Total topics: 4
Freedom of speech is dead in Ireland. It has been murdered by the typical libtard 'hate speech' nonsense that allows corrupt governments and malicious people to destroy others for disagreeing with them. Not only that, but a reversal of the golden criminal justice principle of 'innocent until proven guilty' is about to take effect, too, wherein people need to explain why they have material on their devices, else they are assumed guilty. FuzJqkqX0AEbXtR (1080×1137) (twimg.com)
Ireland is about to pass a law that prevents people from having "material that is likely to incite violence or hatred against a person or group of person". What that means in practice is that if you have something that is political that refers to controversial issues on your phone or laptop, those are illegal and could be used to criminally prosecute you, because the standard for inciting violence/hatred is vague and assumes you're guilty.
If you have a picture of Hitler on your laptop or phone, perhaps used for a research project at school, you'll need to explain yourself before a judge. If you have a meme about Asians not driving well, you'll need to explain yourself before a judge. If you have a video of some African Muslims bashing people, you'll need to explain yourself in front of a judge.
Say what you want about America and its failings, but at least it has robust freedom of speech and criminal justice laws.
MONTANA TRANSGENDER LAWMAKER BARRED by GOP from HOUSE FLOOR
By AMY BETH HANSON, SAM METZ and MATTHEW BROWN
HELENA, Mont. (AP) — Montana Republicans barred transgender lawmaker Zooey Zephyr from the House floor for the rest of the 2023 session on Wednesday in retaliation for her rebuking colleagues – and then participating in protests – after they voted to ban gender-affirming care for children.
The punishment marks the first time in nearly half a century that Montana lawmakers have sought to censure one of their own. It caps a weeklong standoff between her and House Republican leaders and formalizes their decision to not let Zephyr speak since she said those supportive of such a ban would have blood on their hands.
Zephyr will be able to vote and participate in committees, but not discuss proposals and amendments that are under consideration with the full House. The legislative session is set to end in early May.
The fight over Zephyr’s remarks has brought the nationwide debate over protest’s role in democracy to Montana, where lawmakers punished her for voicing dissent, an increasingly prevalent move in statehouses. In supporting Zephyr’s attempts to regain her voice, protesters interrupted proceedings earlier this week by chanting “Let her Speak” in a boisterous rally that came after they protested outside the Capitol and unfurled a banner that read “Democracy Dies Here.”
After days of rebuffing Zephyr’s request to speak, Republican leaders finally granted her the floor to give a statement before they ultimately voted to censure her Wednesday. She said her initial “blood on your hands” remark and subsequent decision to hoist a microphone into the air toward protesters in the House gallery were an effort to stand up for the LGBTQ+ community and her 11,000 constituents in Missoula.
House Speaker Matt Regier’s decision to turn off her microphone, she said, was an attempt to drive “a nail in the coffin of democracy.”
“If you use decorum to silence people who hold you accountable, then all you’re doing is using decorum as a tool of oppression,” Zephyr told her colleagues.
House Republicans who supported barring Zephyr from the floor have accused her of placing lawmakers and staff at risk of harm for disrupting House proceedings and inciting protests in the chamber on Monday.
But lawmakers were on the floor Monday when protesters were in the gallery, and there have been no reports of damage to the building.
“Freedom in this body involves obedience to all the rules of this body, including the rules of decorum,” House Majority Leader Sue Vinton said.
Authorities arrested seven people in the confrontation, who Zephyr said were defending democracy. Her opponents said ensuring government can conduct business on behalf of the people without interruption was a critical precedent to set.
“This is an assault on our representative democracy, spirited debate, and the free expression of ideas cannot flourish in an atmosphere of turmoil and incivility,” Republican David Bedey said on the House floor.
The episode comes weeks after two Black lawmakers, Tennessee state Reps. Justin Jones and Justin Pearson, were expelled for participating in a protest in favor of gun control after another school shooting. Similarly, Zephyr’s punishment has ignited a firestorm of debate about governance and who has a voice in an elected body during this politically polarizing time.
Post-expulsion, the fate of the two Tennessee lawmakers were sent to their county commissions, which swiftly voted to reinstate them. Zephyr told The Associated Press after the vote that Republican leaders were likely aware that a similar sequence of events could be triggered, had they expelled her.
“My community and the Democratic Party in Missoula would send me back here in a heartbeat because I represent them and I represent their values by standing up for democracy,” she said.
The censure comes two days after protesters later packed into the gallery at the Statehouse and brought House proceedings to a halt chanting “Let her speak” as Zephyr lifted her microphone toward them. Seven subsequent arrests galvanized both her supporters and those saying Zephyr’s actions constitute an unacceptable attack on civil discourse.
“There needs to be some consequences for what he has been doing,” said Rep. Joe Read, who frequently but inconsistently used incorrect pronouns when referring to Zephyr.
He claimed Zephyr gave a signal to her supporters just before Monday’s session was disrupted. He declined to say what that was other than a “strange movement.”
“When she gave the signal for protesters to go into action, I would say that’s when decorum was incredibly broken,” Read added.
Zephyr told the AP that she felt the moment was calling on her to stand up for democracy.
“Every time that one of these votes came; every time the speaker refused to allow me to speak; when the protesters came and demanded, my thought was twofold,” she said. “Pride in those who stood up to defend democracy and a hope that in some small way, I could rise to that moment individually and do the work they sent me to do.”
Some people are far more likely to be violent than others, at least according to a recent 2023 study commissioned by FIRE (Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression), but conducted by College Pulse. The sample size was enormous at roughly 45,000.
Some of the results will surprise you!
Is it okay to use violence to stop a campus speech?
One of the most explosive findings was that Agender people, in response to this prompt: "How acceptable would you say it is for students to engage in the following action to protest a campus speaker? Using violence to stop a campus speech," the results showed that roughly 64% of them said it was at least "rarely" acceptable FuS_QjOXgAIuJZO (1176×870) (twimg.com) , whilst 38% of them said it was at least "sometimes" acceptable, and 8% saying always -- scary! FtEWsUoaUAAU65t (911×611) (twimg.com) . This places them a top of any group as being the most prone to violence over a campus speech.
Queer/Gender fluid is the next worst category for gender having splits (at least "rarely" 49%, at least "sometimes" 22%, and "always" 4%). Non-binary and unsure gender results were only fractionally better with their splits. It should be noted that sample sizes for these groups were: 1,249 for nonbinary, 810 were genderqueer, and 411 agender.
Both males and females were the gender group least likely to cause violence over a speech, with neither group getting at least a "rarely" response more than 20% of the time, females 3% for "sometimes" and 1% for "always", whilst males were 4% and 2% respectively.
In regards to race, a surprising finding was that Native Hawaiians (at least "rarely" 36% - at least "sometimes"15% - "always" 5%) were the most likely to get violent over a campus speech, with only Middle Easterners being marginally better (35%-15%-4%). Asians, Blacks, Hispanics and Mixed races were all roughly the same and significantly less than the previous two, whilst Whites were the least prone to violence (17%-4%-1%).
Super surprisingly, with respect to religion, Buddhists were the most likely to throw hands over speech on campus (30%-10%-2%). Atheists were 2nd (24%-6%-1%). Christians were least likely (11%-3%-1%).
"Something else" was the most likely political category to be violent (29%-7%-2%). Strong Democrats were 2nd (24%-7%-2%). "Independent, lean Republican was the least likely (11%-3%-1% -- exactly the same as Christians).
For the "field of study", African/Afr-American Studies (56%-31%-10%) Ethnicity and Race studies (52%-18%-1%) people were easily the most prone to violence. Real Estate was the least prone to violence and the lowest group out of anything I saw (4%-1%-1%). Jewish Studies should also get a mention (8%-8%-0%).
(use this resource to play around with the data for all above categories) --> 2022 College Free Speech Rankings Data | Tableau Public
Other important questions from the study relating to interference with speeches
Among many other statements, two other interesting statements were given to the students to evaluate how acceptable they are (1) "Block other students from attending a campus speech", and (2) "Shouting down a speaker or trying to prevent them from speaking on campus".
Agender (72%-41%-12%) and Non-binary (65%-33%-6%) were the 1st and 2nd worst genders for answering statement (1), with Non-binary (87%-64%-17%) and Agender (81%-55%-15%) switching places for statement (2). Males were least likely for (1) (33%-11%-3%) and (2) (58%-26%-6%).
Middle Easterners were again the least tolerant race for (1) (47%-22%-5%) and (2) (68%-37%-7%). Whites were the most tolerant for (1) (34%-10%-2%), but "other" was most tolerant for (2) (56%-27%-5%).
For religion, Agnostic (46%-15%-2%), Atheists (44%-15%-2%) and Buddhists (45%-18%-3%) were all about 1st for (1), whilst only Atheists (73%-43%-10%) and Agnostics (75%-41%-7%) were the worst for (2). Christians most tolerant for (1) (29%-9%-1%), and Orthodox Christian for (2) (55%-25%-4%).
Strong Democrats were the worst for (1) (49%-19%-3%) and (2) (77%-47%-9%). Independent, lean Republican were the best for (1) (20%-4%-1%), and Strong Republican was best for (2) (37%-13%-3%).
Field of Studies had African/Afr-American Studies (61%-32%-12%), Ethnicity Studies (61%-28%-6%), and Women's and Gender Studies (and Sexuality) (59%-25%-5%) were the worst for (1), whilst Jewish Studies took the cake for (2) (92%-37%-0%). Ethnicity and Race Studies should get a mention, too (83%-70%-22%). Robotics and Intelligent Systems were the best for (1) (13%-0%-0%), whilst European Cultural Studies were the best for (2) (18%-0%-0%).
What to make of all these statistics?
Anyone who doesn't identity as a man or woman is likely to be against genuine freedom of speech, with the mythical agender and non-binary people the most prone to violence of any groups. Middle Easterners are not quite as bad as the mythical genders, but they certainly don't seem to support freedom of speech either, and thus are the most troublesome race. Whites seem to support freedom of speech the most and are the least likely to be violent over it. Buddhists, Atheists, Agnostics and Strong Democrats are somewhat intolerant, but not as prone to violence as Middle Easterners or the mythical genders. Christians are the most tolerant in all regards. African/Afr-American Studies and Ethnicity Studies people are almost as violent as the mythical genders but won't engage in other disrupting tactics as much (but they are still the worst from any field of study). Real Estate study people were the least violent of any group.
Another interesting recurring theme I found was that Asians were slightly more intolerant of freedom of speech than Blacks, even in regards to violence.
Finally, the worst college for freedom of speech, in accordance with the study's "2022 College Free Speech Rankings," was Columbia University by some margin, garnering an "abysmal" rating of 9.91 (the only "abysmal" rating out of 203 campuses) 2022 College Free Speech Rankings | The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (thefire.org)
WION is solid as fuck News, only really biased when it comes to reporting on India vs Pakistan type matters. They talk about the whole world regularly, they exposed Pfizer for blackmailing countries and are an absolutely fantastic News source to represent south Asia to the world. It is appalling to me that this was cancelled for something controversial that was said and I am so happy that within 12 hours YT caved in and did the right thing.
Something like FB and Twitter would never have thought twice about keeping them banned. I respect Google no matter what other conspiracy theorists tell mea bout them. Google/YT do engage in cancel culture but I feel it's a much more 'open to negotiation' one. I've seen other examples of this before, such as a channel about children with special needs that kept stopping comments 'just in case' of abuse for almost 2 years until a few months ago where they admitted it was unfair to stop because they're muzzling all the supportive comments.
The channel for the special needs people is this (warning to judgemental pricks, it has people with very unusual facial and bodily conditions and/or mental disabilities on it.
^ the cancelling, over 3 years ago
^ celebrating the long-overdue de-censoring.