Hillary Defies the First Amendment, Claims Anti-Clinton Breitbart “Has No Right to Exist”
Hillary Clinton’s campaign has offered us a glimpse into her potential administration. It’s clear that fascism will play no small part. Clinton’s campaign has vowed to crush the opposition press.
Clinton’s campaign has sent out a fundraising email arguing the website Breitbart News has no “right to exist,” and suggests that if elected, the website will be shut down entirely.
“We’ve had a conservative media in this country for a while,” says the email, sent Thursday and signed by deputy communications director Christina Reynolds. “I don’t always like what they have to say, but I respect their role and their right to exist Reynolds’ acknowledgment that the regular conservative media has a “right to exist,” though, is used to contrast it with Breitbart, which apparently has no such right.
Make no mistake about the intention:
One of the goals of Clinton’s campaign, Reynolds says, is to ensure Breitbart is destroyed.
This will come as no surprise to anyone who has paid any attention to Hillary over the years. Here is a sampling of some of her quotes over the years.
“We are going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good.”
“It’s time for a new beginning, for an end to government of the few, by the few, for the few, and to replace it with shared responsibility for shared prosperity.”
“We can’t just let business as usual go on, and that means something has to be taken away from some people.”
“We have to build a political consensus and that requires people to give up a little bit of their own turf in order to create this common ground.”
“I certainly think the free market has failed.”
“I think it’s time to send a clear message to what has become the most profitable sector in the entire economy, that they are being watched.”
“What I want to do is take those profits and apply them to alternative energy.”
“I really believe that it takes a village to raise a child.”
“I also believe that every new handgun sale or transfer should be registered in a national registry”
Democrats want to regulate speech.
In 2013, Dianne Feinstein tried to regulate free speech with an amendment to the Free Flow of Information Act. Don’t be fooled by the title. It means the exact opposite. They don’t want free flow of information.
Feinstein wants to define who a real reporter is and who gets the protection of the Shield Act. She doesn’t want bloggers to have free speech.
“I can’t support it if everyone who has a blog has a special privilege … or if Edward Snowden were to sit down and write this stuff, he would have a privilege. I’m not going to go there,” she said.
Feinstein introduced an amendment that defines a “covered journalist” as someone who gathers and reports news for “an entity or service that disseminates news and information.” The definition includes freelancers, part-timers and student journalists, and it permits a judge to go further and extend the protections to any “legitimate news-gathering activities.”
She says bloggers are not to be covered by the Shield law along with terrorists. She drew moral equivalence between them.
According to her, you are only a legitimate journalist if you on her list of news services. Fortunately, it didn’t go anywhere.
The Democrat’s Hate Speech bills were being pushed through both houses of congress in 2014.The Democrats found a “crisis” and used it to try to limit speech, though the bills fortunately never passed.
Sen. Markey introduced the Senate Hate Crime Reporting Act of 2014 (S.2219), which was an update to a two-decade old report on the role of telecommunications—the Internet, radio and TV—”in encouraging hate crimes based on gender, race, religion, ethnicity, or sexual orientation.” It’s companion bill, HR 3878, was introduced by Rep. Hakeem Jefferies.
Under these bills, the Obama administration would get to decide the definition of hate speech in the media. It’s more big government deciding what hate speech is and isn’t.
In February of 2014, the FCC planned a newsroom survey which presented a serious threat to the First Amendment. The proposal was leaked by Ajit Pai who has become a free speech hero.
The survey called for a Critical Information Needs Study (CIN), which as part of its conclusions, required researchers to enter newsrooms and inquire about how editorial decisions were made. The study was to include print media over which the FCC has no jurisdiction.
The FCC claimed that “this research can be used to identify and understand the critical information needs (CINs) of the American public (with special emphasis on vulnerable/disadvantaged populations).”
Their categories of “critical information” cover the “environment” and “economic opportunities.” Undoubtedly, issues around the green agenda, redistribution, income inequality would be covered. Obama’s promise zones are an initiative of the group commissioned to conduct the study.
The list of efforts by Democrats to control speech, especially political speech is endless. If Hillary wins and gets control of any part of Congress, the First Amendment is in big trouble.
H/T – Independent Sentinel FloppingAces
Support the Trump Movement and help us fight Liberal Media Bias. Please LIKE and SHARE this story on Facebook or Twitter.
I suggest to you all to go to youtube and look up Dr. Michael Savage radio show dated Aug 18..Very interesting, and informative..There are no commercials…In Ireland a woman was talking bad about a Muslim on social media, and landed her 6 months in jail..Same with a priest..Facebook is monitored by a east German communist..Twitter has suspented 1000s of accounts in Eurrope, because they don’t want the people around the world to know what these radical Muslims are doing..If Hillary is elected she already said she will be getting rid of talk radio, and curb social media..She will do away with our first Amendment…Our right to free speach..We will soon become a communist Country..This is no different than what Hitler did to Germany..You could not talk about the Gov you were arrested..The media was controled by him, and he put out his propganda lies..This is what Hillary is doing now..This Country is corrupt, and if Trump is not elected..I feel we are doomed..Everything she is involved in should have landed her in jail..She is protected been the lying corrupt Obama, who was just caught in a lie saying he did not pay the Iranians a ransom for the Americans when there is proof he did..He should have been impeached a long time ago, and the Rep cowards won’t do a thing..They are just as corrupt, and that is the real reason why they do not support Trump..Trump will stop the corruption..The American people will come first..We will not have to worry about out 1st and 2nd Amendments taken away..We will not have to worry about terrorist coming into the Counry..Trump said he will destroy them..We will be a much safer more prosperous America.. The way America use to be. God Bless America..God Bless it’s people, and God Bless Donald Trump
Let me just explain that the Muslim that the Irish was talking about was a radical, and the Priest was talking about the bad points of the Muslim Religion as in violent Shia Law, that landed them in jail
There are a host of exceptions to free speech such as making threats, libel, defamation, plagiarism, talking about military secrets, false advertising, and child pornography just to name a few. “Hate speech” is a new term hatched in the 1980s. The O.E.D. defines hate speech as: speech expressing hatred or intolerance of other social groups, esp. on the basis of race or sexuality; hostile verbal abuse (though the term is sometimes understood to encompass written and non-verbal forms of expression).” Hate speech, in other words, puts people down—makes them feel like a victim. It can even include being attacked by an Internet troll. In light of this, hate speech is too broad of a term. In fact, some federal courts have rightly confirmed that overly broad hate-speech codes are unconstitutional. For example, “[when] the government targets not subject matter but particular views taken by the speakers on a subject, the violation of the First Amendment is all the more blatant…. The government must abstain from regulating speech when the specific motivating ideology or the opinion or perspective of the speaker is the rationale for the restriction” (Rosenberger v. Ractor and Visitors of the Univ. of Va. 1995). This is to say, that any broad viewpoint-discriminatory restriction on public discourse is inconsistent with the very essence of U.S. free speech doctrine.
The USA is drawing ever-closer to a much-needed Revolutionary War Two.