Connect with us

Free Speech

UN Plans New Global Censorship Push to Combat “Hate Speech”

The United Nations is trying to stamp out what they see as “hate speech.”

Published

on

The United Nations released a new and rambling plan to combat what the organization sees as “hate speech” on Saturday. A memo on the plan was signed off on by the organization’s secretary-general, Antonio Guterres.

The globalist organization was vague and unclear on what exactly they defined as “hate speech,” choosing to describe the phenomenon as “any kind of communication in speech, writing or behaviour, that attacks or uses pejorative or discriminatory language with reference to a person or a group on the basis of who they are, in other words, based on their religion, ethnicity, nationality, race, colour, descent, gender or other identity factor.”

Quite obviously, western liberals would describe almost any form of right-leaning political speech or criticism of mass immigration as hate speech under the aforementioned definition. The UN’s memo tried to evade calling for explicit legal criminalization of “hate speech,” but was clear that the globalist organization did in fact see certain forms of speech as criminal conduct.

Trending: Black Lives Matter Terrorists Show Up to Louisiana Courthouse with Guns to Menace Pro-Statue Protesters

Rather than prohibiting hate speech as such, international law prohibits the incitement to discrimination, hostility and violence (referred to here as ‘incitement’). Incitement is a very dangerous form of speech, because it explicitly and deliberately aims at triggering discrimination, hostility and violence, which may also lead to or include terrorism or atrocity crimes. Hate speech that does not reach the threshold of incitement is not something that international law requires States to prohibit. It is important to underline that even when not prohibited, hate speech may to be harmful.”

take our poll - story continues below

RIOTS: Who do you blame for the violence on America's streets?

  • RIOTS: Who do you blame for the violence on America's streets?

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Big League Politics updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

The United Nations’ perception that its member states are required to expressly criminalize what they see as “incitement” radically conflicts with the American tradition of free speech, in which almost any form of political speech is protected under the First Amendment of the Constitution.

Pro-liberty Canadian Parliamentarian Maxime Bernier fired back at the global censorship campaign, comparing it to Canada’s draconian “hate speech” laws which are largely used to criminalize and silence right-wing political thought.

As the UN prepares for a global censorship drive, it’s increasingly clear such protections of liberty are seen as a hindrance, not a tradition worth keeping.

Free Speech

Supreme Court Rules That Foreign Soros-Backed Operatives Do Not Have First Amendment Rights

The ruling was against the Soros-backed Alliance for Open Society International.

Published

on

The Supreme Court issued a ruling on Monday making it clear that a major front of progressive billionaire oligarch George Soros does not have 1st Amendment rights under the U.S. Constitution.

In the case of Agency for International Development v. Alliance for Open Society International, Justices Brett Kavanaugh, Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, Samuel Alito, and John Roberts ruled against 1st Amendment right for the Soros front. Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented against the majority while Justice Elena Kagan did not take part in the case.

The Alliance for Open Society International hoped to soak up federal funds earmarked to stop HIV/AIDS throughout the world. However, they hit a snag due to an act of Congress banning any group that supports prostitution from taking these funds. The pro-hooker leftist group attempted to sue to get around that act of Congress, but were rebuked by the conservative majority. Kavanaugh wrote the majority opinion for the case.

“We appreciate that plaintiffs would prefer to affiliate with foreign organizations that do not oppose prostitution,” Kavanaugh wrote. “But Congress required foreign organizations to oppose prostitution in return for American funding. And plaintiffs cannot export their own First Amendment rights to shield foreign organizations from Congress’s funding conditions.”

take our poll - story continues below

RIOTS: Who do you blame for the violence on America's streets?

  • RIOTS: Who do you blame for the violence on America's streets?

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Big League Politics updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

“Those foreign organizations are legally separate from the American organizations. And because foreign organizations operating abroad do not possess constitutional rights, those foreign organizations do not have a First Amendment right to disregard the Policy Requirement,” he continued.

“In sum, plaintiffs’ foreign affiliates are foreign organizations, and foreign organizations operating abroad possess no rights under the U. S. Constitution,” Kavanaugh concluded.

Justice Thomas wrote a concurrence to Kavanaugh’s opinion in favor of the ruling as well. He went even further than Kavanaugh in supporting Congress’ prohibition on issuing HIV relief funds to organizations that support prostitution.

“The Policy Requirement does not violate the First Amendment, regardless of whether it is applied to respondents, respondents’ legally distinct foreign affiliates, or any other organization, foreign or domestic,” Thomas wrote.

The Soros network is unhappy about the ruling and the fact that they will be denied the federal funds because of their international support for the flesh trade.

“The Supreme Court upheld the U.S. government’s quest to impose its harmful ideological agenda on U.S. organizations and restrict their right to free speech,” said Patrick Gaspard, president of the Open Society Foundations.

“The Anti-Prostitution Pledge compromises the fight against HIV by impeding and stigmatizing efforts to deliver health services. Condemnation of marginalized groups is not a public health strategy,” Gaspard added.

Regardless of their whining, the decision is final. The ruling could have the cascading effect of denying foreign Soros-backed operations any constitutional protections in terms of their alleged support for terror groups such as Black Lives Matter and ANTIFA as well.

Continue Reading
It's time to name Antifa a terror org! Sign your petition now!


Trending