thelibertybeacon--2020-05-27--Trump, Twitter & Turley take on Free Speech & the Media

Trump , Twitter & Turley take on Free Speech & the Media ( TLB ) Staff : Below are two articles by Jonathan Turley looking at the bumpy road of Free Speech vs Government Regulation .
At a time in history when we need ‘ more debate ’ and ‘ less regulation ’ as our Founding Fathers intended , Social Media and Government want their side to prevail through ‘ control ’ rather than allowing Truth and the Constitution to do their job !
I have a column today criticizing Twitter for its labelling of tweets from President Donald Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ] Twitter has yielded to demands in Congress to censor and regulate political speech .
In signature style , however , Trump promptly bulldozed the high ground in the controversy by threatening to close down social media companies through retaliatory regulations .
The First Amendment was written to bar that very authority in either the President or Congress or both .
The President can not be the putative victim of private censorship while claiming the authority to engage in government censorship .
In fairness however Democratic leaders have threatened such a regulatory crackdown @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump ’ s threat telling omits the fact that Democratic leaders and presidential candidates have made the same threat in the past .
Trump went on Twitter to warn social media giants that the federal government could “ strongly regulate ” or “ close them down ” if they continue to “ silence conservative voices.
” Some of us who have long criticized Twitter , Facebook and other companies for bias and speech regulation .
However , such private speech regulation presents a difficult “ Little Brother ” problem under our Constitution , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ironically , Trump is suggesting a more chilling prospect of using government power to retaliate against companies due to their bias .
That is neither nuanced nor difficult .
It would constitute a core violation of the First Amendment .
The President tweeted “ Republicans feel that Social Media Platforms totally silence conservatives voices .
We will strongly regulate , or close them down , before we can ever allow this to happen .
We saw what they attempted to do , and failed , in 2016 .
We can ’ t let @ @ @ @ @ @ @ again.
” Again , I have been a long critic of these companies and their policies .
However , this threat is chilling and wrong .
It is a circular call for retaliatory regulation to deter the viewpoint bias .
What is particularly bizarre is that the President was winning in this fight .
Truth will out .
Many commentators , even some opposed to Trump , raised concerns over the action .
This is precisely what Justice Louis Brandeis meant in his concurring opinion in Whitney v. California ( 1927 ) when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies , to avert the evil by the process of education , the remedy to be applied is more speech , not enforced silence.
” The President has long struggled with the core values of the free press and free speech , even when those values work to his own advantage .
His original objections against Twitter were well-founded and compelling .
He then assumed the very same abusive position as the company in seeking to limit or regulate speech .
The difference is that he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Executive Branch .
That is precisely what the First Amendment was designed to protect against .
That is not the “ Little Brother ” problem .
That is the “ Big Brother problem.
” Gander Meet Goose : Executive In Charge of Twitter Rule Enforcement Under Fire For Anti-Trump Postings The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate , and for this we are grateful and excited !
But we must also be practical .
For 7 years we have not asked for any donations , and have built @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we grew .
We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent .
So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them .
Nothing is too small .
We thank you for all your support and your considerations … ( TLB ) Disclaimer : TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner .
We are making such material available to our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ use ” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political , health , economic and social issues .
The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes .
If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “ fair use ” you must request permission from the copyright owner .

Trump, Twitter & Turley take on Free Speech & the Media
(TLB) Staff: Below are two articles by Jonathan Turley looking at the bumpy road of Free Speech vs Government Regulation. At a time in history when we need ‘more debate’ and ‘less regulation’ as our Founding Fathers intended, Social Media and Government want their side to prevail through ‘control’ rather than allowing Truth and the Constitution to do their job!
Trump Threatens To “Shut Down” Social Media Companies
JONATHAN TURLEY
I have a column today criticizing Twitter for its labelling of tweets from President Donald Trump as presumptively false. [Article follows] Twitter has yielded to demands in Congress to censor and regulate political speech. In signature style, however, Trump promptly bulldozed the high ground in the controversy by threatening to close down social media companies through retaliatory regulations. The First Amendment was written to bar that very authority in either the President or Congress or both. The President cannot be the putative victim of private censorship while claiming the authority to engage in government censorship. In fairness however Democratic leaders have threatened such a regulatory crackdown in the past. The coverage on Trump’s threat telling omits the fact that Democratic leaders and presidential candidates have made the same threat in the past.
Trump went on Twitter to warn social media giants that the federal government could “strongly regulate” or “close them down” if they continue to “silence conservative voices.”
Some of us who have long criticized Twitter, Facebook and other companies for bias and speech regulation. However, such private speech regulation presents a difficult “Little Brother” problem under our Constitution, which is focused on state action. Ironically, Trump is suggesting a more chilling prospect of using government power to retaliate against companies due to their bias. That is neither nuanced nor difficult. It would constitute a core violation of the First Amendment.
The President tweeted “Republicans feel that Social Media Platforms totally silence conservatives voices. We will strongly regulate, or close them down, before we can ever allow this to happen. We saw what they attempted to do, and failed, in 2016. We can’t let a more sophisticated version of that happen again.”
Again, I have been a long critic of these companies and their policies. However, this threat is chilling and wrong. It is a circular call for retaliatory regulation to deter the viewpoint bias.
What is particularly bizarre is that the President was winning in this fight. Truth will out. Many commentators, even some opposed to Trump, raised concerns over the action. This is precisely what Justice Louis Brandeis meant in his concurring opinion in Whitney v. California (1927) when he declared “If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the process of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence.”
The President has long struggled with the core values of the free press and free speech, even when those values work to his own advantage. His original objections against Twitter were well-founded and compelling. He then assumed the very same abusive position as the company in seeking to limit or regulate speech. The difference is that he was speaking as the head of the Executive Branch. That is precisely what the First Amendment was designed to protect against. That is not the “Little Brother” problem. That is the “Big Brother problem.”
____________
Gander Meet Goose: Executive In Charge of Twitter Rule Enforcement Under Fire For Anti-Trump Postings
JONATHAN TURLEY
There is a new controversy swirling around Twitter’s new rules allowing the removal or labeling of tweets that the company deems false or misleading. I have a column out this morning criticizing Twitter’s warning attached to recent tweets by President Donald Trump. [Article above] However this controversy concerns the person who has said that he is in charge of “developing and enforcing Twitter’s rules,” Twitter’s “Head of Site Integrity” Yoel Roth. Critics have highlighted fairly extreme postings from Roth calling Trump and his supporters Nazis. I do not agree that the problem is Roth’s personal views or postings. The problem is his role and the rules at Twitter. The problem is anyone exercising this power of speech regulation. Indeed, as this controversy grew around Roth, Kathy Griffin is the latest poster to face calls for removal for effectively calling for Trump to kill himself . Again, Griffin should be allowed to post such hateful thoughts and the rest of the world should be allowed to denounce her, again, for her unhinged humor.
••••
The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)
••••
Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.
••••
Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
••••
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.


thelibertybeacon--2020-05-27--The FDA Fast Tracking ANYTHING (Drug/Vaccine) is Proven a RISKY BUSINESS

The FDA Fast Tracking ANYTHING ( Drug/Vaccine ) is Proven a RISKY BUSINESS On May 22 , 2020 , an article was published by the Canada Free Press , titled Who pushes the Idea of an epidemic ; what are their crimes ?
.
The article was written by one of my favourite journalists , Mr. Jon Rappoport ( Who ’ s article also appear on TLB ) .
Mr. Rappoport is a US based journalist known for his strong , honest , no-nonsense articles , highlighting crucial evidence , that is being deliberately missed out by the mainstream media @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reports evidence-based statistics that he believes are being deliberately covered up by our governments .
These statistics highlight the true numbers of people who are being regularly killed and maimed by approved medical products every day .
Shockingly , these statistics will never be highlighted by the mainstream media because the majority receive funding from the pharmaceutical industry .
Rappoport began his article with a few citations .
In one of them he stated that : According to Rappoport , in an interview , Starfield openly admitted to him that her estimate of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the conservative side !
In other words , the figures that she cited in her report could , in fact , only represent a proportion of the true numbers of Americans being killed by big pharma every year !
Rappoport continued his excellent article by citing similar statistics taken from many other reports published in reputable publications .
However , given Starfield ’ s statement , how accurate these figures are in representing the truth is open to interpretation .
Whether accurate or not , these reports highlight the fact that hundreds of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and maimed every year by medications and vaccinations that have been approved by the FDA .
It is for this reason that The Liberty Beacon wants to highlight the fact that this is the same US Food and Drug Administration ( FDA ) that general public from around the world are relying on to approve the vaccine that is being fast tracked through the system to supposedly save us all from the deadly COVID-19 virus .
FDA Approval Doesn ’ t Necessarily Mean that the Drug or Vaccine is Safe In 2017 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The article , written by Michelle Llamas , highlighted the fact that many of the drugs and vaccines approved by the FDA are based on the evidence provided by the company who makes the product .
Llamas wrote that Michael A. Carome , Director of Public Citizen ’ s Health Research Group , told Drugwatch that : In her excellent article outlining the process a drug or vaccine needs to go through to achieve approval , Llamas stated that : Llamas outlined , in detail , the clinical study phase .
She wrote @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the drug have taken place : After describing the three testing phases in detail , Llamas highlighted the following quote from The International Journal of Health Services : “ For some drugs , safety concerns are only discovered after they have been on the market , sometimes for several years .
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration ( FDA ) has adopted several policies that could increase the likelihood of approving a potentially unsafe medication.
” ( own emphasis ) In certain circumstances , the FDA are asked by the pharmaceutical company @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
This is usually because the drug or vaccine has been designed to fulfill an unmet medical need .
Llamas explained that whilst this means that some patients could benefit from the new drug or vaccine , the speed at which the FDA approves drugs can have dangerous consequences .
These two paragraphs contain information that The Liberty Beacon believe is extremely important , especially when you consider the fact that governments worldwide are encouraging the FDA to fast track an untested vaccine for COVID-19 as quickly as possible .
If this is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can be selective in what information that they submit to the FDA , then the COVID-19 vaccine could become the most dangerous vaccination ever to be approved .
In fact , according to one report , three people in the current trials for the Moderna Therapeutics COVID 19 vaccine , suffered a systemic adverse reaction to the vaccine .
This information was revealed in an article published by STAT News .
Author Matthew Herper , wrote : If Llamas is correct , and the pharmaceutical industry is permitted to be selective in what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when seeking a fast track approval , then it is possible that this fact could be conveniently missed out in their submissions .
I would like to finish with a statement that Ms. Llamas included in her article : The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate , and for this we are grateful and excited !
But we must also be practical .
For 7 years we have not asked for any donations , and have built this project with our own funds as we grew .
We @ @ @ @ @ @ @ due to the large number of websites and projects we represent .
So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them .
Nothing is too small .
We thank you for all your support and your considerations … ( TLB )

The FDA Fast Tracking ANYTHING (Drug/Vaccine) is Proven a RISKY BUSINESS
By TLB Contributing Partner: Christina England, BA, Hons
On May 22, 2020, an article was published by the Canada Free Press, titled Who pushes the Idea of an epidemic; what are their crimes? . The article was written by one of my favourite journalists, Mr. Jon Rappoport (Who’s article also appear on TLB).
Mr. Rappoport is a US based journalist known for his strong, honest, no-nonsense articles, highlighting crucial evidence, that is being deliberately missed out by the mainstream media.
In this particular article, Rappoport reports evidence-based statistics that he believes are being deliberately covered up by our governments.
These statistics highlight the true numbers of people who are being regularly killed and maimed by approved medical products every day. Shockingly, these statistics will never be highlighted by the mainstream media because the majority receive funding from the pharmaceutical industry.
Rappoport began his article with a few citations. In one of them he stated that:
“July 26, 2000, Journal of the American Medical Association; author, Dr. Barbara Starfield, revered public health expert, at the John Hopkins School of Public Health: “Is US Health really the best in the world?” Starfield reported that the US medical system kills 225,000 Americans a year. 106,000 as a result of FDA-approved medical drugs, and 119,000 as a result of mistreatment and errors in hospitals. Extrapolate the numbers to a decade: that’s 2.25 million deaths.””
According to Rappoport, in an interview, Starfield openly admitted to him that her estimate of medically caused deaths in America was on the conservative side!
In other words, the figures that she cited in her report could, in fact, only represent a proportion of the true numbers of Americans being killed by big pharma every year!
Rappoport continued his excellent article by citing similar statistics taken from many other reports published in reputable publications. However, given Starfield’s statement, how accurate these figures are in representing the truth is open to interpretation.
Whether accurate or not, these reports highlight the fact that hundreds of thousands of US citizens are being killed and maimed every year by medications and vaccinations that have been approved by the FDA.
It is for this reason that The Liberty Beacon wants to highlight the fact that this is the same US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) that general public from around the world are relying on to approve the vaccine that is being fast tracked through the system to supposedly save us all from the deadly COVID-19 virus.
FDA Approval Doesn’t Necessarily Mean that the Drug or Vaccine is Safe
In 2017, Drug Watch published an article titled Misplaced Trust: Why FDA Approval Doesn’t Guarantee Drug Safety . The article, written by Michelle Llamas, highlighted the fact that many of the drugs and vaccines approved by the FDA are based on the evidence provided by the company who makes the product.
Llamas wrote that Michael A. Carome, Director of Public Citizen’s Health Research Group, told Drugwatch that:
“When a new drug is first approved by the FDA, it typically has only been tested in several hundred to a few thousand patients in carefully controlled clinical trials that last several weeks to several months and that exclude many types of patients who will end up being prescribed the drug.”
Carome continued that:
“As a result, only the most common types of serious adverse events will be detected prior to FDA approval.”
In her excellent article outlining the process a drug or vaccine needs to go through to achieve approval, Llamas stated that:
“After a drug company discovers a new compound, it starts the FDA-approval process. The preclinical phase is the drug maker’s discovery and screening phase. First, it must test the drug on animals to determine its toxicity level. Researchers find out basic safety and efficacy information about the new drug. After it gathers initial data, the drug company submits an Investigational New Drug (IND) application to the FDA. The IND includes basic facts about the drug and a plan for human testing. After the FDA verifies the planned clinical trials will not put human subjects at unreasonable risk, it moves the drug to the next phase.”
Llamas outlined, in detail, the clinical study phase. She wrote:
“After the FDA verifies the planned clinical trials will not put human subjects at unreasonable risk, it moves the drug to the next phase.”
She stated that after animal studies of the drug have taken place:
“The clinical study phase is when the drug maker conducts tests on human subjects. Clinical trials go through three phases.”
After describing the three testing phases in detail, Llamas highlighted the following quote from The International Journal of Health Services:
“For some drugs, safety concerns are only discovered after they have been on the market, sometimes for several years. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has adopted several policies that could increase the likelihood of approving a potentially unsafe medication.” (own emphasis)
Llamas wrote:
“Big Pharma is fond of criticizing the FDA for not approving drugs quickly enough and depriving patients of life-saving medications. In reality, the FDA approves drugs faster than its counterparts in Europe, Canada and Japan. In the 1980s and 1990s, the FDA began new programs that fast-tracked the approval of certain drugs. While this might mean some patients benefit from new therapies, the speed at which the FDA approves drugs can have dangerous consequences.” (own emphasis)
Fast Tracking a Risky Business
In certain circumstances, the FDA are asked by the pharmaceutical company to fast track a drug or vaccine. This is usually because the drug or vaccine has been designed to fulfill an unmet medical need.
Llamas explained that whilst this means that some patients could benefit from the new drug or vaccine, the speed at which the FDA approves drugs can have dangerous consequences.
She wrote that:
“Accelerated approval allows earlier approval of drugs that fill an unmet medical need and uses “surrogate endpoints” to determine effectiveness. A surrogate endpoint is an indicator (for example, blood tests, X-rays) used to tell if a treatment works but does not necessarily guarantee it works. For example, if a cancer drug seems to make a tumor smaller, the FDA concludes it is effective even if there is no clinical trial to prove the drug actually extends life expectancy. The Fast Track Program reduces approval time for drugs that treat serious or life-threatening diseases. Drugmakers can submit portions of the application instead of providing the information all at once.”
These two paragraphs contain information that The Liberty Beacon believe is extremely important, especially when you consider the fact that governments worldwide are encouraging the FDA to fast track an untested vaccine for COVID-19 as quickly as possible.
If this is allowed to happen and the pharmaceutical companies can be selective in what information that they submit to the FDA, then the COVID-19 vaccine could become the most dangerous vaccination ever to be approved.
Three People in COVID 19 Vaccine Trial Suffer Adverse Reactions
In fact, according to one report, three people in the current trials for the Moderna Therapeutics COVID 19 vaccine, suffered a systemic adverse reaction to the vaccine.
This information was revealed in an article published by STAT News. Author Matthew Herper, wrote:
“Haydon has spoken about the vaccine on CNN and CNBC. He even said he’d volunteer to be exposed to the novel coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2, if researchers want to test to see if the vaccine was actually effective. But up until now he has left out a key detail: He is, apparently, one of three people in the trial who had a systemic adverse reaction to the vaccine. Twelve hours after receiving his second dose, he developed a fever of more than 103 degrees, sought medical attention, and, after being released from an urgent care facility, fainted in his home. He recovered within a day.”
If Llamas is correct, and the pharmaceutical industry is permitted to be selective in what information they can submit to the FDA when seeking a fast track approval, then it is possible that this fact could be conveniently missed out in their submissions.
I would like to finish with a statement that Ms. Llamas included in her article:
“The FDA is supposedly a watchdog agency mandated to protect the public from dangerous and ineffective drugs. In fact, the FDA is ineffective and dangerous to the public.” Alexander Bingham is a Clinical Psychiatrist and a Professor at John F. Kennedy University
••••
This radio show explains a little more about the COVID 19 vaccine, the lack of testing and what this could mean to our health, Particularly in the 2nd hour.

••••
About the Author: Christina England, BA Hons, Research Journalist and Author Christina was born and educated in London, U.K. She left school to work in a children’s library, specialising in storytelling and book buying. In 1978, Christina changed her career path to dedicate her time to caring for the elderly and was awarded the title of Care Giver of the Year for her work with the elderly in 1980. After taking an A Level in Psychology and a BTEC in Learning Support, Ms. England spent many years researching vaccines and adverse reactions. She gained a Higher National Diploma in Journalism and Media Studies in 2010 and in 2016 she gained a BA Hons degree in Literature and Humanities. She currently writes for VacTruth, Health Impact News, GreenMedInfo, The Liberty Beacon, Vaccine Impact and Medical Kidnap on immunisation safety and efficacy. She has co-authored the book – Shaken Baby Syndrome or Vaccine Induced Encephalitis – Are Parents Being Falsely Accused? with Dr. Harold Buttram and Vaccination Policy and the UK Government: The Untold Truth with Lucija Tomljenovic PhD, which are sold on Amazon. She also compiled the book Shattered Dreams: The HPV Vaccine Exposed Her website is Parents and Carers Against Medical Injustice
••••
••••
••••
Stay tuned to …
••••
The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)
••••
Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.
••••
Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
••••
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.


thelibertybeacon--2020-05-27--The 2nd Amendment & the Myth of Gun Control (Part 2 of 2)

The 2nd Amendment & the Myth of Gun Control ( Part 1 of 2 ) At this point , I must bring definition number 2 of “ terms ” from above .
2. any word or group of words considered as a member of a construction or utterance .
This is pretty interesting , “ a member of a construction.
” What in the world is “ a construction ?
” Black ’ s law dictionary is enlightening here .
“ As applied to statutes , constitutions , contracts , etc .
the term In other words , “ a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fraud , a deception .
Ok then .
Onto utterance .
To “ utter ” means to offer a forged instrument with the representation by words or actions , that the same is genuine .
Again , a lie , a fraud and a deception .
This paragraph titled “ Firearms ” is nothing more than a lie , a fraud and a deception so easily foisted on the ignorant American sheeple .
Fact is , this entire section , 479.11 is a lie , a fraud and a deception .
Section 479.11 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is government legal-sleaze , doublespeak and gooble-de-gook at it ’ s absolute best .
Just part of the Bizarro Opposite World I describe throughout this book .
.
A weapon originally designed , made , and intended to fire a projectile ( bullet ) from one or more barrels when held in one hand , and having ( a ) a chamber ( s ) as an integral part ( s ) of , or permanently aligned with , the bore ( s ) ; and ( b ) a short stock designed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at an angle to and extending below the line of the bore ( s ) .
[ what about smooth bore v. rifled bores ] A projectile weapon , of the pistol type , having a breechloading chambered cylinder so arranged that the cocking of the hammer or movement of the trigger rotates it and brings the next cartridge in line with the barrel for firing .
[ what about smooth bore v. rifled bores ] To further confuse the situation , these two definitions deliberately omit the words “ rifled bores ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or revolver with rifled bores a “ firearm ?
” Are they “ any other weapon ?
” By these very definitions provided by the BATF , they are neither .
Additionally , this entire section fails to define the words , “ arms ” as used in the 2nd Amendment , guns or weapons .
Perhaps it is because “ arms , guns and weapons ” are words and not “ terms.
” There we have it , directly from the horse ’ s mouth .
One paragraph expressly includes pistols and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ firing a shotgun shell in the definition “ any other weapons.
” The paragraph expressly excludes pistols and revolvers that have a rifled barrel [ all modern pistols and revolvers have rifled barrels ] as a “ firearm.
” Additionally , the Firearms paragraph expressly fails to include pistols and revolvers with a rifled bore as “ firearms.
” You make what you will of it , I can only lead you to water , I can not make you drink .
Again , I will clearly and honestly state without any doubt @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , I have never purchased a “ firearm ” nor do I own or use any “ Firearms.
” The problem for law enforcement officers is that they have swallowed the lies , deception and frauds created by the BATF .
These officers are functioning from “ a construction or an utterance.
” No officer will admit that he is living a lie , a fraud , a deception .
That is the power of Words , or should I say , “ terms.
” A complete domination of consciousness and perception of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ 1984 ” stated , “ In a time of universal deceit , telling the Truth is a revolutionary act.
” The second issue then is gun registration .
Supposedly there is no gun registration in the United States .
“ No gun registration ” is the facade .
Here is what happens in reality .
When a private citizen purchases a firearm thru a dealer , the dealer is a federally licensed firearms dealer and has to pay for an FFL , aka , Federal Firearms License .
Prior to you picking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for , the firearms dealer must call the FBI hotline to give them your name , address , place of birth , date of birth and so forth .
If the FBI permits it , you can finish purchasing your firearm and take it home .
If the FBI “ red flags ” you , you will never own a firearm , legally .
The FBI ’ s role is to be the Gate Keeper Supreme .
Basically a “ gun czar ” .
The FFL dealer is a “ government snitch.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that you bought a “ firearm ” and thus committing a crime , and having to ask for permission to possess the “ firearm.
” Nazi Police States like California and New York , make purchasing a “ firearm ” a virtual impossibility .
The same thing happened in Nazi Germany under Hitler and in U.S.S.R , aka , Russia , under Stalin .
So many gates and obstacles are put in the way of the average citizen , that most will give up way before finishing the paperwork .
Which is exactly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a little bit here .
Here is where we see the ol magic trick of slight of hand .
In California and New York , as well as the rest of the country , if you are applying for a permit to purchase a “ firearm ” , you are in fact admitting , by the BATF definitions above , that you want to purchase a sawed off shotgun , a sawed off rifle , a machine gun , a silencer , any other weapon , destructive device , plus you are not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with a rifled bore , because a pistols or revolvers with a rifled bore are not considered firearms according to the BATF definition of “ terms ” , remember this : ( a ) A shotgun having a barrel or barrels of less than 18 inches in length ; ( b ) a weapon made from a shotgun if such weapon as modified has an overall length of less than 26 inches or a barrel or barrels of less than 18 inches in length ; ( c ) a rifle having a barrel @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in length ; ( d ) a weapon made from a rifle if such weapon as modified has an overall length of less than 26 inches or a barrel or barrels of less than 16 inches in length ; ( e ) any other weapon , as defined in this subpart ; ( f ) a machine gun ; ( g ) a muffler or a silencer for any firearm whether or not such firearm is included within this definition ; and ( h ) a destructive device .
The term shall not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( other than a machine gun or destructive device ) which , although designed as a weapon , the Director finds by reason of the date of its manufacture , value , design , and other characteristics is primarily a collector ’ s item and is not likely to be used as a weapon .
For purposes of this definition , the length of the barrel having an integral chamber ( s ) on a shotgun or rifle shall be determined by measuring the distance between the muzzle and the face of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when closed and when the shotgun or rifle is cocked .
The overall length of a weapon made from a shotgun or rifle is the distance between the extreme ends of the weapon measured along a line parallel to the center line of the bore .
So guess what ?
The BATF , along with the two Nazi States , will automatically deny your permit by confusing and obfuscating the situation , by grilling you as to why you want to buy a “ Firearm ” , while secretly using the BATF definition @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an amateur compared to these phucks .
And naturally , you will be denied the opportunity to purchase a sawed off shotgun , sawed off rifle , a machine gun , [ simply because these “ firearms ” are illegal contraband ] and so forth .
By using language to control your reality and perception of reality , you are denied a basic right under the Bill of Rights .
And the natural , god-given right of self defense .
Of course , you are allowed to defend yourself against any threat , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ form of “ government ” agents or the “ government ” itself .
Sounds a little cowardly , what do you think ?
That is the five Cs at their best , plus obfuscation .
However , there is one little caveat .
Even though the official facade is that there is no “ registration ” required , before you can take your new firearm home , the firearms dealer must enter your name and all of the particulars of the firearm into his firearms log , a permanent record of all the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ This “ firearms ” log kept by the dealer is accessible to , and property of , the BATF .
By doing this act , you have effectively “ registered ” your firearm on BATF form 4473 , called a “ Firearms Transaction Record.
” Right there you just ‘ registered ’ your “ firearm.
” But you buy a “ firearm ” or something else ?
How do I know this ?
I had an FFL for six years in my younger years .
At that very moment , you , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in “ a construction and an utterance ” voluntarily I might add .
Your pistol , revolver , shotgun or rifle just got registered as a “ firearm ” , illegal contraband , according to the very definition by the BATF .
In Isaiah and Hosea , these two prophets stated , “ My people are enslaved for lack of knowledge ” , and “ My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge.
” Forrest Gump in the movie , stated , “ Stupid is as stupid does.
” The myth of ‘ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a myth .
Be aware and vigilant , by agreeing to register your new pistol or rifle or shotgun on form 4473 , you effectively agreed that you are buying a “ firearm ” pursuant to the definition of paragraph “ Firearm ” of the BATF .
Not to be repetitive , but did you purchase a sawed off shotgun with barrels shorter than 18 inches or overall length of shorter than 26 ?
Just saying !
!
If your shotgun has a 30 inch barrel ( s ) and is more than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ did not purchase a “ Firearm.
” How do like them apples ?
There is a gigantic caveat with the process of “ registration.
” The very word “ registration ” comes from the root word “ regis ” , which means King .
So by the act of registration , you have entered into a “ contract with the King ” for the privilege of possessing and using a firearm .
Since we live on the USPOWSCC and have the status of slaves , slaves can not own anything , and I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the firearm and can engage in “ gun confiscation ” of this “ firearm ” any time he/she wants if it is a matter of “ national security ” and controlling the slaves .
I can tell you are rolling your eyes and scratching your head , “ What King ?
” If you have read the rest of my book , you know that we are still a British colony under the Monarchy .
Of course , our King is the Queen of England .
Phucking phat , phoul , phuck @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ‘ law enforcement agencies ’ have a record of all of the ‘ firearms ’ that you have “ purchased and own.
” But according to official propaganda , you are not required to register your “ firearm.
” So back to the eternal question , ‘ Cui Bono ?
’ Who benefits ?
This is part of the “ electronic concentration camp ” that John Whitehead , author of “ Government of Wolves ” and “ Battlefield America ” describes .
So then , the “ government ” has developed a scale @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the government ” and how radical you are based on the quantity of “ firearms ” you “ purchase and own.
” The more “ firearms ” you “ own ” , the more dangerous and radical you are and are to be watched , monitored and kept tabs on for future target acquisition .
Guys like me are on the “ un-official kill list.
” WHAT THE PHUCK !
!
!
This is the ‘ cui bono ’ for the “ government.
” Here is the comical thing , professional politicians will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if trying to convince themselves , “ We do not have “ firearm ” registration in the United States , read my lips.
” You can rest assured of one thing , every time a Professional Politician vehemently denies anything , he is an absolute liar and the opposite is true .
I have covered gun control and gun registration .
That brings me to “ gun confiscation.
” This is clearly the most aggressive and violent action that any government can undertake against its citizens .
So here is the penultimate question @ @ @ @ @ @ @ itself to be ‘ a government of the people , by the people and for the people ’ , ever legitimately engage in gun confiscation ?
” Can any government that claims itself to be a “ republic ” ever legitimately engage in gun confiscation ?
How about if I rephrase these two questions , “ “ Can any government that claims itself to be ‘ a government of the people , by the people and for the people ’ , ever legitimately engage in FIREARM confiscation ?
” Can any government that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” ever legitimately engage in FIREARM confiscation ?
” What possible justification can any government contrive to confiscate guns ?
However , the “ government ” can legally engage in “ FIREARM ” confiscation , because firearms as defined above are “ illegal contraband.
” The most perfectly politically correct bullshit are “ national security and state secrets.
” A lot of crimes can be covered behind this bullshit .
“ Today we face the constant threat of surrendering too much of our natural freedom out of fear of terrorism and a desire @ @ @ @ @ @ @ every attempt to thwart our right to due process , using claims of national security and state secrets to mask the use of truly dictatorial powers and procedures profoundly contrary to the natural law.
” Napolitano , supra .
Based on the BATF section 479.11 above , there is no definition of the word or term “ gun ” .
The words “ arms , guns and weapons ” were deliberately omitted from the section above .
The BATF did not even include these words as “ terms ” .
By creating this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , guns , handguns , can be included in the terms “ firearms ” and thus subject to confiscation .
When any “ government ” contradicts itself between its word and its actions , it no longer has the Moral Authority to rule by the consent of the governed .
Thomas Jefferson warned us to chain down the “ government ” with the chains of the Constitution so that the “ government ” itself would not become the criminal element .
Alas , we as a nation have failed miserably .
We currently @ @ @ @ @ @ @ [ Nock , Our Enemy , the State ] posing as “ government.
” A private phucking corporation whose only goal is to phuck [ shear ] the Sheeple .
I must again refer to the 2nd definition of terms above .
2. any word or group of words considered as a member of a construction or utterance .
This is pretty interesting , “ a member of a construction.
” What in the world is “ a construction ?
” Black ’ s law dictionary is enlightening here .
“ As applied @ @ @ @ @ @ @ etc .
the term necessarily ” What a mind phuck !
!
Clearly then , by using the word “ gun ” in “ gun confiscation ” , any “ government ” agency can create a fiction with no definition or delegated authority whatsoever in section 479.11 of the CFR 27 .
This falls under the Mao Principle that I used extensively throughout this book .
Here is the Mao Principle : Any fiction whatsoever can be forced and converted into a reality at the end of a gun barrel .
Of course @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , aka , the Law of War .
By now you should remember that during times of War , the Law of the Land is silent .
Victory by any and all means necessary is the only goal .
So then , let ’ s do a mini tour of gun confiscation is various countries .
What has been the result ?
Cui bono ?
[ In 1929 , the Soviet Union established gun control .
From 1929 to 1953 , about 20 million dissidents , unable to defend themselves , were rounded @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Turkey established gun control .
From 1915 to 1917 , 1.5 million Armenians , unable to defend themselves , were rounded up and exterminated .
Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945 , a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated .
China established gun control in 1935 .
From 1948 to 1952 , 20 million political dissidents , unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated .
Guatemala established gun control in 1964 .
From 1964 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unable to defend themselves , were rounded up and exterminated .
Uganda established gun control in 1970 .
From 1971 to 1979 , 300,000 Christians , unable to defend themselves , were rounded up and exterminated .
Cambodia established gun control in 1956 .
From 1975 to 1977 , one million educated people , unable to defend themselves , were rounded up and exterminated .
56 million defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control : With guns , we are “ citizens ” .
Without them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ During WWII the Japanese decided not to invade America because they knew most Americans were ARMED ! ]
On January 30th , 2020 , H.R .
5717 was introduced onto the Floor .
It is the most draconian gun legislation ever introduced and proves that we are on the verge of a tyranny and dictatorship darker than Lenin , Stalin and Hitler .
H.R.5717 – Gun Violence Prevention and Community Safety Act of 2020 In my chapter titled , The Right of Revolution , I wrote , “ We are within one generation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by our own government thru legerdemain and insidious legislation .
We will be the New Jews , led to slaughter by our own politicos .
And we will walk that Walk of Shame and die just like the Jews did in the Nazi Concentration Camps in Germany.
” In essence , thru gun control and gun registration , the Controllers were able to effectively enact gun confiscation .
Gun control and gun registration have historically been a pre-lude to Gun confiscation thru a variety of mechanisms .
The traditional mechanisms include , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ volatile , discretionary powers of decision , brimming with arrogance .
Additionally , an infinite number of hurdles to jump .
Plus fee after fee to separate departments .
The Nazi States , California and New York , have 50 page applications .
For California : • None What information is required for a Personal Firearms Eligibility Check ( PFEC ) ?
• None How much does the PFEC cost ?
• None How long will it take to get the results of my PFEC ?
• None What records are checked to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ • None Under what conditions is someone considered ineligible to possess and/or purchase firearms ?
• None Will the PFEC results include information about my criminal history ?
• None If I receive an eligible to possess response , what factors could change my status to ineligible ?
• None The results of my PFEC indicated that I am eligible to possess firearms but not eligible to purchase firearms .
What does that mean ?
• None I currently own firearms and want to know if I can purchase another firearm .
If @ @ @ @ @ @ @ am eligible to possess , but ineligible to purchase firearms , can I keep the firearms I own ?
• None I currently own firearms and want to know if I can purchase another firearm .
If the results of my PFEC indicate I am ineligible to either possess or purchase firearms , can I keep the firearms I own ?
• None The results of my PFEC indicate I am ineligible to either possess or purchase firearms and one of the firearms I own is a registered assault weapon .
Can I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ another person ?
• None The results of my PFEC indicated that a determination of my eligibility to possess firearms could not be made .
What does that mean ?
• None I am not a U.S. citizen .
Can I have a PFEC conducted ?
• None Does the PFEC satisfy the requirement for a background check when I go to a firearms dealer to purchase a firearm ?
• None Is a temporary driver ’ s license or invalid license acceptable for the purpose of obtaining a PFEC ?
• None @ @ @ @ @ @ @ obtain a PFEC as a condition of employment ?
• None I submitted an application for a PFEC but forgot to enclose the fee .
What should I do ?
• None What if I have a disability that prevents me from completing the applications ?
• None Can a prospective employer require me to obtain a PFEC as a condition of employment ?
The Power of Gun Confiscation is incredibly alluring and seductive for any given “ government ” , but especially for dictatorships .
Totalitarian states hate an armed populace , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Aphrodisiac for all governments and dictatorships .
Power drives men mad .
The benefit is total control , subjugation and domination of any given population .
Dictatorships especially love “ gun confiscation ” simply because it creates a nation of sheeple ready for the shearing .
As we currently sit , the POTUS , under Executive Order can designate any given man , woman or child as an “ enemy combatant ” and imprison then indefinitely , without charges or trial .
Did I hear someone “ Russia ” or “ China ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that they blindly and stupidly accept any and all “ Executive Orders ” like children accepting candy from a pedophile .
Intuitively we know that we shouldn ’ t , but we still do and of course to our own detriment and further enslavement .
We deserve exactly what we are getting .
No matter what the pretense , the Shepherd will always phuck the sheeple .
The U.S. “ government ” uses every crisis and opportunity to test the waters with “ firearm confiscation.
” For instance , post Katrina , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ forays into the countryside and openly engaged in “ firearm confiscation ” as a way of testing the waters .
John Whitehead , a constitutional attorney , specifically addresses the loss of liberties in his two books , both excellent reads , “ Battlefield America ” and “ A government of Wolves.
” We have silently entered the “ Post Constitutional/Bill of Rights Era ” for America .
Like every great military empire , we will self-destruct from within before we are destroyed from without .
Historically all empires have lasted an average @ @ @ @ @ @ @ already .
As we stand , America is on a kamikaze dive of self destruction and in one generation will be destroyed and will enter full fledged into a 3rd world nation status .
A pissed-off bully with lots of left-over nukes , and unemployed veteran soldiers/killers itching for a fight .
A perfect fit for the fully militarized “ law enforcement force.
” The most common method of all is false flags fabricated by the U.S. “ government ” to pass draconian laws and statutes in the midst of the massive emotionalism @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Manchurian Candidate groomed by the CIA .
All of the recent “ mass shootings ” are part of the MK ULTRA CIA program .
“ False flags have been staged over the centuries to blame political enemies for attacks they did not commit .
The tactic remains in common use today , and will continue to be employed as long as populations still blindly believe whatever their governments tell them about the origins of spectacular terror incidents.
” James Corbett , Wake Up World .
This time around it is the Corona-beer-us holographic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to enact H.R .
5717 .
Around the world , nations and governments have staged hundreds , if not thousands , of false flag operations as a pretext to go to War for Profit .
Do not let yourself be deceived !
!
!
The most perfect of the false flags in the history of this nation is the World-Wide Government Putsch by the Secret Cabals/Deep State/Shadow Government “ Coronavirus.
” All serious researchers and legal scholars that have analyzed the Patriot Act agree that it is the single worst and most destructive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ soil .
Welcome to “ 1984 , I am Winston.
” We are in serious trouble , we may have reached the point of no return from the invisible , secret military dictatorship .
When men lose their vigor for , and love of , Freedom , and embrace “ national security and good citizenship ” as a pretext to being sheeple , these men will become quiet , gentle Slaves like Winston in George Orwell ’ s “ 1984 ” .
When the men of a nation drop to their knees and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , they no longer have the right to call themselves , “ MEN.
” Narcotized Zombies wondering why their assholes hurt so much ?
I too , like Judge Napolitano above , would rather die on my feet fighting for Freedom than live as a slave on my knees begging for scraps and privileges .
Freedom is not gentle and docile , but messy , vociferous and belligerent .
Freedom is intolerant of Cowardice .
Freedom is simply FREEDOM .
Embrace it and become a Man .
The Tyranny behind the Corona-beer-us will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ members , relatives and friends .
Judges , bankers , attorneys , government employees , state employees , police men , nurses and doctors , all meaning well .
“ Evil is unspectacular and always human , and shares our bed and eats at our own table.
” Herman Melville .
Rare Earths , Forbidden Cures , by Joel Wallach and Ma Lan , Mds .
“ Chaos , confusion and ultimately a battle between the individual and the State .
The individual is the stronger ; and will win .
The state @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his followers to CONTROL the individual .
Sooner or later people will wake up .
First we have to dump the trap of right and left , this is a Hegelian trap to divide and control .
The battle is not between right and left ; it is between us and them… ” Antony Sutton , The Best enemy money can buy .
The Monied Elite are dying to start another Civil War , to pit brother against brother , family member against family member , a War of Biblical and catastrophic proportions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ profits and depopulation of the world .
Hic est Furor !
!
!
!
!
• None My voice is the Cry from the Wilderness , • None Live Well , have courage and compassion , • None Travel Well , my friends and companions .

The 2nd Amendment & the Myth of Gun Control (Part 1 of 2)
(If you have not, but wish to read part 1 first, click here)
By TLB Contributing Author: Rico S. Giron
At this point, I must bring definition number 2 of “terms” from above. 2. any word or group of words considered as a member of a construction or utterance. This is pretty interesting, “a member of a construction.” What in the world is “a construction?” Black’s law dictionary is enlightening here. “As applied to statutes, constitutions, contracts, etc. the term necessarily presupposes doubt, obscurity or ambiguity.” In other words, “ a construction” is a lie, a fraud, a deception. Ok then. Onto utterance. To “utter” means to offer a forged instrument with the representation by words or actions, that the same is genuine. Again, a lie, a fraud and a deception. This paragraph titled “Firearms” is nothing more than a lie, a fraud and a deception so easily foisted on the ignorant American sheeple. Fact is, this entire section, 479.11 is a lie, a fraud and a deception. Section 479.11 is a complete mind phuck. This is government legal-sleaze, doublespeak and gooble-de-gook at it’s absolute best. Just part of the Bizarro Opposite World I describe throughout this book.
Pistol . A weapon originally designed, made, and intended to fire a projectile (bullet) from one or more barrels when held in one hand, and having (a) a chamber(s) as an integral part(s) of, or permanently aligned with, the bore(s); and (b) a short stock designed to be gripped by one hand and at an angle to and extending below the line of the bore(s). [what about smooth bore v. rifled bores]
Revolver. A projectile weapon, of the pistol type, having a breechloading chambered cylinder so arranged that the cocking of the hammer or movement of the trigger rotates it and brings the next cartridge in line with the barrel for firing. [what about smooth bore v. rifled bores]
To further confuse the situation, these two definitions deliberately omit the words “rifled bores”. So then, is a pistol or revolver with rifled bores a “firearm?” Are they “any other weapon?” By these very definitions provided by the BATF, they are neither.
Additionally, this entire section fails to define the words, “arms” as used in the 2nd Amendment, guns or weapons. Perhaps it is because “arms, guns and weapons” are words and not “terms.”
There we have it, directly from the horse’s mouth. One paragraph expressly includes pistols and revolvers with smooth bores and capable of firing a shotgun shell in the definition “any other weapons.” The same paragraph expressly excludes pistols and revolvers that have a rifled barrel [all modern pistols and revolvers have rifled barrels] as a “firearm.” Additionally, the Firearms paragraph expressly fails to include pistols and revolvers with a rifled bore as “firearms.” You make what you will of it, I can only lead you to water, I cannot make you drink.
Again, I will clearly and honestly state without any doubt whatsoever, based on the BATF definition, I have never purchased a “firearm” nor do I own or use any “Firearms.” The problem for law enforcement officers is that they have swallowed the lies, deception and frauds created by the BATF. These officers are functioning from “a construction or an utterance.” No officer will admit that he is living a lie, a fraud, a deception. That is the power of Words, or should I say, “terms.” A complete domination of consciousness and perception of reality. George Orwell, author of “1984” stated, “In a time of universal deceit, telling the Truth is a revolutionary act.”
The second issue then is gun registration. Supposedly there is no gun registration in the United States. “No gun registration” is the facade. Here is what happens in reality. When a private citizen purchases a firearm thru a dealer, the dealer is a federally licensed firearms dealer and has to pay for an FFL, aka, Federal Firearms License. Prior to you picking up your firearms that you have paid for, the firearms dealer must call the FBI hotline to give them your name, address, place of birth, date of birth and so forth. If the FBI permits it, you can finish purchasing your firearm and take it home. If the FBI “red flags” you, you will never own a firearm, legally. The FBI’s role is to be the Gate Keeper Supreme. Basically a “gun czar”. The FFL dealer is a “government snitch.” His role is to rat you out that you bought a “firearm” and thus committing a crime, and having to ask for permission to possess the “firearm.”
Nazi Police States like California and New York, make purchasing a “firearm” a virtual impossibility. The same thing happened in Nazi Germany under Hitler and in U.S.S.R, aka, Russia, under Stalin. So many gates and obstacles are put in the way of the average citizen, that most will give up way before finishing the paperwork. Which is exactly the desired result. Let me backtrack a little bit here. Here is where we see the ol magic trick of slight of hand. In California and New York, as well as the rest of the country, if you are applying for a permit to purchase a “firearm”, you are in fact admitting, by the BATF definitions above, that you want to purchase a sawed off shotgun, a sawed off rifle, a machine gun, a silencer, any other weapon, destructive device, plus you are not applying to purchase a pistol or revolver with a rifled bore, because a pistols or revolvers with a rifled bore are not considered firearms according to the BATF definition of “terms”, remember this:
Firearm. [27 CFR 479.11 – Meaning of terms]
(a) A shotgun having a barrel or barrels of less than 18 inches in length; (b) a weapon made from a shotgun if such weapon as modified has an overall length of less than 26 inches or a barrel or barrels of less than 18 inches in length; (c) a rifle having a barrel or barrels of less than 16 inches in length; (d) a weapon made from a rifle if such weapon as modified has an overall length of less than 26 inches or a barrel or barrels of less than 16 inches in length; (e) any other weapon, as defined in this subpart; (f) a machine gun; (g) a muffler or a silencer for any firearm whether or not such firearm is included within this definition; and (h) a destructive device. The term shall not include an antique firearm or any device (other than a machine gun or destructive device) which, although designed as a weapon, the Director finds by reason of the date of its manufacture, value, design, and other characteristics is primarily a collector’s item and is not likely to be used as a weapon. For purposes of this definition, the length of the barrel having an integral chamber(s) on a shotgun or rifle shall be determined by measuring the distance between the muzzle and the face of the bolt, breech, or breech block when closed and when the shotgun or rifle is cocked. The overall length of a weapon made from a shotgun or rifle is the distance between the extreme ends of the weapon measured along a line parallel to the center line of the bore.
So guess what? The BATF, along with the two Nazi States, will automatically deny your permit by confusing and obfuscating the situation, by grilling you as to why you want to buy a “Firearm”, while secretly using the BATF definition of “Firearm.” David Copperfield is an amateur compared to these phucks. And naturally, you will be denied the opportunity to purchase a sawed off shotgun, sawed off rifle, a machine gun,[simply because these “firearms” are illegal contraband] and so forth. By using language to control your reality and perception of reality, you are denied a basic right under the Bill of Rights. And the natural, god-given right of self defense. Of course, you are allowed to defend yourself against any threat, except when that threat come in the form of “government” agents or the “government” itself. Sounds a little cowardly, what do you think? That is the five Cs at their best, plus obfuscation.
However, there is one little caveat. Even though the official facade is that there is no “registration” required, before you can take your new firearm home, the firearms dealer must enter your name and all of the particulars of the firearm into his firearms log, a permanent record of all the firearms he has sold to everybody. This “firearms” log kept by the dealer is accessible to, and property of, the BATF. By doing this act, you have effectively “registered” your firearm on BATF form 4473, called a “Firearms Transaction Record.” Right there you just ‘registered’ your “firearm.” But you buy a “firearm” or something else? How do I know this? I had an FFL for six years in my younger years.
At that very moment, you, the purchaser of the “firearm” participated in “a construction and an utterance” voluntarily I might add. Your pistol, revolver, shotgun or rifle just got registered as a “firearm”, illegal contraband, according to the very definition by the BATF. In Isaiah and Hosea, these two prophets stated, “My people are enslaved for lack of knowledge”, and “My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge.” Forrest Gump in the movie, stated, “Stupid is as stupid does.”
The myth of ‘no registration’ is exactly that, a myth. Be aware and vigilant, by agreeing to register your new pistol or rifle or shotgun on form 4473, you effectively agreed that you are buying a “firearm” pursuant to the definition of paragraph “Firearm” of the BATF. Not to be repetitive, but did you purchase a sawed off shotgun with barrels shorter than 18 inches or overall length of shorter than 26? Just saying!! If your shotgun has a 30 inch barrel(s) and is more than 26 inches in length, then you did not purchase a “Firearm.” How do like them apples?
There is a gigantic caveat with the process of “registration.” The very word “registration” comes from the root word “regis”, which means King. So by the act of registration, you have entered into a “contract with the King” for the privilege of possessing and using a firearm. Since we live on the USPOWSCC and have the status of slaves, slaves cannot own anything, and I mean NOTHING. The King retains ownership of the firearm and can engage in “gun confiscation” of this “firearm” any time he/she wants if it is a matter of “national security” and controlling the slaves. I can tell you are rolling your eyes and scratching your head, “What King?” If you have read the rest of my book, you know that we are still a British colony under the Monarchy. Of course, our King is the Queen of England. Phucking phat, phoul, phuck!
Now the FBI and all other ‘law enforcement agencies’ have a record of all of the ‘firearms’ that you have “purchased and own.” But according to official propaganda, you are not required to register your “firearm.” So back to the eternal question, ‘Cui Bono?’ Who benefits? This is part of the “electronic concentration camp” that John Whitehead, author of “Government of Wolves” and “Battlefield America” describes. So then, the “government” has developed a scale of how “dangerous you are to the government” and how radical you are based on the quantity of “firearms” you “purchase and own.” The more “firearms” you “own”, the more dangerous and radical you are and are to be watched, monitored and kept tabs on for future target acquisition. Guys like me are on the “un-official kill list.” WHAT THE PHUCK!!! This is the ‘cui bono’ for the “government.” Here is the comical thing, professional politicians will repeat over and over again, as if trying to convince themselves, “We do not have “firearm” registration in the United States, read my lips.” You can rest assured of one thing, every time a Professional Politician vehemently denies anything, he is an absolute liar and the opposite is true.
I have covered gun control and gun registration. That brings me to “gun confiscation.” This is clearly the most aggressive and violent action that any government can undertake against its citizens. So here is the penultimate question, “Can any government that claims itself to be ‘a government of the people, by the people and for the people’, ever legitimately engage in gun confiscation?” Can any government that claims itself to be a “republic” ever legitimately engage in gun confiscation? How about if I rephrase these two questions, ““Can any government that claims itself to be ‘a government of the people, by the people and for the people’, ever legitimately engage in FIREARM confiscation?” Can any government that claims itself to be a “republic” ever legitimately engage in FIREARM confiscation?” What possible justification can any government contrive to confiscate guns? However, the “government” can legally engage in “FIREARM” confiscation, because firearms as defined above are “illegal contraband.” The most perfectly politically correct bullshit are “national security and state secrets.” A lot of crimes can be covered behind this bullshit. “Today we face the constant threat of surrendering too much of our natural freedom out of fear of terrorism and a desire for national security…our present government has made every attempt to thwart our right to due process, using claims of national security and state secrets to mask the use of truly dictatorial powers and procedures profoundly contrary to the natural law.” Napolitano, supra.
Based on the BATF section 479.11 above, there is no definition of the word or term “gun”. The words “arms, guns and weapons” were deliberately omitted from the section above. The BATF did not even include these words as “terms”. By creating this deliberate ambiguity, the words “arms, guns, handguns, can be included in the terms “firearms” and thus subject to confiscation. When any “government” contradicts itself between its word and its actions, it no longer has the Moral Authority to rule by the consent of the governed. Thomas Jefferson warned us to chain down the “government” with the chains of the Constitution so that the “government” itself would not become the criminal element. Alas, we as a nation have failed miserably. We currently have a “professional criminal class” [Nock, Our Enemy, the State] posing as “government.” A private phucking corporation whose only goal is to phuck[shear] the Sheeple.
I must again refer to the 2nd definition of terms above. 2. any word or group of words considered as a member of a construction or utterance. This is pretty interesting, “a member of a construction.” What in the world is “a construction?” Black’s law dictionary is enlightening here. “As applied to statutes, constitutions, contracts, etc. the term necessarily presupposes doubt, obscurity or ambiguity. ” What a mind phuck!!
Clearly then, by using the word “gun” in “gun confiscation”, any “government” agency can create a fiction with no definition or delegated authority whatsoever in section 479.11 of the CFR 27. This falls under the Mao Principle that I used extensively throughout this book. Here is the Mao Principle: Any fiction whatsoever can be forced and converted into a reality at the end of a gun barrel. Of course this falls under the Law of Necessity, aka, the Law of War. By now you should remember that during times of War, the Law of the Land is silent. Victory by any and all means necessary is the only goal.
So then, let’s do a mini tour of gun confiscation is various countries. What has been the result? Cui bono?
[In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
56 million defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control:
With guns, we are “citizens”. Without them, we are “subjects”. During WWII the Japanese decided not to invade America because they knew most Americans were ARMED!]
On January 30th, 2020, H.R. 5717 was introduced onto the Floor. It is the most draconian gun legislation ever introduced and proves that we are on the verge of a tyranny and dictatorship darker than Lenin, Stalin and Hitler. H.R.5717 – Gun Violence Prevention and Community Safety Act of 2020 In my chapter titled, The Right of Revolution, I wrote, “We are within one generation, 25 years of being completely disarmed by our own government thru legerdemain and insidious legislation. We will be the New Jews, led to slaughter by our own politicos. And we will walk that Walk of Shame and die just like the Jews did in the Nazi Concentration Camps in Germany.”
In essence, thru gun control and gun registration, the Controllers were able to effectively enact gun confiscation. Gun control and gun registration have historically been a pre-lude to Gun confiscation thru a variety of mechanisms. The traditional mechanisms include, but are not limited to, gatekeepers with volatile, discretionary powers of decision, brimming with arrogance. Additionally, an infinite number of hurdles to jump. Plus fee after fee to separate departments. The Nazi States, California and New York, have 50 page applications. For California:
The Power of Gun Confiscation is incredibly alluring and seductive for any given “government”, but especially for dictatorships. Totalitarian states hate an armed populace, but love Sheeple.
Power is an Aphrodisiac for all governments and dictatorships. Power drives men mad. The benefit is total control, subjugation and domination of any given population. Dictatorships especially love “gun confiscation” simply because it creates a nation of sheeple ready for the shearing. As we currently sit, the POTUS, under Executive Order can designate any given man, woman or child as an “enemy combatant” and imprison then indefinitely, without charges or trial. Did I hear someone “Russia” or “China”? The American sheeple are so narcotized that they blindly and stupidly accept any and all “Executive Orders” like children accepting candy from a pedophile. Intuitively we know that we shouldn’t, but we still do and of course to our own detriment and further enslavement. We deserve exactly what we are getting. No matter what the pretense, the Shepherd will always phuck the sheeple.
The U.S. “government” uses every crisis and opportunity to test the waters with “firearm confiscation.” For instance, post Katrina, the U.S. “government” engaged in military forays into the countryside and openly engaged in “firearm confiscation” as a way of testing the waters. John Whitehead, a constitutional attorney, specifically addresses the loss of liberties in his two books, both excellent reads, “Battlefield America” and “A government of Wolves.” We have silently entered the “Post Constitutional/Bill of Rights Era” for America. Like every great military empire, we will self-destruct from within before we are destroyed from without. Historically all empires have lasted an average of 250 years. We are there already. As we stand, America is on a kamikaze dive of self destruction and in one generation will be destroyed and will enter full fledged into a 3rd world nation status. A pissed-off bully with lots of left-over nukes, and unemployed veteran soldiers/killers itching for a fight. A perfect fit for the fully militarized “law enforcement force.”
The most common method of all is false flags fabricated by the U.S. “government” to pass draconian laws and statutes in the midst of the massive emotionalism and upheaval caused by a specifically chosen Manchurian Candidate groomed by the CIA. All of the recent “mass shootings” are part of the MK ULTRA CIA program. “False flags have been staged over the centuries to blame political enemies for attacks they did not commit. The tactic remains in common use today, and will continue to be employed as long as populations still blindly believe whatever their governments tell them about the origins of spectacular terror incidents.” James Corbett, Wake Up World. This time around it is the Corona-beer-us holographic pandemic of fear that is being used to enact H.R. 5717. Around the world, nations and governments have staged hundreds, if not thousands, of false flag operations as a pretext to go to War for Profit. Do not let yourself be deceived!!! The most perfect of the false flags in the history of this nation is the World-Wide Government Putsch by the Secret Cabals/Deep State/Shadow Government “Coronavirus.”
All serious researchers and legal scholars that have analyzed the Patriot Act agree that it is the single worst and most destructive piece of legislation ever enacted on American soil. Welcome to “1984, I am Winston.” We are in serious trouble, we may have reached the point of no return from the invisible, secret military dictatorship. When men lose their vigor for, and love of, Freedom, and embrace “national security and good citizenship” as a pretext to being sheeple, these men will become quiet, gentle Slaves like Winston in George Orwell’s “1984”. When the men of a nation drop to their knees and grab their ankles whenever they are told, they no longer have the right to call themselves, “MEN.” Narcotized Zombies wondering why their assholes hurt so much?
I too, like Judge Napolitano above, would rather die on my feet fighting for Freedom than live as a slave on my knees begging for scraps and privileges. Freedom is not gentle and docile, but messy, vociferous and belligerent. Freedom is intolerant of Cowardice. Freedom is simply FREEDOM. Embrace it and become a Man.
The Tyranny behind the Corona-beer-us will come in the faces of our family members, relatives and friends. Judges, bankers, attorneys, government employees, state employees, police men, nurses and doctors, all meaning well. “Evil is unspectacular and always human, and shares our bed and eats at our own table.” Herman Melville. Rare Earths, Forbidden Cures, by Joel Wallach and Ma Lan, Mds.
“Chaos, confusion and ultimately a battle between the individual and the State. The individual is the stronger; and will win. The state is a fiction sanctified by Hegel and his followers to CONTROL the individual. Sooner or later people will wake up. First we have to dump the trap of right and left, this is a Hegelian trap to divide and control. The battle is not between right and left; it is between us and them…” Antony Sutton, The Best enemy money can buy. The Monied Elite are dying to start another Civil War, to pit brother against brother, family member against family member, a War of Biblical and catastrophic proportions. All for two things, massive profits and depopulation of the world. Hic est Furor!!!!!
My voice is the Cry from the Wilderness,
Live Well, have courage and compassion,
Travel Well, my friends and companions.
••••
Notice from the Author Any and all copyright restrictions are hereby lifted by the original author. This article (all parts) may be copied, cited, and reproduced in part or in whole with no restrictions on copyright. Rico S. Giron
••••
About the Author, Rico S. Giron: I have been writing and journaling non-professionally for 43 years. My adventures into personal literature began when I was 18 years old. My life has been an exploration and adventure in consciousness and philosophical meanderings … To find out more please visit: Journey Into Insanity: Adventures In Consciousness and Synchronicity Or Visit Rico on facebook •••• Read more great articles by Rico •••• •••• Stay tuned to …
••••
The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)
••••
Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.
••••
Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
••••
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.


thelibertybeacon--2020-05-28--France’s Determination To End Free Speech Knows No Limits

Authored by Judith Bergman via The Gatestone Institute On May 13 , the French parliament adopted a law that requires online platforms such as Facebook , Google , Twitter , YouTube , Instagram and Snapchat to remove reported “ hateful content ” within 24 hours and “ terrorist content ” within one hour .
Failure to do so could result in exorbitant fines of up to €1.25 million or 4 % of the platform ’ s global revenue in cases of repeated failure to remove the content .
The scope of online content deemed “ hateful ” under what is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( after the lawmaker who proposed it ) is , as is common in European hate speech laws , very broadly demarcated and includes “ incitement to hatred , or discriminatory insult , on the grounds of race , religion , ethnicity , gender , sexual orientation or disability ” .
The French law was directly inspired by Germany ’ s controversial NetzDG law , adopted in in October 2017 , and it is explicitly mentioned in the introduction to the Avia law .
“ This law proposal aims to combat the spread @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” it is stated in the introduction to the Avia law .
“ No one can dispute the exacerbation of hate speech in our society… the attack [ s ] on others for what they are , because of their origins , their religion , their sex or their sexual orientation… hints… [ at ] the darkest hours in our history… the fight against hatred , racism and anti-Semitism on the Internet is an objective of public interest that justifies…strong and effective provisions… this tool of openness [ the internet ] to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to culture , to communication , can become a real hell for those who become the target of ‘ haters ’ or harassers hidden behind screens and pseudonyms .
According to a survey carried out in May 2016 , 58 % of our fellow citizens consider the internet to be the main locus of hate speech .
More than 70 % say they have already been confronted with hate speech on social networks .
For younger people in particular , cyber-harassment can be devastating…However… Few complaints are filed , few investigations are successful @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this creates a vicious circle… ” Having acknowledged that online “ hatred ” is tricky to prosecute under the existing laws because “ few complaints are filed and few investigations are successful , few convictions are handed down ” , but nevertheless determined that censorship is the panacea to the perceived problems , the French government decided to delegate the task of state censorship to the online platforms themselves .
Private companies will now be obliged to act as thought police on behalf of the French state or face heavy fines .
As @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to lead to online platforms exhibiting overzealousness in the removal or blocking of anything that might conceivably be perceived as “ hateful ” to avoid being fined .
The purpose of the law appears to have been twofold — not only to achieve the actual censorship of speech by the removal or blocking of online posts , but also the ( inevitably ) chilling effects of censorship on online debate in general .
“ People will think twice before crossing the red line if they know that there is a high likelihood that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” French Minister of Justice Nicole Belloubet said in what sounded ominous for a government representative to say in a country that still claims to be democratic .
From the beginning , when French President Emmanuel Macron first tasked the group led by Laetitia Avia with preparing the law , the proposal was met with criticism from a number of groups and organizations .
France ’ s National Consultative Commission on Human Rights criticized the law proposal for increasing the risk of censorship , and La Quadrature du Net , an organization that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ warned that , “ Short removal times and large fines for non-compliance further incentivize platforms to over-remove content ” .
The London-based free speech organization Article 19 commented that the law threatened free speech in France .
According to Gabrielle Guillemin , Senior Legal Officer at Article 19 : “ The Avia Law will effectively enable the French state to devolve online censorship to the dominant tech companies , who will be expected to act as judge and jury in determining what is ‘ manifestly illegal ’ content .
The Law covers a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not always going to be a straightforward decision .
“ Given the timeframes by which companies have to respond , we can expect them to err on the side of caution when it comes to deciding whether content is legal or not .
They will also have to resort to using filters that will inevitably lead to the over-removal of content .
“ The French government has ignored the concerns raised by digital rights and free speech groups , and the result will be a chilling effect on online freedom of expression in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also met with disapproval in France .
On May 22 , Guillaume Roquette , editorial director of Le Figaro Magazine , wrote : “ Under the pretext of fighting ‘ hateful ’ content on the Internet , it [ the Avia law ] is setting up a system of censorship that is as effective as it is dangerous… ‘ hate ’ is the pretext systematically used by those who want to silence dissenting opinions .
“ This text [ law ] is dangerous because , according to lawyer François Sureau , ‘ it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It is dangerous…because it delegates the regulation of public debate… on the internet to American multinationals ... A democracy worthy of its name should accept freedom of expression ” .
Jean Yves Camus , from Charlie Hebdo , called the law “ a placebo for fighting hate ” and pointed out that the “ hyper-focus on online hate ” masks the real danger : “ What is hate ?
” asked French writer Éric Zemmour rhetorically .
“ We do not know !
You have the right not to love… you have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the right to hate .
It ’ s a feeling… It can not be judicialized , legislated.
” Nevertheless , that is what hate speech laws do , whether in the digital or the non-digital sphere .
Asking private companies — or the government — to act as thought police does not belong in a state that claims to follow a democratic rule of law .
Unfortunately , the question is not whether France will be the last European country to introduce such censorship laws , but what other countries are next in @ @

Authored by Judith Bergman via The Gatestone Institute
On May 13, the French parliament adopted a law that requires online platforms such as Facebook, Google, Twitter, YouTube, Instagram and Snapchat to remove reported “hateful content” within 24 hours and “terrorist content” within one hour. Failure to do so could result in exorbitant fines of up to €1.25 million or 4% of the platform’s global revenue in cases of repeated failure to remove the content.
The scope of online content deemed “hateful” under what is known as the “Avia law” (after the lawmaker who proposed it) is, as is common in European hate speech laws, very broadly demarcated and includes “incitement to hatred, or discriminatory insult, on the grounds of race, religion, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation or disability”.
The French law was directly inspired by Germany’s controversial NetzDG law, adopted in in October 2017, and it is explicitly mentioned in the introduction to the Avia law.
“This law proposal aims to combat the spread of hate speech on the internet,” it is stated in the introduction to the Avia law.
“No one can dispute the exacerbation of hate speech in our society… the attack[s] on others for what they are, because of their origins, their religion, their sex or their sexual orientation… hints… [at] the darkest hours in our history… the fight against hatred, racism and anti-Semitism on the Internet is an objective of public interest that justifies…strong and effective provisions… this tool of openness [the internet] to the world, of access to information, to culture, to communication, can become a real hell for those who become the target of ‘haters’ or harassers hidden behind screens and pseudonyms. According to a survey carried out in May 2016, 58% of our fellow citizens consider the internet to be the main locus of hate speech. More than 70% say they have already been confronted with hate speech on social networks. For younger people in particular, cyber-harassment can be devastating…However… Few complaints are filed, few investigations are successful, few convictions are handed down – this creates a vicious circle…”
Having acknowledged that online “hatred” is tricky to prosecute under the existing laws because “few complaints are filed and few investigations are successful, few convictions are handed down”, but nevertheless determined that censorship is the panacea to the perceived problems, the French government decided to delegate the task of state censorship to the online platforms themselves. Private companies will now be obliged to act as thought police on behalf of the French state or face heavy fines. As in Germany, such legislation is bound to lead to online platforms exhibiting overzealousness in the removal or blocking of anything that might conceivably be perceived as “hateful” to avoid being fined.
The purpose of the law appears to have been twofold — not only to achieve the actual censorship of speech by the removal or blocking of online posts, but also the (inevitably) chilling effects of censorship on online debate in general. “People will think twice before crossing the red line if they know that there is a high likelihood that they will be held to account,” French Minister of Justice Nicole Belloubet said in what sounded ominous for a government representative to say in a country that still claims to be democratic.
From the beginning, when French President Emmanuel Macron first tasked the group led by Laetitia Avia with preparing the law, the proposal was met with criticism from a number of groups and organizations. France’s National Consultative Commission on Human Rights criticized the law proposal for increasing the risk of censorship, and La Quadrature du Net, an organization that works against censorship and surveillance online, warned that, “Short removal times and large fines for non-compliance further incentivize platforms to over-remove content”. The London-based free speech organization Article 19 commented that the law threatened free speech in France. According to Gabrielle Guillemin, Senior Legal Officer at Article 19:
“The Avia Law will effectively enable the French state to devolve online censorship to the dominant tech companies, who will be expected to act as judge and jury in determining what is ‘manifestly illegal’ content. The Law covers a wide range of content so this is not always going to be a straightforward decision. “Given the timeframes by which companies have to respond, we can expect them to err on the side of caution when it comes to deciding whether content is legal or not. They will also have to resort to using filters that will inevitably lead to the over-removal of content. “The French government has ignored the concerns raised by digital rights and free speech groups, and the result will be a chilling effect on online freedom of expression in France”.
The passed law was also met with disapproval in France. On May 22, Guillaume Roquette, editorial director of Le Figaro Magazine, wrote:
“Under the pretext of fighting ‘hateful’ content on the Internet, it [the Avia law] is setting up a system of censorship that is as effective as it is dangerous… ‘hate’ is the pretext systematically used by those who want to silence dissenting opinions. “This text [law] is dangerous because, according to lawyer François Sureau, ‘it introduces criminal punishment… of the conscience‘. It is dangerous…because it delegates the regulation of public debate… on the internet to American multinationals... A democracy worthy of its name should accept freedom of expression”.
Jean Yves Camus, from Charlie Hebdo, called the law “a placebo for fighting hate” and pointed out that the “hyper-focus on online hate” masks the real danger:
“It is not online hatred that killed Ilan Halimi, Sarah Halimi, Mireille Knoll, the victims of the Bataclan, Hyper Cacher and Charlie; it is an ideology called anti-Semitism and/or Islamism… Who determines what hatred is and its [distinction from] criticism? A Pandora’s box has just been opened… There is a risk of a slow but inexorable march towards a digital language hyper-normativized by political correctness, as defined by active minorities”.
“What is hate?” asked French writer Éric Zemmour rhetorically. “We do not know! You have the right not to love… you have the right to love, you have the right to hate. It’s a feeling… It cannot be judicialized, legislated.”
Nevertheless, that is what hate speech laws do, whether in the digital or the non-digital sphere. Asking private companies — or the government — to act as thought police does not belong in a state that claims to follow a democratic rule of law.
Unfortunately, the question is not whether France will be the last European country to introduce such censorship laws, but what other countries are next in line.