The ECRI report establishes a direct causal link between some tough headlines in British tabloids and the security of the Muslims in the UK. In other words, the British press is allegedly inciting readers to commit “Islamophobic” acts against Muslims:
I don’t see the problem…
Source: Council of Europe Recommends British Press NOT Report when Terrorists are Muslims
But like many other liberal power-enabling concepts, those perpetrating it intend to repeat it so often that it becomes accepted by a majority of Americans. But it cannot survive constitutional scrutiny for the simple reason that in order to accept the censorship authority of person A, one has to disqualify the censorship authority of person B. Simply put, this implies that one person’s feeling of being offended has value, and everyone else’s doesn’t.
Source: Articles: Censoring Language as Offensive Violates the Constitution
Hurry! See it before Google bans it entirely.
Source: The Jawa Report: Ministry of Irony: Google’s Youtube Censors Video on Left Wing Censorship
Please understand that what happened to Street Cakes wasn’t about lesbians getting their wedding cake. If those lesbians wanted a cake in Oregon, they could have enriched God-alone-knows how many different bakeries. Instead, this was about destroying Christians’ right to withdraw voluntarily from a competitive marketplace in order to protect their religious sensibilities.
Source: The Bookworm Beat 10/23/16 – the culture war edition and open thread – Bookworm Room
As outlined in the 1993 essay collection Words That Wound, one of the most widely distributed products of Critical Race Legal Theory, the goal of multicultural activists is to develop a legal framework which will characterize “racist hate speech” (i.e. truthful observations) as no longer protected by the First Amendment.
The upshot is that Trump is right.
Source: Trump vs. Cuckservatives (and Left) – The Unz Review
