POLITICAL DISSENT is a DUTY of CITIZENSHIP------it is our DUTY as US 99% WE THE PEOPLE as CITIZENS to hold our political and corporate institutions accountable to our US RULE OF LAW and fight to keep our US 99% rights as citizens intact. Our new to US immigrants are protected as well by our Federal US CONSTITUTION and a century of FEDERAL LEGAL RULINGS.
So, are those US 99% WE THE PEOPLE victims of sacking and looting------massive and systemic frauds and corruption-----deliberately being left unemployed -----wanting justice from hundred trillion dollars stolen from our US sovereign coffers and people's pockets ----wanting our US politicians building economic structures designed to deliberately keep US 99% WE THE PEOPLE and global labor pool citizens UNEMPLOYED AND IN DEEP POVERTY--------
“What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance?”
— President Thomas Jefferson
The authors of the United States Constitution understood that the freedom of the people to express their disagreement with government policies is absolutely vital to democracy. The First Amendment makes explicit the protections afforded to this kind of expression: Americans have the right to “peacably assemble and petition the government for a redress of grievances.” In other words, non-violent demonstration and disagreement are fundamental American values. They ensure that we have a government “by and for the people,” and that a lively debate about the direction of our country remains a constant facet of American public and political life.
However, it stands to reason that no form of expression is so aggressively assailed as disagreement with leadership. Those in positions of power have obvious interests in stifling public discourse about government lies, corruption, or ineptitude, and many of the tactics they employ to short-circuit public dissent constitute particularly insidious forms of censorship.
Of course not. We are CITIZENS demanding that our ELECTED US POLITICIANS work for the benefit and safety of all US 99% WE THE PEOPLE and maintain that 300 year pathway to citizenship for our new to US immigrant citizens.
This censorship is happening to all our US 99% population groups-----when anyone is made fearful of speaking their mind-----if all that is anti-today's establishment is called BEING NEGATIVE------HATING----we are looking at global banking 1% OLD WORLD KINGS far-right wing global corporate HITLER/STALIN/MAO FASCISM.
Robbie Malinga says haters must be left in 2018
Published on Jan 2, 2019
Robbie Malinga says haters must be left in 2018.
Robbie Malinga Jnr has had on helluva year. There's no doubt about that. And yeah, as one of the guys who gets the most hate on social, it's understandable that he wants trolls and haters to stay behind in 2018.
TshisaLIVE spoke to Robbie about his 2019 plans. TshisaLIVE: Resolutions or nah? Robbie Malinga: No, there are new year resolutions.
I’m just living right now - that’s how life is supposed to be. You must live. You can’t just plan life, sometimes life plans itself for you. So just live and pray. TL: What do you want to change in your life? RM: I just want to elevate, basically, in some way or in some field. I want to elevate to be a better person. TL: What would you like to see change in SA in 2019? RM: There’s lot that goes to waste and we need better platforms so that talent can be scouted better. TL: Hungover on January 1 or going for a run? RM: I will definitely be going for a run because I’m only 17. I feel 2019 is going to be a very good year for me because all good things are coming my way. TL: What do you want to leave behind in 2018?
RM: Haters must be left behind 2018, please. Amen.
Source: .timeslive.co.za Thank you! Don't forget Like and Subscribe Top News channel.
First of all, we will not believe these crime stats from global banking 1% CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA media outlets because we KNOW they have lied these few decades about CRIME stats -------we also KNOW we are being hit with lots and lots of FALSE FLAG reports on crime and violence. That said----yes, when people are made increasingly poor they turn to crime and violence and ALL POPULATION GROUPS are at risk. We do not want to dismiss crimes against JEWISH, BLACK, MUSLIM, HINDI, LATINO----we simply know global banking 1% are MOVING FORWARD CIVIL UNREST CIVIL WAR using 5% freemason/Greek players PRETENDING to be HATERS.
Since our US CONSTITUTION and 300 years of US FEDERAL LEGAL RULINGS have already created protection for every US 99% of WE THE PEOPLE against HATE CRIMES-----why do we need all this attention on defining HATE CRIMES?
THE ANSWER IS THIS------OUR US CONSTITUTION AND FEDERAL LAWS ARE STEEPED IN CITIZENS RIGHTS TO DISSENT-----THE DARK AGES DOES NOT ALLOW THOSE 99% RABBLE TO SPEAK AGAINST RULING OLD WORLD KINGS AND QUEENS.
We were told US crime was soaring those few decades of CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA only to be told decades later that US city police departments were JUKING THE STATS ----political prisoners are the opposite of CRIMINAL prisoners.
MOVING FORWARD ONE WORLD back to DARK AGES has a totally different definition of HATE to identify our US 99% WE THE PEOPLE who want to STAND UP and be LEGAL DISSIDENTS.
Hate crimes rose 17 percent last year, according to new FBI data
A man places a sign of support outside the Dar Al-Farooq Islamic Center in Bloomington, Minn., which was attacked in 2017. (Aaron Lavinsky/AP)
By Devlin Barrett
November 13, 2018
Reported hate crimes in America rose 17 percent last year, the third consecutive year that such crimes increased, according to newly released FBI data that showed an even larger increase in anti-Semitic attacks.
Law enforcement agencies reported that 7,175 hate crimes occurred in 2017, up from 6,121 in 2016. That increase was fueled in part by more police departments reporting hate crime data to the FBI, but overall there is still a large number of departments that report no hate crimes to the federal database.
The sharp increase in hate crimes in 2017 came even as overall violent crime in America fell slightly, by 0.2 percent, after increases in 2015 and 2016.
THESE ARE THE SAME KINDS OF POLICE STAT MANIPULATIONS WE HAD THESE FEW DECADES OF CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA.
CRIME DOWN ---VIOLENT CRIME DOWN---NOW IT IS JUST THE HATE.
[Hate crimes are soaring but many jurisdictions still don’t report any]
More than half of hate crimes, about 3 out of every 5, targeted a person’s race or ethnicity, while about 1 out of 5 targeted their religion. Of the more than 7,000 incidents reported last year, 2,013 targeted black Americans, while 938 targeted Jewish Americans. Incidents targeting people for their sexual orientation accounted for 1,130 hate crimes, according to the FBI.
The FBI has urged local police departments to provide more complete information about hate crimes in their jurisdictions.
Of the more than 7,000 hate crime incidents in 2017, more than 4,000 were crimes against people, ranging from threats and intimidation to assault, to murder. More than 3,000 were crimes against property, ranging from vandalism to robbery to arson.
Acting attorney general Matthew G. Whitaker said the new figures are “a call to action — and we will heed that call. The Department of Justice’s top priority is to reduce violent crime in America, and hate crimes are violent crimes. They are also despicable violations of our core values as Americans.”
Whitaker said he was “particularly troubled by the increase in anti-Semitic hate crimes,” which are already the most common type of religious hate crime in the United States.
Anti-Semitic hate crimes rose 37 percent in 2017. Anti-Islamic hate crimes declined 11 percent last year, with 273 such incidents, the data show.
The new FBI data comes less than a month after the worst anti-Semitic attack in U.S. history — a shooting at a Pittsburgh synagogue that killed 11 and wounded six. The suspect in that attack has been charged with dozens of federal hate crimes, and that one incident alone accounted for nearly as many hate crime killings as were recorded all of last year in the United States: 15.
Jonathan A. Greenblatt, CEO of the Anti-Defamation League, said the report “provides further evidence that more must be done to address the divisive climate of hate in America. That begins with leaders from all walks of life and from all sectors of society forcefully condemning anti-Semitism, bigotry, and hate whenever it occurs.”
We want to ask MR GREENBLATT why time after time as HISTORY REPEATS itself----when global banking 1% OLD WORLD KINGS ----KNIGHTS OF MALTA TRIBE OF JUDAH create conditions deplorable for our 99% of global citizens now our North American and Western Europe/UK citizens ----why do those anti-defamation league NGOS never bring OLD WORLD KINGS KNIGHTS OF MALTA to task ------why do they never bring OLD WORLD KINGS TRIBE OF JUDAH to task when growing deep poverty, civil unraveling, loss of morality and ethics expand civil tensions, crime and violence ----all of which are manufactured by
GLOBAL BANKING 1% OLD WORLD KINGS KNIGHTS OF MALTA---TRIBE OF JUDAH?
Who are behind all these GLOBAL NGO SECRET SOCIETIES working hard to CENSOR----TO SILENCE and make people FEARFUL to speak their mind?
SAME GLOBAL BANKING 1% OLD WORLD KINGS KNIGHTS OF MALTA ----TRIBE OF JUDAH.
'Jonathan A. Greenblatt, CEO of the Anti-Defamation League'
We don't see all this HATING on the ground. Our US 99% WE THE PEOPLE are mad at those 5% freemason/Greek player and pols who come from each population group---and we are mad because they committed HIGH CRIMES against the US and our US 99% of CITIZENS.
WE NEED OUR ANTI-DEFAMATION LEAGUE TO STAND UP AND BE US CITIZENS AND HOLD THOSE 5% FREEMASON/GREEK FAKE JEWISH PLAYERS ACCOUNTABLE.
We have NO DOUBT that there will be US citizens who are prejudice because that exists in every nation and exists throughout history----please do not fall for this FAKE CIVIL TENSION----our US 99% of black, white, brown---of REAL Jewish, Protestant, Catholic, Muslim, Hindi-Buddhist ---and even ATHEIST/HUMANISTS are not to blame for today's far-right wing, authoritarian, militaristic, extreme wealth extreme poverty ---NO MORALS, NO ETHICS, NO US RULE OF LAW, NO GOD'S NATURAL LAW-------NIHILISM.
Hate crimes are up in America's 10 largest cities. Here's why
Marina Pitofsky, USA TODAY Published 5:32 p.m. ET July 17, 2018 | Updated 5:41 p.m. ET July 17, 2018(Photo: Rich Pedroncelli, AP)
Miami Beach police charged a man Monday with attempted arson after he threatened to burn down a condominium and "kill all the Jews" inside. On July 12, a woman beat a Hispanic man with a brick in Los Angeles and told him to go back to his country. In June, a man harassed a woman in Chicago in a public park for wearing a shirt with the Puerto Rico flag on it.
Though relatively rare, hate crimes have seen an increase in cities across the USA. In California alone, the number spiked 44 percent between 2014 and 2017, up to 1,093 hate crimes last year, the state's attorney general's office reported last week.
The total number of hate crimes in the 10 largest cities in America jumped in 2017, marking four straight years for an uptick in such incidents.
The Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism at California State University found a 12.5 percent increase in incidents reported by police last year in Chicago, Dallas, Houston, Los Angeles, New York, Philadelphia, Phoenix, San Antonio, San Diego and San Jose, California.
The number of hate crimes reported in those cities totaled 1,038, up from 923 in 2016, according to the May study. In New York, nearly half of hate crimes last year were committed against Jewish people. In Los Angeles, gay men were targeted most. And in Boston the largest demographic hit by hate crimes were African Americans.
Brian Levin, co-author of the report, attributed the recent increases to greater "incivility" in national politics, citing policies such as President Donald Trump's travel ban from several majority-Muslim countries.
AS MR LEVIN KNOWS THE US HAS BEEN DISCUSSING THE LOSE OF 'CIVILITY' THROUGHOUT THESE FEW DECADES OF CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA -----TRUMP IS SIMPLY MOVING FORWARD THIS DISMANTLEMENT. IGNORING OUR US FEDERAL AND CONSTITUTION LAWS BROUGHT TREMENDOUS LOSS OF CIVILITY.
National events can also spur these types of crimes, according to Heidi Beirich, director of the intelligence project at the Southern Poverty Law Center. After the September 11, 2001 terror attacks, crimes against Muslim people were rampant, Beirich said. The FBI reported 8,063 hate crimes in 2000 and 9,730 in 2001.
"We know there can be triggering events and there can also be public figures who demonize vulnerable populations," Beirich said.
Hate crimes are considered criminal acts motivated by prejudice based on race, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, gender identity and disability.
Levin also cited long-term increases in hate crime rates to demographic changes across the country, especially population increases in minority groups. According to the Pew Research Center, growth among Hispanic communities has accounted for half of USA population increase since 2000.
San Jose saw a 300 percent increase in hate crimes between 2014 and 2017, up to 44 hate crimes last year from 11 in 2014. Philadelphia rose more than 200 percent in the same time period, and Phoenix experienced a 25 percent increase.
The Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism forecasts a decline in hate crimes for the first half of 2018 from last year.
"You didn't have the kind of conflicting election that you had in 2016 or a big terrorist attack," Levin said.
Levin also referenced the Unite the Right rallies in Charlottesville in 2017 as another event that could have fueled hate crimes.
Levin said he cannot make predictions for the second half of 2018 because election years – including influential midterms – often lead to an uptick.
"Because of the election coming up and because of the uncertainty in the political world domestically as well as internationally, I would love to forecast a decline, but it’s kind of like being in the sixth inning of an Angels game," Levin said. "We’re ahead three to nothing in the sixth, but all the big batters are coming up in the last three innings."
Hate crimes increased in 2016, 2014, 2012, 2010 and 2008, according to the study.
The report also points to Russian-based ads on social media – using data from a USA TODAY analysis – as a catalyst for spikes in hate crimes. The rise in hate crimes in late 2016 was linked to a growth in Russian Facebook ad purchases designed to promote stereotypes about Muslim communities in the U.S.
"These stereotypes play a role in identifying who is accepted by the overall community as a legitimate target for aggression or derision,” Levin said. The Department of Justice declined to comment on the rise of hate crimes in the U.S.
Beirich said it is hard to address the rising rates of hate crimes especially because so many go unreported. According to the FBI, in 2015 law enforcement agencies reported 5,850 hate crimes across the country. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, which uses surveys to compile crime rates across the country, 207,880 hate crimes occurred in 2015.
"I hate to say this, but the data is so poor that it's hard to know what hate crimes are happening in the U.S.," Beirich said. "The data's so bad it's almost like a silent wave of crimes."
One of the major challenges cities face is getting residents to report incidents.
“What if you’re a gay person in a state that doesn’t protect your employment with respect to sexual orientation and you report being a crime victim, and then you’re fired from your job," Levin said. "Would you want to go to the police?"
Sgt. Vincent Lewis of the Phoenix Police Department said he believes his city's increase in hate crimes is from more reporting rather than more incidents. He said greater community outreach makes more residents feel comfortable seeking help from police.
"When we have a better relationship with those communities and that education goes both ways, they start to come forward and report," Lewis said. "That gives them a voice and allows them to come forward more often when incidents do occur."
We want to remind our US 99% WE THE PEOPLE what DEFAMATION means. We particularly want our Jewish ANTI-DEFAMATION LEAGUE to look broadly at the meaning of DEFAMATION.
DEFAMATION is an act of FALSITY/FRAUD upon a citizen that results in INJURY to person/their integrity/their wealth. Having our US 99% of WE THE PEOPLE-----now being called LEFT BEHIND/LOSERS-----telling us we have no rights to fight for justice from MASSIVE AND SYSTEMIC FRAUDS-----telling us we have no rights to shout out against FAKE AND FRAUDULENT PUBLIC POLICY GOALS pretending to be social benefit------pretending to be LEFT SOCIAL PROGRESSIVE when they have always been far-right wing global banking 1% LAISSEZ FAIRE NEO-LIBERALISM-----
THAT IS DEFAMATION AGAINST ALL US 99% OF WE THE PEOPLE---BLACK, WHITE, AND BROWN CITIZENS----REAL 99% OF JEWISH, PROTESTANT/CATHOLIC, MUSLIM, HINDI-BUDDHIST.
Robbie Malinga says haters must be left in 2018
Robbie Malinga says haters must be left in 2018. Robbie Malinga Jnr has had on helluva year. There's…'
So, what global banking 1% is MOVING FORWARD----is creating the conditions of not being able to shout out against-----DISSENT----against what are still a criminal and fraudulent government of pols and agency players. US law has always allowed US CITIZENS to speak freely against elected politicians without fear of being taken to court for LIBEL, SLANDER ---
Libel, Slander, and Defamation Law: The Basics
By submitting this form, you agree to Findlaw.com's terms. We respect your privacy.
There's always a delicate balance between one person's right to freedom of speech and another's right to protect their good name. It is often difficult to know which personal remarks are proper and which run afoul of defamation law. The following provides and overview of defamation torts.
Defamation Law: The Basics
The term "defamation" is an all-encompassing term that covers any statement that hurts someone's reputation. If the statement is made in writing and published, the defamation is called "libel." If the hurtful statement is spoken, the statement is "slander." Defamation is considered to be a civil wrong, or a tort. A person that has suffered a defamatory statement may sue the person that made the statement under defamation law.
Defamation law walks a fine line between the right to freedom of speech and the right of a person to avoid defamation. On one hand, people should be free to talk about their experiences in a truthful manner without fear of a lawsuit if they say something mean, but true, about someone else. On the other hand, people have a right to not have false statements made that will damage their reputation.
Elements of a Defamation Lawsuit
Defamation law changes as you cross state borders, but there are some accepted standards that make laws similar no matter where you are. Generally in order to win your lawsuit, you must show that:
- Someone made a statement;
- The statement was published;
- The statement caused you injury;
- The statement was false; and
- The statement did not fall into a privileged category.
1. The Statement - A "statement" needs to be spoken (slander), written (libel), or otherwise expressed in some manner. Because the spoken word often fades more quickly from memory, slander is often considered less harmful than libel.
2. Publication - For a statement to be published, a third party (someone other than the person making the statement or the subject of the statement) must have seen, heard or read the defamatory statement. Unlike the traditional meaning of the word "published," a defamatory statement does not need to be printed. Rather, a statement heard over the television or seen scrawled on someone's door is considered to be published.
3. Injury - To succeed in a defamation lawsuit, the statement must be shown to have caused injury to the subject of the statement. This means that the statement must have hurt the reputation of the subject of the statement. For example, a statement has caused injury if the subject of the statement lost work as a result of the statement.
4. Falsity - Defamation law will only consider statements defamatory if they are, in fact, false. A true statement is not considered defamation. Additionally, because of their nature, statements of opinion are not considered false because they are subjective to the speaker.
5. Unprivileged - Lastly, in order for a statement to be defamatory, it must be unprivileged. You cannot sue for defamation in certain instances when a statement is considered privileged. For example, when a witness testifies at trial and makes a statement that is both false and injurious, the witness will be immune to a lawsuit for defamation because the act of testifying at trial is privileged.
Social Media and Defamation Law
Due to social media, it's now easier than ever to make a defamatory statement. That's because social media services like Twitter and Facebook allow you to instantly "publish" a statement that can reach millions of people. Whether it's a disparaging blog post, Facebook status update, or YouTube video, online defamation is treated the same way as more traditional forms, meaning that you can be sued for any defamatory statements you post online.
Higher Burdens for Defamation: Public Officials and Figures
Our government places a high priority on the public being allowed to speak their mind about elected officials as well as other public figures. People in the public eye get less protection from defamatory statements and face a higher burden when attempting to win a defamation lawsuit.
When an official is criticized in a false and injurious way for something that relates to their behavior in office, the official must prove all of the above elements associated with normal defamation, and must also show that the statement was made with "actual malice."
"Actual malice" was defined in a Supreme Court case decided in 1988, Hustler v. Falwell. In that case, the court held that certain statements that would otherwise be defamatory were protected by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.
This meant that public officials could only win a defamation suit when the statement that was made wasn't an honest mistake and was in fact published with the actual intent to harm the public figure. Actual malice only occurs when the person making the statement knew the statement was not true at the time the statement was made, or had reckless disregard for whether it was true or not.
For other people that are in the public eye, such as celebrities, they too must prove that the defamatory statements were made with actual malice.
'Absolute Privilege: Public Officials Can Get Away With Saying Almost Anything'
'Conditional Privilege Does Not Guarantee Immunity for Reporters'
A political action NGO like CITIZENS' OVERSIGHT MARYLAND as any political organization---as with any US 99% WE THE PEOPLE-----have always been allowed to shout against our elected officials------we have always been allowed to write openly about our feelings of IMPROPRIETY-----feelings of CORRUPTION AND FRAUD by our elected officials----it is written in our Federal 300 years of legal precedence-------it is enshrined in our US Constitution as OUR DUTY.
What global banking 5% freemason/Greek player pols are MOVING FORWARD today with all these HATE LAWS----is expansion of CENSORSHIP----expansion of PROTECTING politicians and government agency players from being held legally responsible for crimes against the STATE and our US 99% WE THE PEOPLE.
Defamation, Public Officials, and the MediaIt's a free country, but did he really just say that?
And what does the media risk when they cry out, "But the emperor has no clothes!"?
By Leah Easterby
Need Professional Help? Talk to a Litigation Attorney.Please answer a few questions to help us match you with attorneys in your area.
The other party is When it comes to defamation law in general (and libel and slander lawsuits in particular), the law considers a number of competing interests when government officials and the media are involved in the statement at issue: the public's access to information, individuals' reputations, and public officials' ability to efficiently perform their duties. Unsurprisingly, the interplay between these interests can quickly become contentious. Courts treat the overlap between the First Amendment and defamation laws delicately, by looking at the facts of each particular case. Read on for the details.
Defamation is a false statement that injures another person’s reputation. Libel (written falsehoods) and slander (spoken falsehoods) are both types of defamation. The elements of a defamation claim vary depending on the parties’ identities.
Generally, the plaintiff in a defamation lawsuit must show that the defendant’s false statement made the plaintiff look bad: for example, falsely calling the plaintiff a liar or criminal can be defamatory. But the plaintiff usually needs to show the defendant either knew or should have known the damaging statement was false at the time it was spoken. Because defamation claims necessarily involve speech, liability is measured by First Amendment standards.
The Privilege Defense
Sometimes a defendant can overcome a defamation claim by asserting a privilege defense. Privilege exempts the speaker from liability for defaming another person. There are two types of defamation privilege:
- absolute privilege, and
- conditional (or “qualified”) privilege.
The broad privileges given to members of the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government usually insulate those officials from legal repercussions for making false and injurious statements while on the job.
For example, the President of the United States has the absolute privilege to speak without defamation liability. Absolute privilege is distinguishable from governmental immunity. When the government is immune, no lawsuit can be brought against it. Absolute privilege, on the other hand, is a defense to a valid lawsuit. Governmental immunity from lawsuits is premised, at least in part, on the fear that lawsuits would drain the public treasury. Immunity is also a carry-over from English common law, where the refrain, “The King can do no wrong,” meant aggrieved citizens could not sue the government. Contrary to what we might expect, considering the historical context of America’s Declaration of Independence, Americans wholeheartedly adopted this notion of governmental immunity.
Executive privilege was a logical off-shoot of governmental immunity. Absolute executive privilege means that even if the President of the United States knows he or she is telling a lie, the President cannot be sued for defaming someone with that lie. Absolute privilege applies even when the President speaks with the specific intent to injure the target of his words. The rationale behind the rule is that it would cripple effective administration to bother the President with defamation lawsuits based on speech related to performance of executive duties. Essentially, the burden of liability exposure to the executive outweighs the potential damage to a defamation victim.
Similarly, members of Congress have absolute privilege for defamation when performing legislative functions, even if a statement is unrelated to legislation. Legislative privilege comes from the U.S. Constitution, which provides that "for any speech or debate in either House they shall not be questioned in any other place."
Judges usually have an analogous privilege to defame others -- even when the statements are irrelevant and malicious.
Conditional Privilege Does Not Guarantee Immunity for Reporters
The First Amendment emerged from the fundamental principle that public discussion is a political duty. In a defamation case brought by a public official against her critics, conditional privilege protects most speech made in good faith and in the public interest.
"Good faith" means the speaker must believe his or her comment is true, without recklessly failing to discern its falsity. Journalists are protected from defamation claims when their publication fairly comments on matters of public concern. But if the media knowingly or recklessly publishes false information, the privilege is lost.
The seminal case of New York Times Co. v. Sullivan centered on a full-page advertisement in that newspaper. The ad, called "Heed Their Rising Voices," alleged that Alabama police arrested Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. for perjury because the government was colluding to destroy King's civil rights campaign. (The advertisement contained some factual inaccuracies.)
Montgomery, Alabama City Commissioner L.B. Sullivan sued the Times, claiming the ad’s allegations about police corruption defamed him personally. The U.S. Supreme Court noted that First Amendment protections do not recede simply because true statements about public officials injure their reputations. Indeed, Thomas Jefferson said in 1804 that a law punishing people for speaking out against the government was as inappropriate as if "Congress had ordered us to fall down and worship a golden image."
The newspaper prevailed. The Court unanimously held that the First Amendment protected the paper's statements about public officials' conduct, unless "actual malice" was involved. To prove actual malice, the public official would need to show the newspaper knowingly published a false statement or recklessly failed to investigate the truth of the statement. The Court reasoned that public officials are privileged in the performance of their official duties, and that citizens have a corresponding First Amendment privilege to criticize public officials.
Taking It Case-by-Case
How a court will decide a defamation case always depends on the underlying facts. The profession of the speaker and plaintiff, the subject matter of the statement, and the surrounding circumstances are all relevant to the court's reasoning. When the plaintiff is a public figure, judges will usually err on the side of allowing more speech rather than restricting it. As one famous judge wrote, the First Amendment "presupposes that right conclusions are more likely gathered out of a multitude of tongues than through any kind of authoritative selection. To many, this is ... folly; but we have staked upon it our all."
REMEMBER------the meaning of DEFAMATION goes both ways-------it defines the corruption of our GOVERNMENT AND POLITICS------such as our constantly having to say----far-right wing global banking CLINTON neo-liberals have corrupted our REAL LEFT SOCIAL PROGRESSIVE platform of 99% LABOR AND JUSTICE. It was continuous attacks by global banking 1% in media and political NGOS that SILENCED the voices of REAL left social progressives---the same done to REAL right wing conservative REPUBLICANS.
Our US media and our US politicians can legally DEFAME our political platforms-----they can LIE/CHEAT/STEAL during campaigns PRETENDING to be 99% populist when they have no intentions of being so. As well, our US media and political groups are allowed to write, shout, and organize against these politicians DEFAMING our political platforms and SILENCING/CENSORING our voices.
What today's global banking 5% freemason/Greek player pols black, white, and brown players are MOVING FORWARD now------is a dismantlement of all that FREEDOM OF SPEECH----all that freedom to HOLD POWER ACCOUNTABLE-----all that freedom of POLITICAL DISSENT.
We will point out that as REAL LEFT SOCIAL PROGRESSIVES having fought for over 40 years for these freedoms ---fought against the silencing of voice by spying and surveillance from secret societies as here in BALTIMORE-----it is IRONIC that we are being constantly said to be SPYING AND LISTENING-----when we are committed to the OPPOSITE. REAL LEFT SOCIAL PROGRESSIVES are against and fight hard to keep CENSORSHIP of all forms-----fight hard to keep freedom of VOICE.
REMEMBER----SILENCE IS COMPLICITY This is an age old phrase tied to DUTY of CITIZENS to hold power accountable.
We will note THE ECONOMIST being a raging far-right wing global banking !% media outlet is being IRONIC in bringing around this article today-----as in US these structures have been openly used these few decades.
Don’t say a word
How powerful people use criminal-defamation laws to silence their critics
In some countries, insulting politicians can lead to jail
Jul 13th 2017 | PHNOM PENH AND YANGON THE ECONOMIST
IN OCTOBER 2015, a month before the election that returned Myanmar to a form of civilian rule, a Burmese writer named Maung Saungkha posted a poem on his Facebook page: “On my manhood rests a tattooed/portrait of Mr President/ My beloved found that out/After we wed/She was gutted/Inconsolable.”
He was found guilty of defaming Thein Sein, then Myanmar’s president, and sentenced to six months in prison. Mr Thein Sein had suffered no material damage. He served out his term in office without anyone mistaking him for a penis tattoo. But Mr Maung Saungkha believes that in the run-up to the election the government was aiming to “spread fear, curtail freedom of speech and silence activists”.
Governments pursuing such goals have many options. They can press blasphemy laws into service, as those of Indonesia, Pakistan and dozens of other countries do. They can twist the media to their will. In Russia Vladimir Putin and his cronies control the main television-news stations. Or they can simply ban speech they dislike. In China and Vietnam independent bloggers are often arrested. Three Lao citizens recently received long jail terms for violating a decree forbidding online criticism of the government or ruling party.
We shared yesterday an article showing our US ACLU fighting what is global banking 1% DEEP, DEEP, REALLY DEEP STATE without ever mentioning how expanding definitions of US FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES are in fact doing what ACLU pretends to be fighting. All discussion on PRIVACY is being tied to INTERNET FREEDOMS and privacy------and as we discuss in detail often----the only advocacy coming from GLOBAL NGOs in US for internet freedoms and privacy are coming from far-right wing global banking 1% fighting to protect privacy and access by global corporations and global 1%. So, PRIVACY to ACLU is the right of global corporations and global banking to be free from all this global military security and policing by global corporations coming to US FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES.
PRIVACY IN MOVING FORWARD DEEP, DEEP, REALLY DEEP STATE is indeed a US 99% WE THE PEOPLE public policy issue. There are no NGOS in US fighting for our 99% privacy----voice----freedom of access and opportunity.
Here we see simply the same ONE WORLD ONE TECHNOLOGY/ENERGY GRID being sold in these ARABIC, AFRICAN, THE AMERICAS as 99% populist when in fact the goals are CENSORSHIP/NO ACCESS AND OPPORTUNITY for 99% WE THE PEOPLE black, white, and brown citizens.
NO ONE HAS LOST THEIR VOICES----FREEDOM OF SPEECH----ABILITY TO PERFORM THEIR DUTIES AS CITIZENS THEN OUR US 99% WE THE PEOPLE THESE FEW DECADES OF GLOBAL BANKING 1% CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA.
Digital Colonialism: Facebook’s agenda to limit connectivity in developing countries
Facebook has been working hard to spread its influence to developing nations; however, it’s not about providing access to all of the net, but rather just the platforms it approves of.
It all began two years ago when Mark Zuckerberg announced on Facebook his plan to connect the whole world with internet.org, and later on, its “Free Basics” bundle.
“Our goal with Internet.org is to make affordable access to basic internet services available to every person in the world,” the Facebook CEO explained.
However, the basic internet services do not give a lot of freedom or options to choose from, and it was even banned in India because “it had the potential to create a two-tier Internet that would divide the rich and the poor.”
On top of that, the free services have to be submitted to internet.org and approved by the Facebook-owned platform. That means the content not only is limited, but it also serves only the interests of the social media platform.
This is not about bringing free internet to developing nations; it’s about having a monopoly over connectivity and censoring anything that isn’t in Facebook’s interests. This type of digital colonialism, it seems, is at the heart of what Zuckerberg is trying to do.
Critics of the “Free Basics” argue the platform “would force other businesses to set up shop on Facebook rather than on their own websites or elsewhere on the internet. This would give Facebook enormous power over competitors and indeed over the internet.”
If it is all in the name of philanthropy that Mark Zuckerberg wants to bring internet to “third world” countries — a term that is degrading in and of itself — why wouldn’t he aim to just let people surf all of the web for free? Why the restrictions? Is he not doing this for charity nor the goodness of his heart, or rather to expand his influence and dominate markets?
According to Zuckerberg, “What we figured out was that in order to get everyone in the world to have basic access to the Internet, that’s a problem that’s probably billions of dollars […] With the right innovation, that’s actually within the range of affordability.”
However, straight from the horse’s mouth, the Facebook CEO laid out his mission for all to see, and it is about profit:
“We believe it’s possible to sustainably provide free access to basic internet services in a way that enables everyone with a phone to get on the internet and join the knowledge economy while also enabling the industry to continue growing profits and building out this infrastructure.”
Notice where he says “join the knowledge economy.” What is the “knowledge economy” in relation to internet.org and “Free Basics?” The knowledge economy is whatever knowledge Facebook deems is appropriate to provide via the for-profit screening process.
Daily Lounge writer Chris O’Shea explained the potential to tap into people in developing countries, “They’re a giant, currently untapped, revenue stream. Zuckerberg might have a noble idea with spreading the Internet to developing countries, but really, this is about taking a dip in new money waters.”
While dominating markets and forcing would-be subscribers to use his platforms, the social media giant will gain access to even more user data. Allowing for more people to be connected to Facebook-friendly sites and apps means that an even greater part of the world’s population will now be able to be identified, documented, data-mined, and sold to third-party companies and individuals, just like the rest of the connected world.
This is a tactic that has been used in the past with other industries. What happened after the Rockefeller Foundation, among others, sponsored Gender Equity and Women’s Liberation in the 1970s?
“Women’s presence in the labor force has increased dramatically, from 30.3 million in 1970 to 72.7 million during 2006-2010,” according to the Huffington Post.
This means that all of those women are now paying taxes to the Fed that weren’t before, and with both the mother and father away from home at work, the children are being raised by state-sponsored schools and institutions.
Just like bringing “free” internet to developing countries, gender equality of course sounds like a sane, rational, and ethical proposal, but whatever beauty may lay on the surface, the ugliness lurks beneath.
We live in an age where monopolized internet interests are being sold as freedoms, censorship as convenience, and labor as liberation.
Arbeit macht frei.
We are getting lots of slogans SILENCE IS COMPLICITY today as MOVING FORWARD has goals of bringing pre-Weimar Germany to far-right wing global corporate HITLER FASCISM.
It took a whole lot of silence in MOVING FORWARD these few decades of ROBBER BARON sacking and looting of US government coffers and people's pockets. It took a whole lot of silence to kill all the VOICE of REAL LEFT SOCIAL PROGRESSIVE LIBERALS-----over 80% of our US Democratic Party-----as too happened to our US right wing conservative Republicans. The fact that BOTH are completely absent from all US national media----from all global NGOs inside US-----is ASTOUNDING.
When those global banking 5% freemason/Greek players say WE DON'T WANT YOU------no matter where in the US this comes-----they are violating the very principals outlined in all that is FREEDOM----whether RELIGIOUS FREEDOMS---whether RACE AND CULTURAL IDENTITY FREEDOMS-----and a great big FREEDOM OF POLITICAL IDENTITY.
Any media outlet wrapping around this HITLER FASCISM as SILENCE IS COMPLICITY and not what is MOVING FORWARD inside all US FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES under the guise of CRIME BILL 2019 =======these are global banking 1% FAKE POPULIST outlets-----
'Silence is complicity, parents must speak up — Kara Yorio
But those were not my moments in history, this is. There is no line of police officers with dogs or Nazi soldiers to face, but there is a right and a wrong way to confront the current climate and that decision matters. As a parent and a person, silence is no longer an option'.
Sun Dance: "Silence is the Voice of Complicity"
Video excerpt from the July 7, 2005 premiere of the opera "Sun Dance," about Native American political…
Our US 99% WE THE PEOPLE are being made to forget the leisure of SITTING AND WATCHING------this is a NORMAL human activity. Our cultural arts citizens especially writers depend upon being able to absorb the world around them whether urban or rural. If we succumb to global banking 1% goal of making everyone suspicious of everyone else----we will be in a DYSTOPIA.
I have spent my life SITTING/WALKING AND WATCHING-------as I am one who loves learning why things work ---nature or mechanical.
If someone is riding in a bus ---a train -----and overhears a conversation----it is natural for someone to think. It is natural for someone walking down the street standing in line to openly talk about what and how they feel about someone else. Think of those hours spent in DANCE/CLUB lines-----RETAIL STORE lines ----if we were not lost to SITTING AND WATCHING.
Please do not lose this vital element of human nature in MOVING FORWARD. Sometimes people are simply LOST IN THEIR THOUGHTS-------while SITTING AND WATCHING.
Sitting And Watching
Dennis Brown - Topic
Published on Nov 7, 2014
Provided to YouTube by The Orchard Enterprises Sitting And Watching · Dennis Brown Sly & Robbie Hits 1978-1990 ℗ 1991 TAXI