St. Louis CofCC Blog

Paul Broun, who recently pulled an upset victory in GA-10 to replace the late Charlie Norwood in the U.S. House, and beat a Republican neo-con machine hand-picked successor in doing so, joined Ron Paul in opposing a broadly-worded “internet safety” bill that, on the surface, would require Wi-Fi providers to rat out those that access child porn over the network, but in effect would probably cripple Wi-Fi networks, and essentially require that Wi-Fi networks install anti-porn filters, being mindful of the reality that anti-porn filtering software also censor conservative websites.

That’s the sub rosa purpose of this bill — censoring conservatives.

Taking this Agence France Presse article at face value would lead one to think that the European Union wants to crack down on Johnny Jihad’s use of the internet for terrorist purposes. But keep in mind that this is the same EU whose member states, for the most part, can’t pander to Islam or its adherents enough. What gives?

Here’s a clue:

The Nazi-hunting Simon Wiesenthal Center said in a report this month that radical Muslims and other extremists had mastered the use of the Internet as a tool for propaganda, organizing and education.

The Simon Wiesenthal Center is part of the Paranoia-Industrial Complex, a cadre of groups, organizations, foundations and individual shysters, whose most notable members are the Southern Poverty Law Center and the Pro-Defamation League (ADL), who make money peddling irrational fear about right-wingers.

Therefore, these EU proposals have nobody but conservatives in their crosshairs.

The Iconoclast Blog:

It’s no surprise that politicians are rarely conversant with the limits on their legislating found in the U.S. Constitution. But it is worth noting when federal judges have actually read the First Amendment and strike down a law accordingly.

That brings us to Ohio’s constitutionally impaired legislature, which enacted two laws that were touted as ways to protect children on the Internet but in reality would become a new censorship regime.

An Ohio federal judge on Monday struck down the state’s combined “harmful to minors” law on the grounds that it ran afoul of the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of speech.

2709.31(A) of the law generally says “no person” shall “disseminate” or offer to disseminate to a “juvenile” any material that is “harmful to juveniles.” Ohio’s House Bill 490 amended it by defining electronic dissemination as having “reason to believe that the person receiving the information is a juvenile.”

You can see where this is going. Let’s say that one-sixth of the Internet’s users are minors. That means that for almost any Web site, assuming the audience is representative, the operator has reason to believe that something like one-sixth of them are under 18 years old. (There’s another section that tries to limit that requirement’s sweep, but in practice it wouldn’t amount to much.)

Fortunately, U.S. District Judge [*****] realized this. Rice said the definition of “harmful to juveniles” does not by itself violate the First Amendment and that it does not violate the Commerce Clause.

But he ruled that, in practice, applying that definition to the Internet is overly broad. In particular, he said, sexually explicit conversations in adults-only chat rooms (where a minor sneaks in) could be prosecuted. It would “act as a ban to that segment of speech between adults which is protected by the First Amendment.”

This is consistent with other judges’ rulings on “harmful to minors” or “harmful to juveniles” Internet statutes. The 2nd Circuit overturned Vermont’s; the 10th Circuit overturned New Mexico’s. In this case, Judge [*****] granted a permanent injunction. He had, by the way, already granted an injunction in the case based on the earlier version of the law, but the proceedings essentially restarted after the law was changed around four years ago.

The plaintiffs include the National Association of Recording Merchandisers, the American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression, and the Association of American Publishers, and it was brought by their trade association called the Media Coalition.

If the appeals court upholds this ruling, the Media Coalition may be able to get attorneys’ fees–which amounted to a requested $488,601 in a similar Internet censorship suit in Virginia. And that’s not even counting proceedings before an appeals court, which has already happened (briefly) in the Ohio case but didn’t in Virginia.

The problem is that when Ohio politicians enact unconstitutional laws, and subsequently lose in court, taxpayers end up footing the bill. It would be a far more just system if politicians were held personally responsible for paying their fair share of a half-million dollar fine for their constitutional ignorance. I’m sure Ohio politicos would have no objection–right?

The writer and the Federal judge are correct. “Harmful to minors” could be defined as anything, and being cognizant of who gets to do the defining these days (I won’t mention the ADL by name), anything conservative gets plonked.

The writer asks why the Ohio state legislature could be so goofy to enact laws that are “constitutionally ignorant.” The downside to legislative term limits and de-lawyerification is that state legislatures these days are full of young, inexperienced non-lawyers who run right into figurative landmines like these. (The same could be said for the city council in Delcambre, Louisiana.) Any lawyer that’s a politician will have better sense than to vote for a bill that s/he knows that even the dumbest judge will strike down for being vague, broad, and therefore a violation of substantive due process. If the Ohio state legislature had enough lawyers, this bill would never have had a chance.

AP:

WASHINGTON - The White House criticized Myanmar on Friday for cutting off Internet access and called on “all civilized nations” to pressure the military-run government to end its violent crackdown on protesters.

“They don’t want the world to see what is going on there,” White House spokesman Scott Stanzel said.

I’m waiting on the White House to denounce similar internet censorship of “hate speech” in Europe.

Red Herring:

The Electronic Frontier Foundation has asked a federal appeals court to reconsider a ruling the foundation says could threaten a slew of popular web sites and stifle innovation in the booming realm of user-generated content.

The EFF filing, submitted to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals this month, is the latest development in a case dating back to 2004 against Roommates.com. The online rental service was sued for allegedly violating the Fair Housing Act by enabling users to post classifieds that discriminated against potential tenants based on race, religion, and other factors.

Roommates.com was originally granted immunity under the 1996 Communications Decency Act, which has historically protected web sites from being held liable for information posted by users. That initial ruling, however, was overturned on appeal in May, a move the civil liberties-oriented EFF says has muddied the CDA’s legal waters, creating an atmosphere that will make web entrepreneurs reluctant to take chances.

(snip)

In the Roommates case, the federal appeals court ruled that instead of being mere hosts or platform providers for user-generated content under the CDA, certain third-party search engines and web providers should be treated as content creators who can be held liable for discriminatory or offensive content.

While there are right-wingers that support and are members of the EFF, it’s mostly a left-wing outfit. And the next phase of the court proceedings goes in front of the infamous Ninth Circus Court of Appeals, based in San Francisco, the most liberal Federal appellate-level judicial division in the country, and the one that is most often overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court.

What is means is that the left-wing is in a bind. Which of its sacred cows does it gore? Either they support internet freedom and get housing discrimination (and racial inequality, by definition), or support racial equality and therefore restrict internet freedom. There is a third option, and a way out for them: Become sane, normal right-wingers, and acknowledge that liberty and equality are diametrically opposing concepts, and that the more you have of one, the less you will have of the other; there is a necessary trade-off, a zero sum game, between the two.

Agence France Presse:

LONDON (AFP) - Sales of a Tintin comic book have rocketed since the Commission for Racial Equality claimed it was racist, a newspaper reported Saturday.

Sales of “Tintin in the Congo” have shot up by 3,800 percent after the CRE watchdog claimed it contained potentially highly offensive material, said The Daily Telegraph.

The comic has reached number eight on Internet retailer Amazon’s most popular books list, the broadsheet reported.

A CRE spokesman accepted that its interjection could have sparked the rise in sales.

“Could have?” What else could have done it? Did Tintin fill in for Fry on A Bit of Fry and Laurie? Maybe he filled in for Hyacinth’s husband on Keeping Up Appearances.

Actually, at the time of this wrting, Tintin in the Congo is up to number 5 on Amazon UK. It changes hourly, so stay tuned.

UK Daily Mail:

A high street chain was today criticised for stocking a Tintin book accused of having racist content.

The Commission for Racial Equality is calling on Borders to pull “Tintin in the Congo” from its shelves.

It says the illustrated book makes black people “look like monkeys and talk like imbeciles”.

The book will offend many people and should be removed from sale, according to the CRE.

A spokeswoman said: “This book contains imagery and words of hideous racial prejudice, where the ’savage natives’ look like monkeys and talk like imbeciles.

Yet, one can still buy Disney’s Song of the South in England, unlike here.

One commenter said it best: The CRE is one book short of a library.

Boston Globe via Tongue Tied Blog:

A Watertown man is criticizing the Town Council for adopting a program that seeks to curb hate crimes, saying he believes it violates his right to free speech.

Ralph Filicchia, 71, said he’s “not a hater” but believes the town’s participation in the Anti-Defamation League of New England’s No Place For Hate program infringes on his freedom to hold opinions that may go against the grain.

“People should be free to express things without being charged with hatemongering or hate speech,” said Filicchia, who is retired but does some freelance writing on political issues. “Isn’t the whole idea of free speech to protect offensive speech?”

Filicchia hung a Confederate flag outside his Bellevue Road home last week in protest, saying he would leave it up until a “No Place for Hate” sign in front of Town Hall is removed.

Council President Clyde L. Younger said in an interview he was surprised at Filicchia’s stance, since the No Place For Hate program is well-known and not about censoring speech, but fighting bigotry. The sign in front of Town Hall simply alerts the public that the town embraces diversity and that law enforcement will not turn a blind eye to hate crimes, he said.

This blog is representative of a local chapter of a national organization that has recently sued library districts for unconstitutional internet censorship. The ADL itself develops and provides web filter software for the purpose. In addition, ADL organizations in other majority white countries where “hate speech” laws and codes exist vigorously support their adoption, enforcement, and oppose their repeal.

Like superstar athlete that is in the process of negotiating a new contract, when he says it’s not about the money, it’s about the money.

The U.S. Department of Education concludes that the staff of Eastern Michigan University in Ypsilanti, Mich., violated the Federal Clery Act of 1990, when it publicly lied about the investigation of the death of 22-year old Laura Dickinson, allegedly at the hands of 20-year old Orange Taylor III.

The U.S. Department of Education forgot to say something, and evidently could not find it in itself to mention once in 18 pages about the racial aspects of this rape and murder. The MSM explanation is the EMU wanted to protect its image, but it is more likely that EMU did what the MSM itself, namely the Los Angeles Times, the Indianapolis Star, and the British Broadcasting Corporation, has admitted to doing: Concealing black and non-white criminality against whites, to preclude white voters from pressuring their elected officials to come up with a political solution to non-white crime and therefore dispose of liberal race orthodoxy.

This painted mural is on the south-facing side of the four-family flat on 1806-8 South 13th Street, in the Soulard Neighborhood. It faces the I-44/I-55 junction, and can be seen easily by the many vehicles per day that uses that interchange, and by cars on Gravois and Tucker, which are heavily traveled city boulevards in the area.

Today, a planning and zoning committee attached to St. Louis City Hall, the Land Clearance Redevelopment Authority, ordered to mural removed. Lawyers for MEDAC (Missouri Eminent Domain Abuse Coalition) promise to take the matter to court to keep the mural up.

It is very likely the the case that this is the same LCRA that allowed homeowners on Loughborough Avenue and South Grand Avenue south of Carondelet Park to be run out of their houses in order to create the Loughborough Commons Strip Mall. Therefore, this commission might not like this mural for its message, not for its size.

Cybercast News Service:

Only one-third of respondents in a new survey of British adults believe free speech exists in their country, and only one in five believe that they can safely voice their opinion on a sensitive issue.

That minority that answered those questions in the affirmative are probably left-wing or non-white Britons, who are rarely persecuted and prosecuted for “hate speech.” They have free speech, by and large.

The poll by YouGov, an Internet market research firm, was conducted on behalf of www.friction.tv, a video-based forum for political debate.

While 98 percent of respondents said they believed in the right to free speech, only half said they had ever spoken out on a sensitive issue.

“We supposedly live in a truly democratic society where freedom of speech is a fundamental right enjoyed by everyone,” friction.tv Chief Marketing Officer Andy West said in a press release. “However these survey results have shown rather powerfully that most adults in the U.K. feel that this is not the case.”

West added, “We live in such a politically correct society that people don’t know what they can and can’t say anymore and there is a constant fear that if you go against the grain, you’ll be vilified by your peers.”

This article does not exactly make this clear, but the odious thing about the British situation is that they actually legislate against “hate speech.”

Cybercast News Service:

Also on Monday, the Justices overturned a lower-court ruling that found a public school in Juneau violated Joe Frederick’s First Amendment rights by forcing him to remove the “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” sign - even though he was not standing on school property.

The school suspended Frederick for the prank.

The Justices decided that schools have leeway to fight anything deemed to be a pro-drug message, since that is part of their mission.

Breitbart/AP:

The case drew heavy hitters on Frederick’s side including the American Civil Liberties Union and the American Center for Law and Justice.

Some religious groups also backed Frederick, putting President George W. Bush’s conservative base at odds with the administration, which sided with the school.

Previous coverage of the “Bong Hits for Jesus” case by this blogmeister on another medium may be found here and here.

This ruling is potentially dangerous because now, public school districts can suspend their students for any political activity outside of school if the activity does not square with the “mission” of the school. The Court’s ruling was based around the “mission of the school” edict, not the “improper time, place and manner” edict; if the Court would have used the latter as legal reasoning in a decision for the Juneau district and against Mr. Frederick, it would not have these far-reaching consequences.

Because nearly all public schools have a “mission” of racial diversity and equality, high school students who become involved publicly in decidedly anti-egalitarian political organizations like the Council of Conservative Citizens, could be suspended for violating the school’s “mission.” That this would have a chilling effect on the First Amendment, something which the U.S. Supreme Court usually tries to prevent studiously.

The ACLJ, considered a conservative analogue to the ACLU, and various conservative Christian (”religious right”) groups, joined Mr. Frederick’s side, because they know that public schools will use their “mission” of religious “tolerance” and non-establishment to punish Christian students, even if their Christianity is only expressed outside of school.