Tommy Robinson’s message is simple – he has no intention of stopping. He has the “God-given right” to freedom of speech, and he intends to use it.
He intends to use it against Islam, he intends to use it against political correctness, and he intends to use it against his opponents.
Robinson wants to stop the building of mosques, to prompt the ban of Sharia courts. His views are, to many, abhorrent, intolerable, and provocative.
He has been branded as “racist” and “bigoted.” Entire groups from all over Britain attend his rallies to try and shut him down because of his anti-Islam stance. The former English Defence League (EDL) leader refuses to accept accusations he is spreading hate, because in his words, it is his “right” to say what he wants about any religion he chooses.
In the UK, free speech is not set out in law – but it is assumed through the nation’s association with the European Convention of Human Rights, and various case law.
Germany is set to start enforcing a law that demands social media sites move quickly to remove hate speech, fake news and illegal material.
Sites that do not remove “obviously illegal” posts could face fines of up to 50m euro (£44.3m).
The law gives the networks 24 hours to act after they have been told about law-breaking material.
Social networks and media sites with more than two million members will fall under the law’s provisions.
Facebook, Twitter and YouTube will be the law’s main focus but it is also likely to be applied to Reddit, Tumblr and Russian social network VK. Other sites such as Vimeo and Flickr could also be caught up in its provisions.
If you live in America, please note, this just happened here.
Younger generations are being brainwashed that the only thing more dangerous than our Second Amendment is our First. They are being socially engineered to believe that it is literally a crime for anyone to offend them. They are being taught that they can run to a police officer and tattle like a bratty five year old if someone hurts their feelings and that the offender will actually suffer legitimate criminal prosecution for such a high crime.
The rest of us who haven’t been sucked into the progressive education system that promotes trigger warnings, make believe microaggressions, and magical “safe spaces” know this isn’t how reality works. There’s no such whimsical fairy land where everyone holds hands and sings Kumbaya on every point and not a single person gets their feelings hurt ever.
Perhaps the greatest irony of this past year has been the mind numbing and irrational anti-free speech wave that swept across facets of so-called “liberal” America.
This regressive movement was most readily apparent on college campuses, where hordes of sheltered and emotionally stunted students demanded restrictions on free speech in order to prevent themselves from being offended by an ever expanding list of unhappy thoughts and words. However, what is far more troubling, albeit much less public, are attempts by two fascist academic authoritarians, to convince the American citizenry to relinquish their First Amendment rights in the name of fighting ISIS. One of these men is a close advisor to President Obama.
Glenn Greenwald does a great job of calling both of them out over at the Intercept. Here are a few excerpts from his article:
America: Land of the free and future home of censorship? A new study by Pew Research shows that American Millennials are far more likely to support the government banning offensive speech about minority groups than other generations.
– Guardian gagged from reporting parliament: “The Guardian has been prevented from reporting parliamentary proceedings on legal grounds which appear to call into question privileges guaranteeing free speech established under the 1688 Bill of Rights.
Today’s published Commons order papers contain a question to be answered by a minister later this week. The Guardian is prevented from identifying the MP who has asked the question, what the question is, which minister might answer it, or where the question is to be found.”
The question from Paul Farrelly MP which was subject to a gagging order related to the Trafigura toxic waste scandal
Labour MP Paul Farrelly put down a question yesterday to the justice secretary, Jack Straw. It asked about the injunction obtained by “Trafigura and Carter-Ruck solicitors on 11 September 2009 on the publication of the Minton Report on the alleged dumping of toxic waste in the Ivory Coast, commissioned by Trafigura”.
David Heath MP: ‘The public have a right to know what is said in the House of Commons’ Link to this audio
“To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of legislation to protect (a) whistleblowers and (b) press freedom following the injunctions obtained in the High Court by (i) Barclays and Freshfields solicitors on 19 March 2009 on the publication of internal Barclays reports documenting alleged tax avoidance schemes and (ii) Trafigura and Carter-Ruck solicitors on 11 September 2009 on the publication of the Minton report on the alleged dumping of toxic waste in the Ivory Coast, commissioned by Trafigura.”
Alan Rusbridger, the Guardian editor, welcomed the move. He said: “I’m very pleased that common sense has prevailed and that Carter-Ruck’s clients are now prepared to vary this draconian injunction to allow reporting of parliament. It is time that judges stopped granting ‘super-injunctions’ which are so absolute and wide-ranging that nothing about them can be reported at all.”
At Westminster earlier today urgent questions were tabled by the Liberal Democrats in an attempt to get an emergency debate about the injunction.
Bloggers were active this morning in ‘speculating’ (Bloggers came up with the correct answer, which pressed the UK censorship into allowing the Guardian to report it now.) about what lay behind the ban on the Guardian reporting parliamentary questions. Proposals being circulated online included plans for a protest outside the offices of Carter-Ruck.
The ban on reporting parliamentary proceedings on legal grounds appeared to call into question privileges guaranteeing free speech established under the 1688 Bill of Rights.