Free Speech

Auckland Rally against the UN Migration Pact

Dieuwe de Boer

What Facebook, France & Fascism have in common

The initiative announced today stems from a meeting earlier this year between Zuckerberg (left) and Macron (right) | Christophe Petit Tesson/AFP via Getty Images

The desire to censor and to control the message is what Facebook, France and Fascism all have in common. Rather than address the actual problems that come with Muslim immigration, Sharia law and Islamic terrorism, Facebook and France are collaborating in typical Fascist fashion to silence those citizens who dare to express concern or to complain about the many evils of Islam.

Zuckerberg has been cracking down and banning people who post anti-Muslim comments for several years now while doing nothing about anti-Israel/anti-Christian/anti-American Facebook pages.

First, it was Germany’s Angela Merkel collaborating with Facebook. Now Macron too has decided to silence French citizens instead of protecting them from all the issues and problems that they are wanting to talk about and express their legitimate anger, fear and concerns about. quote.

Read more »

Blasphemy law through the backdoor

The European Court of Human Rights has essentially upheld Islamic blasphemy laws and have taken away an Austrian woman’s right to freedom of speech. They have criminalised her fact-based suggestion that the Prophet Muhammad was a paedophile because he had a six-year-old wife. The court ruled that they had the right to restrict her free speech because of how many Muslims would react to her words. The court fined her and unbelievably called her statement “wrong and offensive, even if Muhammad had married a six-year-old and had intercourse with her when she had been nine.”

So what was the backdoor way in which the European court justified imposing an Islamic blasphemy law (the Sharia) on a woman who had thought that she lived in a democratic and free country? quote.

Read more »

The free speech showdown at Otago University

University Thought Police

A student at Otago University has claimed that he was harassed by Campus Watch. An article in the University magazine Critic described the student as an “Alt-right activist” and stated that the magazine was “perfectly happy to let them fight it out”

Malcolm Moncrief-Spittle said that he had put up a number of posters that promoted videos made by Lauren Southern. Apparently, students who didn’t like Lauren Southern’s opinions, graffitied tore down or covered up the posters.

Eventually, Malcolm decided to video a fellow student who was busy defacing one of his posters and it turned into an interview with two people who had both been involved in trying to censor him.

Read more »

Faces of the day

“CRAZY ol Val gets down and dirty with poop”
Valerie Morse Auckland Peace Action

Remember Crazy old Val? Here she is protesting outside the Nigel Farage event along with the impressionable and easily led youngsters who apparently make up her Auckland Peace Action activist group.

She yelled at people entering the event that they were “fascists” and got in front of them and took photos of them. I assume that it was an attempt to intimidate them and treat them as if they were doing something criminal and shameful.

Anti-free speech activist Valerie Morse harassed people entering the Nige Farage event and tried to intimidate them by taking their photos as if they were doing something criminal and shameful.

Read more »

Why the Dominion Post cartoon missed the mark completely

Cartoon: Dominion Post

A skilled political cartoonist is a student of history. No matter what their political bias they at least understand the facts about the past. The Dominion Post yesterday morning published a cartoon that displayed the cartoonist’s historical ignorance.

The Free Speech Coalition on Facebook pointed out the irony of the cartoon since cartoonists were one of the first groups to be persecuted by the Nazis. Quote.

(1) Free speech is the best prevention to fascism […]

(2) The regime was largely a result of imprisoning them and turning them into victims.

Terrible ideas breed in the dark – as it is harder to expose them for what they are.end quote.

The right to censor free speech: Part two

Continuing from where we left off.  Brittany Hunter’s article written for the Foundation for Economic Education: Quote.

The rise of the alt-right and the alt-left has brought all sorts of weirdos out of hiding and yes, some of them have views that most of us would deem inappropriate and even immoral. But banning them only shows that we fear what they have to say. There is a market of ideas where different viewpoints compete with others. And if we, as individuals, believe that our view is the “right” or “good” view, then we should let that it compete on its own merits in the marketplace of ideas.

Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey appears to understand this, as he has refused to participate in the Jones ban, saying:

If we succumb and simply react to outside pressure, rather than straightforward principles we enforce (and evolve) impartially regardless of political viewpoints, we become a service that’s constructed by our personal views that can swing in any direction. That’s not us.

And even though this decision has resulted in backlash from the left who have attacked him for not taking a “stand” against Jones, Dorsey has stood his ground. He even responded to the criticism via tweet, telling journalists that if they are concerned with Jones’ views, they should be diligently combating them with their own opinions.
Read more »

The right to censor free speech: Part one

Brittany Hunter writes for the Foundation for Economic Education. quote.

Between Trump’s tirades against alleged “fake news” outlets and the recent banning of Alex Jones from Facebook, Apple, and YouTube, our society appears to be obsessed with trying to silence the opposition by controlling the flow of information. And while the recent Jones prohibition has sparked a national debate over who the First Amendment applies to, there is more to this story than just the issue of state-protected free speech.

To be sure, the [US] Bill of Rights is vital to individual liberty and was written explicitly to restrain the government from infringing upon the rights of the people. And while Facebook may sometimes be more accommodating to the government than many of us would like, the fact remains that it is a private company and it has the right to ban whomever it chooses. The same goes for YouTube and Apple.

And while we are each free to disagree with the decision to censor certain users, debating the constitutionality of Facebook and Apple’s decision ignores the real heart of the matter: Facebook, CNN, Apple, YouTube, and Fox News are not responsible for the spread of misinformation, no matter how much believing so may reinforce our own narratives. When all is said and done, the only person responsible for distinguishing fact from fiction is the individual. […]

The freedom to choose and think for ourselves is one of the most sacred attributes of the individual. But over the last several years, many Americans have adopted an attitude that puts political opinions ahead of individual responsibility.
Read more »


Simon Bridges on free speech

Simon Bridges talking in Blenheim about his views on free speech 9 August 2018.  Transcript follows.

I think what has happened over the last few weeks is an absolute disgrace. We need to get back to the old fashioned bedrock principles of people are allowed to say what they want. Yes, there will be some thing right up the top called hate speech. If some came in here and was threatening, I won’t give threat examples, threatening to do terrible things to [indistinct] you know, there is a line, but we would set that bar very, very, high because people should be allowed to say what they want.

That’s the sort of society we want to live in.

What’s really going on in New Zealand at the moment is that some of them think that they can shout down people who disagree with them. That’s what is really going on. They think that that is the way to go. They will get themselves in to a politically correct cocoon where only people who are in there are allowed to say things as part of the conversation.

Well, that’s rubbish.

Don Brash: I don’t agree with everything he says. He’s been former Reserve Bank Governor, he’s been former leader of the Opposition, he’s a smart man. He’s not said anything remotely approaching racist.  [Indistinct]

He was banned, it is a disgrace what has happened, we do have to stand up for free speech, to be quite strong on these things.

Ultimately, my view is this: You are smart, fair-minded people, you can make up your own minds. You don’t need Aunty Helen, or Jacinda Ardern telling you what it is you should or shouldn’t find acceptable. That is not a free speech, mature, democratic country.


Learning lessons from Lenin

Credit: Luke

In A New Dictionary of Quotations on Historical Principles from Ancient and Modern Sources selected and edited by H. L. Mencken, Lenin is quoted as having said in a speech in Moscow in 1920: Quote.

Why should freedom of speech and freedom of the press be allowed? Why should a government which is doing what it believes to be right allow itself to be criticized? It would not allow opposition by lethal weapons. Ideas are much more fatal things than guns. Why should any man be allowed to buy a printing press and disseminate pernicious opinions calculated to embarrass the government? End of quote

Read more »