Vanguard News Network
VNN Media
VNN Digital Library
VNN Reader Mail
VNN Broadcasts

Old March 14th, 2008 #21
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,339
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default


[Jew correctly notes that free speech is dead in AmeriKwan universities. He doesn't mention that it was killed by jews.]


FIRE founder discusses speech

by David Pepose

March 14, 2008

Harvey Silverglate, founder of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, spoke to an audience of over 60 about the decline of the freedom of speech on campuses Wednesday. FIRE, a civil liberties non-profit group, was a vocal defender of Prof. Donald Hindley (POL), who was reprimanded by Provost Marty Krauss in November for alleged discriminatory remarks and ordered to attend anti-discrimination training.

“Free speech—the right to parody and free speech and vigorous debate—have died in American higher education,” began Silverglate. “Universities, especially liberal arts universities, are among the least free places in our society…it used to be the opposite. How and why did this happen?”

[Simple answer to that. Radical jews took over American universities in the sixties. They used Aryan free speech to take power. Once they had acquired it, they had no further use for it. Free speech could only be used, today, to fight the jewish Establishment. That will not be allowed, so far as the jews can prevent it. Solid Marcusian doctrine, itz.]


Silverglate discussed free speech controversies at several campuses nationwide, attributing them to an increase of administrators over the past three decades. Quoting Louis Brandeis, Silverglate said, “it is the function of speech to free us from the bond of irrational fears.” Still, he said, “when you make a mistake, as Prof. Donald Hindley and the students behind the Gravity publication have found, when you actually test these principles, they do not exist in practice, they exist in theory.”

The first portion of Silverglate’s speech dealt with parody, which he said “has taken more of a beating on campus than political debate.” He began discussing a case at Tufts in 1989 where a student was put on probation and sentenced to 50 hours of community service after selling t-shirts saying “Why Beer is Better than Women at Tufts.”

“I don’t think you need a PhD to understand…that it was satirical,” said Silverglate. “It was sophomoric, but what can you say? He was a sophomore. [And] it was 100 percent protected by the Constitution.”

Following this, Tufts established “speech zones” where allegedly offensive views could be aired. When these measures resulted in controversy, Tufts repealed the speech zones and created “a series of codes which they claimed were to prevent harassment.”

“The transformation of Tufts is one of the great P.R. wonders of the age,” Silverglate added. “You could tell The New York Times and the Boston Globe…we have full academic freedom here, we just ban harassment. [But] if you read the codes, you find out what they really cover.”

Silverglate then described other on-campus freedom of speech debates. In each of the cases mentioned, Silverglate said, “as soon as there’s publicity the university backs down…if they’re afraid to say to the outside world what they’re saying on campus you know they think they’re wrong.”

Concerning last year’s controversial “Blackjerry” ad in Gravity Magazine, Silverglate saying it was clearly a parody. “The students in charge apologized, capitulated to mandatory diversity training. It’s the one thing that’s worse—more dangerous—than censorship,” he said.

Discussing the Student Union’s consideration of dechartering the magazine last semester, Silverglate said, “I don’t have a problem with lone students [condemning] another student’s speech. But having a student group that can censor a campus newspaper, that’s just wrong.”

“It certainly is a black mark on this campus,” he added. “I assume Justice Brandeis flipped in his grave…It was 100 percent protected by the Constitution. Not 99, not 99.5—100 percent protected speech.”

Regarding the Hindley case, Silverglate said he had little to discuss. “We know that Prof. Hindley used the word wetback, we know that it is germane to the subject matter,” he said. “Of course, Professor Hindley never had a hearing, so it could never be determined the context of what was said.” Still, he added, “the witch hunt never should have started.”

He also congratulated students for their involvement in the Hindley case: “You don’t have life tenure, but somehow you have more guts.”

Silverglate then opened the floor to questions. When Jordan Rothman ‘09 asked if he felt campus pressure on conservative students constituted a freedom of speech violation, Silverglate responded, “My problem is when administrators put their thumbs on the scales [with] arbitrary rules and threats of punishment.” Otherwise, he said, “free speech is not convenient. We don’t want to say something hurtful, but free speech is hurtful…tell me an alternative. The Provost? No.”

Dan Ortner ’10, meanwhile, asked about the role of power and its effects on administrator-student interactions. Silverglate clarified that “if a professor lowers a student’s grade because he doesn’t agree with the student’s views – as opposed to the student not making those views clear – he is violating his professional responsibility…if a professor says something that disturbs a student, that’s protected speech.”

Responding to Faculty Senate Chair Marc Brettler (NEJS) he added, “I think a teacher could be fired if he repeatedly showed disrespected for students by referring to them by epithets…personal, direct name-calling is unprofessional.”

Silverglate praised the Committee of Faculty Rights and Responsibilities, who challenged the Provost with several dissenting opinions in November and December: “That committee is a rarity on American campuses…[they] did a good thing and spoke truth to power, and power collapsed under the truth.”

Brandeis Democrats President David Emer ‘09 asked one of the only dissenting questions of the evening, opposing Silverglate’s use of racial epithets in his speech. “Even though you and Prof. Hindley had the right to use those epithets, you didn’t have to. I ask you to apologize for using these epithets,” said Emer. “I feel the first use of the N-word was necessary, but the other three were gratuitous…just because you can use these words, don’t make it right, and I think that’s what the other half of the [argument] is thinking.” As several students murmured both for and against Emer’s proposal, Silverglate did not apologize, responding, “words are words, weapons are weapons – they are two very different species. One can kill you, the other cannot.”

Answering a question by Noah Klinger ‘08, Silverglate responded, “the Provost shut down the proceedings when they weren’t going the way she wanted. It should be reopened…I hope the spotlight stays on it until the Provost resigns in shame or reopens the case.” He concluded, “I think they intrude into the inner sanctity of someone’s mind and soul…I don’t think it’s the role of the university for telling students how to feel.”

http://thehoot.net/articles/2565
 
Old March 14th, 2008 #22
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,339
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Letter: Control of the Internet is a matter of free speech, he says
Gerald “Tom” Schramski, Ellsworth,
Published Thursday, March 13, 2008

TO THE EDITOR:

At the present time, about the only means of mass communications that is still open to all and free to all is the Internet.

As you probably know, about six companies own about 90 percent of all the TV, radio and print media. As a result, the “news” we get is what those companies want us to get. There is no such thing as investigative reporting any more (when is the last time you saw a picture of a wounded GI or a flag-draped coffin?). We hear and see what they want us to hear and see.

On the other hand, the Internet is free to anyone to say and show as they want. That is free speech.

Right now, some of the major cable companies and service providers are spending billions of dollars to get Congress to give them control of the internet. If this happens, then our last vestige of free speech is gone and so is our last hope to inform the public.

If you think this is not a serious issue, check it out on the net. There are plenty of sites to get info from.

If you get a chance, write to your senators and congressmen about this issue.

This is not a matter of free capitalism, but rather free speech.

Gerald “Tom” Schramski

Ellsworth
 
Old March 17th, 2008 #23
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,339
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default


[Keith Sampson]


Public Reading—A Hate Crime
Posted by Richard Spencer on March 14, 2008

After spending so much time in grad school, and witnessing the Duke Lacrosse hoax first hand, I thought that I had built up a general immunity to academic PC—“there they go again” was my usual response to the latest advance in sensitivity training.

But even a hardened veteran like myself was a little taken aback when my friend Michael Brendan Dougherty sent me this report on Keith Sampson, a janitor at Indiana-Purdue who was convicted of “racial harassment” for—publicly reading a book!

The book in question wasn’t exactly the latest by David Duke, it was instead an academic tome lauding Notre Dame for resisting the Klu Klux Klan. One would think a janitor would be commended by the administration for being an autodidact. It seems the Affirmative Action Office would prefer that he instead study the latest from Mark Anthony Neal, the obese “radical intellectual” comfortably ensconced in the Duke English department.

Here’s the letter from the AA Office in full:

”The Affirmative Action Office has completed its investigation of Ms. Nakea Vincent’s allegation that you racially harassed her by repeatedly reading the book, Notre Dame vs. the Klan: How the Fighting Irish Defeated the Ku Klux Klan by Todd Tucker in the presence of Black employees. In conducting this investigation, we interviewed you, Nakea Vincent, and other employees with information relevant to the mailer.

Upon review of this matter, we conclude that your conduct constitutes racial harassment in that you demonstrated disdain and insensitivity to your co-workers who repeatedly requested that you refrain from reading the book which has such an inflammatory and offensive topic in their presence. You contend that you weren’t aware of the offensive nature of the topic and were reading the book about the KKK to better understand discrimination. However you used extremely poor judgment by insisting on openly reading the book related to a historically and racially abhorrent subject in the presence of your Black co-workers. Furthermore, employing the legal “reasonable person standard,” a majority of adults are aware of and understand how repugnant the KKK is to African Americans, their reactions to the Klan, and the reasonableness of the request that you not read the book in their presence.

During your meeting with Marguerite Watkins, Assistant Affirmative Action Officer you were instructed to stop reading the book in the immediate presence of your coworkers and when reading the book to sit apart from the immediate proximity of these co-workers. Please be advised, any future substantiated conduct of a similar nature could result in serious disciplinary action.

Racial harassment is very serious and can result in serious consequences for all involved. Please be advised that racial harassment and retaliation against any individual for having participated in the investigation of a complaint of this nature is a violation of University policy and will not be tolerated.

This concludes this matter with the Affirmative Action Office. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact us.”

In one of my articles for TAC I traced the trickling down of academic PC from the tenured professorate to the middling intellects of the university bureaucracy. Now it seems the university employees have joined in the fun—taking part in the accusations, denouncements, and public floggings—as a good way of bashing those they don’t like and getting “empowered” by the Affirmative Action Office.

http://www.takimag.com/sniperstower/...n_front_of_me/
 
Old August 25th, 2008 #24
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,339
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Cops kill free speech at 'gay' event

Christians file suit over orders to remove shirt, stop talking about Bible

Posted: August 22, 2008

Alliance Defense Fund attorneys filed suit against the City of Elmira, N.Y., after police threatened to arrest three Christians if they did not remove a shirt and stop sharing biblical messages during a "gay" pride event at a public park.

John Barnes wore a shirt with the message "Liberated from sin by the blood of Jesus" to the Southern Tier Pride 2008 at Wisner Park – a June 14 event promoted as a celebration of homosexual, bisexual and transgender lifestyles.

According to the complaint filed in a U.S. district court, Elmira police Capt. Michael Marrone ordered Barnes to remove his shirt to prevent a "negative atmosphere" at the event and arouse discomfort in other attendees.

Barnes obeyed the officer and took off his shirt so he could remain at the park without facing arrest.

Another Christian, Julian Raven, carried a Christian newsletter to the event called the Elmira Protestor. Marrone threatened to arrest Raven if he distributed the letter, saying it contained obscene or illegal material, according to the complaint. Raven complied with the order.

Capt. James Wandell and Sgt. Sharon Moyer threatened a third Christian, James DeFerio, with arrest for holding a sign on a public sidewalk adjacent to the park. The sign read: "Thousands of ex-homosexuals have experienced the life-changing love of Jesus Christ" and listed websites for more information about ministry to ex-"gays."

DeFario complied with their demands. However, according to the complaint, officers then told him he was not allowed to talk to anyone at the event about the Bible. Police ordered DeFario to leave the event where Elmira Mayor John Tonello was scheduled to speak about democracy, telling him to cross the street.

Elmira Mayor John Tonello spoke about democracy at the 'gay' pride event.

"Christians shouldn't be discriminated against for expressing their beliefs," ADF Senior Legal Counsel Joel Oster said in a statement. "Police cannot threaten to arrest Christians at a city park for sharing their viewpoint at an event open to the general public. Respecting their free speech rights is not optional."

The men are claiming officers violated their constitutional rights to free speech, free exercise of religion and equal protection under the law. They are requesting a permanent injunction prohibiting police from "arresting them, forcibly removing them, or otherwise restricting their speech in traditional public fora due to the content and viewpoint of such speech, or because of their religious beliefs."

Oster said police harassed the men primarily because of their Christian beliefs.

"Exercising your First Amendment rights is not a crime," Oster said. "Threatening to arrest Christians simply because they have opposing views and choose to exercise their free speech rights at a public place is unconstitutional."

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.p...w&pageId=73042
 
Old June 17th, 2009 #25
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,339
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Lawyer for censored Christians: Beware of 'hate crimes'

Gains victory in PrideFest case, but warns of impact of federal law

June 16, 2009

By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

A lawyer who gained a federal court victory for Christians who want to share their faith and beliefs at a PrideFest that celebrates the homosexual lifestyle in St. Louis says believers need to be active now – writing their members of Congress to express their concern over the proposed "hate crimes" legislation.

That legislation as adopted in the U.S. House conceivably could allow the prosecution of Christian pastors who preach the biblical condemnation of homosexuality and later are accused of contributing any "incentive" to any crime against a homosexual.

A report in the Washington Blade homosexual publication cited an unnamed source saying that the issue would be subject to a vote soon – as early as tomorrow – triggering a series of alerts among Christian activists.

"(The) hate bill amendment will be passed unless the Senate is immediately flooded with protest calls! Call your senators as well as all members of the U.S. Senate," pleaded Rev. Ted Pike of Truthtellers.

The plan already is being targeted by a letter campaign assembled by Janet Porter, a WND columnist and head of the Faith2Action Christian ministry. In it, constituents can send 100 overnight letters via Fed Ex to all 100 U.S. senators in protest of "The Pedophile Protection Act" for only $10.95

"Christian groups shouldn't be prohibited from expressing their beliefs at public locations," said attorney Rick Nelson, who is allied with the Alliance Defense Fund.

He said of the recent decision involving the St. Louis case, "We are pleased with the court's decision to lift an unconstitutional ban on expression in these areas ... allowing members of Apple of His eye to peacefully exercise their First Amendment right to free speech at the PrideFest event."

But he said while the specifics of the federal "hate crimes" plan aren't final until – and if – it becomes law, the threat remains significant.

"Right now it's like 'Let's silence and move the Christians away from these events,'" he told WND. "The next step is, 'Well, your speech, whatever it may be, is not palatable, we're going to do the same thing to you.'"

The federal proposal was approved 249-175 in the U.S. House and now is pending in the Senate committee as S. 909. It is dubbed the "Pedophile Protection Act" by opponents who cited the efforts of U.S. House, Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, to add an amendment, "The term sexual orientation as used in this act or any amendments to this act does not include pedophilia."

Majority Democrats in the House refused to accept the amendment.

The specific issue of censoring Christians at homosexual festivals around the country has been ongoing for several years – dating back at least as far as the case of the Philadelphia 11, where Christians were arrested and held in jail for trying to talk about their faith at a homosexual event.

In Florida, several cities holding festivals set up fenced areas as "free speech zones" for Christians, keeping them away from the event itself.

In Nelson's most recent case, a victory for the Christians, a federal judge issued an order that permanently prohibits the city of St. Louis from banning a Christian ministry from distributing literature and speaking about Christianity at the city's "PrideFest."

It was in June 2006 when members of Apple of His Eye were threatened with arrest by St. Louis officials for handing out Christian literature and speaking about their faith at Tower Grove Park during the homosexual festival.

Nelson sued in 2008 and obtained a preliminary injunction that prevented prosecution of the Christians then. The newest order from U.S. District Judge Henry Autrey made that order permanent.

"Defendants (city officials) are enjoined from re-enacting any total ban on the distribution of any advertisement, circular or handbill in or adjoining any public park, place or square," the judge ordered.

Send 100 overnight letters to all 100 U.S. senators in protest of "The Pedophile Protection Act" for only $10.95

He also ordered the city to instruct its police in the proper handling of such disputes.

"Defendant, its officers agents, employees, representatives and all persons acting in concert, or participating with them, are hereby ordered to meet with the PrideFest organizers prior to the [2009] event for the purpose of informing the organizers of the terms of this Order, and to instruct said organizers that Plaintiffs' distribution of religious literature and/or expression of religious beliefs in said Park, in and of themselves, do not constitute a basis for law enforcement authorities to take actions that would restrict Plaintiffs' activities," the judge said.

In his decision granting the preliminary injunction, the judge found, "While there may be attendees at PrideFest 2008 who may also object to Plaintiffs' distribution of religious literature or expression of religious views, their 'injury,' namely, the suffering of viewpoints with which they may disagree, is outweighed by the restriction of Plaintiffs' First Amendment right to express those views in a public forum."

Nelson told WND that the ruling in the St. Louis case is not a precedent, because local rules and regulations vary widely regarding such disputes.

But the ADF said the order will protect efforts by members of the Christian ministry to distribute literature at future events and situations in St. Louis.

Nelson confirmed he and other attorneys who fight such battles are "tracking" the Washington legislation closely.

"Everyone should be very cognizant," he said. "People should be writing their senators with great emphasis upon making sure they understand that this is yet another example of curtailing speech … really based on nothing more than people's dislike of the message."

WND had reported several months earlier on a dispute in Elmira, N.Y., that developed when police threatened to arrest three Christians if they did not remove a shirt and stop sharing biblical messages during a "gay" pride event at a public park.

John Barnes wore a shirt with the message "Liberated from sin by the blood of Jesus" to the Southern Tier Pride 2008 at Wisner Park – a June 14, 2008, event promoted as a celebration of homosexual, bisexual and transgender lifestyles.

According to the complaint filed in a U.S. district court, Elmira police Capt. Michael Marrone ordered Barnes to remove his shirt to prevent a "negative atmosphere" at the event and arouse discomfort in other attendees.

Barnes obeyed the officer and took off his shirt so he could remain at the park without facing arrest.

Another Christian, Julian Raven, carried a Christian newsletter to the event called the Elmira Protestor. Marrone threatened to arrest Raven if he distributed the letter, saying it contained obscene or illegal material, according to the complaint. Raven complied with the order.

Capt. James Wandell and Sgt. Sharon Moyer threatened a third Christian, James DeFerio, with arrest for holding a sign on a public sidewalk adjacent to the park. The sign read: "Thousands of ex-homosexuals have experienced the life-changing love of Jesus Christ" and listed websites for more information about ministry to ex-"gays."

WND has reported before on the federal "hate crimes" plan, too.

Rep. Louis Gohmert, R-Texas, a former judge, explained how the rejection by the House of King's amendment would be read should a pedophile claim protection under the federal plan that protects those with alternative sexual lifestyle choices.

"Having reviewed cases as an appellate judge, I know that when the legislature has the chance to include a definition and refuses, then what we look at is the plain meaning of those words," explained Gohmert. "The plain meaning of sexual orientation is anything to which someone is orientated. That could include exhibitionism, it could include necrophilia (sexual arousal/activity with a corpse) ... it could include urophilia (sexual arousal associated with urine), voyeurism. You see someone spying on you changing clothes and you hit them, they've committed a misdemeanor, you've committed a federal felony under this bill. It is so wrong."

In fact, one supporter of the "hate crimes," Rep. Alcee Hastings, D-Fla., confirmed that very worry, saying: "This bill addresses our resolve to end violence based on prejudice and to guarantee that all Americans regardless of race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability or all of these 'philias' and fetishes and 'ism's' that were put forward need not live in fear because of who they are."

So far, several senators have expressed doubt about the proposal. Sen. James Inhofe said, "I am opposed to any sort of violent offense and believe that a crime motivated by prejudice or hate is particularly reprehensible. However, I think that the provisions in H.R. 1913 and S.909 are unnecessary and constitutionally questionable."

He expressed alarm that Democrats working for a "hate crimes" plan voted against an amendment that stated, "No prosecution under this act may be based in whole or in part on religious beliefs quoted from the Bible, the Tanakh, or the Quran."

"Many are concerned that should this legislation pass, it will have a 'chilling effect' on speech based on religious beliefs," he said.

Other opposition has come from Sen. Mel Martinez, R-Fla.; Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga.; and Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C.

Sources working with senators opposing the legislation say the Fed Ex letter-writing campaign has shaken up the dynamics of the debate.

"This bill was supposed to sail through the Senate, but it suddenly has become much more controversial as a result of all these letters," one source said.

Gohmert and King said the only chance to defeat the legislation was for a massive outpouring of opposition from the American people.

"If you guys don't raise enough stink there's no chance of stopping it," Gohmert said on a radio program with Porter. "It's entirely in the hands of your listeners and people across the country. If you guys put up a strong enough fight, that will give backbone enough to the 41 or 42 in the Senate to say we don't want to have our names on that."

An analysis by Shawn D. Akers, policy analyst with Liberty Counsel said the proposal, formally known as H.R. 1913, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act bill in the House and S. 909 in the Senate, would create new federal penalties against those whose "victims" were chosen based on an "actual or perceived ... sexual orientation, gender identity."

Gohmert warned Porter during her radio program interview that even her introduction of him, and references to the different sexual orientations, could be restricted if the plan becomes law.

"You can't talk like that once this becomes law," he said.

He said the foundational problem with the bill is that it is based on lies: It assumes there's an epidemic of crimes in the United States – especially actions that cross state lines – that is targeting those alternative sexual lifestyles.

"When you base a law on lies, you're going to have a bad law," he said. "This 'Pedophilia Protection Act,' a 'hate crimes' bill, is based on the representation that there's a epidemic of crimes based on bias and prejudice. It turns out there are fewer crimes now than there were 10 years ago."

He said he fought in committee and in the House to correct some of the failings, including his repeated requests for definitions in the bill for terms such as "sexual orientation."

Obama, supported strongly during his campaign by homosexual advocates, appears ready to respond to their desires.

"I urge members on both sides of the aisle to act on this important civil rights issue by passing this legislation to protect all of our citizens from violent acts of intolerance," he said.

But Gohmert pointed out that if an exhibitionist flashes a woman, and she responds by slapping him with her purse, he has probably committed a misdemeanor while she has committed a federal felony hate crime.

"That's how ludicrous this situation is," Gohmert said.

[many more WND articles on 'hate crimes' and free speech thru link]
http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?f...&pageId=101290
 
Old June 17th, 2009 #26
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,339
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Lawyer for censored Christians: Beware of 'hate crimes'

Gains victory in PrideFest case, but warns of impact of federal law

June 16, 2009

By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

A lawyer who gained a federal court victory for Christians who want to share their faith and beliefs at a PrideFest that celebrates the homosexual lifestyle in St. Louis says believers need to be active now – writing their members of Congress to express their concern over the proposed "hate crimes" legislation.

That legislation as adopted in the U.S. House conceivably could allow the prosecution of Christian pastors who preach the biblical condemnation of homosexuality and later are accused of contributing any "incentive" to any crime against a homosexual.

A report in the Washington Blade homosexual publication cited an unnamed source saying that the issue would be subject to a vote soon – as early as tomorrow – triggering a series of alerts among Christian activists.

"(The) hate bill amendment will be passed unless the Senate is immediately flooded with protest calls! Call your senators as well as all members of the U.S. Senate," pleaded Rev. Ted Pike of Truthtellers.

The plan already is being targeted by a letter campaign assembled by Janet Porter, a WND columnist and head of the Faith2Action Christian ministry. In it, constituents can send 100 overnight letters via Fed Ex to all 100 U.S. senators in protest of "The Pedophile Protection Act" for only $10.95

"Christian groups shouldn't be prohibited from expressing their beliefs at public locations," said attorney Rick Nelson, who is allied with the Alliance Defense Fund.

He said of the recent decision involving the St. Louis case, "We are pleased with the court's decision to lift an unconstitutional ban on expression in these areas ... allowing members of Apple of His eye to peacefully exercise their First Amendment right to free speech at the PrideFest event."

But he said while the specifics of the federal "hate crimes" plan aren't final until – and if – it becomes law, the threat remains significant.

"Right now it's like 'Let's silence and move the Christians away from these events,'" he told WND. "The next step is, 'Well, your speech, whatever it may be, is not palatable, we're going to do the same thing to you.'"

The federal proposal was approved 249-175 in the U.S. House and now is pending in the Senate committee as S. 909. It is dubbed the "Pedophile Protection Act" by opponents who cited the efforts of U.S. House, Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, to add an amendment, "The term sexual orientation as used in this act or any amendments to this act does not include pedophilia."

Majority Democrats in the House refused to accept the amendment.

The specific issue of censoring Christians at homosexual festivals around the country has been ongoing for several years – dating back at least as far as the case of the Philadelphia 11, where Christians were arrested and held in jail for trying to talk about their faith at a homosexual event.

In Florida, several cities holding festivals set up fenced areas as "free speech zones" for Christians, keeping them away from the event itself.

In Nelson's most recent case, a victory for the Christians, a federal judge issued an order that permanently prohibits the city of St. Louis from banning a Christian ministry from distributing literature and speaking about Christianity at the city's "PrideFest."

It was in June 2006 when members of Apple of His Eye were threatened with arrest by St. Louis officials for handing out Christian literature and speaking about their faith at Tower Grove Park during the homosexual festival.

Nelson sued in 2008 and obtained a preliminary injunction that prevented prosecution of the Christians then. The newest order from U.S. District Judge Henry Autrey made that order permanent.

"Defendants (city officials) are enjoined from re-enacting any total ban on the distribution of any advertisement, circular or handbill in or adjoining any public park, place or square," the judge ordered.

Send 100 overnight letters to all 100 U.S. senators in protest of "The Pedophile Protection Act" for only $10.95

He also ordered the city to instruct its police in the proper handling of such disputes.

"Defendant, its officers agents, employees, representatives and all persons acting in concert, or participating with them, are hereby ordered to meet with the PrideFest organizers prior to the [2009] event for the purpose of informing the organizers of the terms of this Order, and to instruct said organizers that Plaintiffs' distribution of religious literature and/or expression of religious beliefs in said Park, in and of themselves, do not constitute a basis for law enforcement authorities to take actions that would restrict Plaintiffs' activities," the judge said.

In his decision granting the preliminary injunction, the judge found, "While there may be attendees at PrideFest 2008 who may also object to Plaintiffs' distribution of religious literature or expression of religious views, their 'injury,' namely, the suffering of viewpoints with which they may disagree, is outweighed by the restriction of Plaintiffs' First Amendment right to express those views in a public forum."

Nelson told WND that the ruling in the St. Louis case is not a precedent, because local rules and regulations vary widely regarding such disputes.

But the ADF said the order will protect efforts by members of the Christian ministry to distribute literature at future events and situations in St. Louis.

Nelson confirmed he and other attorneys who fight such battles are "tracking" the Washington legislation closely.

"Everyone should be very cognizant," he said. "People should be writing their senators with great emphasis upon making sure they understand that this is yet another example of curtailing speech … really based on nothing more than people's dislike of the message."

WND had reported several months earlier on a dispute in Elmira, N.Y., that developed when police threatened to arrest three Christians if they did not remove a shirt and stop sharing biblical messages during a "gay" pride event at a public park.

John Barnes wore a shirt with the message "Liberated from sin by the blood of Jesus" to the Southern Tier Pride 2008 at Wisner Park – a June 14, 2008, event promoted as a celebration of homosexual, bisexual and transgender lifestyles.

According to the complaint filed in a U.S. district court, Elmira police Capt. Michael Marrone ordered Barnes to remove his shirt to prevent a "negative atmosphere" at the event and arouse discomfort in other attendees.

Barnes obeyed the officer and took off his shirt so he could remain at the park without facing arrest.

Another Christian, Julian Raven, carried a Christian newsletter to the event called the Elmira Protestor. Marrone threatened to arrest Raven if he distributed the letter, saying it contained obscene or illegal material, according to the complaint. Raven complied with the order.

Capt. James Wandell and Sgt. Sharon Moyer threatened a third Christian, James DeFerio, with arrest for holding a sign on a public sidewalk adjacent to the park. The sign read: "Thousands of ex-homosexuals have experienced the life-changing love of Jesus Christ" and listed websites for more information about ministry to ex-"gays."

WND has reported before on the federal "hate crimes" plan, too.

Rep. Louis Gohmert, R-Texas, a former judge, explained how the rejection by the House of King's amendment would be read should a pedophile claim protection under the federal plan that protects those with alternative sexual lifestyle choices.

"Having reviewed cases as an appellate judge, I know that when the legislature has the chance to include a definition and refuses, then what we look at is the plain meaning of those words," explained Gohmert. "The plain meaning of sexual orientation is anything to which someone is orientated. That could include exhibitionism, it could include necrophilia (sexual arousal/activity with a corpse) ... it could include urophilia (sexual arousal associated with urine), voyeurism. You see someone spying on you changing clothes and you hit them, they've committed a misdemeanor, you've committed a federal felony under this bill. It is so wrong."

In fact, one supporter of the "hate crimes," Rep. Alcee Hastings, D-Fla., confirmed that very worry, saying: "This bill addresses our resolve to end violence based on prejudice and to guarantee that all Americans regardless of race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability or all of these 'philias' and fetishes and 'ism's' that were put forward need not live in fear because of who they are."

So far, several senators have expressed doubt about the proposal. Sen. James Inhofe said, "I am opposed to any sort of violent offense and believe that a crime motivated by prejudice or hate is particularly reprehensible. However, I think that the provisions in H.R. 1913 and S.909 are unnecessary and constitutionally questionable."

He expressed alarm that Democrats working for a "hate crimes" plan voted against an amendment that stated, "No prosecution under this act may be based in whole or in part on religious beliefs quoted from the Bible, the Tanakh, or the Quran."

"Many are concerned that should this legislation pass, it will have a 'chilling effect' on speech based on religious beliefs," he said.

Other opposition has come from Sen. Mel Martinez, R-Fla.; Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga.; and Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C.

Sources working with senators opposing the legislation say the Fed Ex letter-writing campaign has shaken up the dynamics of the debate.

"This bill was supposed to sail through the Senate, but it suddenly has become much more controversial as a result of all these letters," one source said.

Gohmert and King said the only chance to defeat the legislation was for a massive outpouring of opposition from the American people.

"If you guys don't raise enough stink there's no chance of stopping it," Gohmert said on a radio program with Porter. "It's entirely in the hands of your listeners and people across the country. If you guys put up a strong enough fight, that will give backbone enough to the 41 or 42 in the Senate to say we don't want to have our names on that."

An analysis by Shawn D. Akers, policy analyst with Liberty Counsel said the proposal, formally known as H.R. 1913, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act bill in the House and S. 909 in the Senate, would create new federal penalties against those whose "victims" were chosen based on an "actual or perceived ... sexual orientation, gender identity."

Gohmert warned Porter during her radio program interview that even her introduction of him, and references to the different sexual orientations, could be restricted if the plan becomes law.

"You can't talk like that once this becomes law," he said.

He said the foundational problem with the bill is that it is based on lies: It assumes there's an epidemic of crimes in the United States – especially actions that cross state lines – that is targeting those alternative sexual lifestyles.

"When you base a law on lies, you're going to have a bad law," he said. "This 'Pedophilia Protection Act,' a 'hate crimes' bill, is based on the representation that there's a epidemic of crimes based on bias and prejudice. It turns out there are fewer crimes now than there were 10 years ago."

He said he fought in committee and in the House to correct some of the failings, including his repeated requests for definitions in the bill for terms such as "sexual orientation."

Obama, supported strongly during his campaign by homosexual advocates, appears ready to respond to their desires.

"I urge members on both sides of the aisle to act on this important civil rights issue by passing this legislation to protect all of our citizens from violent acts of intolerance," he said.

But Gohmert pointed out that if an exhibitionist flashes a woman, and she responds by slapping him with her purse, he has probably committed a misdemeanor while she has committed a federal felony hate crime.

"That's how ludicrous this situation is," Gohmert said.

[many more WND articles on 'hate crimes' and free speech thru link]
http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?f...&pageId=101290
 
Old June 17th, 2009 #27
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,339
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

[Nigger Holder pushes for censorship.]

Attorney general urges new hate crimes law

Holder says nation must stop ‘violence masquerading as political activism’

June 16, 2009

WASHINGTON - Attorney General Eric Holder said Tuesday that recent killings show the need for a tougher U.S. hate crimes law to stop "violence masquerading as political activism."

"Over the last several weeks, we have witnessed brazen acts of violence, committed in places that many would have considered unthinkable," Holder told the Washington Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs.

He cited separate attacks over a two-week period that killed a young soldier, an abortion provider and a guard at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum.
Story continues below ↓advertisement | your ad here

Federal agents and prosecutors are already involved in the local investigations of each attack.

The violence, he said, "reminds us of the potential threat posed by violent extremists and the tragedy that ensues when reasoned discourse is replaced by armed confrontation."

In order to stop that violence, he said, Congress should past an updated version of hate crimes legislation, in order to more effectively prosecute those who commit violent attacks based on gender, disability, or sexual orientation.

The growing number of hate crimes against Hispanics also shows the need for tougher laws, Holder said.

"We will not tolerate murder, or the threat of violence, masquerading as political activism," Holder said. "So let me be clear, the Justice Department will use every tool at its disposal to protect the rights ensured under our Constitution."

Earlier, a leading civil rights coalition says there has been an increase in white supremacist activity since the election of the first African-American president.

The Leadership Conference on Civil Rights Education Fund reported Tuesday that the economic downturn and fear of immigrants also contributed to the increase.

The report comes a week after a white supremacist killed a security guard at the U.S. Holocaust Museum.

The coalition reported the U.S. now averages a hate crime nearly every hour of every day. A special concern is the rising number of hate crimes committed against Hispanics and gays.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31392054...me_and_courts/
 
Old June 17th, 2009 #28
Dylan Jones
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 555
Dylan Jones
Default

Quote:
In order to stop that violence, he said, Congress should past an updated version of hate crimes legislation, in order to more effectively prosecute those who commit violent attacks based on gender, disability, or sexual orientation.
How does "more effectively prosecute those who commit violent attacks" stop attacks?
 
Old June 17th, 2009 #29
Dylan Jones
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 555
Dylan Jones
Default

Government does not want to stop crime, it creates it. A legislator's job is to write laws and pass them. This is why our government is tyrannical.
 
Old August 22nd, 2009 #30
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,339
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Military Censors LRC
Posted by Lew Rockwell on August 22, 2009 08:18 AM

Writes an army sergeant:

Lewrockwell.com has been blocked on the network that is available to me in Iraq. When I finished reading Gary North I clicked on the home link at the top of the page and got the obnoxious “Access Denied” warning that appears when trying to go to a non-approved web site.

Lewrockwell.com’s presence in my life for the next few months, while serving the remainder of my sentence in Iraq, will be sorely missed. Though it was fun while it lasted, I will now have to find another intellectual resource for debunking my co-worker’s fallacious arguments, and to keep my sanity.
 
Old October 30th, 2009 #31
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,339
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

How hate-crime law works
Posted: October 29, 2009

The newly signed "Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act" merely federalizes the unequal distribution of justice that has existed at the local level for years.

As such laws work, if your group lacks political and media influence, you can expect to be convicted of crimes you did not commit and receive longer sentences for those you did.

Consider the case of the bill's namesake, Matthew Shepard. As the media told and retold the story, Aaron McKinney and Russell Henderson, two "homophobic" desperados, killed the helpless gay Wyoming University student in a fit of "gay panic."

Although Hollywood would turn out at least three TV movies about the "crucifixion" of Shepard, two of which premiered in the week before Easter 2002, the homophobic story line did not match the Wyoming reality.

Best evidence now suggests that McKinney, the actual killer, had previously expressed no homophobic sentiments.

One good reason why is that he was an active bisexual himself. Apparently, he and Shepard, who had a known drug problem, had done meth together a number of times.

On the night in question, McKinney went on a meth-fueled rampage. He pistol-whipped the vulnerable Shepard for drug money, drove into town to rob Shepard's apartment and then pistol whipped a stranger who got in his way, fracturing his skull in the process.

Matthew Shepard died just four weeks before the 1998 mid-term elections. For the next four weeks, much to their own surprise, the killers were presented to America as poster children for the religious right and one more reason not to vote Republican.

Of course, McKinney and Henderson were not products of Christian culture, but of its antithesis: a crude, soulless, fatherless, sexually libertine, drug-addled, pop culture.

Henderson was born to a teenage alcoholic mother and grew up without a father. McKinney's parents were divorced. Both were beaten by the "boyfriends" who inhabited their mothers' lives.

"Speechless: Silencing the Christians," by Don Wildmon, lays out determined strategy of coalition of liberal secularists, homosexual activists and Fortune 500 companies

On the night in question, McKinney pistol-whipped Henderson when he tried to intervene in the beating of Shepard.

Had Shepard not emerged as gay poster child, Henderson would likely have served a few years for manslaughter or as accessory to murder.

Instead, he had to plead to two consecutive life sentences to avoid the death penalty, a sentence to which the anti-death penalty crowd raised no known objection.

"It's really hard for me to talk to Russ," says McKinney. "To see him in this situation, knowing that I'm the one who put him here."

On the injustice scale, however, Henderson's fate does not begin to measure up to that of former sailor Steven Nary.

Nary was tried for second-degree murder in San Francisco the same week Henderson was being tried in Laramie, Wyo.

The timing of the trial might have been coincidental, but it is unlikely. Nary had killed a gay man, and San Francisco's political class is always eager to un-ruffle gay feathers.

Worse, the man Nary killed was the activist publisher of the leading Hispanic newspaper in the Bay area. San Francisco's political class did not want to ruffle those feathers either.

Nary's undoing began on a Saturday evening in March 1996. That fateful night the 18-year-old apprentice airman left the Alameda Naval Air Station and headed to the Palladium, a co-ed dance club for young people.

Nary tried dancing but was unsteady from a few too many beers, so he sat down by himself and watched. An older Hispanic gentleman sidled over to Nary.

Juan Pifarre, a 53-year old Argentina native, had started the evening at a friend's house in the Castro district where he had done a few too many lines of cocaine.

He then drove to that most of unlikely of places for a middle-aged gay man, the Palladium.

After Pifarre and Nary got to talking, Nary mentioned that he had to leave to catch the last BART back to the ship. Pifarre offered him a ride.

"He seemed like a nice person," Nary testified at his trail, "trusting person, and I'd get back to the base sooner."

On the drive, Pifarre told him that Nary he had had too much coke and wasn't sure that he could make it across the bridge and back.

Pifarre told Nary his wife was out of town. He suggested that Nary "could stay at his house. He could call some girls."

Pifarre, in fact, did have a wife, the result of a sham marriage to keep him from being deported. Pifarre also had two priors for sexual offenses, a reputation as a belligerent drun, and a history of violence with his sexual prey.

Nary's memory on what happened chez Pifarre has always been imperfect. He wrote to me from prison about Pifarre's attempt to rape him.

"I felt stuck. I could not speak. I could not move, and I could not do anything. He just kept trying and trying over and over. In fact it brings me to tears as I write this because I have avoided this image for so long."

Nary had no idea he was describing the precise reaction of a person who had been slipped a date-rape drug, then all the rage among sexual predators in the gay community.

"Please, stop," the lanky, 18-year-old sailor begged as he struggled through a paralyzing stupor. Pifarre would not.

Finally, in desperation, Nary grabbed a glass mug by Pifarre's bedside and smacked the chunky, coked-up Pifarre in the head with it. Pifarre fought back.

When Nary finally subdued Pifarre, he grabbed his clothes and fled back through the deserted streets to his ship.

Back at the ship, Nary told the chaplain and then turned himself in. After rotting three years in a San Francisco jail, he got his kangaroo moment in court.

When Nary testified that he had been "disgusted" by what Pifarre was doing, namely raping him, the prosecutor hung him on a homophobia charge.

After 13 years in prison and an exceptional record, the 32 year-old Nary was just denied parole for another five years.

I am sure he will be excited to hear that justice San Francisco style can now be enjoyed by everyone across the [expletive-deleted] plain.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=114302
 
Old November 4th, 2009 #32
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,339
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

ADL APPLAUDS ITSELF FOR HATE BILL VICTORY
By Rev. Ted Pike

After President Obama signed the federal hate crimes bill, the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith— the world’s premier Jewish supremacist group—gave itself most of the credit.

“For 12 long years we have worked hard with coalition partners to build the case in Washington that this law was not just necessary, but vital to ensure that all victims of hate crimes would be covered…”

“ADL has long spearheaded advocacy efforts for improved local, state and federal responses to hate violence. From the development of the ADL Model Hate Crime Law nearly 30 years ago, to the Hate Crimes Statistics Act of 1990 signed by President George W. Bush [sic] to President Bill Clinton’s November 1997 White House Conference on Hate Crime where the HCPA [Hate Crimes Prevention Act] was first introduced, the League has worked to ensure that local and federal law enforcement officials have important tools to combat violent, bias-motivated crimes. Over time, ADL helped to build a broad coalition of religious, civil rights, education and law enforcement groups in support of the HCPA.”

“Forty-five states and the District of Columbia have enacted hate crimes statutes based on or similar to the ADL model.” (ADL Hails Long Overdue Enactment of Hate Crime Law, October 28, 2009.)

ADL has said it will now launch a massive campaign to educate lawyers as hate crimes prosecutors.

History of Malice

ADL is the “civil liberties” arm of a Jewish religious, educational and fraternal organization, B’nai B’rith International. Through passage of its Hate Crimes Statistics Act in 1990, ADL empowered synagogue to mix with state by authorizing itself to teach the US Justice Department, FBI and all local police about hate crimes. For nearly 20 years this adjunct of a Jewish religious organization has instructed law enforcement in all aspects of its twisted hate crime ideology. These include dubious procedures for reporting to the FBI thousands of “hate crimes.” More than 95 percent of such incidents of fisticuffs, name calling, and “intimidation” have never seen a courtroom yet are listed as hate crimes in the FBI’s annual Uniform Crime Report. They are ADL's evidence of an “epidemic of hate” in America, compelling federal jurisdiction.

In 2004, ADL also convinced Congress to establish its Office of Global Anti-Semitism in the US State Department. As the world monitor of alleged hate crimes, ADL now speaks for the US government, providing annual reports detailing its allegations of anti-Semitic threats and trends. In its 2005 report, this office in the State Department described as an “anti-Semitic incident” the statement of a Polish priest that the Jews were responsible for Christ’s death. In 2006, it boldly labeled as a “classic anti-Semite” any Christian who asserted the New Testament charge of Jewish complicity in the crucifixion. It also said anti-Semitism meant strong criticism of Israel, its leaders or military, and cartoons portraying such leaders in Nazi terms.

This week’s signing of ADL’s federal hate bill is only the legal beginning of its national and international hate crimes agenda. The first Senate hearing for ADL’s workplace hate crimes law, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, S. 1584, is scheduled for this Thursday in the Senate Health, Education and Welfare Committee. (See, ENDA Moves Forward in Senate) ADL powerfully promotes other anti-family initiatives such as ending the policy of “don’t ask, don’t tell” in the military, repealing the Defense of Marriage Act, and a galaxy of homosexual rights initiatives in state legislatures. Since 1985, ADL’s massive “World of Difference” and “No Place for Hate” programs, among others, have transformed American attitudes toward acceptance of homosexuality.

Stepping Stone to World Government

Passage of ADL’s federal hate bill is only a stepping stone. Its ultimate dream is international hate law enforcement. Already, ADL Europe and B’nai B’rith International have persuaded most western industrialized nations to establish ADL-orchestrated hate crimes bureaucracies. Fifty-six nations of Europe are now united in the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), dedicated to end anti-Semitism, racism, homophobia and xenophobia (fear of foreigners) in Europe.

A large part of ADL’s international efforts consist of developing, through its International Network Against Cyber-Hate (INACH), effective ways to ban criticism of Jews, Israel, homosexuals, Muslims, etc., on the internet. Although Islam is the Zionist/ADL foe in the Middle East, ADL considers Islam-protecting hate laws a powerful tool to break down their common enemy: Christianity.

Toward this end, ADL inspired the US government to recently propose that the United Nations condemn any nation without a federal hate crimes law. Obama’s joint proposal with Egypt, full of ADL ideology and rhetoric, is a thinly veiled attempt to include America under a Christian-persecuting, Muslim-protecting international hate crimes enforcement tribunal. A world court residing in Jerusalem was prophesied by Prime Minister Ben-Gurion in a January 16, 1962 Look magazine article. ADL, headed by devoutly Orthodox Jew Abraham H. Foxman, represents a relentless attempt by a cabal of anti-Christian Jews to bring about international persecution of the followers of Christ.

Christian Oblivion

Yet the Christian world remains oblivious to what Orthodox rabbi Daniel Lapin described as ADL’s (secular Judaism’s) “relentless attack on evangelical Christianity.” Last spring in its MIAC report, ADL, along with its sister Jewish attack group, the Southern Poverty Law Center, issued directives to the Missouri state police to regard Christians/conservatives as potential terrorists. Yet evangelical leaders, dreading ADL’s potential to smear them as anti-Semitic still will not criticize ADL or publicly acknowledge its existence.

As a result, Christian and conservative activists never attack the eye of this world-revolutionary octopus. Instead, they chop at its tentacles. Such activism is largely futile; ADL only regenerates and multiplies tentacles faster than they are destroyed.

Evangelical Christianity is thus caught in a bizarre, love-fear relationship with organized liberal world Jewry. Evangelicals lose, both coming and going. For nearly a century, Christian fundamentalist leaders have drilled into their tens of millions of followers that they must be absolutely loyal to Zionism and never criticize the very Jewish supremacists who now propel the world toward global governance and international hate crimes enforcement, i.e. persecution of Christians. Loyal followers have been conditioned to believe that any criticism of Jews is worthy of God's curse. Thus, if these leaders were now to expose this 100% Jewish organization, their millions of evangelical constituents would undoubtedly accept at face value ADL’s accusation of anti-Semitism and abandon these Christian organizations to economic disaster.

Christian/conservative leaders are thus enmeshed in a vicious, morally debilitating, and freedom-destroying trap of their own making. Forced to give tribute of outward support to Zionism yet privately terrorized of ADL’s power to destroy, they have become slaves of ADL. By their silence, they pave its road to tyranny and hasten its ascent to world dominion.

Christ said that when His Church is "trodden under foot of men," as it is today by Obama and ADL, this has occurred for a simple reason: "The salt has lost its saltiness."

Salt is the determination to fear and obey God alone. It is also the simple integrity of seeking, accepting, and acting upon the whole truth.
 
Old November 14th, 2009 #33
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,339
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

ADL campaigns to train hate prosecutors

Wednesday, 11 November 2009 14:03 Rev. Ted Pike

For the past ten years, the Anti-Defamation League has introduced its federal hate crime bill into Congress five times – and lost. ADL claims to have the purest intentions—concern that federal power is needed if a state does not have a hate crimes law or is unwilling or unable to punish a hate crime. ADL insisted passage of a federal hate crimes law would change little: the vast majority of prosecutions of hate crimes will be initiated by states.

But in its exultant press announcement yesterday, ADL reveals the real reason it has never given up its struggle to make its hate bill the law of the land: ADL wants an army of “anti-hate” prosecutors who can go after those ADL considers guilty of bias-motivated crimes. After giving itself credit as chief architect of hate crimes laws on the state and federal level, ADL says:

The end of the legislative path for the hate crimes bill also marks the beginning of the next campaign – training prosecutors and law enforcement officials about the new law. ADL stands ready to help lead that continuing effort.

ADL is clearly beginning a second phase – to train lawyers and law enforcement nationwide on prosecuting hate criminals. In ADL-speak, “haters” are those who oppose homosexuality, allege Jews dominate media, government, finance, or are guilty of “strong” criticism of Israel or its leaders.

ADL is already the primary source for hate crimes education for the US Justice Department, FBI and all local law enforcement. In 1990, through passage of its Hate Crimes Statistics Act, ADL granted itself such empowerment. But ADL wants much more.

Entirely staffed by Jews, ADL is headed by a devoutly religious Orthodox Jew, Abe Foxman (See, ADL’s Foxman: Man of Faith?). Like its sister Jewish attack group, the Southern Poverty Law Center, ADL has a focused religious objective: to revive ancient Jewish persecution of Christians, begun 2,000 years ago and recorded in the New Testament. The true intent of ADL’s federal and 45 state hate laws is to empower the legal, systematic, and ruthless persecution of Talmudic Judaism’s greatest rival, Christianity. To this end, ADL now calls for a national “campaign” to train an army of federal and local hate crimes prosecutors.

Already, ADL and SPLC–through their Missouri Police MIA Directive as well as warnings from ADL sycophant Janet Nepalitano and her Department of Homeland Security–stereotype Christian and conservatives as unstable bigots and potential terrorist threats. ADL’s Office of Global Anti-Semitism in the US State Department says anyone who believes the New Testament claim that Jewish leaders masterminded the crucifixion is a “classic anti-Semite.” (See, U.S. State Department Says New Testament is ‘Anti-Semitic’?)

ADL’s new campaign to train an army of prosecutors to enforce the federal hate crimes law will usher in progressive arrest of Christian “haters.” These could well be destined to occupy FEMA prison camps in the years ahead. Ultimately, many could be delivered up, as Christ prophesied, to be tried, convicted and imprisoned in the courts and synagogues of Jewry (Matthew 10:17). Their “crimes against the Jewish people” would include criticism of matters Jewish (anti-Semitism) and questioning the accuracy of the sacred 6 million figure of Holocaust victims (Holocaust denial). However, most will likely be indicted under Jewish Noahide laws for heresy – the “idolatry” of affirming the deity of Jesus Christ, the second member of the Trinity. (See, Coming Jewish ‘Utopia’ Ruled by Noahide Laws)

The Book of Revelation prophesies that the garments of the Great Harlot (Israel and international Jewish control) will be soaked with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus (Revelation 17:6). (See, Israel: On the Way to Empire in the Mideast)

Jewish world dominion will fulfill Biblical prophesy but also a number of predictions by modern Jewish leaders:

“The Jews energetically reject the idea of fusion with the other nationalities and cling firmly to their historical hope of world empire…” (Max Mandelstam, World Zionist Congress, July 1898.)

“Jerusalem is not the capitol of Israel and world Jewry: it aspires to become the spiritual center of the world…” (David Ben-Gurion, Jewish Chronicle, London, Dec. 16, 1949)

“In Jerusalem, the United Nations (a truly United Nations) will build a Shrine of the Prophets to serve the federated union of all continents; this will be the seat of the Supreme Court of Mankind, to settle all controversies among the federated continents, as prophesied by Isaiah…” (David Ben-Burion, Look Magazine, Jan. 16, 1962)

“The Jewish people cannot ever be destroyed, but rather they and their G-d of History will emerge in days to come triumphant over the evils and the foolishness of all other nations. Zion will and must emerge as the mount to which all other peoples turn.” (Rabbi Meir Kahane, Jewish Press, Brooklyn, New York, Nov. 9, 1973.)

Will Christian America silently allow President Obama to sign ADL’s hate bill as early as this week, accelerating arrival of the Zionist New World order? Incredibly, all major Christian and conservative organizations remain oblivious to the tactic of pressuring Obama to keep his promise to veto a wasteful defense authorization bill–one that includes $100 billion funding for extra F-35 jet engines. Only the National Prayer Network proclaims that we can still defeat the hate bill through presidential veto.

ADL now considers passage of the hate bill a virtual reality. It’s not.

The Senate has yet to give final approval, which will probably take place early this week. Pres. Obama still has to sign the defense bill with the hate bill attached. Obama doesn’t like this defense authorization bill. I believe he’s burned that Congress has defied him. It forces him to approve what he has steadfastly vowed he would not approve –thousands of F-35 engines he says squander taxpayers’ money.

It is up to Christian America NOW to exert greater pressure on Obama than is now being applied by ADL. We must demand he stays true to his promise and vetoes the defense bill. If he vetoes it, the hate bill will be dead in this session of Congress. ADL will have to cancel their second “campaign” to create a federally-authorized army of prosecutors against Christians.

Take action NOW! Don’t be distracted by more controversy about healthcare. Pressure Obama to keep his word.

Email these two messages to the President immediately:

Mr. President, I will vote out Democrats at midterms if you sign the freedom-destroying federal hate crimes bill.

Mr. President, I expect you to keep your promise to veto any military authorization bill that wastes $100 billion of taxpayers’ money on unnecessary F-35 jet engines.

Send these two messages in separate emails. You may cut and paste them in at www.whitehouse.gov/contact .
This week may decide if America still has hope, or will begin descent into impending slavery. The hate bill could be on Obama’s desk by Tuesday.

Your emails should be there first thing Monday morning.

Endnote:

Modern or “rabbinic” Judaism continues unaltered the teaching of the ancient Pharisees who killed Christ. In my 345-page book Israel: Our Duty…Our Dilemma (available at www.truthtellers.org), I thoroughly document that deep within the teachings of the Pharisees, as contained in their Talmud and Kabbalah, is the oft-repeated assertion that Christianity and its belief in “three Gods” is idolatry; if the world were put right, Christians, as heretics and idolaters, should be killed. After the apostle Paul was converted, he realized that a new “age of grace” made obsolete any duty to kill “heretics,” but before that, as Saul of Tarsus, he, in all good conscience as an Orthodox Jew, killed and hailed into prison as many Christians as possible.

For Talmudic Judaism, no new age of grace ended the ancient duty to cleanse the land of idolaters. Instead, Talmudic, kabbalistic literature, (the highest religious and ethical guide to Orthodox Jews) teaches that when the messiah (Antichrist) comes, he and the righteous of Israel will follow the precedent of Joshua and the Hebrews entering Canaan and annihilate all “idol-worshippers” – Christians– from the earth.

If you don’t think Jewish supremacists today are capable of such horror, just remember what Jewish supremacists unleashed in 1917. Conquering Russia, they set in motion the eventual slaughter of more than 100 million Gentiles, many of whom were Christians (See, Jewish Activists Created Communism).

* Add New
* Search

Comments (2)

*
|13-11-2009 00:51:57 Martin Timothy - Where's the ADL on torture
http://www.dockersunion.com/vb/showt...=1153#post1153

This situation is totally absurd.. everyone on Earth has heard Jews sob stories about pogroms and persecution, and listened to them castigate everyone else for not doing more to prevent the Nazi menace, that supposedly sent Jews to the gas chamber in WW2!

Now it has come to light that the Nazis were indeed the Zionazi, an extreme sect of the Ashkenazi, who are themselves non Jews whose ancestors converted to Judah in about 740 AD, who have since ursurped the mores and traditions of the Jewish faith and installed themselves as "Pharisees."

They were pulling Hitler's and Josef Stalin's strings, and it was they who instigated the Holodomor in the Ukraine, and the depredations of Trotsky and Lenin before that, that took the lives of millions of politically active Russians who had responded to the same Jewish political propaganda, and joined the Communist Party.

As well as the Holocaust in Nazi occupied Europe was their doing.. take a look at the massive rallies and torchlight festivals that brought the Nazis to power, how was a political party made up of shell shocked war veterans led by a street artist, ever going to afford the uniforms, the flags, and all the rest of the paraphernalia of the Nazi rise to power!

The same Ashkenazi mindset now controls US President Barak Obama, and Gordon Brown in the UK.. what the hell is going on when news reports casually discuss torture of "suspected terrorists," the terrorists are the Jews who have infiltrated the political, social and media dissemination apparatus world wide.

What happened to the ethic that the Jews said failed to protect them from the Nazis, where are the voices now ..whatever anyone thinks, or wants to believe, or hides from, the facts are that the Jews did 911.. not Osama bin Laden, not Al Qaida.. J-e-w-s.

The same Jew propagandists have never got through tellin' everybody about the Nazi torture chambers, and the simpering face of poor Anne Frank is all over the place ..never mind there was no Anne Frank, and if there was, the Pharisees would have gassed her along with the rest of the non Pharisee Jews of Amsterdam.

The concept that John Yoo and his clones, can just go on torturing innocent people to death on the grounds that they are "suspected terrorists" has got to be curtailed.. and if anyone is waitin' for "them" to get it done, he will be waitin' forever because "them" is Jews.

You have to stand against them Americans.. and don't ever think Ron Schmaul is gonna save you no more cynical politician exists, if he was ever going to stand up for America he would have opened his yapper and decried the Jew calumny of 911 by now.

911 is where the Jews are most vulnerable, since there is a mountain of evidence on the i'net that both proves the official story a lie, and proves they did it.. which means they are, along with the Americans in the US political and MSM establishment, capital traitors that have to be brought to justice, else it is exitus America!

http://www.rebelnews.org/opinion/hat...te-prosecutors
 
Old December 30th, 2009 #34
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,339
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

The Military Defends Our Freedom
Posted by Lew Rockwell on December 29, 2009 08:27 PM

Writes a soldier:

Concerning your article, I know from personal experience that the government is doing everything in its power to prevent the spread of the Light of Liberty via LRC. The Army here has blocked any and all access to lewrockwell.com as well as Campaign for Liberty and The Daily Bell, just to name three sites that expose the US Fascist State for what it is.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewr...ves/45805.html
 
Old March 30th, 2011 #35
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,339
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Tyranny in Housing / Housing Ads

http://vnnforum.com/showthread.php?p...29#post1255229
 
Old March 29th, 2012 #36
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,339
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Read somewhere: jewess Kagan, now on Supreme Court, wrote a paper in which she advocated classifying 'hate speech' as pornography and banning it. If I have that correct.
 
Old March 29th, 2012 #37
SmokyMtn
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: East Tennessee
Posts: 8,506
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post
Read somewhere: jewess Kagan, now on Supreme Court, wrote a paper in which she advocated classifying 'hate speech' as pornography and banning it. If I have that correct.
Something like that. Here is an article that I posted two weeks ago:

http://www.vnnforum.com/showpost.php...63&postcount=2
 
Old March 29th, 2012 #38
SmokyMtn
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: East Tennessee
Posts: 8,506
Default

Elena Kagan on Pornography and Hate Speech

by PROFESSOR WILL HUHN on MAY 12, 2010
in CONSTITUTIONAL LAW,ELENA KAGAN,FREEDOM OF SPEECH,SCOTUS,WILSON HUHN

In 1993 Kagan authored an article Regulation of Hate Speech and Pornography After R.A.V., 60 University of Chicago Law Review 873 (1993), in which she cautioned Americans not to disparage the principle of viewpoint neutrality. It is a moderate, well-reasoned piece that anticipates later developments in First Amendment law.

Kagan wrote this article at a time when many governmental entities were seeking to outlaw hate speech and pornography. The City of St. Paul, Minnesota, enacted a law that made it a crime to display certain symbols that were "likely to arouse anger, alarm, or resentment on the basis of race, religion, or gender." The City of Indianapolis adopted an ordinance making it a crime to depict women as "the graphic sexually explicit subordination of women, whether in pictures or in words." The Supreme Court struck down both of these laws. In R.A.V. v. St. Paul (1992) the Court struck down the St. Paul ordinance on the ground that it was a "viewpoint-based" law – that is, it is a law that punishes people for expressing a particular point of view. In 1985, in the case of American Booksellers v. Hudnut, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals struck down the Indianapolis ordinance on the same ground. Writing for the court, Judge Easterbrook said, "the Indianapolis ordinance … is not neutral with respect to viewpoint." The Supreme Court summarily affirmed the Circuit Court's decision in Hudnut in 1986.

Kagan defends the decisions in both R.A.V. and Hudnut. She states:

[T]he principle of viewpoint neutrality, which now stands as the primary barrier to certain modes of regulating pornography and hate speech, has at its core much good sense and reason. Although here I can do no more than touch on the issue, my view is that efforts to regulate pornography and hate speech not only will fail, but also should fail to the extent that they trivialize or subvert this principle.


In the final portion of her article Kagan suggests three ways that laws against hate speech or pornography could be enforced. She states that the government could:
1. Prohibit conduct (not speech) that is motivated by hatred (such as physical assaults) or sexual degredation of women (such as prostitution and pimping). This approach was used in the case of Wisconsin v. Mitchell (1993), in which the Court affirmed the conviction of an individual who had led a gang's racial attack upon another person;

2. Enhance existing content-based laws. She states: "One potential course is to enact legislation, or use existing legislation, prohibiting carefully defined kinds of harassment, threats, or intimidation, including but not limited to those based on race and sex." This approach was later adopted by the Supreme Court in the case of Virginia v. Black (2003), in which the Court upheld a law making it illegal to burn a cross with the intent of intimidating someone;

3. Expand the definition of obscenity so that it regulates the depiction of sexual violence rather than simply "prurient" depictions of sex. The Supreme Court has not yet considered this possibility.
Kagan describes her article as an "essay" and that is correct. It is an opinion piece, not a scholarly treatment of this issue. It is clearly written, moderate in tone, and balanced in its reasoning. There is absence of posturing or characterization. Near the end her reasoning becomes a bit murky, but that is in part due the fact that the Court's decisions in R.A.V. and Hudnut offered so little guidance in this area of the First Amendment. Kagan's article makes a valuable contribution to the discussion over the regulation of hate speech and pornography.

Throughout the article Kagan's principal theme is a message – a message addressed particularly to liberals – not to tear down the prohibition on viewpoint-based laws, which "has come to serve as the very keystone of First Amendment jurisprudence."
 
Old April 26th, 2012 #39
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,339
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

[yeah, what we need is more govt involvement in medical care. cuz they know best. they have you best interests at heart. that's why they start wars, grow colonies of niggers, leave the border open. so why would you doubt their advice on what to eat?]

State Threatens to Shut Down Nutrition Blogger
Nutrition board says he needs a license to advocate dietary approaches
By Sara Burrows
Apr. 23rd, 2012

CHARLOTTE — The North Carolina Board of Dietetics/Nutrition is threatening to send a blogger to jail for recounting publicly his battle against diabetes and encouraging others to follow his lifestyle.

Chapter 90, Article 25 of the North Carolina General Statutes makes it a misdemeanor to “practice dietetics or nutrition” without a license. According to the law, “practicing” nutrition includes “assessing the nutritional needs of individuals and groups” and “providing nutrition counseling.”

Steve Cooksey has learned that the definition, at least in the eyes of the state board, is expansive.

When he was hospitalized with diabetes in February 2009, he decided to avoid the fate of his grandmother, who eventually died of the disease. He embraced the low-carb, high-protein Paleo diet, also known as the “caveman” or “hunter-gatherer” diet. The diet, he said, made him drug- and insulin-free within 30 days. By May of that year, he had lost 45 pounds and decided to start a blog about his success.

But this past January the state diatetics and nutrition board decided Cooksey’s blog — Diabetes-Warrior.net — violated state law. The nutritional advice Cooksey provides on the site amounts to “practicing nutrition,” the board’s director says, and in North Carolina that’s something you need a license to do.

Unless Cooksey completely rewrites his 3-year-old blog, he could be sued by the licensing board. If he loses the lawsuit and refuses to take down the blog, he could face up to 120 days in jail.

The board’s director says Cooksey has a First Amendment right to blog about his diet, but he can’t encourage others to adopt it unless the state has certified him as a dietitian or nutritionist.

The seminar

Jan. 12, Cooksey attended a nutrition seminar at a church in Charlotte. The speaker was the director of diabetes services for a local hospital.

“She was giving all the wrong information, just like everyone always does — carbs are OK to eat, we must eat carbs to live, promoting low-fat, etc.,” Cooksey said. “So I spoke up.”

After the meeting he handed out a couple of business cards pointing people to his website.

Three days later, he got a call from the director of the nutrition board.

“Basically, she told me I could not give out nutritional advice without a license,” Cooksey said.

He said she also told him that his website was being investigated and gave him some suggestions about how to bring it into compliance.

If he does not go along, the board could file an injunction and “essentially shut the website down,” Cooksey said.

The law

Charla Burill, the board’s director, told Carolina Journal she could not discuss the details of Cooksey’s case because his website is still under investigation, but agreed to talk about the law in the hypothetical.

It’s not necessarily against the law to give your sister or your friend nutritional advice, she said. And it’s not necessarily against the law to use a blog to tell people what they should eat.

Where it crosses the line, Burill said, is when a blogger “advertises himself as an expert” and “takes information from someone such that he’s performing some sort of assessment and then giving it back with some sort of plan or diet.”

Cooksey posted a link (6.3 MB PDF download) to the board’s review of his website. The document shows several Web pages the board took issue with, including a question-and-answer page, which the director had marked in red ink noting the places he was “assessing and counseling” readers of his blog.

“If people are writing you with diabetic specific questions and you are responding, you are no longer just providing information — you are counseling,” she wrote. “You need a license to provide this service."

The board also found fault with a page titled “My Meal Plan,” where Cooksey details what he eats daily.

In red, Burril writes, “It is acceptable to provide just this information [his meal plan], but when you start recommending it directly to people you speak to or who write you, you are now providing diabetic counseling, which requires a license.”

The board also directed Cooksey to remove a link offering one-on-one support, a personal-training type of service he offered for a small fee.

Cooksey posts the following disclaimer at the bottom of every page on his website:

“I am not a doctor, dietitian, nor nutritionist … in fact I have no medical training of any kind.”

In fact, he brags about his lack of formal training throughout his blog.

“It’s so simple,” he told CJ. “I cut carbs, I reduced my drugs and insulin until I didn’t need them at all. If I can figure that out, why in the hell can’t all these other people [in the medical field]?”

Burill said the disclaimer may not protect a nutrition blogger from the law.

“If I’ve given you reason to not worry that I don’t have a license because I have all these other reasons I’m an expert, you could still harm the public,” she said. “At least you’re not trying to mislead the public, but you’re trying to get the public to trust you.”

It’s a fine line between what’s legal and what’s not when it comes to talking about nutrition.

“Anyone can talk about anything they want,” Burill said. “That’s a First Amendment right, so to speak.”

For example, a person could write a blog advocating vegetarianism, she said.

“Now if you advertised that you’d taken classes in nutrition, you’ve worked at [the federal government’s Food and Nutrition Service] for three years, and you say ‘I believe everyone should be a vegetarian, and I’m here to help you if you want to change your diet’ [that could be crossing the line],” Burill said.

“A vegetarian diet would be a little bit harder [to prosecute] because a vegetarian is not really like a medical diet.”

Burill said if Cooksey refuses to come into compliance with the law, the board could file for an injunction.

Free speech

Declan McCullagh, a CBSNews.com correspondent who writes about online free speech, says the board probably is violating Cooksey’s First Amendment rights.

“The First Amendment says state and federal governments ‘shall make no law’ abridging freedom of speech,” McCullagh said. “It doesn't say ‘except for what annoys the North Carolina Board of Dietetics and Nutrition.’”

McCullagh pointed to a sentence in Cooksey’s blog the board didn’t approve of: “I do suggest that your friend eat as I do and exercise the best they can.”

“If that language appeared in a book or a magazine article, do you think the board would complain?” McCullagh asked. “How about if someone said that to a friend over dinner at a restaurant? Of course not. But because it's on the Web, they seem to think that the First Amendment no longer applies.”

McCullagh said the board may be on more solid ground in its complaint about the telephone support packages Cooksey offers. “But … if customers are paying $97 or $149 or $197 a month to have someone listen, that sounds a lot like life coaching, which doesn't require a license.”

“In general, I think that as long as someone is very clear that they're not a licensed dietician, state officials can probably find better uses of their time,” he said.

Cooksey said the board both has violated his freedom of speech and done a disservice to the people of North Carolina. He said all he’s trying to do with his blog is provide an alternative to the nutritional advice pushed by mainstream sources on what they say people should be eating.

Cooksey said he’s seeking legal assistance in case the state decides to take further action against him.

Sara Burrows is an associate editor of Carolina Journal.

http://www.carolinajournal.com/exclu...e.html?id=8992
 
Old April 26th, 2012 #40
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,339
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

[yeah, what we need is more govt involvement in medical care. cuz they know best. they have you best interests at heart. that's why they start wars, grow colonies of niggers, leave the border open. so why would you doubt their advice on what to eat?]

State Threatens to Shut Down Nutrition Blogger
Nutrition board says he needs a license to advocate dietary approaches
By Sara Burrows
Apr. 23rd, 2012

CHARLOTTE — The North Carolina Board of Dietetics/Nutrition is threatening to send a blogger to jail for recounting publicly his battle against diabetes and encouraging others to follow his lifestyle.

Chapter 90, Article 25 of the North Carolina General Statutes makes it a misdemeanor to “practice dietetics or nutrition” without a license. According to the law, “practicing” nutrition includes “assessing the nutritional needs of individuals and groups” and “providing nutrition counseling.”

Steve Cooksey has learned that the definition, at least in the eyes of the state board, is expansive.

When he was hospitalized with diabetes in February 2009, he decided to avoid the fate of his grandmother, who eventually died of the disease. He embraced the low-carb, high-protein Paleo diet, also known as the “caveman” or “hunter-gatherer” diet. The diet, he said, made him drug- and insulin-free within 30 days. By May of that year, he had lost 45 pounds and decided to start a blog about his success.

But this past January the state diatetics and nutrition board decided Cooksey’s blog — Diabetes-Warrior.net — violated state law. The nutritional advice Cooksey provides on the site amounts to “practicing nutrition,” the board’s director says, and in North Carolina that’s something you need a license to do.

Unless Cooksey completely rewrites his 3-year-old blog, he could be sued by the licensing board. If he loses the lawsuit and refuses to take down the blog, he could face up to 120 days in jail.

The board’s director says Cooksey has a First Amendment right to blog about his diet, but he can’t encourage others to adopt it unless the state has certified him as a dietitian or nutritionist.

The seminar

Jan. 12, Cooksey attended a nutrition seminar at a church in Charlotte. The speaker was the director of diabetes services for a local hospital.

“She was giving all the wrong information, just like everyone always does — carbs are OK to eat, we must eat carbs to live, promoting low-fat, etc.,” Cooksey said. “So I spoke up.”

After the meeting he handed out a couple of business cards pointing people to his website.

Three days later, he got a call from the director of the nutrition board.

“Basically, she told me I could not give out nutritional advice without a license,” Cooksey said.

He said she also told him that his website was being investigated and gave him some suggestions about how to bring it into compliance.

If he does not go along, the board could file an injunction and “essentially shut the website down,” Cooksey said.

The law

Charla Burill, the board’s director, told Carolina Journal she could not discuss the details of Cooksey’s case because his website is still under investigation, but agreed to talk about the law in the hypothetical.

It’s not necessarily against the law to give your sister or your friend nutritional advice, she said. And it’s not necessarily against the law to use a blog to tell people what they should eat.

Where it crosses the line, Burill said, is when a blogger “advertises himself as an expert” and “takes information from someone such that he’s performing some sort of assessment and then giving it back with some sort of plan or diet.”

Cooksey posted a link (6.3 MB PDF download) to the board’s review of his website. The document shows several Web pages the board took issue with, including a question-and-answer page, which the director had marked in red ink noting the places he was “assessing and counseling” readers of his blog.

“If people are writing you with diabetic specific questions and you are responding, you are no longer just providing information — you are counseling,” she wrote. “You need a license to provide this service."

The board also found fault with a page titled “My Meal Plan,” where Cooksey details what he eats daily.

In red, Burril writes, “It is acceptable to provide just this information [his meal plan], but when you start recommending it directly to people you speak to or who write you, you are now providing diabetic counseling, which requires a license.”

The board also directed Cooksey to remove a link offering one-on-one support, a personal-training type of service he offered for a small fee.

Cooksey posts the following disclaimer at the bottom of every page on his website:

“I am not a doctor, dietitian, nor nutritionist … in fact I have no medical training of any kind.”

In fact, he brags about his lack of formal training throughout his blog.

“It’s so simple,” he told CJ. “I cut carbs, I reduced my drugs and insulin until I didn’t need them at all. If I can figure that out, why in the hell can’t all these other people [in the medical field]?”

Burill said the disclaimer may not protect a nutrition blogger from the law.

“If I’ve given you reason to not worry that I don’t have a license because I have all these other reasons I’m an expert, you could still harm the public,” she said. “At least you’re not trying to mislead the public, but you’re trying to get the public to trust you.”

It’s a fine line between what’s legal and what’s not when it comes to talking about nutrition.

“Anyone can talk about anything they want,” Burill said. “That’s a First Amendment right, so to speak.”

For example, a person could write a blog advocating vegetarianism, she said.

“Now if you advertised that you’d taken classes in nutrition, you’ve worked at [the federal government’s Food and Nutrition Service] for three years, and you say ‘I believe everyone should be a vegetarian, and I’m here to help you if you want to change your diet’ [that could be crossing the line],” Burill said.

“A vegetarian diet would be a little bit harder [to prosecute] because a vegetarian is not really like a medical diet.”

Burill said if Cooksey refuses to come into compliance with the law, the board could file for an injunction.

Free speech

Declan McCullagh, a CBSNews.com correspondent who writes about online free speech, says the board probably is violating Cooksey’s First Amendment rights.

“The First Amendment says state and federal governments ‘shall make no law’ abridging freedom of speech,” McCullagh said. “It doesn't say ‘except for what annoys the North Carolina Board of Dietetics and Nutrition.’”

McCullagh pointed to a sentence in Cooksey’s blog the board didn’t approve of: “I do suggest that your friend eat as I do and exercise the best they can.”

“If that language appeared in a book or a magazine article, do you think the board would complain?” McCullagh asked. “How about if someone said that to a friend over dinner at a restaurant? Of course not. But because it's on the Web, they seem to think that the First Amendment no longer applies.”

McCullagh said the board may be on more solid ground in its complaint about the telephone support packages Cooksey offers. “But … if customers are paying $97 or $149 or $197 a month to have someone listen, that sounds a lot like life coaching, which doesn't require a license.”

“In general, I think that as long as someone is very clear that they're not a licensed dietician, state officials can probably find better uses of their time,” he said.

Cooksey said the board both has violated his freedom of speech and done a disservice to the people of North Carolina. He said all he’s trying to do with his blog is provide an alternative to the nutritional advice pushed by mainstream sources on what they say people should be eating.

Cooksey said he’s seeking legal assistance in case the state decides to take further action against him.

Sara Burrows is an associate editor of Carolina Journal.

http://www.carolinajournal.com/exclu...e.html?id=8992
 
Reply

Share


Thread
Display Modes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:33 PM.
Page generated in 0.26389 seconds.