John & Nisha Whitehead
“If freedom of speech is taken away, then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.”
What the police state wants is a silent, compliant, oblivious citizenry. What the First Amendment affirms is an engaged citizenry that speaks truth to power using whatever peaceful means are available to us.
Speaking one’s truth doesn’t have to be the same for each person, and that truth doesn’t have to be palatable or pleasant or even factual.
We can be loud.
We can be obnoxious.
We can be politically incorrect.
We can be conspiratorial or mean or offensive.
We can be all these things because the First Amendment takes a broad, classically liberal approach to the free speech rights of the citizenry: in a nutshell, the government may not encroach or limit the citizenry’s right to freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly and protest.
This is why the First Amendment is so critical.
It gives the citizenry the right to speak freely, protest peacefully, expose government wrongdoing, and criticize the government without fear of retaliation, arrest or incarceration.
Nowhere in the First Amendment does it permit the government to limit speech in order to avoid causing offense, hurting someone’s feelings, safeguarding government secrets, protecting government officials, discouraging bullying, penalizing hateful ideas and actions, eliminating terrorism, combatting prejudice and intolerance, and the like.
When expressive activity crosses the line into violence, free speech protections end.
However, barring actual violence or true threats of violence, there is a vast difference between speech that is socially unpopular and speech that is illegal, and it’s an important distinction that depends on our commitment to safeguarding a robust First Amendment.
Increasingly, however, the courts and the government are doing away with that critical distinction, adopting the mindset that speech is only permissible if it does not offend, irritate, annoy, threaten someone’s peace of mind, or challenge the government’s stranglehold on power.
Take the case of Counterman v. Colorado which is before the U.S. Supreme Court.
Under the pretext of clamping down on online stalking, Colorado wants the power to be able to treat expressive activities on social media as threats without having to prove that the messages are both reasonably understood as threatening an illegal act and intended by the speaker as a threat.
While protecting people from stalking is certainly a valid concern and may be warranted in this particular case, the law does not require speech to be a “true threat” in order to be criminally punished. The Supreme Court has defined a “true threat” as:
statements where the speaker means to communicate a serious expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence to a particular individual or group of individuals.”
Indeed, Colorado’s stalking law is so broad that a person can be charged with stalking for repeatedly contacting, surveilling or communicating with an individual in such a way that a reasonable person would feel serious emotional distress.
In the absence of any substantive guidelines on what constitutes a true threat on social media, such laws could empower the government to misinterpret any speaker’s intent and meaning in order to criminalize legitimate political speech that is critical of government officials and representatives.
Case in point: in Oklahoma, a street preacher who expressed his moral outrage over public drag queen performances that occur in front of children and churches that endorse same-sex marriage was given a five-year restraining order and threatened with arrest after citing Bible verses on social media about God’s judgment of sin.
The Rutherford Institute has taken on the case, warning that the ramifications of it going unchallenged could render anyone who quotes the Bible a criminal if it makes a listener feel unsafe or threatened or judged.
This is what it means to criminalize free speech: it turns those who exercise their free speech rights into criminals.
This criminalization of free speech, which is exactly what the government’s prosecution of those who say the “wrong” thing using an electronic medium amounts to, was at the heart of Elonis v. United States, a case that wrestled with where the government can draw the line when it comes to expressive speech that is protected and permissible versus speech that could be interpreted as connoting a criminal intent.
The case arose after Anthony Elonis, an aspiring rap artist, used personal material from his life as source material and inspiration for rap lyrics which he then shared on Facebook.
For instance, shortly after Elonis’ wife left him and he was fired from his job, his lyrics included references to killing his ex-wife, shooting a classroom of kindergarten children, and blowing up an FBI agent who had opened an investigation into his postings.
Despite the fact that Elonis routinely accompanied his Facebook posts with disclaimers that his lyrics were fictitious, and that he was using such writings as an outlet for his frustrations, he was charged with making unlawful threats (although it was never proven that he intended to threaten anyone) and sentenced to 44 months in jail.
The question the U.S. Supreme Court was asked to decide in Elonis was whether his activity, in the absence of any overt intention of committing a crime, rose to the level of a “true threat” or whether it was protected First Amendment activity.
In an 8-1 decision that concerned itself more with “criminal-law principles concerning intent rather than the First Amendment’s protection of free speech,” the Court ruled that prosecutors had not proven that Elonis intended to harm anyone beyond the words he used and context.
That was back in 2015.
Despite the Supreme Court’s ruling in Elonis, Corporate America has taken the lead in policing expressive activity online, with social media giants such as Facebook, Twitter and YouTube using their formidable dominance in the field to censor, penalize and regulate speech and behavior online by suspending and/or banning users whose content violated the companies’ so-called community standards for obscenity, violence, hate speech, discrimination, conspiracy theories, etc.
The fallout is as one would expect.
The internet has become a forum for the government—and its corporate partners—to monitor, control and punish the populace for speech that may be controversial but is far from criminal.
Everything is now fair game for censorship if it can be construed as hateful, hurtful, bigoted or offensive provided that it runs counter to the established viewpoint.
In this way, the most controversial issues of our day—race, religion, sex, sexuality, politics, science, health, government corruption, police brutality, etc.—have become battlegrounds for those who claim to believe in freedom (of religion, speech, assembly, press, redress, privacy, bodily integrity, etc.) but only when it favors the views and positions they support.
In more and more cases, the government is declaring war on what should be protected political speech whenever it challenges the government’s power, reveals the government’s corruption, exposes the government’s lies, and encourages the citizenry to push back against the government’s many injustices.
Indeed, there is a long and growing list of the kinds of speech that the government considers dangerous enough to red flag and subject to censorship, surveillance, investigation and prosecution: hate speech, conspiratorial speech, treasonous speech, threatening speech, inflammatory speech, radical speech, anti-government speech, extremist speech, etc.
In recent years, the government has used the phrase “domestic terrorist” interchangeably with “anti-government,” “extremist” and “terrorist” to describe anyone who might fall somewhere on a very broad spectrum of viewpoints that could be considered “dangerous.”
As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People and in its fictional counterpart The Erik Blair Diaries, the ramifications are so far-reaching as to render almost every American an extremist in word, deed, thought or by association.
You see, the government doesn’t care if you or someone you know has a legitimate grievance. It doesn’t care if your criticisms are well-founded. And it certainly doesn’t care if you have a First Amendment right to speak truth to power.
It just wants you to shut up.
Yet no matter what one’s political persuasion might be, the right to disagree with and speak out against the government is the quintessential freedom. When exercised regularly and defended vigorously, these First Amendment rights serve as a bulwark against tyranny.
Originally published by The Rutherford Institute
Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. His book Battlefield America: The War on the American People (SelectBooks, 2015) is available online at www.amazon.com. Whitehead can be contacted at [email protected]
For direct-transfer bank details click here.
We’re raised in schools and work in jobs for an obscene amount of our lives where silent submission to whatever lies authoritarians tell us is expected – or else. If we’re to have real freedom of speech, it might be best to begin by freeing ourselves from speech enforced by those responsible for our management and maintenance as human resources in psychopathic social systems. But if we’re to descend further into doublethink at this stage of devolution into free speech zones and safe spaces for the Ministry of Truth to propagate the faith in science and technocracy, it will largely be due to prior conditioning under the capitalist rule now threatening final solutions to class war.
Conditioning like that of founding fathers fighting for freedom, rather than counter-revolutionary home rule by propertied elites like Washington, slaveowner of black skins and town destroyer of native nations. These partners in crime pulled off their constitutional coup thanks to bargaining with common people they were betraying, ‘granting’ the mob a bill of rights in the best democracy money can buy. Or as Anatole France put it, the law in its majestic equality forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets, and steal bread.
It’s not simply the protection rackets of government out to get us. That’s just another tentacle of the monstrous machinery of class rule that’s been perfected with modern industrial ‘civilization’, now out to revolutionize forces and relations of production through our assimilation and elimination for transhumanist dystopia. We’re way past due striking at the roots of rule by the few over most whose voices are never heard by bizzness as usual.
About as apropos as it gets, you need not read the entire article to know what’s going on here. Although down at the bottom, there’s a tweet by Max Blumenthal which pokes a big hole in the DOJ narrative. At least someone on the “left” gets it.
Biden DOJ Indicts Four Americans for “Weaponized” Free Speech – Global ResearchGlobal Research – Centre for Research on Globalization
“The internet has become a forum for the government—and its corporate partners—to monitor, control and punish the populace for speech that may be controversial but is far from criminal.”
Nice – in the original meaning. Thank you Nisha and John. Five stars.
Having grown up being on the end of several years of hateful ‘free speech’, there does of course come a point when the recipient of hateful speech must be allowed to ask the question: ‘At what point do I have the right to asymmetrically assault this verbal yob when I cannot beat them in a ‘fair fight’ (they are bigger and stronger than me) when I have done nothing other than live daily life to warrant the hate that these mentally afflicted yobs dish out regularly?’
There has to be consequence to hateful free speech. It is simply unacceptable to pander to foul-mouthed yobs at nauseam. They are not superior, they are not enlightened, they are in fact, nothing but small minded and cowardly bullies. When it’s six to eight vs one, it’s not acceptable to say: ‘Those the most immune to verbal invective are those who should be lauded and allowed to prevail’.
If they won’t keep their fat gobs closed and their hateful thoughts to themselves, at what point does a baseball bat to the genitals become the only way to teach them how to behave??? How about a baseball bat to the skull? And what about shattering a ribcage when they are lying down, eh??
If you have ever experienced years of hateful bullying as the smallest, you simply won’t tolerate being told you have to put up with it in silence.
It’s entirely akin to being a Jew under the nazis up to the point when property was seized from them.
And we all know how unacceptable it is to make any Jew feel the slightest bit unhappy any more.
So why is it acceptable for white heterosexual non-Jewish boys to have to suffer the way that Jews are spared from suffering, eh????
You answered your own question with the magic word: boys. Kids. Children.
No Western society I know of respects or even accepts children as having equal standing before the law with adults. So it’s the full force of society against anyone daring to call a very heavy adult “fatso.” But it’s quite alright – legally – to call a child any name you choose.
After all: Boys Will Be Boys.
Consequence delivered by whom though? We don’t want the state to do this. Let natural law take effect. There will be more justice.
What is commonly termed by “feedom of speech” is almost always a non-event/non-issue, since we generally say what we want to say unhindered; also, the culture of debate, of discussion, of agreeing to disagree is thankfully developed and widespread.
Where “freedom of speech” crystallizes into a concern is when certain topics are raised of political, social, economic nature, and where one of the implications is the questioning of the status quo. In this particular case however, instead of “going all the way” as contributor Kacsynski2 points out below, citing the Buddha, by organising a debate on the topic at hand, treating it like any other issue, and taking the debate to the last consequences in a spirit of reason and understanding, and reaching the conclusion as a synthesis upon which all will agree, even it (the conclusion) be to agree to disagree; instead of that, the case is brought to the “institution of justice”, a framework where, as opposed to what we’d have in an open debate, certain postulates are taken for granted and not open to discussion, where there is power involved with legitimate exercise of violence, where there is limit to the depth to which one can bring the issue, and where the matter at hand shifts to the question of whether there is any offense incurred in the raising of that issue rather than discussing the issue itself, like what happens in this short film:
The Bill of Rights in Action: Freedom of Speech (Internet Archive)
From the article
“Speaking one’s truth doesn’t have to be the same for each person, and that truth doesn’t have to be palatable or pleasant or even factual.
We can be loud.
We can be obnoxious.
We can be politically incorrect.
We can be conspiratorial or mean or offensive”
Exasperation can make a person turn the volume up & appear terse to closed minds or people terrified of the implications of what is observed/said. Those with Agenda’s will attack the truth teller as will the feaful.
A quote attributed to Buddha say’s
“There are two mistake one can make on the path to truth. Not starting & not going all the way”
If you truly see how easy it was for TPTB to install a lie & new belief system in 2020. Then that also means everything previous to that is on the table too. Whether you like it or not.
We can also remember that our numbers are sufficient to terrify ‘the authorities’ into submission, whether they like it or not.
This power of ours has even been used from time to time, and TPTB must know that.
What many people fear most is social ostracism and TPTB know that. It’s one of the many insidious weapons in their armoury of evil.
Yes Johnny,agreed. For many that’s a huge factor. But to cooperate with blackmail isn’t the correct mentality.
“Don’t negotiate with terrorist’s” Sadly, too many have. As they’ve come to value that which has no value, materialism.
Nowhere does censorship do more damage than when diplomacy is shut down in favor of barbaric war.
Get ready for CBDCs. An early prototype was the Roosevelt’s government’s grab of the of the dollar holdings of US citizens in 1934. The following is what happened.
”The United States Gold Reserve Act of January 30, 1934 required that all gold and gold certificates held by the Federal Reserve be surrendered and vested in the sole title of the United States Department of the Treasury. It also prohibited the Treasury and financial institutions from redeeming dollar bills for gold, established the Exchange Stabilization Fund under control of the Treasury to control the dollar’s value without the assistance (or approval) of the Federal Reserve, and authorized the president to establish the gold value of the dollar by proclamation.
Immediately following passage of the Act, the President, Franklin D. Roosevelt, changed the statutory price of gold from $20.67 per troy ounce to $35.”
Please note the change in the price of gold from the above from $20.67 to $35.00! Today we have the makings of an outright robbery of people’s savings by the central bank (the Fed in the US). If they can do this to people’s holdings in the US they can do it everywhere else. And the great sheepocracy will be put to sleep whilst the Central Bank/Treasury robs them blind.
Most readers will fail to understand the effects of the Exchange Stabilization Fund. It placed US gold reserves into the hands of “His Majesty’s Treasury” see: Exchange Equalisation Account of the United Kingdom. > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exchange_Equalisation_Account
From that day forward, US civilian lives became pledged collateral assets to the Bank of England and International Monetary Fund(s).
FDR was a treasonous asshole. That’s why he’s been depicted as a hero…
It’s one of humanity’s greatest weaknesses to be mesmerized by a “larger than life” physical presence. Of course, had the American people known of President Roosevelt’s paralysis, his booming voice may have carried less weight.
Like Mr. Hitler, Roosevelt was a great orator, if in a more subdued manner.
Until humanity comes of age – if it ever does – it’s same old, same old.
To the Latin scholars about the government’s iron curtain erected against free speech : nil imperium liberum oratio carborundum
All of us are Latin scholars… Ask Google!
‘What the police state wants is a silent, compliant, oblivious citizenry.’ – sadly, tragically, really, considering the number of people in western countries who, for instance, believed, and still seem to believe, the blatantly obvious covid lies, and were and are more than willing to help the police state go after those who dare question its lies, what the police state wants, the police state gets, with little pushback from its citizens. Mr Elliot said it well, around the same time Mr Orwell was prognosticating where it all was leading – this is the way the world ends, not with a bang but a whimper.
Blogs such as Off Guardian are businesses and as such the first amendment is not up for consideration. When you post to them they have no obligation to publish your opinions . However paying customers and their opinions must be taken into consideration if said blog needs to turn a profit.. What is commonly considered Free Speech has ever tightening limits as all governments gain more control of it masses , which means means that eventually it no longer exist in any forum .
Oh Jim – your tragic little agenda is showing.
It was always obvious to me that “community guidelines”, “commenting rules”, etc. are always written in a way that enables censorious moderation; that is, if “management” disapproves of a comment (or a commenter) for whatever reason, it can always cite some alleged heinous rule violation. (That said, over the years the tedium of explaining comment removal is typically precluded by opacity; comments and commenters are simply disappeared without comment, even a boilerplate explanation.)
It’s trivial, I know, but when Saddam Hussein was summarily gruesomely executed in late 2006, comedian, musician, etc. Steve Martin published a abominably nasty, jingoistic “Good riddance!” mocking eulogy in The Huffington Post. His jeering farewell was a cheap “Hooray for our side!” grab for, pardon the expression, the low-hanging fruit.
I was so aggravated and appalled that I posted a comment excoriating Martin’s commentary. I began with the obligatory “I’m no fan of Saddam Hussein, but his extra-judicial lynching is not a matter for light-hearted, comical rejoicing…” Then I concluded by mordantly, but wittily (I thought) remarking that if anyone deserved to be hanged, it was Martin for appearing in “Cheaper By the Dozen 2”.
Huffpo promptly deleted my comment. When I asked why, they actually responded: I violated their posting rules by “threatening violence to a contributor”. Hmm, maybe this reply came from an early censorbot algorithm! 🤔
Considering the source, it’s probably to your benefit that HuffPo deleted your comment.
But here’s the thing: sometimes the naysayers get it right – and those who saw that rag for what it was early on sure did get it right that time.
It is indeed many years since HuffPoo first disgraced itself in public.
It became obvious round about the time when Arianna H. sold up shop.
Executing Saddam Hussein by hanging was judicial, if you believe in an “international tribunal” rustled up by a bully that is not party to ICC or ICJ. As a treat for the snuff afficionados, they used enough weights or drop distance to ensure that his head was ripped off from his body.
Yes, that’s what I had in mind when I described it as “gruesome”.
The execution was indeed “judicial” in the classic Wild West justice sense; as Judge Roy Bean, “The Only Law West of the Pecos”, reportedly promised to a defendant, “You’ll get a fair trial followed by a first class hanging.” 🤔
So that was Steve Martin. It continues to amaze me how we have a propaganda field posing as “entertainment” in which the various celebs can “multi-task” by adopting whichever job title is required and so actors can appear as political commentators etc. It’s all cartoon level stuff in which all that is needed to “sell something” is a familiar name.
But then again Martin is an odious example of that insulated bourgeois faction living in a “castle in the sky”. Look at his excruciating “LA Story” where that city is presented as a fairy tale wonderland for the wealthy and the poor are just a foil for very bad jokes.
The smaller the community, the stronger the contrast between classes. Southern CA, Israel, Puerto Rico, etc. The Netflix show Outer Banks is all about class division.
Its quite telling they are so afraid of being confronted with the bible and its words.
My guess is they are afraid to hurt the devil’s feelings by accepting the bible in public forum, as the devil sits on top of the fiat money and promotions.
The devil is one of big money’s stand-bys. They call him out from time to time to do a little soft shoe; then send him back to his dressing room to await his next curtain call.
Free speech requires a language to express it in. A language has self-contained assumptions within it (Wittgenstein was aware of this).
Do adjectives change when preceding nouns or is their form independent of it? Is the nominative case the same as any other case?
You may regard that as irrelevant if you wish, but it affects the psyche. Whether things are interdependent or not. It’s no accident that Greek was the language of philosophy and Latin the language of law.
So, what to deduce …? To build a better future, start with a better language. Neologisms accepted The true alternative.
My name is Lucca [sic]. Suzanne Vega – Luka
Wittgenstein also realized that definitions in language vary with subculture. Something vigorously denied by the woke crowd and the multicultural warriors these days.
New corporate interpretation of the First Amendment: You have a right to free speech, as long as you don’t express yourself… Right… Next. >
You have the right to have an opinion, in fact, you have the right to have an opinion on every thing…That’s my opinion…Why do They want to take that right away from us ? dont They know that’s the best way to start A Revolution ?
I think you’ve answered your own question, Les.
Their stocks of exciting new crowd-control weapons are just sitting there, unused.
They can’t wait for a Revolution so they can break them out.
Brute force is really all they have left, although it should go without saying that we have the numbers to overwhelm even that in the unlikely event of a mass awakening to the political corruption and criminality that has been going on for a very long time…
My biggest fear isn’t the stockpile of weaponry (like the one billion rounds of hollow point shells the US Homeland Security bought several years ago).
My biggest fear is that, if the downright criminal corruption is ever revealed, the public’s reaction will be a shrug, followed by a “They sure went overboard that time, didn’t they?” And then a return to “Days of our Lives.”
Excuse me, but (unfortunately) the First Amendment doesn’t guarantee free speech. Its just says that government can’t make any laws deciding what speech is correct (and so on). Taken literally nobody’s got a right to free speech, its just the government can’t stop you.
What protects us more than anything in the US is our libel laws. Threats of legal action for libel are very effective at shutting people up in the UK.
Speak Your Truth: Don’t Let the comment boards owners and ad*ms Criminalize Free Speech.
I’ve had loads of comment deleted since I have been on this site. not just this forum comment boards, your all; the same.Collectivist mind set and if anyone goes past the allowed point there placed in pending -comment deleted or considered a heretic and never allowed back in to the group think.This makes the heretic either confirm to the group mind, which is run via the manufactured talking point of the MIC alt media circus circuit..
Irony of a article.
This article fails to give ideas on how audiences can peacefully, but collectively, defeat the efforts of entities or persons who classify speech or publication IOT limit access only to the ears and eyes of select members of the audience? Treating speech as if it were an infective virus does not comport with the first amendment.
Nothing could be more clear. than the words:
Congress shall make no law ..abridging the freedom of speech or of the press.
First amendment does not say except for anything. The First Amendment says: NO LAW, period! No contingencies or special cases were included in the command to the congress, the president and the courts that abridging freedom of speech or of the press violates the First Amendment <=so did failure of the constitution to provide a way for those whose speech has been denied or abridged to enforce the constitution actually deny the first Amendment?
CONTINGENCIES OF ANY AND ALL TYPES WERE EXCLUDED. Courts adopt conspiracy theories of various kinds to justify exempting laws, ways and means and devices from the command [no legal authority exist to abridge freedom of speech].
IMO reserving publication or speech to but a select few members of the audience violates the first Amendment. Nothing has even been more clear, than the words. Congress shall make no law ..abridging the freedom of speech or of the press. I argue that laws which allow, enable, or promote any means that has the effect of denying someone’s access to spoken or published information [such as requiring top secret clearance, or prosecuting persons who tell what they have learned to others], abridges the constitution right given to its governed humans, that freedom of speech is guaranteed.
IMO, one of the kinds of laws which abridge freedom of speech is the laws nation states use to create corporations or other fictitious or non human entities and to then allow the created entities (a licensed brother sister of the main government] to do those things which the main government itself cannot do: such as to capture speech or published information and to deny people’s access to it. IMO, such violates the intention of the first amendment.
Speakers or publishers isolated on a mountain top say what they want but if the audience is limited to those able to pay the admissions price to climb the mountain (access), and further limited to those able to climb the mountain then the utterance or writing and the meaning of the first amendment are rendered worthless?
I was taught in the 2nd grade: it takes both a speaker and a listener to communicate.
The above are my opinion, IANAL.
But it says Congress, and that means both the President and the Senate can make laws all they want against a little too free speech. Fixed.
Why no mention of the alleged bunker buster hypersonic bomb that has killed 300 NATO and Ukrainian high ranking military personal a few days ago , in response to a Ukrainian terror attack in Russia ? Well covered on Rumble this morning !
Actually it was about four weeks ago…And a couple of sites, lately, have given it some attention…
Off topic , some rich red meat for 9/11 truthers was posted on Rumble today , more bread crumbs for those who wish to avoid the reality of the Saudi attack and keep the ” blame ” in America. .
Not shilling ! The killing of these NATO and Ukrainian officials if it happened is big news and yet no mention of it is made in the media , other than on National Enquirer equivalents . I realize that 9/11 as a Saudi project initially its not part of the accepted narrative on this site ?
“The Saudis did it” is about as close to the truth and about as challenging to the PTB as “covid was grown in a Wuhan lab”.
It’s hilarious that you try to present this limp little rag of limited hangout BS as some sort of truth bomb we are too afraid to publish! 😂
Your alternative update on #COVID19 for 2023-04-22. 600k Americans p.a. Are Dying From COVID Shots Says Top Insurance Analyst. 71% ARs from 4% of batches (blog, gab, tweet).
Shouldn’t this be termed “cyber terrorism”?When caught – the countries terrorism laws will apply.Free speech should be sacrosanct!!!
The plutocratic war against “we the people” is entering a more intense phase where the ruling elites and their minions will broke no dissent, tolerate no counter narratives or opposition. Censorship and suppression abound. As we enter the total surveillance society where corporate and governmental propaganda are ubiquitous and all pervasive, being a nonconformist or free thinker will become a crime (depending on the subject or topic) or at least deemed a form of mental illness. We saw that played out during the COVID PSYOP where people who merely questioned or challenged the scientific basis of the “public health policies” were demonized and threatened and those who refused to go along were ostracized and marginalized. The forces pushing for social reengineering, a systemic reconfiguration and New World Order have upped the ante and are going full pedal to the metal to accomplish their agendas.
Which reminds me… How’s Thailand, the king’s family, going about rescinding Thailand’s contract with Pfizer which Prof. Sucharit Bhakdi was talking about after explaining to the king the dangers of this technology being injected into humans? The princess is still in a coma after the C-shot, I believe.
Or, maybe, the king has been told in no uncertain terms that his and the Professor’s lives would be at stake if they didn’t tone it down a bit. Which would explain why the Prof. is now only talking about remedial measures for the vaxxed.
just a couple of days after that report appeared the ‘authorities’ etc assured the Thai people through the media that it was all not true, all those people reported to have ‘got the truth’ from Prof/Dr Bhakdi recanted or denied it, and everyone assured everyone the vaccines were safe and wonderful and isn’t it time for your next booster?? etc. Most people are still wearing masks here. The Thai people believe and trust their authorities.
Yes, they do almost nothing about the horrendous air pollution (from farmers having no option or aid to regenerate soil other than burn stubble). Asking them to recant on the jab is asking too much. The king spends much of his time in a hotel in Austria or Germany.
Time after time we learn that what we believe to be our elected representatives and/or the national figure heads do not run the show. So disappointing.
In Switzerland someone is dragging the PM to court over the covid fiasco. I wonder how that’s going.
Good question. The global eugenicists have a scale of value for life based upon phenotype and pigment. The darker one is the more likely targeted genocide is in their immediate future, especially when they recognize how psychopathic the globalist plutocrats are. For example several African leaders who poo pooed the COVID PSY OP and rejected the injections “died suddenly” and just coincidentally their successors immediately toed the globalist COVID line! https://www.thenigerianvoice.com/news/297907/covid-19-murder-of-tanzanian-burundian-presidents-nigeria.html.
While in Europe, North America, New Zealand and Australia dissidents were just demonized (in a few cases they tried to do Color revolutions on the leaders https://www.aa.com.tr/en/latest-on-coronavirus-outbreak/us-issues-do-not-travel-warning-for-belarus/2255361 ) if they didn’t go along.
In the case of Thailand the plutocrats will not allow opposition to their depopulation agenda so they put pressure on the nonconformists to recant while the media lied to them about the “safety and effectiveness” of the kill shots just like they lied to the people in the US/UK.
By the way there are reports the King has a financial interest in the firm that produced the kill shots there. https://asia.nikkei.com/Spotlight/Coronavirus/COVID-vaccines/Thai-king-owned-biotech-starts-production-of-AstraZeneca-vaccine, https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-thailand-idUSKBN29O0VS
While America at least has free speech enshrined in the constitution its arguable that it doesn’t exist there as the continuous cancellations and de-platforming pushes on regardless. But without first hand experience its difficult to gauge the mood.
In this country (UK) free speech absolutely doesn’t exist, certainly not now, in certain respects probably not ever.
One of the most senior politicians has just today had the whip removed for voicing an opinion the hidden financial power behind this country simply won’t permit. To make matters worse she has gone full mea culpa in similar guise to that of the video below.
Criticising the money lenders and their evil corrupt money system will soon be deemed if not already as anti-semitic. Criticising any aspect of the tribe will go the same way. They affectively have a veto now over which politicians can have careers. Jeremy Corbyn was neither a racist of anti-semite but he was destroyed in just the same way.
I vote neither Labour or Tory but the lobby who really rules those parties are becoming clear but its probably been the case for at least the last 150 years.
Pretending there is such a thing as free speech then simply allows those behind our 1984 lifestyle to laugh at our denial of their imposed reality. They must be laughing as we tear ourselves apart as the Gregor Fisher character does in the movie. They are sick people.
I certainly agree that we don’t have free speech in social media. Not fully anyway.
We do still have free speech in the public spaces in the real world.
We not only don’t have freedom on speech but don’t even have freedom of thought as the recent arrest and charging of Isabel Vaughn-Spruce shows.
She never even spoke any words but was arrested and charged for merely ‘thinking’ them.
I agree, the UK and the Commonwealth Nations as a whole are going full retard.
Free Julian Assange and put the Biden Crime Family behind bars.
Then the Trump Family, Obama Family, Bush Family, Clinton Family, Kennedy Family, etc. etc. etc.
The day of the rope is nigh.
I do not think the Trump family is anywhere near as corrupt as the rest. Trump is not a Washington insider.
I honestly think anybody with a lot of money can become a Washington insider.
“Follow the money” always leads to the same place…
In the late 1980s and early 1990s, Trump was facing bankruptcy and was bailed out. By whom you ask? A guy named Wilbur Ross. A banker that worked for guess who? ROTHSCHILD. Shortly after this, his properties in Atlantic city had a boom of sales from Russian mobsters laundering money. Wilbur Ross was our Secretary of Commerce, appointed by Trump.
Trump is just another banker boss puppet POS.
I suggest you research Trump’s relationships with the likes of Roy Cohn and Les Wexner as well.
The scaffold is needed but initially for the sponsors of the tyranny – the Soros’, the Gates’, the Schwab’s and the like. All the ultra wealthy people who have “earned” inconceivable levels of wealth, which then buys tax dodges and influence.
Then the roundup of all the brown envelope recipients can begin.
When so called “rights” which have never been enumerated in any Constitution are given precedence over rights which have been enumerated in a Constitution – or are even given equal consideration – then the game is over.
How would any rational human (few and far between as they are) even be able to enumerate such things as “being offended” by what was said? It’s like trying to grasp air in your hand.
The concept of being offended may be very real, and offensive talk may be very hurtful; but the concept doesn’t lend itself to enumeration if for no other reason simply because it cannot be generalized: what is offensive and hurtful to some may be meaningless to others.
A Constitution cannot be a “wish list” filled with bullet points to ensure that every conceivable circumstance is accounted for. A society attempting to turn its Constitution into such a monstrosity is destined for the dust bin.
Not to mention when a sitting President – George W. Bush – refers to the Constitution he has sworn to uphold as “just a piece of paper,” you may be sure no good will come of it.
Yes, that quote from GWBush is shameless treason – which, strangely, goes unpunished in certain quarters today.
The good news about “restricting free speech” is that it is quite impossible.
Someone, somewhere, has a child which will readily open its mouth and exclaim, “But he hasn’t any clothes on!”
We can even be that child, if heaven grants us the opportunity.
Like a primitive tribe a few hundred years ago, the ‘authorities’ have insulated themselves so far from evolved human endeavour that the slightest contact with it will overwhelm their immune systems and wipe them out.
I have been fired several times for telling the king he has no clothes on.
I don’t doubt it, and admire your nerve.
In the fairy tale at least, people listened to the child, and that apparently startled the Emperor.
A bit more emperor-startling is what our society needs right now.
I don’t believe you. You attack the underdog and swallow establishment myths.
No one here is interested in your fantasies.
Free speech is the most fundamental right. It is free speech that permits critique. Without critique there is not even the possibilty of freedom. Only if you are allowed to say what you want to say can you at least start to bring change. That is why the restriction of free speech may seem the smallest thing. Buit it’s the biggest.
Of course the numb mindset that would disagree with you thinks that “start to bring change” is a big no-no.
“Why bring change?”, they think.
“Everything’s just fine the way it is.”
I use the term, “think” very loosely here…
the First Amendment is like a safety valve. Without such a valve, something has to blow eventually .
Any speech is going to offend someone. Those someone’s are easily offended because their platform is very shaky.
One finds with most, if not all, of these new regulations being rolled out as protection for vulnerable users, they quickly morph into a weapon of suppression. There are laws already which cater for wrongdoing of every type. In every western country however, real, brazen criminals are getting a pass. Sometimes several.
I hear some state are even letting their violent criminals roam free. If your Antifag, you just have to wait around until your rich patron turns up with a lawyer. Then your home free.
The International Health Regulator wants to abolish some of the regulations we have a present. Mainly sex with animals and children and legalising all drugs. If this wasn’t bad enough, it’s just the tip of that particular iceberg. Is sounds as if the IHR needs some professional help with its health policy. I dunno, maybe they should employ medical professionals with some integrity and decency.
The internet is rapidly becoming a pale version of its original self. Goggle and companies like them are fucking it up for themselves. The big business and its gov’t lackies want the internet as an advertisement display to keep the cattle consuming. The gov’t’s are happy to oblige them as long as they all sing off the same NWO hymm sheet and use their companies to help keep the truth off the internet.
Gov’t is not your friend and neither is big business. Both eat at the same trough.
Criminalization of speech is already happening and ongoing.
We already have prisons, within prisons, in the USA, called Communication Management Units (CMUs), that are being specifically used for political dissidents. I think they changed the name of those internal prisons recently as well to hide them longer.
A person named Matt of CRS Firearms, YouTube / USA, was recently convicted of transferring machine guns because the government claims his product could convert a semi-automatic AR15 into an automatic. This despite the fact that the government’s experts could not get the product to convert any firearms from semi-auto to full auto. So essentially he is being convicted for discussing the item on YouTube. His bank are the ones that contacted the government with claims of this crime.
A woman in England was arrested for silently standing across the street from an abortion clinic, silently praying. Basically arrested for thought crime.
This is a major part of their agenda, because they know when we cannot speak against power, it makes conflict inevitable. Violence being their fortey.
While I don’t condone violence, and do not seek it, I have made my choice, and will risk death to defeat tyranny.
The Tree of Liberty is thirsty.
Call them out.
Name and shame the managers of the bank that contacted the government about Matt.
Name and shame the individual officers who arrested that woman in England.
The same folk that want abortion rights removed from women also demand that you be vaccinated , boosted and masked . They would also have you believe that there is a major war going on in Ukraine and the Ukrainians can only be saved by American bombs . Please square that circle for me.
Lunacy reigns in all western governments today, so nobody should be surprised at anything they do.
The doors of the madhouse were mischievously opened, and the inevitable happened.
Abortion isn’t a right, it is an elective medical procedure.
You are conflating Licence with Liberty.
Wow! I feel so, so sorry for you USAmericans.
This is not the only thing.
Im also offended by the way the Chinese in a cultural war manner are trying to influence the American people with their Confucius Institutes as Confucius was made to confuse people, and thats why China pay for it all over America.
The Chinese stole our ideas about freedom, used it for themselves and left only crumbs back to an ordinary American.
Thus the freedom we had before is today now in China and we have their red Mao bs here inside America everywhere.
Confucius confuse Americans in real life. On a personal level I refuse Chinese charity noodles in my soup, and I am sick and tired of China lamps and China sticks, as I still believe in the American people and in my Constitution.
The Hive existence is a Chinese development now sweeping this tired and abused world . Our so called western leaders are constantly meeting with Mr Xi to receive further instructions on how to minimize the violence of implementation .
China is not free.
China is the prototype for all future total spectrum dominance surveillance state systems.
China named their Social Credit Scoring system SkyNet for a reason.
When you self identify with any nation, flag, religion, tribe or team you cut yourself off from the rest of humanity.
We all bleed red, we all suffer, we all Love, we all die.
Names and labels were invented to divide humanity. Let them go.
Guess you don’t do sarcasm? Among a host of negative traits, USAmericas are, literally, meatheads.
Speaking out in disagreement always has a price. It appears your notions of “liberty” requires the rest of us to give up our illusions of the same ideal . If a women finds that the least harmful to her solution to an undesired pregnancy is a termination that is her business . As is the right , fought and paid for in America , to own firearms . I have eventually found myself cancelled/blocked by most of these blogs as they prate about freedom , liberty , and free speech. Probably because I refuse to send money to read someone elses political views , or maybe disagreeing with some moderators dogma is threatening , offensive , or contradicts the purpose of said blog.? There is no tree of liberty but rather a thicket of brambles where many of us bumble into and get cut up.
An abortion is a medical procedure, and not a right.
That a woman decides to be promiscuous and then dodge the consequences, does not make abortion a right.
Should it be an elective surgery? Maybe.
Should it be the government’s business/ No.
Should the government be funding elective surgeries? No.
Should an Organization like Planned Parenthood be allowed to popularize and offer “Free” abortions? No.
You want to kill the baby you carry, do it with your own money, period.
So only the woman was promiscuous? Um, last time I checked it takes two to make a pregnancy, although in our brave new world soon it won’t even take a human to make a pregnancy.
Take the slut shaming shit and stick it. The woman isn’t the only one who dodges the consequences, or have you never heard about the men who run away as fast as they can from an unintended pregnancy? Or those who demand an abortion when that happens?
Oh and one other thing – NO pregnancy is ever guaranteed to come to full term. Maybe if enough of the populace gave a shit about the kids already alive we might then talk about the sanctity of life with a straight fucking face.
Let me introduce you to Logic: Babies are babies. Babies are not what they are not. Therefore, babies are not fetuses, they are not sperm cells or eggs; they are not anything else than what they are. Babies are born human beings. They breathe. They are alive.
Fetuses are fetuses. They don’t live and breathe. They are not born. They don’t have an individual existence, but they are part of a woman’s body.
Murder only happens when a living human being is wilfully killed. Removing a part of the body is not murder, unless it kills the human being.
You call fetuses babies. That’s how you make accusations against women. You judge women. Who gave you that right?
If the government can’t decide over women’s bodies, why could you?
You’re saying only those who have money may abort their fetuses using a doctor.
So money decides that, then?
Who gave money that right?
Who gave you the right to dictate what kind of organizations other people can form and what they are allowed to do for free, without money?
You are not coherent. That’s what happens when your presumption is illogical and false.
There is no tree of liberty just a briar patch where and when we are forced into it many of us suffer the death of a thousand cuts over time. In England pregnancy termination is a woman’s choice and stalking outside a clinic can be considered menacing which is a crime. It appears that your liberty requires the oppression of others?
Isn’t it horrible that one can be considered ‘menacing’, based on the subjective impression of somebody who might be completely mad – for example, a genuine paranoid schizophrenic…?
At least for me, one of the features of an ideal future justice system would be that being ‘menacing’ would always entail actual, demonstrable intent to harm others.
Standing outside a clinic and walking up and down would simply indicate legitimate, non-violent protest – which some people might not like, but, taking the excellent guidelines in the Bible as a model, nobody can point to the bit in the Beatitudes where it says, “Blessed are those who are a snowflake, for they will never melt”…
You call it stalking, we call it silent protest.
So in your brain, only people that are pro baby murder are allowed to protest?
You are conflating Licence with Liberty, because you think women have the right to murder the unborn.
There is a reason that when a person murders a pregnant woman, that the perp is faced DOUBLE MURDER.
Liberty is only achieved when the endeavors of people have a moral foundation.
Anyone with a functional heart and soul, knows that abortion isn’t good.