https://jonathanturley.org/202...es-or-conversations/

We have previously discussed the alarming rollback on free speech rights in the West, particularly in Europe. The move to criminalize speech has led to an insatiable appetite for new limitations and broader prosecutions. Norway is an example of this headlong plunge into speech controls and crimes in the West. This week the legislature adopted (without even a vote) a new criminal law that punishes people for saying anything deemed hate speech toward transgender people in their own home or private conversations.

Minister of Justice and Public Security Monica Maeland declared victory because speech regulation must be “adapted to the practical situations that arise.” The “practical situation” includes speaking to your own spouse or family.

Birna Rorslett, vice president of the Association of Transgender People in Norway added allowing people to speak out against transgender values or issues “has been an eyesore for trans people for many, many years.”

Such speech controls in Europe have led to a chilling effect on political and religious speech. In their homes, people will often share religious and political views that depart from majoritarian values or beliefs. This law would regulate those conversations and criminalize the expression of prohibited viewpoints.

As we recently discussed, a poll in Germany found only 18 percent of Germans feel free to express their views in public. Notably, over 31 percent of Germans did not even feel free expressing themselves in private among friends. Just 17 percent felt free to express themselves on the Internet and 35 percent said that freedom to speak is confined to the smallest of private circles.

The most chilling fact is that European-style speech controls have become a core value in the Democratic Party. Once a party that fought for free speech, it has become the party demanding Internet censorship and hate speech laws. President-Elect Joe Biden has called for speech controls and recently appointed a transition head for agency media issues that is one of the most pronounced anti-free speech figures in the United States. It is a trend that seems now to be find support in the media, which celebrated the speech of French President Emmanuel Macron before Congress where he called on the United States to follow the model of Europe on hate speech.

For free speech advocates, we need to educate the public on where this road leads in places like Norway. What is at stake is the very right that has long defined us as a nation. Once we cross the Rubicon into speech criminalization and controls, Europe has shown that it is rarely possible to work back to liberties lost. We are moving into potentially the most anti-free speech period of American history — and possibly the most anti-free speech Administration. Many politicians are already arguing for citizens to give up their free speech rights in forums like the Internet. With the media echoing many of these anti-free speech sentiments, it will require a greater effort of those who value the First Amendment and its core place in our constitutional system.

That’s pretty spooky. How long until something like this is attempted in the US?

We are already fighting for our second amendment rights. I hope we never have to fight for the 1st.

quote:

We are already fighting for our second amendment rights. I hope we never have to fight for the 1st.

The 2nd protects the 1st; if we lose the 2nd, the 1st will be right on its heels. Hell, the way I see it, the 1st is already heavily impinged for anyone not left of center.

Norway has modified there constitution over the years. In 2004, the Norwegian Parliament amended Article 100 of the Constitution, replacing freedom of print with freedom of expression. This article argues that the purpose of the amendment was not to expand freedom of speech, but to protect the state and political parties against the growing power of a non-partisan media system and of a new type of political party capable of exploiting the politically emancipated media for its purpose. As the amendment may cause government failure, the article suggests that in a political system based on the exploitation of independent media, the Constitution will once more be amended, giving more responsibility to the media and returning the responsibility of the state to that of correcting market failure.

The US constitution can’t be so easily changed & With so many legal precedents heard & protected here, Good luck getting around the 1st amendment.

quote:

Originally posted by Beancooker:
How long until something like this is attempted in the US?

Siri in every home. With no off switch...........

With the mob rule of today we're pretty close and it's not government enforced.

quote:

Originally posted by CQB60:
With so many legal precedents heard & protected here, Good luck getting around the 1st amendment.

Stare decisis
The legal principle of determining points in litigation according to precedent.
"a doctrine of stare decisis"

sta·re de·ci·sis
/ˌsterē dəˈsīsəs/

There is no satiety for voracious political ‘correctness’. None are pure enough to escape its stinking maw. It will come for us all.

I saw these two posters displayed within the lobby of a police station in the UK. Pretty chilling when taken as a whole. Does expressing the belief that transgendered people have a mental disability give cause for arrest? How about those who sexually crave children? Where does this end?

I remember when “Thought Police” was a science fiction concept.

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:
I remember when “Thought Police” was a science fiction concept.

The libs would be all in favor of it as long as it was their thoughts that are acceptable. I bet they wouldn't like it if mine were and theirs weren't. Its clearly why everyone is entitled to their thoughts and beliefs.

Re the CA Proposition 8, some years ago, one of the LGBT leaders commented along the lines of "this is not about legal rights, registered domestic partners already have the same legal rights in CA as "marrieds". This is about having gov't authority to punish those who would publicly express moral disagreement.

The CA Prop 8 was passed by the voters, but rejected by a gay judge.

How the hell would you enforce this abomination. Wouldn't most cases be 'he said, she said'?

Jim

quote:

Originally posted by Jimbo54:
How the hell would you enforce this abomination. Wouldn't most cases be 'he said, she said'?

Jim

That's what the undercover officers are for.

quote:

Originally posted by pulicords:

quote:

Originally posted by Jimbo54:
How the hell would you enforce this abomination. Wouldn't most cases be 'he said, she said'?

Jim

That's what the undercover officers are for.

The very fact the law is out there and the fact that they make blatant reference to undercover cops indicates this is intended to scare people into submission. It's not about the law - it's about changing the way people think.

“Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me.” That’s what I was taught as a kid. Worked well as a cop, too.

I also remember parents telling kids “Don’t hit, use your words.” Can’t do either anymore.

quote:

Originally posted by rburg:
The libs would be all in favor of it ...

<broken record>These people aren't "libs"</broken_record>

quote:

Originally posted by Jimbo54:
How the hell would you enforce this abomination.

Informants? Just like in the good ol' days of the USSR.

We won't have to wait for communists, radical Islamists, whatever to destroy Western civilization. We're doing a good job of accomplishing that all on our own.

Soon friends and family will be ratting on you.

We're back to the Nazi and communist regimes.

If I found out a family member snitched me out for not conforming to the thought police, I’d wear that family member out.

quote:

Originally posted by ensigmatic:

Informants? Just like in the good ol' days of the USSR.

We won't have to wait for communists, radical Islamists, whatever to destroy Western civilization. We're doing a good job of accomplishing that all on our own.

And I would bet that the burden of proof will soon be on the accused to *prove* they didn't express prohibited thoughts. . .

"After all, if you are innocent you have nothing to fear."

quote:

Originally posted by Hound Dog:

quote:

Originally posted by pulicords:

quote:

Originally posted by Jimbo54:
How the hell would you enforce this abomination. Wouldn't most cases be 'he said, she said'?

Jim

That's what the undercover officers are for.

The very fact the law is out there and the fact that they make blatant reference to undercover cops indicates this is intended to scare people into submission. It's not about the law - it's about changing the way people think.

The result is making people think/fear the government that is creeping around, looking for those who don't toe the line on acceptable public speech? It's a scary thought considering what was once considered to be treasonous behavior. What if those in charge don't like all this "Brexit" talk? What if immigration issues are being discussed?