UC Berkeley says the Obama administration might force it to remove 13,800 hours of free educational videos from YouTube
This is the YouTube channel for University of California, Berkeley: https://www.youtube.com/user/UCBerkeley/videos
It has 13,800 hours of free educational content.
Recently, the Department of Justice sent this letter to the school, which criticized the videos for not being closed captioned, and for not having audio descriptions of content that was visible on chalkboards.
The school responded by issuing a statement which said it might have to remove the videos because of this. Specifically, the school’s statement said:
“… we might not be able to continue to provide free public content under the conditions laid out by the Department of Justice to the extent we have in the past.”
“In many cases the requirements proposed by the department would require the university to implement extremely expensive measures to continue to make these resources available to the public for free…”
The same letter from the Justicte Department also ordered the school to pay “compensatory damages” to deaf people because these free educational videos were not closed captioned.
However, the Justice Department did not explain how it was possible for the school to pay “compensatory damages” for something that the school had given away for free.
The population of Morocco is 99% Muslim.
Geert Wilders guilty of ‘insulting a group’ after hate speech trial
December 9, 2016
The Dutch far-right opposition leader Geert Wilders was convicted Friday of inciting discrimination and “insulting a group” after a trial over statements he made about Moroccans.
But the court found him not guilty of incitement to hatred and handed down no punishment.
Wilders, the leader of the Party for Freedom (PVV), was charged after inciting supporters into a chant calling for fewer Moroccans in the Netherlands in 2014.
According to a court statement, Wilders asked his audience: “Do you want more or less Moroccans in this city and in the Netherlands?”
The audience repeatedly chanted “less.”
The court said that Wilders “singled out an entire group of citizens” and that the message “came through loud and clear.” It convicted him of insulting a group and incitement to discrimination.
But the court found insufficient evidence to find him guilty of incitement to hatred.
The court, which could have fined Wilders, decided that verdicts were sufficient punishment and imposed no further penalty.
The 53-year-old far-right leader has campaigned against “Islamic immigration.”
“Three PVV-hating judges just declared Moroccans a race and convicted me, as well as half of the Dutch population,” Wilders tweeted shortly after the ruling.
Wilders said in a Twitter post ahead of the verdict Friday morning that he will “continue to speak the truth about the Moroccan problem.”
“No judge, politician or terrorist will stop me,” he added.
Wilders has previously called Islamic immigration “an invasion” that will “replace our people” and “erase our culture.”
Among his other policies, Wilders has called for a referendum on the Netherlands’ membership in the European Union, and a full burqa ban.
Wilders, 53, came to international attention in 2008 with the provocative online film “Fitna,” which juxtaposed the aftermath of terrorist attacks with verses from the Quran.
Known as much for his anti-Muslim views as his bleached hair, Wilders has been called “Europe’s Donald Trump” — with his party gaining popularity in recent years.
It’s not the first time Wilders has appeared in court on hate speech charges.
In 2011 he was acquitted of inciting hatred against Muslims, after calling for the Quran to be banned in the Netherlands.
Friday’s verdict comes three months ahead of the country’s parliamentary election in March, when Wilders will be vying for the top job of prime minister.
The opposition party leader will face current prime minister Mark Rutte, whose conservative People’s Party for Freedom and Democracy (VVD) rules in a coalition with the the Labour Party (PvdA).
Rutte said at a press conference Friday that neither he nor his party would be willing to govern with Wilders unless he retracted his comments about Moroccans.
Wilders has run on a party manifesto focused on a so-called “de-Islamification” of the Netherlands, in which he lays out an 11-point plan pledging, among other things, to shut down all the country’s Islamic schools and close the borders to migrants from Islamic nations.
France banned this TV commercial that shows smiling children with Down Syndrome, so here it is for you to watch
The Sensitivity Police Strike Again
The court has ruled that the video is — wait for it — “inappropriate” for French television.
December 3, 2016
The word “inappropriate” is increasingly used inappropriately. It is useful to describe departures from good manners or other social norms, such as wearing white after Labor Day or using the salad fork with the entree. But the adjective has become a splatter of verbal fudge, a weasel word falsely suggesting measured seriousness. Its misty imprecision does not disguise, it advertises, the user’s moral obtuseness.
A French court has demonstrated how “inappropriate” can be an all-purpose device of intellectual evasion and moral cowardice. The court said it is inappropriate to do something that might disturb people who killed their unborn babies for reasons that were, shall we say, inappropriate.
Prenatal genetic testing enables pregnant women to be apprised of a variety of problems with their unborn babies, including Down syndrome. It is a congenital condition resulting from a chromosomal defect that causes varying degrees of mental disability and some physical abnormalities, such as low muscle tone, small stature, flatness of the back of the head and an upward slant to the eyes. Within living memory, Down syndrome people were called Mongoloids.
Now they are included in the category called “special needs” people. What they most need is nothing special. It is for people to understand their aptitudes, and to therefore quit killing them in utero.
Down syndrome, although not common, is among the most common congenital anomalies at 49.7 per 100,000 births. In approximately 90 percent of instances when prenatal genetic testing reveals Down syndrome, the baby is aborted. Cleft lips or palates, which occur in 72.6 per 100,000 births, also can be diagnosed in utero and sometimes are the reason a baby is aborted.
In 2014, in conjunction with World Down Syndrome Day (March 21), the Global Down Syndrome Foundation prepared a two-minute video titled “Dear Future Mom” to assuage the anxieties of pregnant women who have learned that they are carrying a Down syndrome baby. More than 7 million people have seen the video online in which one such woman says, “I’m scared: what kind of life will my child have?” Down syndrome children from many nations tell the woman that her child will hug, speak, go to school, tell you he loves you and “can be happy, just like I am — and you’ll be happy, too.”
The French state is not happy about this. The court has ruled that the video is — wait for it — “inappropriate” for French television. The court upheld a ruling in which the French Broadcasting Council banned the video as a commercial. The court said the video’s depiction of happy Down syndrome children is “likely to disturb the conscience of women who had lawfully made different personal life choices.”
So, what happens on campuses does not stay on campuses. There, in many nations, sensitivity bureaucracies have been enforcing the relatively new entitlement to be shielded from whatever might disturb, even inappropriate jokes. And now this rapidly metastasizing right has come to this: A video that accurately communicates a truthful proposition — that Down syndrome people can be happy and give happiness — should be suppressed because some people might become ambivalent, or morally queasy, about having chosen to extinguish such lives because . . .
This is why the video giving facts about Down syndrome people is so subversive of the flaccid consensus among those who say aborting a baby is of no more moral significance than removing a tumor from a stomach. Pictures persuade. Today’s improved prenatal sonograms make graphic the fact that the moving fingers and beating heart are not mere “fetal material.” They are a baby. Toymaker Fisher-Price, children’s apparel manufacturer OshKosh, McDonald’s, and Target have featured Down syndrome children in ads that the French court would probably ban from television.
The court has said, in effect, that the lives of Down syndrome people — and by inescapable implication, the lives of many other disabled people — matter less than the serenity of people who have acted on one or more of three vicious principles: That the lives of the disabled are not worth living. Or that the lives of the disabled are of negligible value next to the desire of parents to have a child who has no special — meaning inconvenient – needs. Or that government should suppress the voices of Down syndrome children in order to guarantee other people’s right not to be disturbed by reminders that they have made lethal choices on the basis of one or both of the first two inappropriate principles.
Donald Trump just said:
“Nobody should be allowed to burn the American flag – if they do, there must be consequences – perhaps loss of citizenship or year in jail!”
This is another reason why I’m glad I voted for Gary Johnson in this month’s election.
As long as a person who burns the flag is burning their own flag (i.e., not one that they stole from someone else), and is obeying the fire and safety laws, then I fully support their right to burn it.
Europe tells British press NOT to reveal if terrorists are Muslims
October 6, 2016
Meddling Brussels has said the British press should not report when terrorists are Muslims in a slew of demands to the Government to crack down on the media.
A report from the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI) found there was an increase in hate speech and racist violence in the UK from 2009 to March 2016.
Blaming the press, ECRI Chair Christian Ahlund, said: “It is no coincidence that racist violence is on the rise in the UK at the same time as we see worrying examples of intolerance and hate speech in the newspapers, online and even among politicians.”
The report makes a whopping 23 recommendations to Theresa May’s Government for changes to criminal law, the freedom of the press, crime reporting and equality law.
And despite the report not analysing coverage of the historic Brexit vote, Mr Ahlund saw fit to comment on the UK’s decision to leave the EU.
In a sweeping statement, he said: “The Brexit referendum seems to have led to a further rise in ‘anti-foreigner’ sentiment, making it even more important that the British authorities take the steps outlined in our report as a matter of priority.”
The report lays into the British press and urges the government to “give more rigorous training” to reporters.
In the 83-page report, the Commission said: “ECRI considers that, in light of the fact that Muslims are increasingly under the spotlight as a result of recent ISIS-related terrorist acts around the world, fuelling prejudice against Muslims shows a reckless disregard, not only for the dignity of the great majority of Muslims in the United Kingdom, but also for their safety.
“In this context, it draws attention to a recent study by Teeside University suggesting that where the media stress the Muslim background of perpetrators of terrorist acts, and devote significant coverage to it, the violent backlash against Muslims is likely to be greater than in cases where the perpetrators’ motivation is downplayed or rejected in favour of alternative explanations.”
Despite the creation of the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) in 2014 as an independent regulator for newspapers and magazines, the “ECRI strongly recommends that the authorities find a way to establish an independent press regulator according to the recommendations set out in the Leveson Report. It recommends more rigorous training for journalists to ensure better compliance with ethical standards.”
But as Britain prepares to leave the crumbling bloc, the Government waded in to defend freedom of expression.
In a written statement to the ECRI, the Government said: “The Government is committed to a free and open press and does not interfere with what the press does and does not publish, as long as the press abides by the law.”
ECRI is a human rights body of the Council of Europe, composed of independent experts, which monitors problems of racism, xenophobia, antisemitism, intolerance and racial discrimination.
The group writes reports on every member state every five years and says the documents are “analyses based on a great deal of information gathered from a wide variety of sources.
ECRI visited the UK in November 2015 as it gathered evidence for the report.
In a statement, ECRI said: “ECRI welcomed, among other things, the entry into force of the Equality Act 2010 and the generally strong legislation against racism and racial discrimination in the country, as well as the government’s new hate crime action plan and substantial efforts to promote LGBT rights in the UK which have led to a significant change in attitudes.
“At the same time, the commission noted considerable intolerant political discourse in the UK, particularly focusing on immigration. It said that hate speech continues to be a serious problem in tabloid newspapers, and that online hate speech targeting Muslims in particular has soared since 2013.”
George Orwell asked me to show this to you.
The video, which was originally posted at the White House website, goes silent for two seconds, beginning at 1:31.
The White House website has censored a video of French Pres. Francois Hollande saying that “Islamist terrorism” is at the “roots of terrorism.”
The White House briefly pulled video of a press event on terrorism with Pres. Obama, and when it reappeared on the WhiteHouse.gov website and YouTube, the audio of Hollande’s translator goes silent, beginning with the words “Islamist terrorism,” then begins again at the end of his sentence.
Even the audio of Hollande saying the words “Islamist terrorism” in French have, apparently, been edited from the video.
According to the official White House transcript of Hollande’s remarks, Hollande refers to “Islamist terrorism.” The audio of the text in brackets is missing from the video – the only point in the video were the audio is absent:
“We are also making sure that between Europe and the United States there can be a very high level coordination.
“But we’re also well aware that the roots of terrorism, [Islamist terrorism, is in Syria and in Iraq. We therefore have to act both in Syria and in Iraq, and this is what we’re doing within the framework of the coalition.] And we note that Daesh is losing ground thanks to the strikes we’ve been able to launch with the coalition.”
Watch the video of Hollande’s censored comment:
My concern here is not about whether or not the tweet is offensive, as that is a matter of opinion.
My concern is that he was arrested even though the tweet did not contain any threats of violence. The fact that someone could be arrested for this non-violent tweet is absolutely horrible.
The Guy Behind the Viral ‘Mealy Mouthed’ Tweet Has Been Arrested in London
The allegedly anti-Muslim tweet spawned a wave of parodies
March 25, 2016
A British man who posted an allegedly anti-Muslim message on Twitter following Tuesday’s terror attacks in Brussels has been arrested on suspicion of inciting racial hatred.
Matthew Doyle was apprehended by police on Wednesday in the south London suburb of Croydon, the BBC reported. He subsequently “expressed concerns for his health” and was taken to a nearby hospital, according to authorities.
Doyle’s tweet, which has since been deleted, read: “I confronted a Muslim woman yesterday in Croydon. I asked her to explain Brussels. She said ‘Nothing to do with me’. A mealy mouthed reply.”
Tuesday’s attacks, which targeted Brussels Airport and a major subway station, claimed at least 31 lives and injured more than 100 others.
The tweet went viral and prompted several parodies on a variety of topics, ranging from Bono to muesli.
I confronted an Irish women yesterday in Camden. I asked her to explain Bono. She said “Nothing to do with me”. A mealy mouthed reply.
— Rob Manuel (@robmanuel) March 23, 2016
I confronted a man who was eating a bowl of muesli yesterday in Croydon. He said “mmfflfffmufflrgh”. A mealy mouthed reply.
— Robbie Collin (@robbiereviews) March 23, 2016
I confronted Shaggy yesterday in Croydon. Asked him to explain creeping with the girl next door. He said “wasn’t me”. A mealy mouthed reply.
— Zan Phee (@zanPHEE) March 23, 2016
@MatthewDoyle31 I confronted Pingu yesterday in Croydon. I asked him to explain climate change. He said “MEEP MEEP”. A mealy mouthed reply.
— Joe Slack (@WhyHeeeyImJoe) March 23, 2016
I confronted a dog today & asked him about that time when I was 4 and a dog bit me. “woof” he said. A mealy mouthed reply.
— TechnicallyRon (@TechnicallyRon) March 23, 2016
Doyle’s account, meanwhile, continued to tweet apparently racist messages and even retweeted a lot of the parodies insulting him.
Who cares if I insulted some towelhead ?? Really.
— Matthew P Doyle (@MatthewDoyle31) March 23, 2016
Holy Fuck ! The Towel head in my local kebab shop speaks no English? Has no NI number and was on his mobile to Syria #help
— Matthew P Doyle (@MatthewDoyle31) March 23, 2016
The 46-year-old public relations executive told the Telegraph on Wednesday that Twitter’s 140-character limit made the encounter sound far more confrontational than it was. He also said his controversial tweets were meant as a joke.
“That’s absolutely not who I am,” he said. “I’m not some far-right merchant, I’m not a mouthpiece for any kind of racism or radicalism.”
However, he did add that he feels Muslims are not being vocal enough in denouncing terrorism.
“The horror that happened in Brussels could happen here,” he added, “and you’re naive if you think London isn’t on some terror shortlist.”
Here’s the video, which contains profanity:
National Review reports:
Hillary’s Campaign Ordered a Comedy Club Not to Make Fun of Her — Someone Should Tell Her This Isn’t China
The campaign actually threatened to shut the club down.
November 19, 2015
Hollywood’s Laugh Factory posted a three-minute video of comedians telling jokes about Hillary Clinton on its website…
… her campaign called the club demanding that it take the video down and give them the personal contact information of every single comic who appeared in it…
Club owner Jamie Masada reports that the campaign actually threatened to put the club out of business if he did not heed their demands…
However, I haven’t been able to find any mainstream media sources that have reported this information.
So, one of the two following things must be true: either the information is false, or, the mainstream media has failed to do its job.
If it is true, then this, by itself, is enough to convince me that Clinton does not support the Bill of Rights, and, therefore, should not be President. It also makes me wonder why the mainstream media has chosen to avoid reporting it.
If it’s not true, then the Laugh Factory owes Clinton a big apology.
I agree with the law professor who said this could be troubling for free speech. I worry about the precedent that it creates, and about the possibility of it eventually being expanded to any kind of political speech that anyone makes on the internet.
USA Today reports:
Judge: School’s Facebook post a campaign contribution
DENVER — A Colorado judge has ruled that a charter school’s Facebook post amounts to an illegal campaign contribution to a school board candidate.
In August, Liberty Common School in Fort Collins, Colo., shared a newspaper article about a student’s parent running for a board seat in a neighboring school district. Liberty Common’s principal, former Colorado GOP Rep. Bob Schaffer, then shared the post and called candidate Tomi Grundvig an “excellent education leader” who would provide “sensible stewardship” of Thompson School District.
An administrative law judge, Matthew E. Norwood, called the violation “minor,” and ruled that “no government money of any significant amount was spent to make the contribution.” He also focused on the post to the school’s specific page, not Schaffer’s personal page.
“The school’s action was the giving of a thing of value to the candidate, namely favorable publicity,” Norwood wrote in his Oct. 14 ruling, which became public Wednesday. “It was given indirectly to her for the purpose of promoting her election.”
Law professor Scott Moss of the University of Colorado called that point troubling for its implications on political speech.
“I don’t buy that under the First Amendment speech about a candidate can be deemed a contribution,” Moss said after reading the ruling. “Is speech valuable? Yes. But that’s not a basis for restricting core political speech.”
Hillary Clinton is a polarizing, calculating, disingenuous, insincere, ambitious, inevitable, entitled, over confident, secretive, out of touch candidate who represents the past, and will do anything to win.
Hillary Clinton is a polarizing, calculating, disingenuous, insincere, ambitious, inevitable, entitled, over confident, secretive, out of touch candidate who represents the past, and will do anything to win.
And if you are wondering why I would say such a thing, here is the reason.
Oxford University Press bans pigs from children’s books, so here’s Porky Pig reciting the Pledge of Allegiance
Oxford University Press is the largest university press in the world.
The Telegraph reports:
The Oxford University Press has warned its writers not to mention pigs, sausages or pork-related words in children’s books, in an apparent bid to avoid offending Jews and Muslims.
I’m Jewish, and I have neither been offended, nor heard of any Jew claiming to be offended, by pigs being mentioned in literature.
Obama had anti-Obama filmmaker Dinesh D’Souza arrested for violating campaign finance laws, even though Obama himself had violated campaign finance laws three different times without being arrested
In August 2012, Dinesh D’Souza released 2016: Obama’s America, a movie that was critical of Obama.
In January 2014, D’Souza was arrested for violating campaign finance laws.
In May 2014, D’Souza pled guilty to violating campaign finance laws.
In September 2014, D’Souza was sentenced to live in a halfway house for eight months, pay a $30,000 fine, perform 260 days of community service, and receive counseling.
Numerous legal experts have said that D’Souza’s arrest was politically motivated.
Harvard Law School professor Alan Dershowitz said of D’Souza’s arrest:
“This is clearly a case of selective prosecution for one of the most common things done during elections, which is to get people to raise money for you…If they went after everyone who did this, there would be no room in jails for murderers.”
“This is an outrageous prosecution and is certainly a misuse of resources. It raises the question of why he is being selected for prosecution among the many, many people who commit similar crimes… This sounds to me like it is coming from higher places. It is hard for me to believe this did not come out of Washington or at least get the approval of those in Washington.”
Former Federal Election Commissioner David Mason said of D’Souza’s arrest:
“What struck me first was that it is unusual in cases like these for the FBI to go out and actually arrest someone, simply because it is not necessary… And even less so in this case because [D’Souza] has enough prominence that it is fairly obvious that he is not a flight risk. White-collar indictments are made lots of times without an arrest being made.”
Commenting on D’Souza’s arrest, former acting U.S. attorney general George Terwilliger of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius said that there were
“legitimate questions that could be asked about the political motivation for bringing the case.”
Dominic Gentile of Gordon Silver, an expert on the enforcement of campaign finance law, conducted extensive research on other people who had done the same thing as D’Souza, and concluded:
“Twenty thousand dollars?”I’ve never heard of a $20,000 criminal case for campaign finance violations.”
Those legal experts are correct. The real reason D’Souza was arrested was because he made an anti-Obama movie. As long as Obama never makes an anti-Obama movie, Obama will never be arrested for this three violations of campaign finance law.
Obama plans to illegally put government bureaucrats inside TV stations and newspaper offices to monitor their activities
Ajit Pai, a commissioner of the Federal Communications Commission, recently wrote the following in the Wall St. Journal:
Last May the FCC proposed an initiative to thrust the federal government into newsrooms across the country. With its “Multi-Market Study of Critical Information Needs,” or CIN, the agency plans to send researchers to grill reporters, editors and station owners about how they decide which stories to run.
… the FCC’s queries may be hard for the broadcasters to ignore. They would be out of business without an FCC license…
… why does the CIN study include newspapers when the FCC has no authority to regulate print media?
The Washington Examiner recently wrote:
The First Amendment says “Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press…” But under the Obama administration, the Federal Communications Commission is planning to send government contractors into the nation’s newsrooms to determine whether journalists are producing articles, television reports, Internet content, and commentary that meets the public’s “critical information needs.” Those “needs” will be defined by the administration, and news outlets that do not comply with the government’s standards could face an uncertain future. It’s hard to imagine a project more at odds with the First Amendment.
If the FCC goes forward, it’s not clear what will happen to news organizations that fall short of the new government standards. Perhaps they will be disciplined. Or perhaps the very threat of investigating their methods will nudge them into compliance with the administration’s journalistic agenda. What is sure is that it will be a gross violation of constitutional rights.
Serial liar Barack Obama tells cereal maker General Mills to stop advertising the truth about Cheerios
Barack Obama is a serial liar, which I have shown in Here are 226 examples of Barack Obama’s lying, lawbreaking, corruption, cronyism, etc.
But when a cereal maker tells the truth, Obama tells it to stop telling the truth.
For quite some time, advertisements for the breakfast cereal Cheerios made the true and accurate claim that eating Cheerios lowers a person’s cholesterol.
However, even though this claim is true and accurate, the Obama administration ordered General Mills, the maker of Cheerios, to stop making this claim in its commercials.