the world, down the long trail of history, who have been persecuted, and we’ll see that no one prevented them from mourning, even in the most dire of circumstances.

In fact, there were occasions where someone denying the persecution ever happened would have been the least of the victims’ worries—because the violence against them was continuing for decades. And still they mourned.

There is, of course, another reason given for banning holocaust deniers. Their speech, even if not intended to provoke, could incite others to commit crimes against the victims.

This is the “one thing leads to another” argument. On that basis, countries and organizations could ban all sorts of language. The slippery slope has no limit.

And on a lesser note, if, for example, I started a site based on the idea that 9/11 was an inside job, and that site became popular enough, a social media giant might ban me or lower my exposure, because I was spreading malicious gossip against the US government, and by implication, giving succor to terrorists. Or I was denying the families of people killed on 9/11 the right to mourn—the right to “mourn properly.”

There are all sorts of reasons for denying the right to free speech.

And there are all sorts of reasons for closing out reasonable debate.

Look at what has been happening on American college campuses. A group wants to bring in a controversial speaker, so students (and paid agitators) riot. College is supposed to be the place where all sides of an issue can be aired and analyzed. Instead, we get violence. What are these college students learning? What are they not learning?

They’re not learning the power of their own minds. If they were, why would they be angry? Why would they be afraid to listen to a person with whom they profoundly disagree?

If someone wants to stand at a podium in a college hall and say Donald Trump is the greatest president in the history of the United States, so what? If someone wants to say Hillary Clinton is a genius and Bernie Sanders is a fool, so what? If someone wants to say college students should stage a revolution by refusing to pay off their loans, so what? If someone wants to say all college freshmen should study Karl Marx and only Karl Marx, so what? Is the sky going to fall?

Suppose a professor tells his students, “You’re all assigned to go to the talk tonight and listen to a speaker who is going to argue that Donald Trump is exactly what American needs now. Take notes. Come to class tomorrow prepared to argue rationally, for or against. And I don’t want you spouting generalities. I want specifics. I want thought.”

Suddenly, many students are going to realize they can’t argue rationally. They don’t have the tools. And that makes them nervous. They move into the role of agitators, because they’ve got nothing else. Suddenly, they’re against free speech.

Instead of making people smarter and sharper, instead of bullet-proofing them against propaganda and anti-logic, instead of educating them so they’re immune to slogans and obvious fallacies, instead of educating them to live in a society where free speech is elevated beyond shouting matches, we are seeing myriad excuses for disallowing free speech.

There is no limit to the excuses. Tomorrow, someone is going to dream up a new one.

Numerous players these days are saying political content on the Internet has to be monitored. They have their covert agendas. But beyond that, there is no reason to monitor political speech. If people can’t deal with competing politics, they need to fortify their IQ. They need to become smarter. That’s the answer.

If we live in a sewer of propaganda, we need to climb out of the sewer.

I could go on with the topic of free speech for another 10,000 words, but I’ll end off, for the moment, with this. Look for the “special case” argument. The strategy: a group has been oppressed, and they deserve compensation and justice, AND part of justice is ensuring that language is never used to criticize the group, because they are special, owing to the amount of persecution that has been visited on them. This particular group is different. They must be served. They must never be discussed in terms that, even vaguely, could be construed as negative.

No free speech in that case.

But wait. There is another group, and it, too, is special.

And another group.

And pretty soon, free speech is walking around with canes and crutches and sitting in wheelchairs and tubes are hooked up to it.

Even worse, people are focused on the issue of free speech as if it consists of nothing more than nasty remarks; and the burning question is, who has a right to be nasty, and in what situations, and for what reasons?

Whereas, the intent and hope for free speech was that it would rise higher and elevate into conversation that actually sought the truth, and examined basic principles on which that truth would stand.

In a free society.

Where fear of an idea didn’t exist.

Read More At: JonRappoport.wordpress.com
_______________________________________________________________

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

Facebook Shuts Down Pro Le Pen Posts As French Election Nears

FakeNews
Source: NoMoreFakeNews.com | JonRappoport.wordpress.com
Jon Rappoport
April 16, 2017

Well, sure. Wouldn’t you? The woman is running for the presidency of France. She wants to reverse the tide of immigration in her country, so she must be a racist, and whatever she says or whatever anyone else says in support of her is, automatically, fake news, mindless, evil, and the population must be protected from that infection. This is how free speech works. It’s free unless it could do harm, unless certain minds might be taken in by it, and apparently Facebook is stepping up to the plate. Mark Zuckerberg is long overdue for a Nobel Peace Prize.

Zero Hedge: “The first round of French elections will be held on April 23rd, prompting Facebook to shut down pro Le Pen accounts, which they deem to be ‘fake’.”

“In addition to outright bans, the company [Facebook], in conjunction with French media, are running ‘fact checking’ programs — designed to fight ‘fake news’, heightening their efforts around the elections — which spans from 4/23-5/7.”

France must be purified. Only then can media function.

Immigration, you have to understand, isn’t an issue. There is nothing to debate. Immigration is a fact, wholly beautiful, and anyone who wants to limit it is speaking against love, flowers, and the proposition that the sun rises every morning.

Facebook is providing a public service. Just as Mussolini made the trains run on time in Italy, FB is making the news run on time—the real news.

Fake news should be shut down. Free speech only concerns what isn’t fake. Yes, I’m beginning to see the light.

After fake news is purged, then we can have free speech.

Aha. Yes.

Somehow, I must have missed this when I studied the 1st Amendment. James Madison, who wrote it, made this note: “Except for fake news.”

The guiding principle should be: if you’re not sure whether an item or issue or report is fake, don’t talk about it, don’t write about it, don’t express an opinion about it, until the authorities have cleared things up, until they’ve decided whether it’s fake or real.

Mark Zuckerberg is providing us with an easy way to check. If he and his people censor a post, it’s fake. Ignore it. Remain silent.

And if you’re French, don’t vote for Le Pen, unless you want a faker as your president.

Things are basically simple. They really are. If you know how to follow the signs and the warnings and the people in charge.

For example, right now I can sense an errant thought creeping into my mind: a corporation based in the US is colluding with the French government to influence an election in France. But I reject that thought. I denounce it. I urge everyone to denounce it. Pretend I never uttered the thought.

Please. I beg of you.

It’s fake.

Read More At: JonRappoport.wordpress.com
_______________________________________________________________

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

California bill to ban fake news pulled amid free speech concerns

FakeNews
Source: RT
March 30, 2017

A California state lawmaker pulled his proposed legislation that would have made it illegal to publish “false or deceptive statements” on elections after critics said it would be “disastrous for free speech.”

The first hearing for Assembly Bill 1104, “The California Political Cyberfraud Abatement Act,” was planned for Tuesday, but was canceled at the 11th hour at the request of the author, California Assemblyman Ed Chau (D-Monterey Park).

Under the proposed legislation, it would be unlawful to knowingly and willingly publish or circulate on the Internet a “false or deceptive statement designed to influence the vote” on either a ballot measure or political candidate.

In his analysis of the bill, Chau says the proposal would expand The Golden State’s political cyberfraud law to “provide protections to candidate campaigns in addition to the current law protections for ballot measures.

This bill is an important step forward in the fight against ‘fake news’ and deceptive campaign tactics,” Chau, who heads the California Privacy and Consumer Protection Committee, said.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), a digital-rights advocacy group, wrote a critical review of the bill, saying it was “so obviously unconstitutional, we had to double check that it was real.

The EFF argued the bill would violate free speech rights, making it illegal to “be wrong on the internet.” Anyone who made the “slightest hint of hyperbole, exaggeration, poetic license, or common error” on a candidate or ballot measure would be violating the law, according to the civil liberties advocate.

They also note that the bill does not leave room for satire or parody, meaning The Onion would be considered illegal under the bill. Even quoting or retweeting an incorrect statement would be illegal.

At a time when political leaders are promoting ‘alternative facts’ and branding unflattering reporting as ‘fake news,’ we don’t think it’s a good idea to give the government more power to punish speech,” said Dave Maas, an investigative researcher for the EFF.

The Real Reason Governments are Blaming Youtube for Terrorism

fakenews
Source: TheDailyBell.com
March 26, 2017

Ban all the things, and when we all live in padded prison cells, we will be safe from terrorists!

That is the plan. Because access to information is really the problem, according to the British government. As soon as people don’t have access to extremist material online, all this madness will surely stop!

The Prime Minister’s official spokesman said: “The fight against terrorism and hate speech has to be a joint one. The government and security services are doing everything they can and it is clear that social media companies can and must do more.

“Social media companies have a responsibility when it comes to making sure this material is not disseminated and we have been clear repeatedly that we think that they can and must do more. We are always talking with them on how to achieve that.

“The ball is now in their court. We will see how they respond.”

How laughable that the government claims to be doing everything they can. We all know that is not true.

But even more ridiculous is attempting to put all the blame on websites that host content. With massive amount of content on Youtube, how can they be expected to police every single video? They already review 98% of flagged content within 24 hours, and also within 24 hours they usually remove content that the government asks them to take down.

It sounds like Youtube is already on board with government censorship, but the British authorities want to go further. What we need is new laws, new fines, and punishment for companies who host extremist content, they say.

Damian Collins, who heads the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, said bosses should face a new offence of failing to act to remove terrorist videos and manuals from their sites.

He was backed by former terror tsar Lord Alex Carlile who said: “We need to reinforce the attack on internet radicalisation.

If a new law is necessary to compel internet service providers to co-operate with these efforts, it must be made.”

And what about failing to remove terrorists from the country? Should government officials face a new offence for that crime?

It’s not like these terrorists are carrying out precision attacks which require training and special knowledge. They are driving cars through crowds of people. They are opening fire in public.

Videos surely can lead to extremism. The government should know, they run the media which leads to widespread support of bombing the hell out of anything that moves in the middle east. While handfuls of westerners were killed in terror attacks, hundreds of innocent Iraqis were bombed to death by America.

So governments can literally fund all the terrorism they want, but if Youtube allows a video promoting terrorism to remain on their sharing platform, they are the ones causing the extremism that leaks violently back into the west.

As governments cry about the splinter in their neighbor’s eye–how advertisements were shown next to extremist videos, saying that Youtube was profiting off of extremism–they are blind to the log in their own.

Craig said the only winner is the defense industry. “Well, it’s good business,” she said. “In the first year of the war [in Yemen], the U.S. sold $20 billion worth of arms to Saudi Arabia, and Saudi Arabia has been buying more and more weapons as a result of this war, and the same goes for the British government as well,” she said. “Really it all boils down to financial gain and that’s the greatest win really for the U.S., but it’s an extremely costly one obviously for the civilian population of Yemen.”

But no, I’m sure the real root of the issue is videos on Youtube that encourage terrorism. It has nothing to do with the defense industry profiting off of war, destroying entire regions to make a buck, jamming propaganda down the throats of westerners to garner support for war and destruction that are like games to the governments involved.

The Fix is In

Oh and how convenient that when governments are able to force Youtube to take down extremist content online, they may just have given themselves the power to regulate any free speech on the internet, whether it is truly extremist or not.

And that is what this all comes down to. The government wants control over the internet, control over what we say, and how we communicate.

The terrorists which the government supports and creates will be the excuse for government censorship and oppression of citizens under their control.

And that is why the government needs to make social media platforms the enemy. It both distracts from the government’s own role in supporting terrorism, and gives them more power to police any opposition on social media to their oppressive rule.

The people are creating their own media, and it is cutting into the government’s propaganda business.

It’s always the same: right now they will use their power of censorship against “the terrorists,” and then they will use the hammer of the law against anyone who speaks out against their murderous, oppressive policies.

Read more At: TheDailyBell.com

Germany proposes ridiculous $53M penalty for “fake news” and “hate speech”

Image: Germany proposes ridiculous $53M penalty for “fake news” and “hate speech”
Source: NaturalNews.com
JD Heyes
March 21, 2017

One German official thinks that fake news and hate speech is so serious it ought to permanently bankrupt virtually anyone who is accused or convicted of either.

As reported by The Associated Press, German Justice Minister Heiko Maas – perhaps worried that there’s another Adolph Hitler waiting for the right moment to rebirth the Nazi Party via propaganda spread on social media – has proposed fines of up to 50 million euros, or about $53 million, for any social networking site that neglects to quickly police and remove anything deemed as “hate speech” or “fake news.”

While acknowledging that some social media sites have already begun cracking down on what they have described as hate speech, Maas said the effort isn’t satisfactory yet. He said research indicated that Twitter only deletes about one percent of so-called ‘illegal content’ that is flagged by users; he added that Facebook deletes about 39 percent of said content.

The AP noted further:

The proposal would require companies to provide a round-the-clock service for users to flag illegal content, which would have to be removed by the site within seven days. All copies of the content would also have to be deleted and social media companies would need to publish a quarterly report detailing how they have dealt with such material.

In addition, the proposal instructs social media sites to name someone specifically charged with taking down content and handling speech complaints, and if that person fails to do so quickly or adequately, he or she would then be subject to a personal fine of up to 5 million euros (about $5.3 million). (RELATED: Do College Students Hate Free Speech? Let’s Ask Them (Video))

Who would line up to take that job is anyone’s guess.

Oddly, Maas claimed his proposal would somehow not restrict the free speech protections already enshrined into German law, and it wouldn’t establish a “truth commission” of sorts to root out so-called fake news (which would include The New York Times, the Washington Post, CNN, and others, from time to time).

Always eager to please Left-wing speech cops, Facebook eagerly acquiesced. “We have clear rules against hate speech and are working hard to remove such content from our platform,” the company said in a statement, in response to the German proposal.

While reasonable people can agree that some speech obviously qualifies as hateful – such as derogatory remarks about race, ethnicity, religion, sex and so forth – other speech some people have arbitrarily labeled as “hate speech” simply because they disagree with what’s being said.

For instance, on many American college campuses, anything a conservative says is branded as hateful, bigoted and, some would argue, slanderous. President Donald J. Trump can’t say a word about enforcing immigration law without being branded a racist. And this reporter has been mislabeled as being “hateful” simply for taking a political position that liberals don’t like.

So, that’s what makes “hate speech protection” measures like this German proposal such a slippery slope: While advocates keep telling us out of one side of their mouths they aren’t trying to suppress speech, that’s usually the end result.

In this era, speech suppression is becoming a real thing and, ironically, it is occurring most rapidly in supposed “free speech zones” in democratic countries including the United States. In recent months, one survey of college-age Millennials by Yale University found that an incredible 51 percent of students surveyed were okay with their school enacting “speech codes” that regulate speech for both students and faculty.

Speech codes.

Worse, this generation of high schoolers is also conflicted about the First Amendment, with more than half saying speech should not be allowed if its “offensive.” (RELATED: Students Arrested For Handing Out Copies Of The Constitution)

But who gets to define what is and is not ‘offensive’? That’s the problem, isn’t it – when you put some person or some entity ‘in charge’ of deciding what people should and should not be offended by, then you put serious crimps on all speech.

That’s not what our founders intended. In fact, they adopted the First Amendment’s free-speech clause precisely because they wanted to protect speech some may find offensive.

Maas’ proposal might seem ridiculous now, but there is no doubt that the trend regarding free speech in Western democracies is one of suppression, not expansion. Frankly, it’s dangerous.

J.D. Heyes is a senior writer for NaturalNews.com and NewsTarget.com, as well as editor of The National Sentinel.

Read More At: NaturalNews.com

Sources:

WND.com

TheBlaze.com

Freedom.news

Social Engineering & Conformity Crisis: Liberal College Releases List Of ‘Offensive’ Words We Shouldn’t Use Anymore


Source: YourNewsWire.com
Baxter Dmitry
March 21, 2017

Boston’s elite Emerson College has taken it upon itself to release a list of offensive words Americans should stop using at once.

Emerson College’s “Guidelines for Inclusive Language” has banned the use of the word homosexual when referring to a homosexual. And don’t you dare use the word “disabled.” That’s offensive. Much better to use “person with a disability.

Use gay or lesbian when describing people who are attracted to members of the same sex,” the guide instructs Americans. “Avoid the use of homosexual and homosexual relationship.

The guide does not appear to provide reasons for any of the new rules in its 1,440-word “Inclusive Language” guide, besides the fact that they are “offensive“.

They have also banned use of the word “businessman.”

The handy guide to politically-correct words and phrases also informs writers to use several clunky terms including “business executive” instead of “businessman“, “camera operator” instead of “cameraman” and the potentially confusing “chair” instead of “chairman.”

Other words that have been consigned to the dustbin of social justice history, according to Emerson College, are policeman, manmade, mankind, layman, spokesman and manpower.

Additionally, the Daily Caller reports, Emerson demands that you should use the phrase “person with a disability” instead of the totally different “disabled person.”

Community members should avoid using language that is insensitive to cultural differences or that excludes or offends any group of people (based on their ability/disability, age, ethnicity and race, gender, gender identity and sexual orientation, etc.),” a general statement at the beginning of the language guide says.

Student, faculty members and officials on Emerson’s campus in Boston should ask themselves “whether it is appropriate” in any piece of writing “to share a particular fact about a person (pertaining to social identity, e.g., age, ethnicity).

Campus Reform, which first spotted the Emerson guide, reached out to Emerson officials for additional background.

No Emerson spokesman replied.

The cost for a single year of tuition, fees and room and board at Emerson is $59,728.

Notable Emerson alumni include Jay Leno, a bunch of random actors and, of course, Henry Winkler.

Read More At: YourNewsWire.com