AT&T’s DirecTV Cancels NEWSMAX in Censorship Move. We already have AT&T and DirectTV censored. If we used them, they’d be gone ASAP. “Censorship is to art as lynching is to justice.”
― Henry Louis Gates Jr
“This is a blatant act of political discrimination and censorship against Newsmax,” Christopher Ruddy, CEO of Newsmax said.
“The most extreme liberal channels, even with tiny ratings, get fees from AT&T’s DirecTV, but Newsmax and OAN need to be deplatformed,” Ruddy added.
At midnight Tuesday, AT&T’s DirecTV cut Newsmax’s signal, immediately shutting the network off from more than 13 million customers of the satellite service, DirecTV Stream, and U-Verse.
This is the second time in the past year AT&T has moved to cancel a conservative channel, with DirecTV deplatforming OAN in April.
The United Kingdom has reaffirmed that freedom of speech is a strictly American concept. How? By reaffirming its baffling ban on American talk show host Michael Savage.
The United Kingdom has reaffirmed that freedom of speech is a strictly American concept. How? By reaffirming its baffling ban on American talk show host Michael Savage.
The ban was instituted, of course, because Savage had been convicted of building pipe bombs used to kill British soldiers. What’s that? He didn’t?
Well, it’s well known that Savage is a convicted felon who molested dozens of innocent children. What’s that? He didn’t?
Vile criminal Michael Savage found guilty of expressing opinions
Yeah, well, everyone knows that Savage called for the assassination of Queen Elizabeth. What’s that? He didn’t?
OK, but he had strong opinions that not everyone agreed with. And in today’s politically correct world no crime is worse.
The Conservative-led British government announced in July it would only lift the ban initiated by the previous Labour leadership if Savage took back statements he had made on his broadcasts that were deemed a ‘threat to national security’.
And while the U.K has never specified which comments it found so dangerous, an attorney for the British government has stayed true to its threat, reaffirming the ban.
The Right-wing radio presenter, whose hardline views on Islam, rape and autism have caused outrage in the US, was identified in May 2009 by then U.K. Home Secretary Jacqui Smith as one of 16 people barred due to their political views.
The list also included hate preachers, Hamas terrorist leader Yunis Al-Astal, former Ku Klux Klan grand wizard Stephen Donald Black and neo-Nazi Erich Gliebe.
Now Michael Atkins, writing on behalf of the U.K.’s treasury solicitor, has told Savage’s London-based attorney the ban had to stick because Savage had not gone back on his ‘extreme’ comments.
Hell in a hand basket. ‘Nuff said.
See the actual legal letter sent to Savage on Tuesday: PDF
We have the the f-word. The n-word. The c-word. The b-word. The s-word. And now the former Speaker of the House has introduced a new unspeakable word: the h-word.
We have the the f-word. The n-word. The c-word. The b-word. The s-word. And now the former Speaker of the House has introduced a new unspeakable word: the h-word. We’re running out of friggin’ alphabet here, folks.
The Examiner Vancouver reports the latest in Democrat censorship:
Fired former Speaker of the House and current Minority Leader, Nancy Pelosi, is going on record as saying that she wants to use censorship to ban one, particular word that she does not like. The word? “Hate.”
To hear Pelosi tell it, she really hates it when other Americans use the word “hate” in a political context. Pelosi’s overreaction is in response to the Bill O’Reilly Superbowl interview with Barack Obama, in which the host asked the president about the number of people who hate him.
Pelosi’s reply to the O’Reilly question was swift and confident: Simply stop using the word, and everything will be fine.
Sorry, Nancy, but we take this one personally. We’re kind of partial to our name. Oh, sure, in the spirit of compromise we’ve gone through the thesaurus, but nothing else works quite as well as the word “hate.” And IH-wordTheMedia.com just doesn’t seem very catchy to us.
Thought control runs rampant in the Great White North. Canada’s Broadcast Standards Council has banned “Money For Nothing,” a 25-year old song by Dire Straits.
Thought control runs rampant in the Great White North. Canada’s Broadcast Standards Council has banned “Money For Nothing,” a 25-year old song by Dire Straits.
Mark Knopfler of Dire Straits back in the day
In its supreme wisdom, the Council has decided that the song’s lyrics are unacceptable for sensitive Canadian ears because the word “faggot” is used repeatedly.
Here are the lyrics that are now scandalizing our northern neighbor twenty-five years after the song was a number one hit:
The little faggot with the earring and the makeup
Yeah buddy, that’s his own hair
That little faggot got his own jet airplane
That little faggot he’s a millionaire
There is, however, one small problem with the Thought Control Council banning “Money For Nothing.” That is, the song is a parody specifically written to put down people who express such unenlightened opinions.
Mark Knoopfler, Dire Straits’ lead singer and co-writer of the song, describes his inspiration in Wikipedia:
“The lead character in “Money for Nothing” is a guy who works in the hardware department in a television/custom kitchen/refrigerator/microwave appliance store. He’s singing the song. I wrote the song when I was actually in the store. I borrowed a bit of paper and started to write the song down in the store. I wanted to use a lot of the language that the real guy actually used when I heard him, because it was more real….”
In 2000, Knopfler appeared on Michael Parkinson’s interview program and explained again where the lyrics originated. According to Knopfler, he was in New York and stopped by an appliance store. At the back of the store, they had a wall of TVs which were all tuned to MTV. Knopfler said there was a man working there dressed in a baseball cap, work boots, and a checkered shirt delivering boxes who was standing next to him watching. As they were standing there watching MTV, Knopfler remembers the man coming up with classic lines such as “what are those, Hawaiian noises?…that ain’t workin” etc. Knopfler asked for a pen to write some of these lines down and then eventually put those words to music.
So the song is actually a brilliant parody of redneck ignorance, something that the Royal Canadian Mounted Thought Police should celebrate, not ban.
But comprehending that concept would require actual thought, something that was banned in Canada at about the same time that “Money For Nothing” was a hit.
It really is a great song. Here’s the original video. Crank up the volume and enjoy it while you still can, because it won’t be long until the American thought police decide it’s unacceptable here, too.
Al Sharpton continued his on-going jihad against Rush Limbaugh. He wants government regulations to stop the world’s highest rated talk show host from saying those horrible things Sharpton imagines that he says.
You put Al Sharpton in front of a camera with Ed Schultz and it’s inevitable that something stupid will be said (again).
Sharpton didn’t disappoint in his remarkably unsuccessful, yet on-going jihad against Rush Limbaugh. He wants government regulations to stop the world’s highest rated talk show host from saying those horrible things Sharpton imagines that he says.
Sharpton: Well, first of all, we’re not talking about censorship. We’re talking about standards. [R-i-i-i-g-h-t.] And there are already standards in place. We’re saying those standards ought to include those that in an explicit or even an implicit way practice racism or sexism or homophobia on the airwaves. And can you imagine the arrogance of saying federally-regulated airwaves should not be subjected to federal public hearings, so they should just grant licenses, allow people to say what they want?
Just wondering, Al, would those new regulations stop you and Ed Schultz from saying the things you say?
Free thinking can be, like, hard. And it can be uncomfortable. It can even be dangerous, especially when you dare treat Islam with the same critical examination that you freely — one could almost add, gleefully — hand out to the world’s other great religions, especially Christianity and Judaism.
From the abolition movement to civil rights sit-ins, debate, artistic expression and free speech have been written in the genetic code of institutions of higher education.
But free thinking can be, like, hard. And it can be uncomfortable. It can even be dangerous, especially when you dare treat Islam with the same critical examination that you freely — one could almost add, gleefully — hand out to the world’s other great religions, especially Christianity and Judaism.
Thankfully, political indoctrination, in the form of political correctness, is easing those uncomfortable debates and putting universities far, far away from suicide bombers who may take issue with debate and free expression. (Hopefully, they’ll bomb someone else.)
Case in point: Here’s how Penn State deals with an art show on Islamic terrorism.
While the university has been home to a recent sadomasochistis and pedofile supporters at a Sex Faire, it just couldn’t bring itself to allow one artist’s view of terrorism.
After an uproar from conservative bloggers and free-speech activists, the Transportation Security Administration late Tuesday rescinded a new policy that would have prevented employees from accessing websites with “controversial opinions” on TSA computers at work.
The ban on “controversial opinion” sites, issued late last week, was included as part of a more general TSA Internet-usage policy blocking employee access to gambling and chat sites, as well as sites that dealt with extreme violence or criminal activity.
But the policy itself became controversial as the Drudge Report and a number of conservative bloggers highlighted the possibility that the policy could be used to censor websites critical of the agency or of the Obama administration in general. The American Civil Liberties Union also questioned the language.
TSA spokeswoman Lauren Gaches said the agency’s revised “acceptable use” policy for Internet access on the agency’s network was designed to block sites “that promote destructive behavior to one’s self or others.” ”
After further review, TSA determined the ‘controversial opinion’ category may contain some sites that do not violate TSA’s policy and therefore has concluded that the category is no longer being considered for implementation,” she said in an e-mail to The Washington Times.
Bad week at IHateTheMedia.com. We can’t get a fatwa issued against us for insulting Islam. We can’t get Napolitano to name us as banned controversial site. We can’t get Lindsay Lohan to return our phone calls.
How’s a website supposed to get a little publicity?
Can you imagine the din that would have arisen if Bush Director of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff had issued an order banning “controversial websites”?
Can you imagine the din that would have arisen if Bush Director of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff had issued an order banning “controversial websites”?
Yet that’s exactly what happened when Director of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano issued new censorship rules late on Friday afternoon, hoping her edict would slip through unnoticed over the long holiday weekend. Looks like that ploy didn’t work, Jan.
CBS News risks being banned, we assume, by reporting the news:
We're waiting for the ACLU to file suit against Janet Napolitano. Still waiting.
The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) is blocking certain websites from the federal agency’s computers, including halting access by staffers to any Internet pages that contain a “controversial opinion,” according to an internal email obtained by CBS News.
The email was sent to all TSA employees from the Office of Information Technology on Friday afternoon.
It states that as of July 1, TSA employees will no longer be allowed to access five categories of websites that have been deemed “inappropriate for government access.”
And now Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan demonstrates why her attitude on censorship is unlikely to wind up listed in Bartlett’s. Elana Kagan: It’s fine if the law bans books because government won’t really enforce it.
First, let’s review a few comments from the Immortals regarding censorship.
Voltaire: I do not agree with what you have to say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it.
Mark Twain: Censorship is telling a man he can’t have a steak just because a baby can’t chew it.
Thomas Jefferson: I am mortified to be told that, in the United States of America, the sale of a book can become a subject of inquiry, and of criminal inquiry too.
And now Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan demonstrates why her attitude on censorship is unlikely to wind up listed in Bartlett’s.
Elana Kagan: It’s fine if the law bans books because government won’t really enforce it.
We were a bit surprised to find the left so silent on Mr. Kagan’s obvious disdain for the First Amendment. But then we remembered, when the book burning starts, Heather Has Two Mommies is likely to get a reprieve.
We would consider it an honor to be monitored and blocked by Pakistan’s Islamic extremists. It would be, perhaps, the highest honor that can be bestowed in the blogosphere.
Will this be enough to get IHateTheMedia.com blocked in Pakistan?
IHateTheMedia.com is not an anti-Islamic site. Not even close. Sure, we occasionally run stories on Islamic extremists and lunacy they engage in around the world, but that’s just reporting reality.
That being said, we would consider it an honor to be monitored and blocked by Pakistan’s Islamic extremists. It would be, perhaps, the highest honor that can be bestowed in the blogosphere.
The Associated Press reports on Pakistan’s preemptory perfidy:
Pakistan will monitor seven major websites, including Google and Yahoo, to block anti-Islamic links and content, an official said Friday. Seventeen lesser-known sites are being blocked outright for alleged blasphemous material.
The moves follow Pakistan’s temporary ban imposed on Facebook in May that drew both praise and condemnation in a country that has long struggled to figure out how strict a version of Islam it should follow.
Both the Facebook ban and the move announced Friday were in response to court orders. The sites to be monitored include those of Yahoo Inc., Google Inc. and its YouTube service, Amazon.com Inc. and MSN, Hotmail and Bing from Microsoft Corp., said Pakistan Telecommunication Authority spokesman Khurram Mehran.
“If any particular link with offensive content appears on these websites, the (link) shall be blocked immediately without disturbing the main website,” Mehran said.
Have we mentioned that Muhammad was a child molester?
Congresswoman Linda Sanchez parties after a long day of jailing bloggers
You never know what to expect from the sinister Sanchez sisters – Linda and Loretta both Democrat representatives from California – but you know it won’t be good.
Rep Linda Sanchez, a California Democrat, says, “Congress has no interest in censoring.” Of course, she said that in defense of her bill that censors the internet.
Sister Linda has introduced the Megan Meier Cyberbullying Prevention Act. Despite her claim that “Congress has no interest in censoring,” Civil libertarians call the overly-broad bill “the Internet Censorship Act of 2009.”
“Put simply,” she commented in a piece for the Huffington Post, “this legislation would be used as a tool for a judge and jury to determine whether there is significant evidence to prove that a person ‘cyberbullied’ another. That is: did they have the required intent, did they use electronic means of communication, and was the communication severe, hostile, and repeated? So — bloggers, e-mailers, texters, spiteful exes and those who have blogged against this bill have no fear — your words are still protected under the same American values.”
Sanchez shows her deep commitment to the First Amendment by including the phrase “so-called free speech” in her HuffPo article.
Methods of communication where so-called hostile speech would be criminalized include telephones, websites, e-mail, instant messaging, blogs, and text messages. No word of whether sexting is included.
Murphy’s Law says, “Whatever can go wrong will go wrong.” It’s corollary, Sanchez’ Law says, “Whatever I say is wrong is wrong.”
Some time back, a great commercial showed up on the internet. It was supposedly created by a South African ad agency to promote Honda’s hybrid.
We say supposedly because the commercial was so simple and so powerful and so controversial that it just seems doubtful that any major advertiser would have the guts to run it. Honda denies any involvement. So does the ad agency that is credited with having created it.
The commercial became an internet sensation. It got millions of views. Then an Islamic activist group got its panties in a wad and demanded that the commercial be pulled off the internet. YouTube caved in and pulled the commercial. It’s now very difficult to find online.
We love the commercial. So we got our hands on a copy, did a little editing, removed any reference to Honda, and put a new ending on it.
We think new version is more powerful than the original. And more timely, too.
If you enjoy it, please tell everyone you know to see it at IHateTheMedia.com.
By now you’ve probably heard that the Senate approved an amendment a few days ago to outlaw the “Fairness Doctrine.” Republican Senator Jim DeMint’s amendment passed by a comfortable margin of 87-to-11.
Although one would think it’s important to know which senators cast their votes in favor of censorship, we can’t find a single news report that calls out their names. So we’ll do it:
Senator Jim DeMint’s amendment to kill the Fairness Doctrine was pretty straightforward.
But an aide to DeMint said Senator Dick Durbin’s amendment requiring “diversity” in radio ownership will “impose the Fairness Doctrine through the back door by trying to break up radio ownership.”
The Democrats can disguise it, rename it, and repackage it any way they want. But DeMint’s aide called it “an attempt to break up companies like Clear Channel and hurt their syndications and therefore putting many local radio stations out of business that depend on those syndicated shows for revenue.”
The measure passed by a vote of 57-to-41 without a single Republican vote.
Censorship is like the Rasputin. You can poison it, shoot it, stab it, and drown it, but it won’t die as long as Democrats are running the show.
The NAACP has called for a boycott of the New York Post. In other words, they’ve endorsed censorship.
In a truly bizarre distortion of reality, the organization called the Post’s infamous chimpanzee cartoon “an invitation to assassinate” President Obama.
Benjamin Todd Jealous, the aptly-named president of the NAACP, called for the removal of editor Col Allan and long-time cartoonist Sean Delonas.
Earlier this week, the newspaper apologized to anyone who may have been offended by the cartoon. But the NAACP says the apology was insufficient and called for readers to boycott the Post.
This is like looking at clouds. I look at one and see a cute little bunny. You look at the same cloud and see the violent, Lee Harvey Oswald of chimpanzees.
In the immortal words of Mick Jagger, “Hey, you, get off of my cloud.”
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and those fun-loving Iranian mullahs have re-introduced the Fairness Doctrine in Iran by blocking access to several websites promoting reformist presidential candidate Mohammed Khatami.
Reformists say the move is an attempt by the powerful hard-liners to silence Khatami and weaken his challenge to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in the upcoming elections.
Khatami, who tried to open dialogue with the West during his eight years as president, believes his sites are being censored because his candidacy poses a serious threat to the increasingly unpopular Ahmadinejad.
“Censorship? That’s nonsense,” a spokesman for the mullahs said. “We’re just trying to assure that a wide variety of approved voices are heard. And, of course, that divisive moderate voices aren’t heard.”
The U.N. Human Rights Council has just rejected allegations that China suppressed dissent, restricted free speech and repressed minorities in Tibet and Xinjiang.
In fact, China won praise from some of the world’s most oppressive regimes — including Sudan, Cuba, Iran, Burma, Egypt and Zimbabwe.
“There is no censorship in China,” a Chinese representative insisted. Then he added that Chinese citizens are free to worship and to follow whatever religion they choose.
Chinese envoy Li Baodong angrily stated that Western and Latin American nations that had raised allegations of abuse were merely politicizing human rights issues.
In related news, the U.N. Human Rights Council softball league announced that Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had been voted Most Valuable Player and that Libyan strongman Moammar Khadafi was named Comeback Player of the Year.
By now you’ve probably heard that the Senate approved an amendment a few days ago to outlaw the “Fairness Doctrine.” Republican Senator Jim DeMint’s amendment passed by a comfortable margin of 87-to-11. 
Senator Jim DeMint’s amendment to kill the Fairness Doctrine was pretty straightforward. 
The NAACP has called for a boycott of the New York Post. In other words, they’ve endorsed censorship.