Hello everyone I am once again attempting to start a thread on this subject. A mod asked me to give it another go. This time I will ask that all please try to stay on topic and make sure your replies have to do with cannabis or ICmag. If not this thread will be binned like the others. This is not about Republicans, Democrats or the president. This is about our freedoms and liberties under attack.
First of all its very important that we recognize what the first ammendment protects for its citzens (as well as non-citzens). The right to free speech and free press. It is also the clause that prevents the goverment from endorsing a specific religion and protects religious freedom.
First ammendment to the U.S. Constitution:
I contend that the first ammendment to the constitution is under attack by proposals such as the 'fairness act'. For instance roughly one year ago a post on the White House blog written by Macon Phillips, the White House Director of New Media.
Another example is the recently proposed Disclose Act. A blog on Campaign Freedom notes:
The FCC is imposing new rules without the fairness act even. These rules are effecting the free speech of various radio stations. “Report on Broadcast Localism And Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.” In that 98 page report, there are EIGHT references requiring radio stations to set up “community advisory boards” to advise on station programming.
In addition to these outright attacks on free speech the current administration's regulatory czar Cass Sunstein has some very radical opinions on free speech. I should add that it would be easily feasible reading his paper to conclude he may consider 'cannabis being medicine' a conspiracy theory. Note the opinion about getting natural sunlight.
Now in addition to all of this we have of course the patriot act wich imo is a bi partisan attack on our freedom and liberty by both Republicans and Democrats. This is why I dont feel this is a partisan issue. Both are for consolidating federal powers.
First of all its very important that we recognize what the first ammendment protects for its citzens (as well as non-citzens). The right to free speech and free press. It is also the clause that prevents the goverment from endorsing a specific religion and protects religious freedom.
First ammendment to the U.S. Constitution:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
I contend that the first ammendment to the constitution is under attack by proposals such as the 'fairness act'. For instance roughly one year ago a post on the White House blog written by Macon Phillips, the White House Director of New Media.
Quote from ACLJ (American Center for Law and Justice):
In his post, Phillips notes “[t]here is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there” both on the web and floating around in chain emails. Phillips states that “ince we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to [email protected].”
In a nutshell, the White House is asking you to report on your neighbors, family, and friends who disagree with the President’s policy choices on health care. The White House is also implying that you should think twice before sending an email disagreeing with the President, since it might end up being forwarded to them. The White House email address says it all – let’s “flag” those who disagree with us. For what purpose are these individuals being flagged?
Another example is the recently proposed Disclose Act. A blog on Campaign Freedom notes:
The DISCLOSE Act (Democratic Incumbents Seeking to Contain Losses by Outlawing Speech in Elections) by Senator Chuck Schumer and Congressman Chris Van Hollen just keeps getting worse and worse with each reading.
Among the many deficiencies uncovered so far (crafted behind closed doors, favors the speech of organized labor while silencing the business community, designed by Democratic Congressional political leadership to enhance their election advantages, and ignoring that current disclosure requirements are more than sufficient), another has recently come to light—the bill would impose significant restrictions on the right of citizens to speak freely on the internet about candidates.
William McGinley, a prominent campaign finance lawyer who testified at yesterday's hearing on the DISCLOSE Act, noted during his oral testimony that "the broad reach of the new definitions of independent expenditure... and covered coordinated communications... now appear to regulate internet communication, including the liberal and conservative blogosphere."
McGinley went on to note that the DISCLOSE Act's media exemption provisions does not include web sites or internet communications in the same manner as current law, which does protect political speech on the internet from government regulation and restriction. He concludes that "this legislation does not exclude bloggers or internet communications, and places them at risk. If this bill passes, the internet's status as a free-speech zone is in danger."
The FCC is imposing new rules without the fairness act even. These rules are effecting the free speech of various radio stations. “Report on Broadcast Localism And Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.” In that 98 page report, there are EIGHT references requiring radio stations to set up “community advisory boards” to advise on station programming.
We tentatively conclude that each licensee [station] should convene a permanent advisory board made up of officials and other leaders from the service area of its broadcast station.” The FCC brief also states, “How should members of the advisory boards be selected or elected? How can the advisory boards be composed so as to ensure that all segments of the community, including minority or underserved members of the community, would also have an opportunity to voice their concerns about local issues facing the area? How frequently should licensess be required to meet with these advisory boards?
.While the Commission has observed that each broadcast station is not necessarily required to provide service to all such groups, it has nonetheless recognized the concerns of some that programming – particularly network programming – often is not sufficiently culturally diverse
In addition to these outright attacks on free speech the current administration's regulatory czar Cass Sunstein has some very radical opinions on free speech. I should add that it would be easily feasible reading his paper to conclude he may consider 'cannabis being medicine' a conspiracy theory. Note the opinion about getting natural sunlight.
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Thursday, January 14, 2010
The controversy surrounding White House information czar and Harvard Professor Cass Sunstein’s blueprint for the government to infiltrate political activist groups has deepened, with the revelation that in the same 2008 dossier he also called for the government to tax or even ban outright political opinions of which it disapproved.
Sunstein was appointed by President Obama to head up the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, an agency within the Executive Office of the President.
On page 14 of Sunstein’s January 2008 white paper entitled “Conspiracy Theories,” the man who is now Obama’s head of information technology in the White House proposed that each of the following measures “will have a place under imaginable conditions” according to the strategy detailed in the essay.
That’s right, Obama’s information czar wants to tax or ban outright, as in make illegal, political opinions that the government doesn’t approve of. To where would this be extended? A tax or a shut down order on newspapers that print stories critical of our illustrious leaders?1) Government might ban conspiracy theorizing.
2) Government might impose some kind of tax, financial or otherwise, on those who disseminate such theories.
And what does Sunstein define as “conspiracy theories” that should potentially be taxed or outlawed by the government? Opinions held by the majority of Americans, no less.
The notion that Lee Harvey Oswald did not act alone in killing JFK, a view shared by the vast majority of Americans in every major poll over the last ten years, is an example of a “conspiracy theory” that the federal government should consider censoring, according to Sunstein.
A 1998 CBS poll found that just 10 per cent of Americans believed that Oswald acted alone, so apparently the other 90 per cent of Americans could be committing some form of thought crime by thinking otherwise under Sunstein’s definition.
Sunstein also cites the belief that “global warming is a deliberate fraud” as another marginal conspiracy theory to be countered by government action. In reality, the majority of Americans now believe that the man-made explanation of global warming is not true, and that global warming is natural, according to the latest polls.
But Sunstein saves his most ludicrous example until last. On page 5 he characterizes as “false and dangerous” the idea that exposure to sunlight is healthy, despite the fact that top medical experts agree prolonged exposure to sunlight reduces the risk of developing certain cancers.
To claim that encouraging people to get out in the sun is to peddle a dangerous conspiracy theory is like saying that promoting the breathing of fresh air is also a thought crime. One can only presume that Sunstein is deliberately framing the debate by going to such absurd extremes so as to make any belief whatsoever into a conspiracy theory unless it’s specifically approved by the kind of government thought police system he is pushing for.
Despite highlighting the fact that repressive societies go hand in hand with an increase in “conspiracy theories,” Sunstein’s ’solution’ to stamp out such thought crimes is to ban free speech, fulfilling the precise characteristic of the “repressive society” he warns against elsewhere in the paper.
“We could imagine circumstances in which a conspiracy theory became so pervasive, and so dangerous, that censorship would be thinkable,” he writes on page 20. Remember that Sunstein is not just talking about censoring Holocaust denial or anything that’s even debatable in the context of free speech, he’s talking about widely accepted beliefs shared by the majority of Americans but ones viewed as distasteful by the government, which would seek to either marginalize by means of taxation or outright censor such views.
No surprise therefore that Sunstein has called for re-writing the First Amendment as well as advocating Internet censorship and even proposing that Americans should celebrate tax day and be thankful that the state takes a huge chunk of their income.
The government has made it clear that growing suspicion towards authority is a direct threat to their political agenda and indeed Sunstein admits this on page 3 of his paper.
That is why they are now engaging in full on information warfare in an effort to undermine, disrupt and eventually outlaw organized peaceful resistance to their growing tyranny.
Now in addition to all of this we have of course the patriot act wich imo is a bi partisan attack on our freedom and liberty by both Republicans and Democrats. This is why I dont feel this is a partisan issue. Both are for consolidating federal powers.