Category: Free speech

… to make exposing the truth a felony.

Prosecutors in California are using that state’s privacy laws to prosecute those with  whom they do not agree. A recent Fox News article states that two anti-abortion activists made video recordings at Planned Parenthood during their attempts to buy fetal tissue, and as a result now face felony charges.  According to the article:

“Prosecutors said they invaded the privacy of medical providers by filming without consent.”

Filming without consent? Why should I need consent? So if someone is committing fraud, I can’t record them so there is evidence unless they agree? What if cops don’t consent to being recorded while they beat a defenseless motorist who has committed a “contempt of cop” offense? Where would such privacy restrictions end?

There is no right to privacy enumerated in the constitution; if you don’t want your bad action exposed, either by witnesses or recorded video/audio evidence, then DON’T DO IT!!

I agree; this is protected speech. However, I can’t help but wonder who is paying for it. The work is derivative and childish, and I don’t think that the artist could make much of a living selling such works simply because they bash Trump. Even alt-left liberals have better taste than this…

Artist defends anti-Trump billboard

Another college speaking event was the subject of protests and violence this evening, effectively striking a blow to free speech. This time, however, it wasn’t at Berkeley; it was instead at NYU. Fortunately, the police were present and arrested some of the more egregious protesters – something that they seem to have forgotten to do at the recent Berkeley protest for Milo Yiannopoulos, the rabble-rousing  editor from Breitbart.

The people at NYU were protesting the appearance of Gavin McInnes, a controversial speaker, actor and comedian. I know very little about McInnes other than my belief that he is more likely than not provocative for the ratings (like so many others these days). However, nothing forgives the blatant anti-free-speech demonstration put on at the university over his appearance.

The demonstration is described as having been organized via Facebook, citing the following Facebook post:

“Come to Kimmel, Rosenthal Pavilion to let NYU know that we will not stand for bigotry, racism, homophobia, transphobia, misogyny on our campus.”

Might as well have said “Come to Kimmel, Rosenthal Pavilion and let NYU know that free speech is never tolerated (unless they agree with us!). ”

It seems to me, though, that the protestors – like the speakers  – are in it for the publicity, too. If they were not, they’d simply let these people speak and allow the listeners to make their own decisions. After all, isn’t NYU a bastion of intelligent, thoughtful scholars? Can’t these people tell right from wrong without your input?

Come on, people – the only reason these speakers are “famous” is because of your protests. Do yourselves a favor and quit providing them with media coverage; they’ll fade on their own in time.

In the UK, it is effectively non-existent:

Social media flame wars to be illegal, says top Crown prosecutor

Scott Adam (of Dilbert fame) recently posted about how he had been “shadowbanned” by Twitter. This is when your tweets and replies are not visible to your followers, but not in a way that is obvious. It is a form of censorship forced on people whose ideas or opinions are at odds with those of the social media firm.

This method of speech suppression is of particular concern given the rise of social media as a means of exercising free speech. I understand the desire of these social media sites to maintain a PG-rated and “safe” environments, but when their censorship extends beyond such basic protection and into the realm of limiting political speech then I think they’ve gone too far; at that point they’ve become political advocates and should be treated as such. In many cases there are few if any options for reaching the digital masses without the use of an established social media “network”.

I’d love to hear legal opinions regarding such censorship tactics by Google (via limiting search hits), Facebook (by blocking content or specific political causes or candidates), and Twitter.

This is a very odd restriction reported by the Washington Examiner that seems to prevent Goldman-Sachs partners from contributing to the Trump campaign, but not the Clinton campaign.

They should just ban both of them from receiving contributions; Clinton can always give a speech instead…