Guest essay by Eric Worrall
German Chancellor Angela Merkel is planning new censorship laws, a harsh crack down on “fake news”, which according to President Obama seems to include any criticism of climate theory.
…
“Something has changed — as globalization has marched on, [political] debate is taking place in a completely new media environment. Opinions aren’t formed the way they were 25 years ago,” she said Wednesday while addressing Germany’s Bundestag, or parliament. “Today we have fake sites, bots, trolls — things that regenerate themselves, reinforcing opinions with certain algorithms, and we have to learn to deal with them.”
Merkel indicated that she supported tougher measures to crack down on hate speech in its various forms and figure out new ways to regulate the complicated ecosystem of online information (and misinformation).
“I believe we should not underestimate what is happening in the context of the Internet and with digitalization; this is part of our reality,” Merkel said. “We have regulations that allow for our press freedom, including the requirement for due diligence from journalists. Today we have many that experience a media that is based on very different foundations and is much less regulated.”
…
President Obama stating the problematic new media ecosystem includes “climate denial”
…
The new media ecosystem “means everything is true and nothing is true,” Obama told me later. “An explanation of climate change from a Nobel Prize-winning physicist looks exactly the same on your Facebook page as the denial of climate change by somebody on the Koch brothers’ payroll. And the capacity to disseminate misinformation, wild conspiracy theories, to paint the opposition in wildly negative light without any rebuttal—that has accelerated in ways that much more sharply polarize the electorate and make it very difficult to have a common conversation.”
That marked a decisive change from previous political eras, he maintained. “Ideally, in a democracy, everybody would agree that climate change is the consequence of man-made behavior, because that’s what ninety-nine per cent of scientists tell us,” he said. “And then we would have a debate about how to fix it. That’s how, in the seventies, eighties, and nineties, you had Republicans supporting the Clean Air Act and you had a market-based fix for acid rain rather than a command-and-control approach. So you’d argue about means, but there was a baseline of facts that we could all work off of. And now we just don’t have that.”
…
Read more: http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/11/28/obama-reckons-with-a-trump-presidency
Does Angela Merkel think criticism of climate science should be included in her crackdown? I haven’t found a direct quote where Merkel describes climate “denial” as “fake news”, but given how close she is to President Obama on this subject, this seems a reasonable assumption.
Under German Law, Merkel has the power to prosecute or imprison people who voice proscribed opinions. German Law, unlike the US Constitution, does not provide a guarantee of free speech. German law contains a broad and vaguely defined concept of Volksverhetzung, “incitement of the masses”.
Volksverhetzung, in English “incitement of the masses”, “instigation of the people” (the official English translation of the German Criminal Code uses “incitement to hatred”), is a concept in German criminal law that refers to incitement to hatred against segments of the population and refers to calls for violent or arbitrary measures against them, including assaults against the human dignity of others by insulting, maliciously maligning, or defaming segments of the population.
It is often applied to, though not limited to, trials relating to Holocaust denial in Germany. The criminal code (Strafgesetzbuch) Chapter 7 (Offences against public order), Paragraph 130 (Incitement to hatred) of the Federal Republic of Germany defines when a person is guilty of Volksverhetzung.
The concept draws criticism by press and legal scholars for not being defined with the necessary definiteness and violating the principle of clarity and definiteness (Bestimmtheitsgrundsatz) and thus is called an elastic clause (Gummiparagraph) allowing in theory to punish nearly any political statment made and violating the freedom of speech.
…
Read more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volksverhetzung
The only silver lining to this ghastly business is in order to legally persecute “climate deniers”, if this is Merkel’s intention, she will have to define what climate denial actually is. Defining climate “denial” is harder than it might seem, because there is a lot of agreement about the fundamental physics. A legal definition of climate “denial” would have to include ridiculously prescriptive clauses, such as “expressing a belief that equilibrium climate sensitivity may be less than 1.5c / doubling of CO2”.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
You said:
A legal definition of climate “denial” would have to include ridiculously prescriptive clauses, such as “expressing a belief that equilibrium climate sensitivity may be less than 1.5c / doubling of CO2”.
I would like to think that’s true, but someone like Merkel could just leave the definition vague and then rely on like minded judges to prosecute anyone who disagreed with her.
“Law” in itself is a fakery, because it’s only ever “practiced”, never actually “done” for real. It’s constantly moving and evolving, causing nothing but misery in general.
Cause no harm, nor allow harm to be caused to another living soul’s life, liberty or property.
What else is needed? We certainly don’t need some 6 million Statutes in every country to describe that.
Note to O’Bummer: If I had a Koch Brothers’ cheque, I would have bought you out by now.
“‘Cause no harm, nor allow harm to be caused to another living soul’s life, liberty or property.’ What else is needed?”
A gross and dangerous oversimplification of the real world. For just one instance, according to that limp “Law-Lite” principle, triage would be illegal, even though it saves lives. Ditto, shooting a sniper, which causes harm to the sniper, if done properly.
The object of triage is to enable the most urgent injuries to be taken care of first and save lives, which as you said, works. It causes no undue harm and simply makes sense. The act of shooting a sniper is a product of war, self-defence or protecting the public. Armies have their own rules of engagement. I’m talking civil law.
Laws need to be sensible. If you’re not killing, robbing or being deceptive in your dealings, why should you be held to account for harm where there is none, which is precisely where most laws today cause harm by inventing a fictional victim such as the State, and penalising you when the State has not been palpably harmed.
“Legal” and “illegal” are simply wet dreams by politicians designed to fleece you where no palpable harm has been caused to anyone.
You speak as if you expect these people to be honest on any level after nearly 80 years of their constant deception.
Look at how readily they invoke the holocaust when they are questioned. That should tell you something. I know what it tells me, and that is that their web of outright lies goes far deeper than any of them are leading on, and it’s so deep that many of these people belief all of them.
In conclusion, these people simply live in a different reality than the rest of us. A reality where CO2 is the most dangerous chemical known to mankind, and 6 million people were gassed despite the numerous historical corrections to the figures, and if you point out any of this you’re a “denier”.
What exactly a “denier” is, I have yet to determine, but in the mind’s of these people, whom obviously live in a different reality than the rest of us, it’s an evil, evil person and you should be silenced with the force of government.
These “people” IMHO are mentally insane, and they need to be removed from any and all positions of authority, as they are an innate threat to humanity. I look around me and in the world I live in, every policy they promote is a blatant lie and distortion of reality, they are openly and without regard funding the violence and discord worldwide, and the plebes that support them simply either do not care, or do not have the intellect to understand the situation they are in.
These “people” are a the most dangerous threat to humanity the world has ever known, and it seems like no one even understands it.
The charge that the Koch brothers/big oil/whatever are responsible for financing “climate denial” only works under an assumption of honesty on the part of the Democratic party. If, on the other hand, there are documented instances of Democrat corruption and pay for play, one wonders why exactly the Koch brothers didn’t just send a check to the Clinton foundation.
Then this will backfire on them big time….
Brian Williams, Dan Rather, Katie Couric, Rachel Maddow, Jayson Blair,………… and on and on
Told the most famous lies of all time…
You fail to understand. Lies told in service to the narrative, will never be prosecuted.
If treason succeeds then none dare call it treason.
Agreed. Similar to “sexual harassment”. During one of our indoctrination lectures, after being asked for a definition, we we informed “It’s whatever the harassed person wants it to be”. Like the definition of “hate speech”. Diversity doesn’t include things you don’t like.
I suspect they’ll claim that this promotional video for an electric car is “false news”? (sarc off)
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B0KtnWtajUVwcEtabVZlaDhTMW8/view
Socialists can’t win on the facts, so they always end up outlawing their opposition.
Merkel is not a socialist.
She’s a Christian Democrat; that’s right-wing.
Anyone who isn’t an out and out communist is some form of capitalist.
It really is amazing, Europe has fallen so far to the left, that even socialists are now right wing.
M Courtney, Merkel can put on all the lipstick she wants and call herself anything she wants. She is still a wannabe authoritarian seeking to silence opponents and to impose nonsensical destructive policies on Europe.
@M Courtney
“Merkel is not a socialist. She’s a Christian Democrat; that’s right-wing.”
This claim is quite wrong after more than 10 years of Merkel’s reign. The plain reality is:
– The non-Bavarian Christian Democrat party CDU never was a real right-wing party. This role played in part its “sister party” from Bavaria, the CSU until about the beginning of Merkel’s rule. The CDU was a moderate center-right party BEFORE Merkel’s time.
– Today, Merkel’s CDU is a very left-leaning center-left party and it is difficult to find significant differences between Merkel’s CDU and the original center-left Social Democrats SPD or even with the rather left-leaning German Green party.
– Consequently, Germany is governed by a great coalition of CDU, CSU and SPD and Merkel would have no reserve at all to make a coalition with the Greens as well.
– Today, the only real right-wing party in Germany is (apart from some smaller and insignificant extremist fringe groups) the newly formed protest party AFD which wants a real change in the German and European politic, likewise as what is to expect from President elect D. Trump in the US, but the AFD cannot reach more than maybe 15 – 20 % of the German voters and all other German parties would join together to prevent any influence of the AFD.
– This funny lopsided state of the German political scene is the result of about 30 year of constant brain washing of the German public by totally left-leaning and eco-religious MSM there. So there is little hope of a quick recovery to a more balanced party system in Germany.
Gentle Tramp. Merkel is to the right of M Courtney, which makes her right wing.
I like the Obama Quote
An explanation of climate change from a Nobel Prize-winning physicist looks exactly the same on your Facebook page as the denial of climate change by somebody on the Koch brothers’ payroll.
So automatically ALL Climate Change “Denialists” are on the Koch brothers’payroll?? Talk about a Conspiracy
And the capacity to disseminate misinformation, wild conspiracy theories, to paint the opposition in wildly negative light without any rebuttal
i suppose this only applies to those arguing in favor of the proposed 97% concensus and doesn’t apply to those who wish to rebutt them
Ideally, in a democracy, everybody would agree that climate change is the consequence of man-made behavior, because that’s what ninety-nine per cent of scientists tell us
Democracies exist because people don’t agree, when people are FORCED to agree, it is called a DICTATORSHIP!! So now it is up to 99% because Obama says it is?
And then we would have a debate about how to fix it. That’s how, in the seventies, eighties, and nineties, you had Republicans supporting the Clean Air Act and you had a market-based fix for acid rain rather than a command-and-control approach
Except that now, they don’t want a DEBATE (It is settled) nor do they wand “Market-Based Fix” Solutions to the problems, they would appear to favor the COMMAND-AND-CONRTOL approach
Just more political hypocricy
I guess Climate Change does raise the PH (Political Hypocracy) levels though
“Vee volksen from Ost Deustchland have vays off making you believe”
FACT !!!!
Angela Merkel is a politician, BUT without a mirror in her house !
And YES, she has a personal dressmaker
.
And YES she was born a communist !
“incitement of the masses” (read the public ie Authorities) as expressed by the Court of (in-)Justice (on the Authorities payroll) using “assaults against the human dignity of others by insulting, maliciously maligning, or defaming segments of the population”, including “expressing a belief”, whether religious of scientific…
Amounts to a crime then…
Oddgeir
Disgusting. This cannot last.
Truth: CO2 is at an alarming concentration of 400ppm.
Fake: CO2 is only one unit to every 10,000 units of the atmosphere.
(both calculations equal identical amounts)
Fake: the increased level of CO2 from 0.028 to 0.04% is so small it cannot make any difference to climate. It is like thinking that 15 seats (or 0.5 seats) in a crowded football stadium will make a difference. Pokerguy said it right back in the post about the football stadium: “Why do we persist in making stupid arguments when we have plenty of strong ones within easy reach.. The “how can a trace gas necessary for life possibly do any harm?” is a terrible “common sense” based argument that only hurts our credibility.”
Truth (perhaps): CO2 level is approximately 400 ppm
Fake: Editorializing that the concentration is “alarming”.
4
seaice1: Our credibility.
Wait, you had credibility?
Truth: CO2 is at 400 ppm and the climate is not responding in any alarming or dangerous way.
Mark, I am as surprised as you. You are referring to the quote from Pokerguy. I assumed he meant skeptics’ credibility.
East German Military Parade 1989 Ehrenparade
– Note the cute goose-step.
Want to bet David? I cannot believe it has gone on this long. Huge vested interest in both controlling the climaterevenue and the citizenry.
“… there was a baseline of facts that we could all work off of. And now we just don’t have that.”
Talking about the subject made the facts go away???? Reeeaalllly. No wonder they scream for censorship.
The UN crackdown is coming for climate skeptic websites too.
The Left and their climate religion lies will not go down quietly or without a fight for silencing freedom of speech. It’s 1984 for them,… and Big Brother is coming.
Fight the lies.
Outrageous “false news”. Whoever tries to mislead the public like that should be thrown out of his job and prosecuted.
Well said Greg – you beat me to it! – The irony of Obama talking about “false News” and then stating that 99% of Scientists “tell us” is mind-boggling!
EVEN IF THIS WERE TRUE! – WHAT ABOUT THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH RIGHTS OF THE 1%. ?
History is littered with consensus bollocks that now looks stupid. From a flat earth, to the Sun circling the earth, to Stomach Ulcers being caused by stress – all were accepted “givens” by the faithful, overturned by EVIDENCE.
I actually think this could be the best thing that could have ever happened for true sceptical Scientists (an un-sceptical scientist is an oxymoron) because it will force those whose view is more faith than fact based to justify their position.
So rather than bemoan what Obama says – welcome it and USE IT! – I believe he has just shot himself in the foot on this one.
Glory be! Another 2% of the false prophets have been converted and now see the ight! The number of deniers has been reduced by a huge step forward, from the unsatisfactory 97%. Only one in hundred is left. And then, the great future of 110% agreement lies ahead!
Darcydog
I am struggling to believe that there was a flat earth consensus. The Natives of North America, who in their isolation and Great plains view would have had pretty good reason to think the earth was flat, believed it had/has a definite 3D nature, being supported on the back of a Turtle (hence Turtle Island).
Did the Aztecs believe the earth was flat? The Chinese didn’t. Also the Greeks, the Mesopotamians I am not sure. The Romans believe all sorts of stupid things they made up plus they were very superstitious.
The Flat Earth Society is a recent invention and is a joke, not a real belief. Sadly, some epithets just don’t make sense anymore.
But Crispin – it’s turtles, all the way down… 🙂
Best, Allan:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/19/uh-oh-its-models-all-the-way-down/#comment-1421394
Paul Westhaver says: September 19, 2013 at 9:31 am “It’s [turtles] all the way down.”
[excerpted]
This suggests a new collective noun: “an infinitude of turtles”.
One could also say “an infinitude of worthless climate models”, programmed by “an infinitude of dyslexic climate modellers”, yielding “an infinitude of exaggerated global warming predictions” (er, sorry, “projections”).
Regards to all, Allan
__________________________________________________
Meanwhile, back at the Turtles, all the way down:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down
The most widely known version, which obviously is not the source (see below), appears in Stephen Hawking’s 1988 book A Brief History of Time, which starts:
A well-known scientist (some say it was Bertrand Russell) once gave a public lecture on astronomy. He described how the earth orbits around the sun and how the sun, in turn, orbits around the center of a vast collection of stars called our galaxy. At the end of the lecture, a little old lady at the back of the room got up and said: “What you have told us is rubbish. The world is really a flat plate supported on the back of a giant tortoise.” The scientist gave a superior smile before replying, “What is the tortoise standing on?” “You’re very clever, young man, very clever,” said the old lady. “But it’s tortoises all the way down!”
—Hawking, 1988[1]
In 1905, Oliver Corwin Sabin, Bishop of the Evangelical Christian Science Church, wrote:
The old original idea which was enunciated first in India, that the world was flat and stood on the back of an elephant, and the elephant did not have anything to stand on was the world’s thought for centuries. That story is not as good as the Richmond negro preachers who said the world was flat and stood on a turtle. They asked him what the turtle stood on and he said another turtle, and they asked what that turtle stood on and he said another turtle, and finally they got him in a hole and he said. “I tell you there are turtles all the way down.”
—Sabin, 1905[2]
Many 20th-century attributions point to William James as the source.[3][4] James referred to the fable of the elephant and tortoise several times, but told the infinite regress story with “rocks all the way down” in his 1882 essay, “Rationality, Activity and Faith”.[5] In the form of “rocks all the way down”, the story predates James to at least 1838.[6]
In 1854 the story in the current form appears, attributed by bible skeptic Joseph Barker to preacher Joseph Frederick Berg:
My opponent’s reasoning reminds me of the heathen, who, being asked on what the world stood, replied, “On a tortoise.” But on what does the tortoise stand? “On another tortoise.” With Mr. Barker, too, there are tortoises all the way down.
—Barker, 1854[7]
There is an allusion to the story in David Hume’s Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion (published in 1779):
How can we satisfy ourselves without going on in infinitum? And, after all, what satisfaction is there in that infinite progression? Let us remember the story of the Indian philosopher and his elephant. It was never more applicable than to the present subject. If the material world rests upon a similar ideal world, this ideal world must rest upon some other; and so on, without end. It were better, therefore, never to look beyond the present material world.
—Hume, 1779[8]
Alan, what a great collection! Outstanding!
Note that the story is never believed. It is always a story about someone telling a silly and unbelievable story.
That said, I don’t doubt for a moment that some could believe it, in India as elsewhere. My great grandmother believed that inside the human body was a sort of sack into which food fell, that there were no organs in the regular sense of the word.
It is also just as remarkable that people believe that if glaciers melt, the precipitation that maintained them for centuries in a steady state will also disappear. They can’t grasp the simple fact that a melting glacier that has the same extent each spring has to have been refreshed during the winter to make up for the summer melt.
Mt Kilimanjaro, which has a glacier that is essential thick hoarfrost, could be considered a candidate site for a loss of total precipitation, but the Eastern Highveld of South Africa disproves this. At night when the temperature falls, there is significant dewfall that on Mt Kilimanjaro would become ice. In Mpumalanga it becomes dew and ground moisture. There is a rain forest on the Eastern Escarpment as a result. Bill Mollison said that the dewfall there accounted for more than 80% of all precipitation there (but he also said that 83% of all statistics are made up.)
Hmm. I recall Einstein, who challenged the 99%. And all the others who led us to modern understandings of the solar system, plate tectonics, evolution…hell, nearly everything scientific.
I see a strong parallel with the 99% of scientists that agree we have AGW and the 99.5% that voted for Saddam Hussein. For the scientists, if you disagree and are on the government payroll, you better polish that resume`, for the Iraqi citizen, you better prepare to die.
Henning
The 110% will come in the placement of error bars 100% +/- 10%
Joshua Slocum’s account of his meeting with Paul Krüger the President of Transvaal, South Africa.
‘The trip to Kimberley, Johannesburg, and Pretoria was a pleasant one. At the last-named place I met Mr. Krüger, the Transvaal president. His Excellency received me cordially enough; but my friend Judge Beyers, the gentleman who presented me, by mentioning that I was on a voyage around the world, unwittingly gave great offense to the venerable statesman, which we both regretted deeply. Mr. Krüger corrected the judge rather sharply, reminding him that the world is flat. “You don’t mean round the world,” said the president; “it is impossible! You mean in the world. Impossible!” he said, “impossible!” and not another word did he utter either to the judge or to me. The judge looked at me and I looked at the judge, who should have known his ground, so to speak, and Mr. Krüger glowered at us both. My friend the judge seemed embarrassed, but I was delighted; the incident pleased me more than anything else that could have happened. It was a nugget of information quarried out of Oom Paul, some of whose sayings are famous. Of the English he said, “They took first my coat and then my trousers.” He also said, “Dynamite is the corner-stone of the South African Republic.” Only unthinking people call President Krüger dull.
@ur momisugly Greg + many and it scares the heck out of me, not FOR me but for our children and grandchildren. We have to continue educating them and the the rest of the people. This out and out attack on us by people like Merkle, Obama and the organizations that put them there is truly frightening.
Hello again Crispin and thank you for your comments. Blessings on your great-grandmother and your entire family.
For no particular reason, your comments reminded me of my paternal grandparents, an Ontario farm family who left their own young three boys with the help while they cared for others during the great Influenza epidemic of 1918-19.
My grandma told me about it when I was little, but it was much later before I learned how bad this flu was. It the most devastating pandemic in recorded world history, killing between 20 and 40 million people, more than all the deaths in the Great War (WW1).
Nobody in my family caught this flu, even though both grandparents were closely exposed to it. It was reportedly an avian flu virus, and I have wondered for years if they had developed an immunity. My grandma kept chickens and “candled” the eggs, selling them to private customers in Montreal. This involved considerable handling of the eggs prior to shipment, a task that the entire family helped out with.
… just some random thoughts at 4am – time for coffee.
More on glacier melt soon…
Best personal regards, Allan in Calgary
Hi again Crispin,
Further to your comments re glaciers:
Here in Western Canada, the usual suspects have been bs-ing for years that the retreat of some of our mountain glaciers would result in the drying up of our rivers. This is nonsense – one of my former colleagues, an expert hydrologist, wrote to the newspaper and stated that much less than 5% (I recall) of the annual river flow is from glacier melt. The vast majority of our river flow (>95%) is from annual precipitation, in the form of spring snow melt and year-round rainfall.
A few years ago I wrote the life-of-project draft Water Management Strategic Plan for one of our biggest oilsands plants. Again, the usual suspects had been bs-ing for years about the excessive water withdrawals from the Athabasca River, that would dry up the river and harm fish habitat.
Here is some background I wrote circa 2010 on one of the papers that attacked the oilsands, where it was alleged that water consumption by the oilsands was draining the Athabasca River.
The workshop was ominously titled “Running Out of Steam”.
http://www.powi.ca/pdfs/running_out_of_steam_final.pdf
Excerpt:
“Dr. Schindler showed a graph that illustrated the total summer flow of the Athabasca River at Fort McMurray, which declined 29% between 1971 and 2005, and noted that this decline paralleled declines seen in other rivers in Alberta over the last 100 years.”
Schindler’s statement is misleading. Here are the facts:
Data on Athabasca River flows exists back to 1957, and shows a cyclical pattern, which is in phase with other Western Canadian river flows, such as the North Saskatchewan, where data exists back to 1910.
Schindler “cherry picked” the flow decline from 1971 to 2005, ignoring the solid evidence that river flows are cyclical, and declined from 1910 to 1940 and then increased from 1940 to 1970, prior to the recent decline, which appears to have ended. Athabasca River annual flows in 2007 were similar to flows in 1958.
Athabasca and North Saskatchewan river flow trends also correlate with the Pacific Decadal Oscillation and temperature cycles.
Actual withdrawals of water from the Athabasca River by the entire oilsands industry total about 1% of annual river flow, as compared with natural seasonal variations of about 1000%. So much for threatening the “highly fragile” areas of fish spawning habitat – natural seasonal flow variation has one thousand times the impact of the oilsands.
Best, Allan
Formerly at http://ess.nrcan.gc.ca/ercc-rrcc/proj1/images/grasby_presentation1_sld21.gif
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1150126705064890&set=a.1012901982120697.1073741826.100002027142240&type=3&theater
How to know when you have lost the argument. However, I would guess that Frau Merkle is far more concerned with censoring reports of criminal and terroristic behavior by her 1 million muslim refugees than she is about climate.
That’s already been covered, not a single bad news is coming out of Germany.
Indeed. We used to have HenryP visit us here and regale us with German tales. I miss his perspicacious contributions.
I think hit the nail on the head and the hidden agenda.
Sounds a bit like the notorious 18C in Australia.
RACIAL DISCRIMINATION ACT 1975 – SECT 18C
Offensive behaviour because of race, colour or national or ethnic origin
(1) It is unlawful for a person to do an act, otherwise than in private, if:
(a) the act is reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or a group of people; and
(b) the act is done because of the race, colour or national or ethnic origin of the other person or of some or all of the people in the group.
Note: Subsection (1) makes certain acts unlawful. Section 46P of the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 allows people to make complaints to the Australian Human Rights Commission about unlawful acts. However, an unlawful act is not necessarily a criminal offence. Section 26 says that this Act does not make it an offence to do an act that is unlawful because of this Part, unless Part IV expressly says that the act is an offence.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), an act is taken not to be done in private if it:
(a) causes words, sounds, images or writing to be communicated to the public; or
(b) is done in a public place; or
(c) is done in the sight or hearing of people who are in a public place.
(3) In this section:
“public place ” includes any place to which the public have access as of right or by invitation, whether express or implied and whether or not a charge is made for admission to the place.
The ludicrous nature of this provision is that when some commentator called Senator David Leyonhjelm an “angry white male”, the good Senator took it upon himself to be offended, and started proceedings against said commentator. Not sure how far this has got, but he said he himself was not offended but he was starting proceedings on behalf of all white males who could have been offended by the remark.
Yes, I rather enjoyed the collective gasp from the SJWs when they suddenly found themselves on the wrong end of that law 😀
Here is an example of racism, typical of what is shown every day in the press:
A cartoon shows in captions: a black man saying ”I’m proud to be black’ said the black man’, an Asian saying, ‘I’m proud to be Asian’ said the Asian’ and a white man saying, ”I’m proud to be white’ said the racist’
Characterizing white people as racists is as racist as it gets.
The only racists are the people who pay attention to race…
My question is who gets to decide what is, and what is not, an offensive act?
I can understand Germany’s restrictions on free speech. They are scared to death another Hitler is going to rise among them, so they try to nip it in the bud. Of course, I disagree with this approach. I think free speech will stifle the Hitler’s of the world with the truth, just like we are going to stifle Merkel and Obama and the Left with the truth.
If Hillary had won the election we would be seeing the U.S. heading down the same road Merkel is taking Germany.
I hear English news media are being forbidden to connect Muslims and terrorism in their reporting. Germany is also censoring the news in this manner. Germany has a LOT of problems with the immigrants, and their leaders are trying to hide it from themselves, I guess, because the people of Germany know exactly what’s going on.
Socialists don’t have a clue about how to get along in this world. Ironically, they think they are the experts on it.
German politicians apparently believe that the best protection from Hitlerism is…[drumroll]…Hitlerism. A sort of preemptive strike approach, doing unto imaginary others before they do unto you.
Are Merkel’s Stasi roots showing? She was raised in Communist East Germany where the news was controlled by the government. Wikipedia states, in part:
“Like most young people in the German Democratic Republic (East Germany), Merkel was a member of the Free German Youth (FDJ),… Later, at the Academy of Sciences, she became a member of the FDJ district board and secretary for “Agitprop” (Agitation and Propaganda)…”
Sounds to me like Merkel wants to go back to controlling the narrative.
“Are Merkel’s Stasi roots showing?”
You mean you only just noticed?
‘Fake news’ is the new ‘hate speech’. Just the usual attempt by the left to censor anyone who disagrees with them. They refused to debate the right before the US election, and just called them names. That backfired horribly, so now they’re doubling down.
According to some, Merkel is a right winger. Probably one of those far right nuts who don’t believe that the government should be running everything.
I’ve seen lefties claim that Stalin was ‘right wing’. It’s a meaningless term in their hands.
From what I’ve seen the left and right are defined differently in Europe. Instead of Socialist/Capitalist (with all the baggage those include) the divide is more between Globalist/Nationalist. So you can be a right-wing Socialist in Germany, as long as you promote national wellbeing over UN style Globalization.
Which is how the Left can claim that the National Socialist Party (NAZI) and Hitler were ‘right-wing’, despite holding nearly all Ideologies that an American would view as left-wing.
MarkG, to many leftwingers, right wing means bad person. Therefore every bad person must be right wing.
Thanks, just checking to make sure this was mentioned. Germany an irony free zone it seems!
As Mark Steyn once said: “You can take the girl out of East Germany, but you can’t take East Germany out of the girl”.
The country, as a whole, tries to make it illegal to display Nazi symbols or do the Heil Hitler salute. So there is a history of restricting some political expression. It’s complicated.
+100
“It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.”
“There is no harm in doubt and skepticism, for it is through these that new discoveries are made.”
– Richard Feynman, a Nobel winning physicist
Obama combines the two terrible traits of blinding ignorance and extreme narcissism.
…plus a strong dose of arrogance.
And D-K syndrome.
Obama, implicated himself with his own words:
” ,,,to paint the opposition in wildly negative light without any rebuttal…”
While he goes on to do exactly that.
What is essentially happening is the introduction of new heresy policies.
Beware: “Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!”
Or land sharks.
Candygram!
What makes Obama’s words so pathetic is that an even cursory look into both sides on almost any left/right disagreement shows that it’s the left that doesn’t allow debate or rebuttal.
Just here in the Climate debate, you have a number of skeptic and even lukewarmer blogs (WAWT, Jo Nova, Climate Ect, Lucia’s Blackboard, and many many more) that often get quite rowdy from all the different opinions that get posted. Meanwhile most of the top Alarmist blogs are echo chambers where holding the least bit of heretical thought will get you baned, ‘boreholed’, deleted, or even get your comment rewritten so it’s easier to mock and ‘debunk’.
As just a small example, Hot Whopper recently posted an article announcing that they wouldn’t be allowing ‘denier’ comments anymore. Not that they’ve allowed one of mine in over a year, so not really that big a change. They just aren’t pretending to allow debate anymore.
All this of course has had a predictable outcome. The Alarmists blogs have all become shriller and more extreme, while simultaneously getting fewer and fewer visits. Meanwhile all the real debate (and hense all real advancement of ideas) have moved to the skeptic and lukewarmer blogs. Even most of the Alarmists have moved to the Skeptic blogs, because that’s where all the action is taking place. But since they are still mired in the swamp of the Alarmist echo chambers their arguments are becoming more and more pathetic.
Just look at what has become of some of the former best and brightest in the Climate Blogging world. People like Brandon and Mosher, who have become so lost in their own opinion that you can’t even reason with them anymore.
The Alarmists are now left standing in the virtual dust, wondering how they lost control of the debate.
There is a long legal history here. Oliver Wendell Holmes famously referred to:
Even he had doubts about his decision. What about the person who stands in the theatre and warns the audience there are not enough fire exits?
We do have limits on speech. Disturbing the peace by shouting insults will get you arrested (if not beaten up).
link
The (Schenck v. United States 1919) case was a very important case, which SCOTUS terribly got wrong….
It involved a Socialist handing out pamphlets espousing opposition to the WWI military draft.
Schenck’s 1st Amendment rights clearly allowed him to exercise his free speech in this manner, but SCOTUS used the “falsely yelling fire in a crowded movie theater” analogy to rule such actions illegal under the Espionage Act of 1917.
This type of protest is EXACTLY the type of speech, freedom of assembly and petition our founding fathers wished to protect, and SCOTUS wished to curtail in this awful ruling.
It is not against the law to yell fire in a theatre. It is against the law in create panic under false pretends in a confined area.
You also can’t tell lies about another in order to damage that other’s reputation.
Or rather you can tell the lies, but the other is allowed to sue you for damages.
“Hate” speech is protected under the the US Cinstitution’s 1st Amendment rights (Brandenburg v. Ohio).
It’s a very slippery slope when government hacks try to define or limit “hate” speech or “fake news”…
It’s far better to allow free and open speech on everything and let individuals decide what is true or suspect, with some exceptions as specifically defined under civil and criminal law (child porn, slander, assault, inciting riots, death threats, perjury, falsifying data, false advertising, etc.).
Even in Obama’s above statement, he blantatly violeted his “fake news” standard by repeating the lie that “97% of scientists” believe in the CAGW hypothesis, which is patently false….
Obama should be allowed to lie to the American people, however, he should also suffer the consequences of being exposed as a liar, which, unfortunately, he almost always seems to avoid…
Just let the crazies (on both sides) expose themselves through open, free and uncensored speech.
We need to trust that the ‘grown ups’ will feed us the information that we need. The world is such a complicated place that it would not be reasonable to expect normal people to sort out what is true and what is not.
Judging by the sort of thing people believe on Facebook, I suspect your initial thoughts may be correct.
It’s not surprising these days with people wandering about zombie like on trains, buses and sidewalks gawping in to a “smartphone” and not paying attention to reality.
A running joke in my house full of teenagers is “its on the internet, it must be true”.
Fake news has existed as long as the spoken word.
Keep the government out of my interweb.
My librarian wife share a meme for that (sort of) a picture of Abraham Lincoln with the caption “If it is on the internet it must be true and you can not question it” — Abraham Lincoln
She shares these with her classes on evaluating resources, but she worries because many of the young college students don’t understand that Lincoln never had the internet and that is the point of the meme. I am waiting for some of them to regale her with Lincoln’s great exploits against the undead in DC as fact.
Asp,
I will charitably assume you accidentally omitted a [sarcasm] tag.
I will further assume you allude to the utter lack of critical thinking skills being taught in primary schools and the consequences of which we are now reaping.
Sadly more of the population seems to be concerned with “reality TV” that actual reality.
“When they work,… they work hard.
And when they play,… they play hard.
But, when they think,…they fall asleep.”
Asp, a large part of my becoming grown up, was the factual discovery that some people will lie to get their way. Especially ideologically motivated people. Especially lying about facts and events.
When large numbers of people share an ideology, they are consistent in accepting the same lies. Their society becomes a culture of lies.
The lies are constructed and fed to them by their societal coterie of ideologically motivated dishonest intellectuals. These intellectuals provide reasonable-seeming arguments that are both specious and opportunistic. The opportunism is when the truth happens to serve the lie. Then it’s used. The most effective lies are woven with bits of truth.
When large numbers of people believe the same lies, and sincerely pass them along, the lies can seem very much like the truth to the naïve.
Often, the more important is the subject, the more likely are there people who will lie about it.
So be careful. Give your trust only to people who you know to be honest. Check everything. And that always means go to the library and look it up. See whether people are representing their sources honestly.
When the government gets to decide what news is fake and what news is real, then the only news allowed will be government approved propaganda.
Which is exactly how they want it. They really don’t like having narratives other than their own out there – they could lose an election (like Merkel is afraid she’d going to do).
It’s an amusing irony that as Pres. Obama denounces misinformation, he says that 99 percent of scientists say that climate change is the result of human activity, which is an inaccurate description of the debate supported by the mischaracterization of a study that has, itself, been debunked.
The old media environment didn’t have less misinformation, it was just more one-sided.
“… denial of climate change by somebody on the Koch brothers’ payroll.” Obama is clearly a delude conspiracy theorist.
In the end, the commie bastards crawl out of the woodwork.
Revive Rashīd ad-Dīn Sinān’s methods of political options.
I saw a remarkable amount of false news stories during the US Presidential election aimed at both Trump and Clinton. There was a report on the BBC about this who suggested that many of the stories come from a single source in Macedonia where English speaking high school students are high to produce the tales and post them. In an age of social media I wonder if this has the potential to undermine democracy?
I like to think most voters are savvy enough to see through these stories, but as they get more sophisticated it could be a problem.
https://www.buzzfeed.com/craigsilverman/how-macedonia-became-a-global-hub-for-pro-trump-misinfo?utm_term=.fiQWEz14WX#.pbkXlOZxXK
And you believed something on the BBC? Seriously? !!!!! … ROFLMAO !!!!
The date and time are usually reliable and accurate.
The students in Macedonia were interviewed by reporters for several newspapers and magazines. This was far more than just a BBC reported story.
Yes, this was widely reported – you can get a tiny payment for every click on the fake news item when its passed on on Facebook – a respectable income in Macedonia.
Is that how you make money Griff, clicking and posting fake “science”? You appear to be loaded with alarmist links to post in an instant.
buzzfeed and BBC as reliable sources(!), I’d rather go with Oom Paul’s views on the flatness or otherwise of the earth.
You say aimed at both Trump and Clinton, yet the article you link to says “They almost all publish aggressively pro-Trump content aimed at conservatives and Trump supporters in the US.”
Would you agree that the majority of these “fake news” stories were aimed at Trump supporters rather than Clinton supporters?
Yes they were, but I also saw a substantial amount aimed at Clinton. Apparently more people click on the Trump ones than Clinton so they get a better income.
Something everyone can do is when one of these things appears on your news feed, click the ‘report’ and ensure it is deleted and flagged up as click bait lies.
Gareth, I second that.
A good part of the reason why Trump supporters gravitated to those sites, is because the regular media was heavily biased against Trump and positive toward Clinton for example, and for example, and for example. Voters knew that, and Trump supporters found themselves deliberately starved of honest information. Hence their vital interest in alternatives.
If the media had been overwhelmingly and unfairly negative about Hillary Clinton, it seems likely that it would have again been correspondingly rejected, but by Democratic voters, followed by their migration to Macedonian sports inventing stories about her.
Pat Frank, you cannot conclude bias because most of the coverage was interpreted as negative. If there were a lot of negative things to report, then that is how an un-biased media would look. That is not to say the media was in-biased, but you cannot conclude so from those numbers. Most of the coverage of Dahmer is pretty negative, but we don’t necessarily think the media is biased against him.
Buzzfeed? Really?
Report on Scourge of Fake News Turns Out to Be Faked
The greatest load of fake news comes from the MSM
Especially true of their favorite hobby horse, “climate change”.
Definetly, the MSM has done more fake news stories than anyone else. They are still doing fake news stories and I don’t expect they are going to stop either. They’ll just keep reporting lies and half-truths and acting like they are pure as the driven snow.
What is your evidence that the MSM has done more fake news stories than anyone else?
Almost every time I have independent information on a story, and then watch that same story on the MSM, the MSM slants it.
A couple of days ago the local station ran a story about a police car that lost control and almost ran down a group of pedestrians at an ATM.
They then ran the clip, and if you looked closely you could see that just before the cop car “lost control” it was hit in the side by another car.
Technically, the story was accurate because the cop car did lose control. They lied in not telling the viewer why it lost control.
“What is your evidence that the MSM has done more fake news stories than anyone else?”
Chris, you must not have been watching the news lately with a critical eye.
I would say that probably at least 80 percent of everything the MSM has reported over the last election cycle have been lies or half-truths and so it is fake news.
We could compare headlines if you want to, or you could just go read the Newsbuster, Daily Caller, and Brietbart websites where you will see fake news pointed out to you every day.
The truth is not in the MSM, Chris. If you think it is, you have been fooled into believing something that isn’t so.
It can’t be fake if I agree with it.
Sometimes the lies are not intentional but a reporter’s desire to have a “breaking” news story. I recently saw a story of a police shooting in Calgary where the first witness gave a story about how the police chased the individual into the parking lot and immediately shot him. The next day, two other witnesses were interviewed and gave very different stories. The third day, the police provided video evidence that showed the “perp” going into a store (video provided by the store) and buying cigarettes before the police showed up. Then the perp got into his stolen truck and rammed the police cars that had boxed him in; and then the shooting started. So what was the “truth” here. As a result, the perception of the truth of this story depends on what version you saw on the news. The incident is still under investigation. Seems that “truth” depends on perspective and timing.
In the rush to “break” the news, fact checking sometimes takes a back seat.
Rumour and it’s partner, Gossip, have ever run ahead of truth in any
public discussion. It doesn’t need the Ineternet; it’s an integral part of
human conversation and discussion.
Filtering both and reaching as near to the truth as possible is a necessary
skill we must all learn to a greater or lesser degree. Doing so, requires
access to all the facts, not a selected few of them. That’s
dangerous. South Australia’s electricity grid was properly bitten by their
government’s light touch with the engineering Facts of Life. It was a
Triumph of Rumour and Gossip over The Facts …
“Gossip is the Devil’s radio.” – George Harrison.
“Rumor travels faster, but it don’t stay put as long as truth.”
– Will Rogers
How does Murky Merkel think she is going to be able to stop it?
Whatever is put in place will prove a double edged sword.
That’s what I’m not getting. It’s not like this sort of thing is new. Gossip and yellow journalism has been part of our culture since we had culture.
Good grief, fake news is part of what started World War 1 (reports of Austria shelling Belgrade is what started the Russian mobilization despite the Austrian army being weeks away from actually moving on Serbia).
Don’t forget the Spanish-American war which was started based entirely on fake news reports from known and pretend reporters. It is probably the only war ever started by a single newspaper.
I think it was a chain of papers. Hearst owned many papers.
Lies travel around the world before the truth can make it out of the door.
“Remember the Maine!”
The Battleship of Maine, Red Patterson’s Piedmont Log Rollers
Let’s see: Clinton’s attack on Serbia, started by fake news about mass graves of hundreds of thousands of innocent Kosovans. Bush’s invasion of Iraq, started by fake news about Saddam Hussein’s ‘weapons of mass destruction’. Vietnam, the fake news about the Gulf of Tonkin incident gave Johnson Congressional approval to ramp up the war. Europe, fake news about the Zimmerman Telegram helped bring America into WWII.
Fake news has started many wars. And, guess what? It all came from the Glorious Gatekeepers Of Eternal Truth.
Wasn’t the Zimmerman Telegram about WW I? Not II?
bad enough, but just curious if there is a link to WWII as well.
Real news, as opposed to the pronouncements of the “authorities,” always originates with gossip and rumor. Cops know this, real journalists know this. You smell smoke, you look around for the fire. Might must be Joe down the street firing up the barbecue – but could also be that Mrs. O’Leary’s cow just kicked over another lantern.
Climategate? Only gossip and rumor at first. Secret email server? Same. One can go on…
I would much rather sort through fake news and gossip and come to my own conclusions than have some A**hole political censors shoving what they want me to believe down my throat… And I think the 1ST amendment to the Constitution was placed 1st because of its importance. For those in politics to even suggest that our sources of information should in any way be restricted or manipulated is anathema to, perhaps, the most important freedom of all. Just the fact that Obama is saying this shows just how much he really dislikes our freedoms and is desirous for his having free reign to control us.
Nothing like the old “Direct Action” approach to destroying peoples rights. The “Incremental” approach is effective but takes so long.
Here in the US, the 2nd Amendment (gun ownership) crowd has been warning of the danger to out rights for decades. If one constitutional right goes, they all go.
Entrusting your rights to the political left is like giving the care of your family pet over to a taxidermist. Sure, you will get it back…
This is a worrying trend, when several world leaders start talking like Pol Pot on the subject of free speech.
Back around 1985, when it was alleged that increasing atmospheric CO2 would cause runaway global warming, I thought “There is no way anybody will be stupid enough to buy that nonsense.”
I was wrong – there are plenty of people stupid enough to believe any falsehood, as long as it is repeated often enough by the usual suspects.
As George Carlin said:
“You know how stupid the average person is, right? Well, half of them are stupider than that!”
Regards, Allan
Post Script:
Last year marked the 800th Anniversary of Magna Carta, the foundation of British and USA law.
http://www.bl.uk/magna-carta/articles/magna-carta-english-translation#sthash.lcxMkhuB.dpuf
[39] No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgement of his equals or by the law of the land.
[40] To no one will we sell, to no one deny or delay right or justice.
******************************************************************************
Just point out that The Fifth Amendment is only as valid as The Second Amendment. That normally gives progressives pause for thought.
Many make the mistake of believing the U.S. Constitution protects our rights. That is not correct. The U.S. Armed Forces protect our rights. The Constitution defines how those rights are implemented in the law.
BobM – fixing this… The U.S. Armed Citizens protect our rights. Which includes protecting them from the U.S. Armed Forces. (That we have not had to defend them from our military is a happy accident – and very, very rare in the history of nations.)
“Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”
Benjamin Franklin
but anyone who exageratesthe the predicted consequences of climate change by ipcc is right…the more catastrophical the more true…
Are we about to see the rise of the “Fourth Reich” under Merkel ?
With book burning and a tattooed number on your left arm?
We have that already, it’s called the digital age. We have that “tattooed” number already.
Think you’ll find that the EU in Brussels had the making of a Euro army in detailed plans but the UK was not having anything to do with that in any shape or form. Btw that Euro army is up for discussion next year. With the French most likely getting national front as the next president its going to be a very interesting decade to come. Let’s hope that the key codes have been lost.
Now why would a ex STASI want to crack down on freedom of speech, I wonder if she is a fan of Castro.
Can we adopt “gummiparagraph” as a loan word to describe the “elastic clauses” spouted by alarmists?
Just call them “slime-greens”.
Was thinking the same thing myself. I love new words. I already use “shadenfroid” a lot.
Or even schadenfreude 🙂
Yeah, that too. But you still can’t beat ‘gummiparagraph’ for concisitivity.
“An explanation of climate change from a Nobel Prize-winning physicist looks exactly the same on your Facebook page as the denial of climate change by somebody on the Koch brothers’ payroll…” That’s fake news right there.
Fake news sites = anything that questions the dominant narrative. MSM isn’t included, oh no.
When does the MSM ever question the government narrative?
Fox (which is mainstream) does it all the time.
“When does the MSM ever question the government narrative?”
Only when Republicans are in the White House.