What ‘Community Standards’?

Image result for images of censoring conservatives

Censorship time! Who’s next?

Conservatives and other non-leftids are frequently censored or banned on the social media, with Facebook and Youtube among the chief offenders. The reason usually given is that someone’s speech “violates community standards.”

But what are those “community standards” (https://www.facebook.com/communitystandards/objectionable_content)? My trouble is, I can’t figure out what “community” they’re talking about.

Facebook’s biggest candidates for censorship are “hate speech” and “bullying.” They define hate speech as any speech that “may promote violence,” especially when directed against those who are blessed with “protected characteristics”–race, ethnicity, national origin, religious affiliation, sexual orientation, caste, sex, gender, gender identification (a man insisting he’s a woman, or vice versa)–and anything that “calls for exclusion”–and I don’t know what they mean by “exclusion”–“or separation.”

They combat exclusion by excluding everybody whose opinions they don’t like–sort of like the way “diversity” turns out to be everyone having exactly the same opinion.

If they were serious about protecting “race,” etc., most of our colleges and looniversities would be banned for spewing out hatred of white people, heterosexual males, and blaming white people for every single problem in the world. The social media do not ban anti-white speech; therefor they are not serious about protecting “race.”

There is a rather large community standard, for instance, shared by most of the human race for most of history, that marriage consists of a man and a woman. Has anyone ever been banned from social media for violating that community standard? This is, moreover, a religious standard: but do the social media ban attacks on that widely-held religious standard? Honk if you’ve ever seen them do so.

The social media aspire to serving some universal “community,” which they seem to want to do by sorting everybody into a multitude of much smaller communities. Are we safe in saying that that aspiration is total humbug? That there really is no such thing as a global community? That free speech, freely practiced, cannot possibly please bloody everybody? That free speech, freely practiced, cannot possibly help but offend somebody, somewhere?

Yeah, I think we’re safe in saying that.

Because the standard to which they aspire is impossible to attain, the social media have nothing left but an ad hoc approach to deciding what speech they will permit. And because we never see “liberal” or “progressive” speech banned or censored, we’re forced to conclude that these media have an intractably left-wing bias.

It would be nice if they controlled it better.

My Newswithviews Column, Aug. 23 (‘Internet Censorship: Running Wild’)

Image result for images of censorship

Since I wrote this, a reader, “John Jr.,” has alerted me to some further information about WordPress deciding to ban Fellowship of the Minds. This argues that WordPress succumbed to heavy pressure from the fake news giant, The New York Times. I haven’t had time to check that.


Leftids don’t believe in free speech. The only freedoms they believe in are bogus “rights” invented just the other day: the “right” to enjoy any kind of fornication that your heart desires, the right to sponge off normal people, and the right to silence anyone who isn’t you.

My Newswithviews Column, Feb. 15 (‘Second Thoughts About Free Speech’)

In any dealings one might have with leftids, always remember one thing: it’s all about projection. Whatever they damn anybody else for doing, they themselves are doing it. It’s always projection.

No one outdoes the Left in America for racism, hate speech, bitterness, mean-mindedness, or pure insanity. No one even comes close.


Article Asks, ‘Is America Having Second Thoughts About Free Speech?’

See the source image

From The Week, Feb. 12, by Damon Linker–who is against the government putting restrictions on free speech, but can’t help seeing a disturbing trend in that direction (http://theweek.com/articles/753274/america-having-second-thoughts-about-free-speech).

Who can deny it? But to his argument I would like to add the observation that the proposed limitations on speech are mostly coming at us from the Hard Left/Democrat Party–while they themselves enjoy absolute freedom to say and publish anything they want, no matter how wrong, how vicious, how inane, how jejune, how childish, how spiteful, or how mean-spirited it might be.

We Christians and our friends are expected to just suck it up, yum yum, when we hear collidge prefessers and other pinheads declare that everything we hold dear and sacred is evil and stupid, white people are responsible for all the ills of the world and must be punished for it, every “value” in play before 1990 is wrong and must be erased along with the people who hold to them, America is a racist sexist stinking country and must be punished, only black lives matter, yours don’t–and on and on and on, no end to it. The past eight years have been especially trying.

Democrats, with a straight face, propose that people be “investigated” for the Crime of Climate Change Denial. What would they say if Republican Senators huddled with a Republican attorney general and discussed RICO sanctions against persons who had committed the Crime of Climate Change Affirmation–and made that a plank in their national party platform? Think they’d be upset? Think they’d invoke their First Amendment rights?

We are expected to listen to them, or at least not try to shut them down. Let’s make that a two-way street, shall we? See, we already have a frightfully good idea of what government restrictions on free speech would look like. The Democrats and their colleges have shown it to us.

A lot of this problem would go away if the government would stop funding universities. And we would be a better country for it.

Don’t Compel the Jerks to Stand

Image result for images of kneeling football players

In our email today was an invitation to sign a petition to compel players and fans at football games to stand for the National Anthem. I will always stand for the National Anthem; but, believe it or not, I really don’t like the idea of forcing any other adult to do it.

The jerks in football kneel instead of stand because they want to “protest” what a no-good lousy country America is. They want to show contempt for my country–and, I suppose, theirs, too–fine. I can then show my contempt for their idiotic protest by not watching their idiotic game. Who wants to be nagged for three hours by a bunch of Far Left fat-heads in the ESPN broadcast booth, anyway?

Freedom of speech really must include the freedom not to speak. We have the Pentagon forcing military officers, under threat of the destruction of their careers, to “affirm” unholy same-sex parodies of marriage. Forcing people to say things that are repugnant to their consciences. This is not free speech. There’s something kind of Red China about it.

Maybe forcing these dolts to stand for the anthem might make them think, “Hey, this is what Christians feel like when they’re forced to say they approve of gay marriage!” But I think the chances of that happening approach zero, statistically.

Turning off the games sends a much clearer message that even a millionaire moron in shoulder pads ought to be able to understand.

Endangered Species: Free Speech


So explain how this float in a German parade doesn’t violate the German law against making fun of a foreign head of state…I mean, it looks like he’s trying to artificially inseminate a camel…

Yesterday it was Bill Nye the Science Guy wanting to put people in jail for not believing in Global Warming.

Today, look at Germany, where head honcho Angela Merkel continues her quest to appease the Death to the Infidels wing of Islam by authorizing the prosecution of a German TV comedian who made fun of Turkish President Biff (or whatever his name is: who cares?) Erdogan ( http://dailycaller.com/2016/04/15/germans-to-prosecute-comedian-for-doing-comedy-in-germany/ ).

Would you believe it? Way back in 1871, under good ol’ Kaiser Wilhelm, Germany enacted a law making it a criminal offense to disparage or make fun of a foreign head of state. They gave up the spiked helmets, but kept that.

You may have noticed that nobody in Germany ever got thrown in the clink for making fun of George W. Bush. They have a lot of laughs at Obama’s expense, too–big time.

Maybe the difference is that Erdogan complained about it and the American presidents didn’t. Probably Obama never knew about that German law, or else he would’ve said something about the way they depict him in parades.

Why would a Western leader bend over backwards to coddle a Third World dictator?

Because all the leaders of the West are Third World dictator wannabes.

So, everybody–enjoy your free speech while you’ve got it. They don’t mean for you to have it much longer.

Emory Students Freak Out Over “Trump 2016” Scrawled on Sidewalk

Emory University, kind of a prestige school, has responded to a dire emergency by coming up with a new “campus chalking policy” regulating what students may or may not scribble on the sidewalk with a piece of chalk ( http://www.dcclothesline.com/2016/03/24/college-students-cry-and-call-for-a-safe-space-because-someone-chalked-trump-2016-on-a-sidewalk/ ). From now on, any little message chalked onto any temporary surface will have to be “pre-approved” by university bigwigs.

Yes–someone chalked “Trump 2016” on the sidewalk and the students went all to pieces over it. “I’m supposed to feel comfortable and safe here… I don’t deserve to feel afraid at my school,” whined one of the precious little flowers.

Gee–think they would’ve freaked out if the slogan was “Bernie 2016”?

I am at a loss to explain how so many of America’s young people could have been turned into blubbering crybabies in so little time. Donald Trump, they’re afraid of. Imposing a Stalinist chill on free speech, they’re not afraid of. Can it possibly be that these students–a word with increasingly negative connotations–really want to live in a world in which all opinions but their own are forcibly suppressed?

Let’s face it–there are too many colleges in America, too many professors teaching useless pseudo-subjects, and way too many confused young air-heads “studying” them.

This is not going to turn out well for America.

Cornell Profs: ‘Hire No Republicans’

If you’re spending big bucks to send your kid to college, you ought to know what you’re getting for it.

Professors at Cornell University have called for the school to make it a policy not to hire Republicans ( http://insider.foxnews.com/2015/10/18/cornell-professor-hiring-republicans-would-decrease-quality-faculty ). The Cornell faculty is already 96 percent Democrat, so it would not seem the university is hiring a lot of Republicans.

But in the interests of Diversity, that nagging 4 percent must be weeded out.

An English prof and a Poli Sci prof say there shouldn’t be any Republicans teaching at Cornell because Republicans are “anti-science.” That means they don’t believe in Global Warming.

Someone out there keeps guffawing at the idea of an English professor deciding what ought to be the standards for professors of the various sciences.  Actually, almost anything that almost any English professor has to say is funny.

In these hatcheries of Stalinism, the colleges and universities of the Western world, uniformity of thought–“Diversity”–is highly prized and much sought-after. As the Cornell profs observe, where is the university obligated to trot out every inane and ridiculous point of view? It’s all they can do just to keep on presenting the one inane and ridiculous point of view every single day.

My old alma mater, Rutgers, comes right out in its student guide and says there’s no such thing as free speech, so you’d better watch what you say.

College and university–the perfect tool for making small minds even smaller.

Perverting the Law

Remember when the law told you what you couldn’t do? So as long as you didn’t do this or didn’t do that, you were free.

Well, today’s new doctrine is: now the law is going to tell you what you must do. You must buy health insurance. You must take an active part in a homosexual “wedding” if they demand it of you.

And, under a law now pending in the California legislature, if you run or work at a pro-life counseling center… you must tell every woman who comes to you where to go to get an abortion. ( http://thekingdomdrivenfamily.com/2015/09/08/if-you-cant-win-cheat/#more-1469 )

As “progressives” rally to defend and promote the abortion industry, and sweep under the rug all those unpleasant videos of Planned Parenthood selling baby parts, they also continue their assault on free speech and the First Amendment.

How is it even remotely compatible with the First Amendment to the Constitution, for the government to tell you what you must say?

The bill even includes this bizarre text: “… there are nearly 200 licensed and unlicensed clinics known as crisis pregnancy centers (CPCs) in California whose goal is to interfere with women’s ability to be fully informed and exercise their reproductive rights…” (“reproductive rights” is lib-speak for killing the baby). Here the legislature is taking sides against the pro-life counselors, in favor of abortion providers–you know, people who kill babies for a living.

Note there is to be no requirement that Planned Parenthood or any other abortion facility be required to tell women where to go to get pro-life counseling. It’s very much a one-way street.

These are the things that are done to us when the rulers lose all fear of the electorate.

The Folly of Mohammed-Mocking

Do we even know what “freedom of speech” is, anymore?

Happily no one was killed at last night’s “Draw Mohammed” contest in Phoenix. There are a lot of angry people on hand, but there were also a lot of police who were ready to deal with any trouble. You will remember that, when they had a “Draw Mohammed” in Houston, people got shot.

Current events are confusing me. Apparently “freedom of speech” means you have an absolute right to insult religious people and mock their beliefs–something which Christians in America have known for quite some time, and Muslims are just finding out.

But apparently it also means that if you are a religious person, especially if you are a Christian, you may be forced to say and do things that are an outrage to your conscience: to take an active part, for instance, in a same-sex parody of marriage.

It seems to mean that a religious person, especially a Christian, must tamely put up with speech that seeks to refute his beliefs. But at the same time, no atheist has to tolerate seeing or hearing any kind of religious expression. One atheist can stifle a whole town’s prayers.

You can see how it gets confusing.

I don’t think much of Draw Mohammed contests. Other than to provoke Muslims to violence, what’s the point?

If it’s “to exercise free speech,” then it seems to be the kind of free speech exercised by Caliban, the monster in Shakespeare’s The Tempest: all he knew how to do was curse.

As a Christian, I naturally don’t believe in Islam. As a civilized human being, I hate the savagery practiced by Muslims all over the Middle East and Africa.

But is the only use of free speech to curse at things which others hold sacred? Is that all we know how to do with our freedom?

St. Paul preached to pagans. Did he ever try to convert them by telling dirty jokes about their gods? “So Zeus comes home drunk one night, and Hera’s waiting for him with a rolling pin…” No, he did not. Indeed, he cited their own poets in support of his Christian teaching, in his sermon to the sophomoric pagans of Athens (see Acts 17). Mockery was not found in Paul’s evangelistic tool kit.

If Muslims will make war, it’s righteous to make war right back at them, and defeat them–which the West could easily do, if the leaders had the stomach for it. If they will commit acts of violence against their neighbors, it’s righteous to punish them severely–whatever it takes to ensure the domestic tranquility.

But if they will live in peace, then Christians most certainly ought to live in peace with them. We do our Lord Jesus Christ no service by joining the Caliban crowd in gratuitously offending Muslims.

“Hey, guys! Now you know how we feel, when they hand over our tax dollars to some cockroach whose ‘art’ is to dunk a crucifix in urine! Now you know exactly how we feel.”

It’s what the ungodly do. It’s not what we should do.