Deutsch English Français Italiano |
<v0tioa$370i3$2@dont-email.me> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com> Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv Subject: Re: The 1st Amendment Apparently Doesn't Exist in New York Either Date: Wed, 1 May 2024 10:14:34 -0400 Organization: Ph'nglui Mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh Wgah'nagl Fhtagn. Lines: 192 Message-ID: <v0tioa$370i3$2@dont-email.me> References: <58CcnV8UJNeyK637nZ2dnZfqnPWdnZ2d@giganews.com> <v0qr1e$2fnq1$2@dont-email.me> <MrnYN.38483$gF_b.33185@fx17.iad> Reply-To: fredp1571@gmail.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Wed, 01 May 2024 16:14:35 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="1c847c15ff256eabc8e8e0942041b0ec"; logging-data="3375683"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/SL8uWNkr75+6Ib+v39Xcp" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.10.0 Cancel-Lock: sha1:Cp/mmBQWF1UjvWomwiOYhk6FlxY= Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: <MrnYN.38483$gF_b.33185@fx17.iad> Bytes: 8876 On 5/1/24 4:55 AM, trotsky wrote: > On 4/30/24 8:17 AM, FPP wrote: >> On 4/30/24 5:13 AM, BTR1701 wrote: >>> Fresh off a New York judge illegally declaring that 1/10th of the >>> Bill of >>> Rights has been repealed in her courtroom, the governor of New York has >>> announced she'll be policing 1st Amendment protected speech if she >>> doesn't >>> like what you're saying. >>> >>> New York Announces it Will Take Citizen Surveillance and Censorship >>> to the >>> Next Level >>> >>> Like the plot to a dystopian movie, New York will now monitor social >>> media >>> writings, collect data, and use law enforcement to crack down on any >>> expression it deems to be hate speech. >>> >>> New York Gov. Kathy Hochul (D) announced on Monday that the state >>> will ramp up >>> surveillance efforts of social media accounts and that law >>> enforcement will >>> take proactive measures, including contacting people on suspicion of >>> using >>> "hate speech". >>> >>> Hochul cited the rise in anti-Semitic activity in New York and >>> especially New >>> York City, where the world's largest population of Jews outside of >>> Israel >>> resides. Hochul also mentioned alleged "Islamophobic" incidents, >>> which she >>> claimed were increasing and going under-reported. >>> >>> The governor said she would also be increasing police presence, which >>> she >>> stated has been focused on protecting potential targets including >>> "synagogues >>> and yeshivas and mosques and any other place that could be >>> susceptible to hate >>> crimes or violence". >>> >>> As part of that, Hochul explained, "...we're very focused on the data >>> we're >>> collecting from surveillance efforts-- what's being said on social media >>> platforms. And we have launched an effort to be able to counter some >>> of the >>> negativity and reach out to people when we see hate speech being >>> spoken about >>> on online platforms. Our media analysis, our social media analysis >>> unit, has >>> ramped up its monitoring of sites to catch incitement to violence; >>> direct >>> threats to others, and all this is in response to our desire, our strong >>> commitment, to ensure that not only do New Yorkers be safe, but they >>> also feel >>> safe because personal security is about everything for them." >>> >>> [What the hell is the gobbledygook in that last sentence? "Not only >>> do New >>> Yorkers be safe"? "They also feel safe because personal security is >>> about >>> everything for them"? Who's writing this crap? Cardi B?] >>> >>> Last month, Hochul and New York City Mayor Eric Adams demanded that >>> social >>> media platforms monitor speech and shut down "incitements to >>> violence", with >>> Adams insisting, "These guys are experts. If they don't want to do >>> their job >>> of policing themselves, I really believe it's time for the federal >>> government >>> to step in." >>> >>> The calls come as Europe ramps up censorship of alleged hate speech, >>> including >>> pressuring X owner Elon Musk to censor the posts of online users. Many >>> European nations now have laws that have made the expression of >>> religious >>> beliefs to be viewed as banned speech. This week Finnish Member of >>> Parliament >>> (MP) Päivi Räsänen and a Lutheran bishop were acquitted after four >>> years of >>> trials and investigations simply for sharing the biblical view on >>> marriage and >>> sexuality. And in the U.K., an Army veteran will soon be tried for >>> silently >>> praying for his deceased son outside of an abortion clinic. >>> >>> [But notice these European countries never arrest the Muslims who >>> openly call >>> for the deaths of Jews and Americans.] >>> >>> In the U.S., politicians have demanded Internet censorship and have even >>> engaged in it themselves. For example, the Supreme Court will soon hear >>> Missouri v. Biden, a case in which the federal government coerced >>> social media >>> platforms to censor content it disagreed with-- even if the content >>> was true. >>> >>> Jonathan Turley, a constitutional law professor at George Washington >>> University and free speech advocate who has written extensively on >>> the issues >>> of censorship and limitations on speech, has cautioned the U.S. against >>> adopting European censorship laws that allow governments to stop >>> people from >>> saying things that governments oppose. Despite what many think, "hate >>> speech", >>> which is subjective, is protected both by the Constitution and by >>> Supreme >>> Court precedent. >>> >>> He wrote: >>> >>> "There have been calls to ban hate speech for years. Even former >>> journalist >>> and Obama State Department official Richard Stengel has insisted that >>> while >>> "the 1st Amendment protects 'the thought that we hate'... 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." >>> >>> Actually, it was not a design flaw but the very essence of the >>> Framers' plan >>> for a free society. >>> >>> The 1st Amendment does not distinguish between types of speech, clearly >>> stating: 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of >>> religion, >>> or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of >>> speech, >>> or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, >>> and to >>> petition the government for a redress of grievances.'" >>> >>> He cited Brandenburg v. Ohio, a 1969 case involving "violent speech", >>> wherein >>> the Supreme Court struck down an Ohio law prohibiting public speech >>> that was >>> deemed as promoting illegal conduct, specifically ruling for the >>> right of the >>> Ku Klux Klan to speak out, even though it is a hateful organization." >>> >>> That ruling led to National Socialist Party of America v. Village of >>> Skokie in >>> 1977, where the Court unanimously ruled that the city government >>> could not >>> constitutionally deny a permit for the American Nazi Party to hold a >>> march in >>> the city streets, even in a city populated heavily by Holocaust >>> survivors. >>> >>> Turley also noted that in the 2011 case of RAV v. City of St. Paul, >>> the Court >>> struck down a ban on any symbol that 'arouses anger, alarm or >>> resentment in >>> others on the basis of race, color, creed, religion or gender, and in >>> Snyder >>> v. Phelps, also in 2011, the Court said that "the hateful protests of >>> Westboro >>> Baptist Church were protected". >>> >>> >>> https://www.standingforfreedom.com/2023/11/new-york-announces-it-will-take-citizen-surveillance-and-censorship-to-the-next-level/?twclid=2-6oshw3g6bxsmwqt160vrgne5i >>> >>> >>> >> >> Jonathan Turley? Do better. You're a better lawyer than Jonathan >> Turley... and what does that say? > > > Hey, Turley's a "Constitutional scholar." I didn't even know Russia had > a Constitution. ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========