Europe

The War on Free Speech Escalates

Assaults on freedom of speech in Europe and the United States.

|

There's been a lot of hand-wringing lately about the rise of the far right in Europe, and justifiably so. But the right has no monopoly on threatening other people's fundamental human rights, and politicians to the left do not seem interested in granting it one.

Last week the French National Assembly approved a plan by the Socialist government to outlaw pro-life websites. The proposal goes far beyond consumer-protection efforts; it prohibits sites based on point of view.

The legislation would impose hefty fines and up to two years in prison on site operators who "exert psychological or moral pressure" on a woman seeking information about abortion.

This means a website that claims something as mild as "Abortion takes a human life" could be shut down, since most people's moral intuitions tell them taking human life is immoral. In effect, French lawmakers are trying to silence one half of a very divisive debate.

Perhaps this is not surprising, given that the government banned advertisements showing happy children with Down syndrome because they might disturb some women who had abortions. The French Council of State (an appropriately Orwellian name) decided such ads were "inappropriate."

Not to be outdone, centrist German Chancellor Angela Merkel said the same thing when she proposed banning the full-face veil worn by some Muslim women. "The full veil is not appropriate here," Merkel said the other day. "It should be banned wherever it is legally possible." (France banned the burqa five years ago, and prohibited hijabs, along with "conspicuous" symbols of Christian and Jewish faiths, in the schools in 2004.)

Prohibiting the veil violates freedom of religion, since many Muslims believe their faith enjoins them to wear it. But it also violates freedom of speech, since many Muslims wear it not only to obey their faith but also to express it—or simply for the sake of modesty, or to show solidarity with other Muslims. And yet numerous other European countries (or parts of them) have taken steps toward, or enacted, similar bans.

Freedom of speech is valued in Europe, but not to the degree it traditionally has been valued in America. Germany prohibits Holocaust denial, as well as other forms of hate speech, which are protected by the First Amendment in the U.S.—so long as they do not incite violence.

A few months ago Germany even threatened to prosecute a comedian for his insulting poem about Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdogan. The case was eventually dropped.

Other countries also are tightening the noose. The European Union's Framework Decision on Combating Racism and Xenophobia requires member states to forbid hate speech. The Danish parliament also has passed legislation to prohibit "religious teaching" that "explicitly condones" everything from murder to polygamy and even spanking. It imposes a punishment of up to three years in prison—but only on faith leaders who espouse such views. Politicians and the average man on the street can espouse them all they want.

Why should Americans, who enjoy the protection of the First Amendment, care about any of this? Two reasons. First, the (flawed) rationale behind such limitations is increasingly accepted here. Second, the impetus to censor speech does not have a clear stopping point.

European limits on speech often are imposed in the name of social harmony. If you ban hate speech, you will stem the growth of racist hate, goes the idea. But that premise seems to be false.

As an article in Foreign Policy notes, "A new report from Germany's domestic intelligence agency shows not only that there were 500 more extreme-right entities in 2015 than in 2014, but also that there has been a 42 percent increase in violent acts by right-wing extremists over that same period. American NGO Human Rights First also documented a doubling of anti-Semitic hate crimes in France from 2014-2015. A recent report by two Norwegian researchers suggests that an environment where controversial expressions are filtered out may increase the risk of extremist violence."

This makes some intuitive sense. As Americans have just seen, resentment against political correctness played a role in elevating Donald Trump's campaign—and with it, a reactionary alt-right that is far more vocal and open about its tribal animosities than a year or two ago.

The second reason to be concerned is the manner in which the impulse to censor metastasizes over time. Nowhere is this more evident than on college campuses, where freedom of expression is often sharply curtailed by Draconian speech codes, designated "free speech zones," heckler vetoes of controversial speakers, and a willingness to take seriously complaints that ought to be laughed off the grounds.

When students at Emory University objected in March to chalk graffiti reading "Trump 2016," the school president met with the protesters and then sent an email about how the students had "heard a message, not about political process or candidate choice, but instead about values regarding diversity and respect that clash with Emory's own." So … they heard a message that challenged their values. And?

Last month, student groups at George Washington University issued a collective letter that reasoned as follows: (1) The Fraternal Order of Police union endorsed Trump. (2) "The FOP includes over 10,000 members in Washington D.C., many of which have jurisdiction over GW's campus." Therefore, (3) the use of campus security guards to protect the safety of GW students "is an act of violence, especially for Black students."

If you were to ask students like those whether the government should ban websites that "exert moral pressure" against abortion, what would they say? "Yes, of course," seems an entirely plausible answer.

Such assaults on freedom of expression are disturbing because they are not made for the sake of protecting some other right, such as the individual right to privacy. (Women have a right to abortion, but not a right to a world in which abortion is never criticized.) Rather, those who advocate such restrictions are willing to sacrifice a fundamental human right for the sake of far less compelling considerations, such as social harmony or the avoidance of hurt feelings.

A similar set of warped priorities drives many advocates of campaign-finance reform who excoriate the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United protecting political advertising. Those advocates are not merely willing but eager to subjugate an intrinsic and crucial human right for the sake of avoiding hypothetical and contingent threats to a synthetic political order. Some go so far as to complain that the First Amendment is a "straitjacket for our institutions of democratic governance," instead of what they think it should be—their handmaiden.

None of this is meant to deny that the right also sustains open hostilities against free expression. Reporters Without Borders says there has been "a deep and disturbing decline in respect for media freedom at both the global and regional levels."

In particular, press freedom in "Europe and the Balkans declined 6.5 percent, above all because of the growing influence of extremist movements and ultraconservative governments. The Central Asia/Eastern Europe region's already bad score deteriorated by 5 percent as a result of the increasingly glacial environment for media freedom and free speech in countries with authoritarian regimes."

Here in the U.S., members of the media have been properly alarmed by Donald Trump's various threats, explicit and implied, to "open up" libel laws so that he can "sue and win lots of money" when papers write "hit pieces" or "purposefully negative" articles. Mustn't be negative.

Late last month Trump proposed prison time for anyone who burns the flag. He could have been taking a page from Hillary Clinton, who did just the same back in 2005.

The argument for banning flag-burning is a simplistic and painfully familiar one: Burning the flag hurts people's feelings. Hypersensitive campus snowflakes—and French legislators—know it well.

This column originally appeared at the Richmond Times-Dispatch.

NEXT: Thanks to the 1,400 of You Who Contributed $187,000 to Reason's 2016 Webathon!

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. OT: I am in the middle of watching “Interstellar”. They have landed on a planet and are walking around in knee deep water. Gravity appears near-Earth normal. A giant wave (300 feet?) has just rushed upon them. The 300-foot wave did not break in 2 feet of water. I don’t think I can go on. Suggestions?

    1. It’s an ok film, nothing that I would watch a 2nd time.

      1. Back on our own planet for a moment, it is quite clear that the Europeans are right, and that we have taken the “free speech” baloney just a little too far in this country. Indeed, those of us who live on university campuses understand that there are certain boundaries of civility that must not be crossed, such as the line between light comedy and inappropriately deadpan “parody.” Indeed, I wager that even A. Barton Hinkle himself would agree, despite his huff and puff, that without these basic limits, academic culture would be threatened at its core. Who here would dare to defend the outrageous “First Amendment dissent” of a single, isolated judge in America’s leading criminal “satire” case? See the documentation at:

        https://raphaelgolbtrial.wordpress.com/

    2. Coffee, add baileys to taste and a half shot of Jamison

    3. Ignore that. It’s a good and interesting movie, and better than The Martian which everyone raved about.

      1. I liked The Martian, though the book was better.

    4. Spoiler alert: In the end Matthew McConaughey returns to an earth where the people devolved into apes. He arrives just in time to see the rise of Ape-olf Hitler.

      1. I thought it was orange orangutan of Hitler? Must have been drunk when I watched that.

      2. You are sooooo immature.

        1. Thank you for this interesting article. I have a presentation next week and I am looking for this information. The article has actually reached my interest for my website http://www.paisdelosjuegosfriv.com/
          I will put your site in bookmarks and I will come back to read new information.

    5. Thanks for the tip off. Good luck.

    6. Oh fuck. I’m at 1 hour : 37 min and Matt Damon just showed up. My decision is made for me. I’m outta here. Thanks for all your help.

      1. Don’t worry – he dies horribly. You WILL smile.

        1. Woodchipper?

          1. Vacuum-chipped.

      2. Dude, that’s the funniest part. As OM wrote, he does die horribly, which is even better.

        1. And he may-or-may-not be a stand-in for everyone’s favourite climate scientist named Mann.

      3. Matt Damon getting his comeuppance is one of the best parts of the movie. You quit too soon.

        Also, if you set aside the stupid water planet, the movie has a message which is quite different from a lot of the leftist crap that has dominated “harder” sci-fi movies for a while now.

        1. Yeah, I like how they embrace technology when Mother Earth lets them down.

          1. Paraphrased:

            “We used to have a machine called an MRI. And if we still had one of those, then my wife wouldn’t have died of cancer.”

            One of the best refutations of the quasi-naturalistic bullshit dominating so much left-wing thought nowadays.

    7. Re: Tom Bombadil,

      They have landed on a planet and are walking around in knee deep water. Gravity appears near-Earth normal.

      It’s actually 1.5G and they do feel it.

      A giant wave (300 feet?) has just rushed upon them. The 300-foot wave did not break in 2 feet of water.

      Remember that this planet is in orbit near Gargantua, which means tidal forces are much greater than what the Earth experiences with the moon and sun. So it is perfectly possible to have 300 ft waves hitting the same spot in… waves.

      Suggestions?

      I usually fast-forward all the scenes with Jessica Chastain because I care little for her Electra complex. The space scenes are much better.

      1. I didn’t have a problem with 300-foot waves. I had a problem with 300-foot waves that don’t break in 2 feet of water.

        1. If road runner / coyote physics bothers you then you probably shouldn’t be watching sci-fi movies.

          1. Yeah, I heard matthew mcconaughey was a surfer so I figured he’d know waves don’t work like that. Now I can’t trust his worm hole theories.

        2. The idea is that the black hole’s gravity is pulling the thin ocean upwards in a permanent bulge while the planet spins underneath. There is nothing for the wave to break on; it is permanent. Also why there is no surface above water- all elevated surfaces have been eroded into flatness.

          1. Now, look, I’ve fucked a million black holes, and they all meant something. We act like they don’t, but they do, and that’s what’s so fucking cool about them. There’s a sensuous thing going on where you don’t talk about it, but you know it, she knows it, fucking Marsellus knew it, and Antoine should have fucking better known better.

    8. Two words: Movie Physics.

      1. I read that as Monty Python.

        1. That works too.

    9. News alert: Movies sometimes take artistic license.

    10. It’s not breaking because it’s not a wave, it’s a tide.

      By analogy, consider Burntcoat Head, Nova Scotia. The mean distance between high tide and low tide is 38 feet.

      That’s a tide being caused by something the mass of the moon. Imagine what the tides caused by something the mass of a black hole would be like.

  2. Why should Americans, who enjoy the protection of the First Amendment, care about any of this?

    Because when leftists don’t like something (guns, healthcare, speech), they point to Europe as our betters?

    1. Yes, Europe is superior to the USA because we’d all be better off if there are fewer jobs, the personal income tax for people who do have jobs is around 50%, we get shitty nationalized healthcare, the wealth is a lot more unevenly concentrated in the hands of a few wealthy elitists, and we are ruled over by a gang of unelected bureaucrats building themselves palaces in Brussels while being exempted from the high income taxes.

      I’d like to see even one of the assholes going on about how great Europe is, to move there. But it’s not going to happen.

      1. Have you spent any time in Europe, or are you talking out your ass?

        1. I have, and it’s a wonderful place – to vacation.

          1. I worked 15 years in post-reunification Eastern Germany and found the place not bad at all. The migrant influx will probably screw it up forever, but it was OK once upon a time before the EU really began hosing the place. Also did business in Hungary, Czech Republic and Estonia, without finding any horrors there. England was the real shit hole.

            It always amuses me how much Americans know about Europe without having been there for more than a couple of weeks vacation.

            1. While I haven’t even the benefit of having vacationed there, it is my understanding that a lot has changed lately. Their economic policies used to be semi-sane but now they’ve decided to ride the social “justice”/welfare bandwagon hard (and not just w/r/t migrants).

              1. For example, they recently adopted a minimum wage (they had none before 2015) and are already going to raise it.

                1. Given that Eastern Germany is, again to my understanding, not as prosperous as Western Germany to this day (a lack of natural resources besides coal doesn’t help), said minimum wage (which is already above that of the U.S. and U.K. by exchange rates) is going to fuck them over much like the EPA regulations have done to the Rust Belt here in the U.S.

    2. I thought the US was a reboot of Europe. You know, like Europe v.2. All the sexy parts plus more land and freedoms.

      1. We are a nation founded by Religious Zealots and Treasure Seekers with a long tradition of smuggling and bitching about taxes.

        1. Which is why we’re so awesome.

        2. You forgot the part about enjoying copious amounts of alcohol.

          1. What do you think we were smuggling? Just tea?

            Come now, the Puritans stopped at Plymouth because they’d run out of Beer. Of course we’re brewers and boozers from the get-go.

            1. This is Reason. I thought all smuggling was by default human trafficking.

              All hail our Lord and Master, Al Cohol!

          2. And guns!

        3. And convicts, don’t forget the convicts. Everyone likes to rag on Australia for that but the reality is they started focusing on Oceania after the American Revolution ended their New World penal colonies.

        4. Also, much cooler when compared with France, which was founded because the Carolingians (and Louis I) didn’t practice primogeniture.

    3. The United States is the only industrialized nation that blah blah blah blah . . . .

  3. “Why should Americans, who enjoy the protection of the First Amendment, care about any of this?”

    Because the same anti-free speech legislation being passed or attempted in Europe, is also being attempted here. Hate speech is already an idea in America. The foot is in the door. It’s only matter of time unless the movement is completely rejected by Americans, before you see Congress trying to pass similar measures here. The left are the same everywhere. You absolutely cannot usher in a socialist utopia when people are allowed to openly express their opinions on every topic. Hate speech laws are a must for socialist utopia. For America, the path forward for the progressive left is this:

    1. Get rid of 2nd amendment.

    2. Get rid of 1st amendment.

    3. Start jailing people for expressing the wrong opinion.

    1. So much this. I sometimes think I’m not the only one taking crazy pills. I have to read these comments to realize I’m not alone (when all I want is to be left alone).

    2. Getting rid of those two amendments won’t allow Congress to pass laws restricting the rights mentioned in them. It’s a terrible misunderstanding that those amendments grant rights or prohibits Congress from doing things. The Constitution itself has to explicitly mention something for it to be within the domain of lawmakers. Speech or guns are not mentioned in such a way.

      From the pre-amble to the Bill of Rights (emphasis mine):

      THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution

  4. Last week the French National Assembly approved a plan by the Socialist government to outlaw pro-life websites

    We’re not just going to win the culture war, we’re going to kill everyone who disagrees with us. Because that’s how you really win a culture war.

    1. If only “pro-aborters” get abortions, isn’t that a bit suicidal for their cause?

      1. Why do you think they’re zealous proselytizers?

      2. Check the longitudinal polling for abortion, which shows a long-term decline in “pro-choice” identification, even though the “legal v illegal” question seems to be moving the other way.

        http://www.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx

        1. Maybe they’re being more honest about the logical extent of the term “choice”.

          1. Yeah, abortion is one thing, but you can’t just have people making choices willy-nilly all over the place.

          2. I wouldn’t consider myself pro-choice by any means. I think it is a brutal and immoral act.

            However, I don’t necessarily think the government should enforce it being illegal. Nor do I think it helps anything by making it illegal, more people just end up getting hurt. The best means to stop abortion is to convince people that it is brutal and immoral.

      3. Lamarck, where art though?

        1. thou

          edit. button.

    2. Well, with appropriate testing they can make sure not to abort and anyone who is capable of becoming Sovetskiy muzhskoy.
      You can’t have a master race without masters …

      1. Why did you resign?

        1. I will not make any deals with you.

          I’ve resigned.

          I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered.

          My life is my own.

          1. HAHAHAHAHAHA!

            /New Number 2

    3. They tried it in the Vendee a couple hundred years ago. It turns out that, despite their best efforts, they left too many of those crimethinkers alive.

  5. “What we need is fair speech, smart speech!”

    “We let free speech sort things out and America has been losing!”

    1. The first amendment is great, no one wants to take your first amendment, but we have to have ‘common sense’ speech control.

      1. Papers, please.

        1. This almost 2016, it’s going to be RFID chip, please.

          1. Like they’re going to say please.

          2. Bar code tattoos on your forehead is more like it!

            1. They also have the option of having it on their hand. Says so right in Revelation 13:16-17.

            2. You’re name has QR in it, and you’re thinking bar codes?

      2. “If you like free speech, you will be able to keep your free speech. If you like your civil liberties, you will be able to KEEP your civil liberties.”

        1. In your head. You can keep it there until we come for that too.

  6. People say “hate speech incites violence”. In fact quite the opposite: hate speech LAWS incite violence. Why? Because first of all putting people in jail for hate speech gives them time to self-radicalize (e.g. top Nazi propagandists were radicalized under Weimar ‘blasphemy’ laws originally intended to prevent the ‘blood libel’) and secondly it results in extra-judicial enforcement: “If the state won’t protect us from hate speech, then we are justified to attack.” And yes, terrorist organizations literally use this justification in France.

    Which of course explains why Ellison and Schumer support anti-BDS laws – they are the first nicks in the armor.

    Which of course is why the founders embedded freedom of speech and religion in the First Amendment – they understood all too well how these ‘well-intentioned’ policies lead to witch hunts and wars.

    (The more you know.)

    Jill Stein approves this message.

  7. How are my little anarcho-frankentrumkensteins doing this fine morning?

  8. Why is this so surprising? People who currently live in Europe are descendants of people who had no problem being ruled by their betters.

    1. Truth.

  9. How will we know when ‘Reason’ finally goes fully left and starts censoring our comments? Who will be the first to disappear? And why? Discuss.

    1. I expect to be among the group that disappears early for three reasons:

      1) I don’t post as often as some around here, so I won’t be missed right away. That goes a long way to allaying suspicions.

      2) As a Latino cis-het man of color, or “hombre colorado,” who fits neither into the left- or the right-wing camps and detests both sides nearly equally, I have few natural allies.

      3) I often post things tongue-in-cheek and rarely attack anyone here directly. According to the idea that you can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar, this makes people like me more dangerous than the more strident and prickly folks around here.

      1. No, you’ll be fine because of number 2. With that hair and complexion, you can pass for any number of different ethnic groups. Nobody can hear your accent, so just adopt a more accepted group when they come for you.

    2. Man, if we could only find a way to make AdditionMyth disappear………

      1. Tell him there is some physical work that needs done. Lol

      2. Maybe just add SubtractionMyth.

    3. I am a God and usually find myself at the top of the “banish” list.

      1. THIS is why ye DESERVE to be banished!!!!

        Gozer the Traveller! He will come in one of the pre-chosen forms. During the rectification of the Vuldronaii, the Traveller came as a large and moving Torb! Then, during the third reconciliation of the last of the Meketrex Supplicants they chose a new form for him–that of a Giant Sloar! Many Shubs and Zulls knew what it was to be roasted in the depths of the Sloar that day, I can tell you.

        1. Ah, good times, good times…

        2. I have learn some excellent stuff here. Definitely value bookmarking for revisiting. I surprise how so much effort you place to create any such wonderful informative website.
          http://www.juegosfriv2020.link/
          Bookmarked this website page, will come back for new articles. Thanks!

    4. Should we wait for the squirrels to chime in? I’m sure they’ll have the first whiff of foul play.

  10. When you can claim moral superiority of your beliefs, then why wouldn’t you want everyone to share those? Do you not in fact have a moral obligation to do everything possible to make certain everyone possesses those same beliefs? Even if it hurts them in the process?

    This is nothing new of course; just consider how Western colonizers treated the native Americans, or Africans, or Asians, in their wake of conquest. Racial superiority, manifest destiny, and the “white man’s burden” come to mind. Of course Westerners weren’t the first to ply this, as one group has been intent on undoing another since Cain whacked Abel.

    I think we are in a similar space on an ideological plane, with progressives who envision a world in which no one but their designated enemies can be offended, and that would include anyone who thinks things like liberty and free speech takes precedence over conformity. Europe is just a little further along this path of specious enlightenment, and from everything from speech codes to health care and gun control is often cited as an example of how “we can do better than this.”

    Clear and present danger, in our midst.

    1. “When you can claim moral superiority of your beliefs, then why wouldn’t you want everyone to share those? ”

      Yes, yes, YES!!! NOW you understand! That’s why you need to join MEEE in MY Moral Superiority as a Scienfoologist! Please join MEEE in Scienfoology, and then ye will see even BETTER! To learn more about Scienfoology, please see http://www.churchofSQRLS.com ?

  11. The U.S. has a major opportunity. . .if it’s willing to buck the trend and opt for a freer society with a smaller government.

    1. The US just had that opportunity, and it opted for ‘pretty much more of the same’, didn’t it?

      1. Probably, but the rest of the world seems dead set on letting us get our act together.

    2. Sign me up.

      But virtually all progressives, the majority of liberals, and a lot of Democrats will tell you this will not work; there are just too many victims in our midst to ever allow for such a free society in which they would lack adequate protection. And there will be victims, be it based on gender, race, lifestyle, orientation or preference, of whom libertarians and conservatives in general are the designated enemy.

      Why do you think they like victims so much in the first place? It gives them reason and justification to steam roll their agenda toward what I have often heard described as a “better, safer, and more fair society.” They really do buy this bullshit whole hog, and universities are the petri dish in which it is being incubated for dissemination of epidemic proportions.

      1. I’m wondering whether the left’s (and the media’s) shtick is finally wearing out.

        1. It may well be on the wane, but there’s a lot of momentum still there.

          We still need to nuke it from orbit.

        2. Nah. Never underestimate the slow progression that they go for. They are fine with slow shifts, no matter how small the movement. Their sole goal is to make tiny manipulations that over time add up. There is less resistance to change that way.

  12. People simply aren’t interested in the truth. Which ironically makes it easy to identify – just look for whatever triggered people to shout: “Idiot! Insane! Liar! In denial! Infidel! TROLL!”

    1. Autistic! Schizophrenic! Narcissist! Drug addict! Get help! Don’t feed the troll!

      I’m Jill Stein, and I approve this message.

    2. It used to be, the Truth was backed up by indisputable facts. So provide me those facts, and I’ll believe your truth. Until then, it’s just opinion.

      1. Actually that is progress. Keep up the good work.

    3. Is this like the crazy guy yelling at everyone else that they are the crazy ones?

      1. I don’t post often. Mostly copy and paste a Reason article and comments into Notepad and read it throughout the day while my SQL runs. By the time I read a Tony, AmSoc or AddictionMyth comment, it’s way to late to respond.

        Today I just had to find out if this guy was really interested in truth or just posting to get attention. Since no truth / facts have been posted, I’ll assume the latter.

        1. “He just wants attention!”

          Sorry I forgot that one. Any others?

          1. If attention is not your reason for posting here, do you want to engage in a civil conversation about truth and facts?

            I only know you from a few posts I’ve read. I did not call you names or insult you in any way. I have family members who repeat leftist talking points, but don’t have facts to back them up. I learn nothing from talking to them. I was hoping to learn from you just what the “end goal” is for the progressive movement.

              1. Is that some website or magazine? That’s not what I asked for. I wanted YOU to engage in some honest conversation.

                Speak the truth, back it up with facts, and I’ll listen and respond. But reading further down the thread, I see some pretty immature comments from you which have convinced me that you’re not interested in that.

                Have a nice day.

                1. It’s an old-folks dating site. He thinks he’s being cute.

                2. At least he answered the question, albeit in a backhanded and dick head way.

  13. People say: “The purpose of free speech is to promote the free exchange of ideas so the truth can be shared.” Not quite. The real purpose is so that people don’t have an easy excuse to kill the people who speak the truth.

    Now, you might think – “people don’t need a good reason to kill”. In fact this is the ‘supervillian delusion’ popularized by Stan Lee. Actually they do – and the increasingly convoluted and absurd and self-contradictory manifestos coming out these days proves it.

  14. “Last week the French National Assembly approved a plan by the Socialist government to outlaw pro-life websites. The proposal goes far beyond consumer-protection efforts; it prohibits sites based on point of view.”

    France is in a strange position right now.

    There will be an election in France for President in April, and no one on the left is any kind of threat. The election will be between Fillon, who’s like Margaret Thatcher, and the National Front’s Le Pen–who’s anti-immigrant like LoneWacko was anti-immigrant only more so. The Socialists aren’t even in contention. They won’t make a run off.

    Whatever they French get for President come April, it’ll be someone from the right.

    Meanwhile, the Socialists hold 295 out of 577 seats in the National Assembly–and the legislative election is in June. There’s nothing left for them to do but make trouble. They’re dead enders. They’re over.

    Imagine if both houses of Congress here in the U.S. were currently Democrats. But the next President would be Republican, and the Democrats had already lost their majority come in Congress come January. What would the Democrats do?

    They’d do every nasty thing they could possibly think of before they lose power in a few weeks. And that’s what’s happening in France.

    “Woe to the inhabiters of the earth and of the sea!
    For the Devil is come down unto you, having great wrath,
    because he knoweth that he hath but a short time.”

    —-KJV, Revelation 12:12

  15. Basic manifesto structure:

    The American/German people are superior/innocent but they are also stupid/lazy/corrupt, and therefore they are easily exploited/manipulated/undermined by Russian/Jewish/Muslim/Clown propaganda.

    Therefore we must aggressively attack and kill the Russians/Jews/Muslims/Clowns.

    (Yes, it’s really that simple.)

    1. Hey, it’s either us, or the Clowns. And I know which side I’m on.

      1. But I don’t know which side you’re on. There are clowns hiding among us, everywhere, just not wearing their makeup.

        1. The Clown Sleeper Agents are penetrating into every level of our society.

  16. Didn’t Obama tell us after the Benghazi disaster that we needed to bring our ideas about free speech more in line with those of europe? Constitutional scholar, my ass.

    Everyone who voted for that sack of shit should stab themselves in the eye with a rusty fork / nail / knife or whatever other rusty semi sharp metal object is handy right now.

    1. I was hoping they would stab themselves in the genitals. Blind people can still reproduce.

  17. Orwell was absolutely right about Newspeak, and now it’s all about ‘terror’. Usually the right’s only answer to terrorism is killing those believed responsible. Simple, straightforward, sometimes right and sometimes wrong. The left wages war on our dictionaries, on discourse, on our very minds.

    Look at how they’ve managed to merge identity politics with all of this. No longer is someone who is saying something terrible just a bad person. Say something about radical Islam and you’re not just an Islamophobe anymore; you’re trying to make Muslims fear you, and if they fear you, you’re a terrorist. The same pattern is copied over to every other “marginalized” group. The message is now: fear everyone who is not left of center.

    If you disagree with government and bear arms at your protest, you’re now a terrorist. Schools in the area shut down, sending the message to kids that a gun within a fifty miles of them is a threat and someone saying incendiary things to the government is guilty of treason. A seditionist is now a terrorist for promising to defend oneself from attacks while protesting.

    We now engage them with their terminology of choice and ground is lost. Every time we use their term “assault weapon” for an ordinary rifle, we cede ground. They smile smugly and point to dictionaries they control, tell us to get with the times, that we’re prescriptivists, which really ought to be defined as “people who resist Newspeak.”

    1. “Hate group” is the old term. Now hate groups use “hate speech” and hate speech causes “fear.” Fear is the tool of a “terrorist” and thus, we can connect all the dots and say we must shut down “hate groups” for using speech we don’t like.

      The war on free speech is being waged alright, but it’s being waged in an insidious manner: by changing language so that the Constitution looks like it no longer applies. It’s done through education, one generation of children at a time.

      1. Part of me is saying this comment is some crazy meth-yarn collage conspiracy stuff, and part of me is like, “yeah, yeah, I see this shit all the time.” But for years now it’s been slipping towards, the latter.

  18. France has become an anti-freedom banana republic right before our eyes.

    What a tired, shitty country it has become. It’s like they’re just giving up on the work it takes to keep a country free. They’re the equivalent of the person who, unshaven, wears jogging pants to a dinner evening.

      1. That is soooo last century.

        1. You’re right, we should have freed them from Napoleon, too.

          1. But then we wouldn’t have been able to sell supplies to both sides.

            1. +1 for free market economy!

  19. I’m running on a platform to abolish safe spaces for trolls. Can I count on your vote?

    Jill Stein approves this message.

  20. So you’re telling me that in countries with restrictive speech laws, white nationalism is an even bigger movement? No way, Europe is perfect and we should be just like Europe, but no I’m not moving there

  21. How does an entity like the FCC continue to exist??

    Years ago Fresh Air (Terry Gross’ radio show) got in trouble for saying the word ‘flunk’ or ‘funk’ and one of the Stasi rats listening to the broadcast claimed it said ‘fuck’ and the show got in trouble for it even after they determined that nothing was said. The local radio stations continue to bring up that incident for their continued heavy-handed editing of bad words being broadcast over the air.

    Whore. Ass. Pubic hair(!).

  22. Kind of surprised there was no mention of Geert Wilders, convicted by a Dutch court three days ago for incitement. This might just push him into the Prime Minister (or whatever the hell they have) position. People are becoming so sick of this shit that it’s becoming a net positive.

    1. The wave of Muslim immigration is just a disaster. A horrible idea that was mismanaged. In much of western Europe just pointing this out is considered a hate crime.

  23. The muslim bandit mask is freedom of speech? I don’t think so. I see it as an attempt by muslims to impose their barbaric values on a western host society.

  24. The wearing of the Hijab, Burkha, or the full veil, is accepting the enslavement of the lie of Islam!

  25. Brianna. true that Kathryn`s st0rry is impressive… I just received themselves a Jaguar E-type from bringing in $5324 recently and-over, ten-k this past-munth. it’s definitly the coolest work Ive ever done. I started this 3 months ago and straight away started to bring home minimum $81.. per/hr. straight from the source

    ==============> http://www.homejobs7.com

  26. Liam. I agree that Carl`s bl0g is cool… I just got a great new Honda since getting a cheque for $9458 thiss month and just a little over 10/k this past-munth. without a doubt its the most financially rewarding I’ve ever had. I started this six months/ago and almost immediately started earning at least $75, per hour. go now

    =====================> http://www.homejobs7.com

  27. when i looked at the figure of 14786 dollars .Than I have no other choice but to accept , what i saw .They have been doing this for a year and get rid of their debts.. Yesterday they purchased new Aston Martin ?
    visit This Site.
    +_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+ http://www.homejobs7.com

  28. Elizabeth. true that Janice`s comment is unimaginable… last saturday I got a top of the range Mazda MX-5 since I been bringin in $9155 this last 5 weeks and-just over, 10k this past month. it’s certainly the most-financialy rewarding I’ve ever had. I began this 10-months ago and almost straight away got at least $69, per-hr. browse this site

    =======================> http://www.homejobs7.com

  29. Facebook gives you a great opportunity to earn 98652$ at your home.If you are some intelligent you makemany more Dollars.I am also earning many more, my relatives wondered to see how i settle my Life in few days thank GOD to you for this…You can also make cash i never tell alie you should check this I am sure you shocked to see this amazing offer…I’m Loving it!!!!
    ????????> http://www.homejobs7.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.