Censorship Over Here and Over There :: by Edward Cline
http://ruleofreason.blogspot.com/2015/10/censorship-over-here-and-over-there_15.html
The American champions of totalitarian management and filtration of the news in America have a lot of catching up to do with their more advanced cousins in Europe (can you imagine a Federal position dubbed the High Director of Public Information Management?).
A false alarm of sorts about censorship in the U.S. introduced via a revision of the U.S. copyright law was raised by Matt Drudge of the Drudge Report. It was reported on The Daily Caller and Pamela Geller’s Atlas Shrugs site.
In an October 14th Atlas Shrugs column, “Congressional Review Of Copyright Law Threatens My Website and Every Independent News Site,” Geller wrote:
Congressional review of copyright law threatens independent websites like mine — and every other non-mainstream media news site. Congress is considering “updating” digital copyright law affecting news sites and aggregator sites, like the Drudge Report and Real Clear Politics.
This is the biggest threat to our freedom. For years I have urged readers, Facebook supporters, members of our groups AFDI and SIOA to email, share, tweet our posts. In order to combat the war the enemedia waged on the truth and freedom, we had to establish an alternative means of news dissemination. It was crucial. Our websites, in concert with Facebook, twitter and instagram, were the David against the philistine Goliath media machine.
She also quoted Kerry Picket’s Daily Caller column of October 13th, “Congressional Review Of Copyright Law May Threaten Drudge Report”:
Drudge Report site owner Matt Drudge told Alex Jones of InfoWars last week that copyright laws could very well end his popular site.
“I had a Supreme Court Justice tell me it’s over for me,” said Drudge. “They’ve got the votes now to enforce copyright law, you’re out of there. They’re going to make it so you can’t even use headlines.”
He explained, “To have a Supreme Court Justice say to me it’s over, they’ve got the votes, which means time is limited,” he added, noting that a day was coming when simply operating an independent website could be outlawed. That will end [it] for me – fine – I’ve had a hell of a run,” said Drudge, adding that web users were being pushed into the cyber ‘ghettos’ of Twitter, Facebook and Instagram.” Drudge added, “This is ghetto, this is corporate, they’re taking your energy and you’re getting nothing in return – nothing!”
I think the alarm is false because Drudge doesn’t provide specifics: the name of the Supreme Court judge, or at least a hint to who that might be; a reason why a Supreme Court judge would confide in him about what the Court might think of a copyright law revision that would be a blatant infringement on the freedom of speech; who “has the votes” – SCOTUS or the Judiciary Committee; why the Court would have a position on a copyright law revision before it is even an issue or a case before the law is even revised.
Being highly suspicious of the hysterical and alarmist tone of all the sites, I took out my saltshaker and pondered the subject. I reasoned that if the worst kind of copyright law revision came to pass, then thee would be no newspapers, no websites like Geller’s or Jihad Watch’s or Steve Emerson’s Bare Naked Islam’s…the honor roll is long and distinguished. The verb “may” in the InfoWars and Daily Caller titles was troublesome.
I seem to remember this same Drudge alarm being raised a few weeks ago, or perhaps a month ago. One development I can imagine a copyright law revision would invoke would be if it FORCED or required news sites like the Washington Post or the New York Times and other MSM outlets to rig their sites so that text from articles could not be copied for quotation purposes into websites like Geller’s or mine. Such a revision (and it’s hypothetical) would be a violation of the freedom of speech of even for those who advocate “limits” on First Amendment freedom of speech guarantees. The New York Times, the Washington Post, and other anti-freedom websites would scream bloody murder. They all want their opinions and observations (whether or not they’re right) to be accurately quoted, or want the freedom to quote other and rival news sources. Unless they’re irredeemably corrupted or intellectually challenged, they would fight that and other restrictions tooth and nail.
Geller replied to one reader who asked what the implications were. She responded:
“If Congress passes copyright laws prohibiting websites and aggregators from using news stories (even headlines) – it’s over for news sites, aggregators and news-focused blogs.”
Yes, the statist and totalitarian sky is falling, but I don’t think it will be through a copyright law revision – not yet. The American champions of totalitarian management and filtration of the news in America have a lot of catching up to do with their more advanced cousins in Europe (can you imagine a Federal position dubbed the High Director of Public Information Management?). They will have to coordinate things on the sly with the MSM, which is already behaving as an accomplice to censorship.
They will have to be as brazen as this trio of unelected commissars of information administration and thought control in the European Union. We have The Gates of Vienna, a first-class news-focused blog, to thank for giving us a preview of the arrogance of totalitarian wannabes, and to Fjordman‘s October 14th, eye-opening article, “The EU Elites’ Positive View of Islam.” These are the kinds of expunging dominatrix’s that American liberals either want to be or see running things.
Frans Timmermans is a former Dutch Foreign Minister. He is currently the First Vice-President of the European Commission. Here are his thoughts on “Islamophobia.” You see, he is concerned about the resistance across Europe against the invasion of Third World barbarians:
“We have seen the homes of asylum seekers set on fire. And we have heard political leaders declare that their countries would not accept refugees if they were Muslim. Anti-Muslims [sic] incidents are multiplying across Europe. We’re seeing a huge spike of attacks. Verbal insinuations, closed-mindedness, prejudice, discrimination. The rise of Islamophobia is the one of the biggest challenges in Europe. It is a challenge to our vital values, to the core of who we are. Never has our societies’ capacity for openness, for tolerance, for inclusion been more tested than it is today. Diversity is now in some parts of Europe seen as a threat. Diversity comes with challenges. But diversity is humanity’s destiny.”
“Book ‘em, Dano!” “On what charge?” “Verbal insinuation, closed-mindedness, and making faces at a Muslim. Said the citizen’s beard made him look like an orangutan screaming for a banana during the Freedom of Speech Go to Hell demonstration. Really offensive and hurtful words and anti-diversity to the max.”
Fjordman observed:
If so-called Islamophobia is considered a threat to the EU’s “vital values, to the core of who we are,” does that mean that Islam is part of the EU’s core values?….
The EU considers so-called Islamophobia to be a serious threat that must be actively combated. Yet the EU does not even have a word for Infidelophobia, the hatred and loathing many Muslims feel for fellow human beings who are not Muslims. This Infidelophobia is directly encouraged by the Koran and Islamic religious teachings. Nor does the EU seem particularly concerned about Europhobia, the hatred and loathing of native Europeans and their culture. The organization has no plan to combat the violence and abuse directed against Europeans by certain immigrant groups. Perhaps the EU elites do not consider this to constitute a problem?
To the EU elites, criticism of or negative statements about Islam is considered a form of “hatred” that is unacceptable and should perhaps be legally prosecuted. Criticism of or even outright hatred directed against Christianity, Europe’s traditional majority religion, however, is considered acceptable…
Notice that the European Commission’s Vice-President, the Socialist Frans Timmermans, claims that “diversity is humanity’s destiny.” The EU is run by people who believe that they know not only the future of Europe, but the fate of all mankind. The ancient Greeks would have called this hubris, extreme pride or arrogance. Pride goes before a fall. Multiculturalists believe they are guiding the continent towards a new and better society on the other side of the rainbow.
Popular resistance on the path there is considered a speed bump to be run over. Objections are illegitimate and should be removed from public debate. This is dangerously close to Communist ways of thinking. Years of “anti-racist” indoctrination permeates society with an intensity that almost resembles a form of brainwashing. To be branded a “racist” under Multiculturalism, especially if you happen to have a white skin, is comparable to being labeled an “enemy of the people” under Communism. It signals that you are an evil person, a kind of weed in the ideological flowerbed that needs to be weeded out by expert gardeners.
Vera Jourova is our second subject. She is the EU’s Commissioner for Justice, Consumers and Gender Equality in the Juncker Commission. She is a little more forthright in her condemnation of “Islamophobia” and other kinds of “hate speech,” especially if it is about “migrants,” and “immigrants” legal, illegal, or on the run, and what she would like to do to the criminals. That is, to the “hate speakers” and “Islamophobes,” not to the Muslim rapists, robbers, home invaders, gang members, and other Muslim predators.
“If freedom of expression is one of the building blocks of a democratic society, hate speech on the other hand, is a blatant violation of that freedom. It must be severely punished. As some of you noted, over the past few weeks, we have witnessed a lot of solidarity towards refugees. But we have seen a surge of xenophobic hate speech. Some of you advocated enrolling the help of online intermediaries such as Google or Facebook to take down hate speech from the web. Other participants rather underlined promoting the use of counter-narratives. You also highlighted the need for clearer procedures to prosecute those who spread hate speech online….”
(Chancellor Angela Merkel’s little tete-a-tete with Facebook head Mark Zuckerberg can be read about here.)
“I was pleased to hear media and Internet providers’ experiences and to hear their commitment to work with us. I fully agree with you on these lines of action. As was said this morning, Internet knows no borders. I intend to bring together IT companies, business, national authorities and civil society around the table in Brussels to tackle together online hate speech. I will discuss this with EU Justice Ministers next week. Let me now address the burning issue of hate crimes and data collection. We clearly need better and serious recording of hate crimes to ensure appropriate investigation, prosecution and sentencing. It is indeed high time that Member States fully implemented EU law to combat racism and xenophobia.”
Fjordman noted:
The Islamic terrorist threat in Europe has never been greater. The EU elites respond to this with more Internet censorship, even more Muslim immigration and an intensified fight against alleged “Islamophobia”. Being friendly towards Islam and continued Muslim mass immigration has become a part of the institutional DNA of the EU. It is doubtful whether this can be removed within dismantling the entire European Union.
Federica Mogherini, our third contestant for the title of Wholesale Redactor- in-Chief for Europe is the current High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security. No mention is made by Fjordman of who the Low Representative might be.
“The very idea of a clash of civilizations is at odds with the most basic values of our European Union — let alone with reality. Throughout our European history, many have tried to unify our continent by imposing their own power, their own ideology, their own identity against the identity of someone else. With the European project, after World War II, not only we accepted diversity: we expressed a desire for diversity to be a core feature of our Union. We defined our civilization through openness and plurality: a mind-set based on blocs does not belong to us.
“Some people are now trying to convince us that a Muslim cannot be a good European citizen, that more Muslims in Europe will be the end of Europe. These people are not just mistaken about Muslims: these people are mistaken about Europe — that is my core message — they have no clue what Europe and the European identity are. This is our common fight: to make this concept accepted both in Europe and beyond Europe. For Europe and Islam face some common challenges in today’s world. The so-called Islamic State is putting forward an unprecedented attempt to pervert Islam for justifying a wicked political and strategic project.”
There’s that “Islam’s been hijacked by extremist” line again. Never mind that ISIS and other Islamic organizations quote Koranic chapter and verse every time they behead a dozen or so Christians or other infidels or put up Yazidi women for sale or blow up pagan temples or go on car- or knife-jihad in Israel. News Flash for Miss Mogherini: Muslims are not “perverting” Islam. They are practicing it in its purist form, which is the only form ISIS and other jihadis recognize and accept. If there are any “hijacking” accusations to be made, they are made by Sunnis against Shi’ites and by Shi’ites against Sunnis. I think there is another branch of impure Islam at large, but they don’t much make the news. Maybe it’s the wild-eyed Salafists arse-whippng the Slovenly and Laggard Muslims.
Fjordman prefaced Mogherini’s cravenly dhimmi remarks with this note:
Mogherini made the following remarks at the Call to Europe V: Islam in Europe FEPS conference on June 24, 2015. She dismissed any notion of a clash between Islam and the West, stating that “Islam holds a place in our Western societies. Islam belongs in Europe. It holds a place in Europe’s history, in our culture, in our food and — what matters most — in Europe’s present and future.” According to her, Europeans should celebrate their “diversity.” She further stated that “I am not afraid to say that political Islam should be part of the picture.”
Islam is certainly part of the picture now, Miss Mogherini, and it’s mixing as well into European culture as Strychnine will add a piquant zest to a fettuccine sauce.
On the contrary, it is Miss Mogherini and her ilk who are clueless about Europe’s identity. Whatever that identity is, is clashing violently with Islam’s “civilization.” It’s doubtful that she or Vera Jourova or Frans Timmermans have even heard of Mohamed Akram’s 1991 Explanatory Memorandum to the Shura Council of the Muslim Brotherhood about how to infest and invest the U.S. by demographical jihad – what Europe is undergoing as we write – one of whose points is:
The process of settlement is a “Civilization-Jihadist Process” with all the word means. The Ikhwan must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and “sabotaging” its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.
And Europe’s house is certainly being sabotaged from within by a clique of moral and cultural relativists, by what are called over here “limousine liberals.”
The same thing is happening in the U.S.
Comments are closed.
