DOES FREEDOM OF SPEECH START at the top or at the bottom? Are we encased in a cocoon as mindless followers because we have become so jaded to what we should be standing up for?
In this article, I will point to three specific examples of what is happening right under our collective noses in this country and how you, by your silence are acquiescing and allowing speech to be stifled.
Let’s start with the Press:
Jim Acosta, while displaying reporter-like aggressive behavior, was behaving exactly as an aggressive reporter should. He was attempting to glean information from President Trump in a press conference, and because of how he had been treated, (ignored, intentionally shunned, etc.) in the past, his aggression reached a pinnacle. He was booted.
I can only imagine if I were a member of the White House Press corp, labeled as ‘fake news‘ and hate mongers by the Trump administration, since it only rolls out the orange carpet for the likes of Fox News, Breitbart, and Sean Hannity (though an honest reporter he will never be).
Herein lies the dichotomy of a man trying to squeeze information from a turnip and instead he is vilified for even being in the room, contrasted with a man employed by Fox News who is supposed to be at least operating at arm’s length to fawn over Trump. But instead he ends up rah-rah-ing right along on the stage at a Trump rally just prior to the midterm election.
The one trying to get information is banished and blocked (at least until a judge saw it fit to reinstate Acosta’s access – video below), and the one on stage got a Murdoch slap on the low brow, telling Sean that it’s a no-no to get on the stage and be a groupie with the man he’s supposed to be covering as a news project.
Next up: Facebook Jail:
As an example of this stifling violation of First Amendment, I had a friend get tossed back in the Facebook hoosegow today like a revolving door for three days, almost the minute her 24 hour jail time had ended. Why? Who knows? Facebook won’t tell her.
Someone probably reported a comment she made that they became sorely offended over, (my own example: Pitt bulls can be dangerous if they are raised by drug users). So Facebook, in it’s ultimate wisdom of recent college grad employees in Liberal Arts degrees like Race Relations and Puppetry and Comedic Arts, saw it fit to ban her twice in a row from posting on its media.
This threatening screen shot was the message she received:
And each time they do it, it’s for a longer period than the previous time. Is Facebook targeting people? Doubtful. It’s more likely that one hand knows not what the other hand is doing. And to take advantage of the constant ineptitude, group trolls and profile trolls will go on posts and report comments that conflict with their hard-line political or religious beliefs and say that the comments “offended them.”
Facebook, instead of first investigating the claim, as it used to do, is now just tossing people behind bars until it can “review” the offensive statements (which it has neither the time nor the inclination nor the mental capacity to do).
Think about it. Facebook employees have their own political biases, and depending on who looks at said comment, will determine the jail sentence. No trial, no jury. Just ban and banish with the denial of First Amendment rights without explanation or even a screen shot of the post or comment in question.
I think Facebook should open a back and forth chat when these things occur. Where you could see a little image of a live person on your screen of who you are chatting with and the actual city (code word: country), they are communicating to you from. Is it Sunflower Sally from Cameroon? Or is it just Steve from Omaha? You would also be able to screen shot their texts to you.
We have a right to know who is applying the ban and why, or articles like this will continue to promulgate the site. If mine is banned, those of you who have read it will know I was right on target with my theory.
Last but not least, is this sickening, smothering shocker…
Christian music is being labeled, “explicit” by music sites such as Pandora and Spotify!
“Explicit” usually means to beware of explicit (vulgar or cussing language within the song). This way, wise parents can keep their children from accessing this music. But in this particular case, an actual example of a new song by Phil Williams which hit 34 platforms today, was released under the auspices of being “explicit”.
Why? Because it talks about Jesus? Jesus is a “bad word” in a lot of places, you know. Many other faiths as well as those who have no religious leanings whatsoever, find the very mention of His Name offensive. (It’s not like we can even mention that the Qu’ran has offensive and threatening language within, calling for the extinguishing (murder) of all infidels (nonbelievers in Islam) without getting tossed in the slammer!
Because California is trying like mad to ban the Bible (if sold for the purpose of sex conversion therapy to treat gay people), to cover trans-gender surgery with health insurance or Medicaid, and to let in illegals while our own veterans are often homeless, it is clear that the First Amendment is being tested more than ever.
Calling Phil Williams’ new gospel song “explicit” is just a symptom of the upside down reasoning in America today. Instead, our children walk down the halls of their elementary and middle schools punching each other and hurling f-bombs while the teachers just shake their heads. It’s why I hung up my teaching degree instead of “giving back” after my impending retirement.
Instead I will write. And write.
For now Phil Williams (Philosophy) and his music partner Shadeeb Swanson (Poetic) and their new group GFL (God’s Faith League) will keep on singing. And we need to spread the Word, not stifle it!
Please pass along his song and do your part to help kids learn that “explicit” in this case is not to be avoided, but instead is to be praised and shared.