{"id":32918,"date":"2020-11-21T13:05:33","date_gmt":"2020-11-21T18:05:33","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/angry.net\/blog2\/?p=32918"},"modified":"2020-11-21T13:05:33","modified_gmt":"2020-11-21T18:05:33","slug":"free-speech-not-under-the-harris-biden-regime","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/angry.net\/blog2\/?p=32918","title":{"rendered":"Free Speech? Not under the Harris\/Biden regime"},"content":{"rendered":"

Good day all. We already know that the Democratic CommuNazis are looking to cement themselves into place as the rulers of America Forever. They have been taking aim at the 2nd<\/sup> Amendment for decades. Now one of the Bidenbots has let the cat out of the bag and is calling for an end to the 1st<\/sup> Amendment.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

We have seen the contempt for freedom of religion by the CommuNazis for some time. Recently, we have seen how their \u201cFriends\u201d running the major Socialist Media platforms have been working overtime to censor anything that goes against the idea that the election was on the up and up. Now we have one of Biden\u2019s people stating flat out that free speech must be ended. Here are the details from <\/b>The New York Post<\/b><\/a>:<\/p>\n

President-elect Joe Biden\u2019s transition team leader for US-owned media outlets wants to redefine freedom of speech and make \u201chate speech\u201d a crime. <\/b><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Richard Stengel is the Biden transition \u201cTeam Lead<\/a>\u201d for the US Agency for Global Media, the US government media empire that includes Voice of America, the Middle East Broadcasting Networks and Radio Free Europe\/Radio Liberty.<\/b><\/p>\n

The United States Government Propaganda organs. Of course it doesn\u2019t include National Public Radio, The New York Slimes, the Washington Compost, CNN, MSNBC, Etc.<\/p>\n

Stengel, an Obama administration alumnus, wrote last year in a Washington Post op-ed<\/a> that US freedom of speech was too unfettered and that changes must be considered. <\/b><\/p>\n

He wrote: \u201cAll speech is not equal. And where truth cannot drive out lies, we must add new guardrails. I\u2019m all for protecting \u2018thought that we hate,\u2019 but not speech that incites hate.\u201d <\/b><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Hopping over to PJ Media<\/b><\/a>, where I first saw this story, they list all the things that this scumbag thinks should be banned.<\/p>\n

What kind of speech \u201cincites hate\u201d? As far as Stengel is concerned, the answer is any speech that Muslims find offensive. He wrote: \u201cEven the most sophisticated Arab diplomats that I dealt with did not understand why the First Amendment allows someone to burn a Koran. Why, they asked me, would you ever want to protect that?\u201d<\/b><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Because Islam is a political movement masquerading as a religion that kills anyone that doesn\u2019t toe their line, and considers women to be property? PJ Media\u2019s Robert Spencer<\/a> was a bit more subtle then I was.<\/p>\n

Well, maybe because a law forbidding criticism (including mockery) of any group establishes that group as a protected class that cannot be questioned, and that in turn would allow this group to do whatever it wanted without fear of any opposition even being allowed to articulate its case. The freedom of speech is, in sum, our foremost protection against tyranny. Without it, a tyrant can work his will without any fear of his opponents uttering even one cross word. <\/b><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

But instead of explaining and defending the freedom of speech, Stengel agreed with his \u201csophisticated Arab diplomats,\u201d answering their query about Qur\u2019an-burning with this: \u201cIt\u2019s a fair question. Yes, the First Amendment protects the \u2018thought that we hate,\u2019 but it should not protect hateful speech that can cause violence by one group against another. In an age when everyone has a megaphone, that seems like a design flaw.\u201d <\/b><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

I take this two legged turd ball hasn\u2019t actually read the Koran. I admit I haven\u2019t either, but I have read the works of people who did read it. The Koran calls for the death of unbelievers and anyone who won\u2019t surrender to them. But I guess it\u2019s ok for Muslims to blow up bus loads of children, as long as they don\u2019t directly impact you, isn\u2019t that right Oberst Stengel?<\/p>\n

Many other nations are fixing that \u201cdesign flaw,\u201d according to Stengel, and so the U.S. should also: \u201cSince World War II, many nations have passed laws to curb the incitement of racial and religious hatred. These laws started out as protections against the kinds of anti-Semitic bigotry that gave rise to the Holocaust. We call them hate speech laws, but there\u2019s no agreed-upon definition of what hate speech actually is. In general, hate speech is speech that attacks and insults people on the basis of race, religion, ethnic origin and sexual orientation.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n

The destruction of the freedom of speech is an idea whose time has come, says Stengel. \u201cI think it\u2019s time to consider these statutes. The modern standard of dangerous speech comes from Brandenburg v. Ohio<\/em> (1969) and holds that speech that directly incites \u2018imminent lawless action\u2019 or is likely to do so can be restricted.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Hey Dumbass! You might want to review another case, one where they tried to use this one against protesters. That would be Hess v. Indiana<\/i><\/a>. Here\u2019s the background on that.<\/p>\n

The case involved an antiwar protest on the campus of Indiana University Bloomington<\/a>. Between 100 and 150 protesters were in the streets. The sheriff and his deputies then proceeded to clear the streets of the protestors. As the sheriff was passing Gregory Hess, one of the members of the crowd, Hess uttered, “We’ll take the fucking street later” or “We’ll take the fucking street again.” Hess was convicted in Indiana state court of disorderly conduct. <\/b><\/p>\n

The Supreme Court reversed Hess’s conviction because the statement, at worst, “amounted to nothing more than advocacy of illegal action at some indefinite future time. This is not sufficient to permit the State to punish Hess’ speech. <\/b><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Basically, to paraphrase Robert Spencer<\/a>, Muslims can murder if you step out of line, but if you say anything they don\u2019t like, it\u2019s hate speech and you need to be punished. For years, the Mostly Treasonous Media has refused to do anything to condemn the actions of Muslims while attacking anyone who criticizes Islam as \u201cEVILNOGOODDOUBBLEUNGOODVERYBAD haters and bigots.<\/p>\n

What this walking diaper stain, Richard Stengel wants is to do is end any ideas he doesn\u2019t like. Well, I think I am not alone in saying, \u201cYou want to suppress my right to speak my mind? You may want to recall why the 2nd<\/sup> Amendment was written. It was to protect the 1st<\/sup> amendment, Hell the entire Constitution from scum like you. These are the people that will be running things in the Harris<\/i><\/span> Biden regime. They won\u2019t hesitate to turn the government\u2019s powers against anyone they don\u2019t like.<\/p>\n

Thatisall<\/p>\n\"1\"2\"3\"4\"5 (2<\/strong> votes, average: 5.00<\/strong> out of 5)
<\/span><\/span>Loading...<\/span>\n

~The Angry Webmaster~<\/b><\/i><\/p>\n