Topic: This is what is happening, without a US 1st Amendment, across the world... (Read 410 times)

The first amendment, or 'change', to the constitution does not give any rights, it tells congress it's place

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

A person is born with freedom of speech and similar rights. These 'rights' don't come from government.

The amendment was necessary because so many people began to imagine that it was some vague government entity that allowed them to speak freely.

A government, it's congress, parliament, king, president etc have the right to build roads, provide services and so on. They don't have the right to pretend that what you say is their choice, and then enforce that pretense with violence.

We all know that. The Tor network is probably the last place where there's unrestricted freedom of expression. This is really sad.

The war is almost over serf.. Trillions are at work to model BTC into the perfect tool of control.

I bet with in 20 years many people will start going to prison for sending money to people their govs disagree with.  It will all be on a UN controlled block chain.  The future is grim at best.

Look at this forum!! People Bitching and arguing over price and bullshit.. No one mines to secure the network.. Satoshi disappeared because bitcoiners failed.

Teen YouTube Rant Tests Singapore’s Censorship Limits


Sixteen-year-old Amos Yee is the latest individual to run afoul of Singapore’s censorship rules




SINGAPORE—The trial of a teen video blogger charged with disparaging Christians is showcasing Singapore’s struggle to adapt its tradition of censorship to the realities of the digital era.

Sixteen-year-old Amos Yee is the latest online commentator to be prosecuted in the past year, on charges ranging from contempt of court to sedition. The video for which he was charged was posted on YouTube after the March 23 death of the country’s founding ruler, Lee Kuan Yew , and while it mostly concerned Mr. Lee, it also contained unflattering comments about Christians.

Mr. Yee was charged under Section 298 of the Penal Code, which criminalizes publishing material with the deliberate intention of wounding religious feelings. Mr. Yee has challenged the charges in court.

The cases show how the tightly-controlled city-state is struggling to draw the boundaries for what kind of online expression is acceptable and what speech could be a threat to the multiethnic, multireligious nation now that the means to create and disseminate material are available to almost anyone with an Internet connection.

In another case this week, the Media Development Authority, which regulates online content, ordered the suspension of online news portal The Real Singapore for publishing “objectionable” material that it said incited anti-foreigner sentiment. The material varied but was broadly about social issues in Singapore, often criticizing the actions of foreign workers and visitors to the country.

Two editors of the site have been charged by Singapore’s public prosecutor with sedition. They have denied any wrongdoing.

“I think it’s true to say we certainly have more people writing online; people are also clamoring for some things to be censored,” said Bryan Tan, a lawyer specializing in technology at law firm Pinsent Masons MPillay LLP in Singapore. “The alternative media has got a lot more bolder than it used to be.”

Mr. Tan said he had been approached by more than one online publisher since The Real Singapore was suspended, concerned about whether a precedent was being set and under what circumstances authorities might consider prosecution.

“I think we are all struggling to rationalize this,” Mr. Tan said. “Banning the website—that’s the equivalent of the death penalty.”


http://www.wsj.com/articles/teen-youtube-rant-tests-singapores-censorship-limits-1431081983


--------------------------------------------------------------------------

People want to ban "hate speech"? Don't fall for it...