Behind the Scenes with Mary Katharine Ham and Guy Benson
Go behind the scenes of Mary Katharine Ham and Guy Benson #39;s cover photo shoot and learn about END OF DISCUSSION. As Guy says, "the most important thing to free speech in general in America...
By: Crown Publishing Group
Original post:
Behind the Scenes with Mary Katharine Ham and Guy Benson - Video
Apple Preventing Free Speech on Youtube
Subscribe for more randomness here: http://www.youtube.com/user/TheSillyOldDude?feature=mhee.
By: TheSillyOldDude
The rest is here:
DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT
The Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Free Expression of Charlottesville, Virginia is seeking an individual with a demonstrated record of success in fundraising to design, build, and direct the Center's development program. Although Center staff has always expended significant time on fundraising, this position represents the Center's first full-time development position. As such, the position presents an exciting opportunity for an experienced development professional to build a signature fundraising program. The Center's sole mission is the protection of the First Amendment freedoms of speech and press. Although candidates need not possess a detailed knowledge of First Amendment law, a person with a strong belief in the value of free speech will find this position especially rewarding.
Qualifications:
* Bachelor's Degree and a minimum of five years' experience in a development position of increasing responsibilities * Strong written and oral communication skills * Successful grant writing experience * Proficient online research skills * Able to work independently and with a team * Strong interpersonal and organizational skills * Experience with social media fundraising is desirable * An interest in First Amendment rights and free expression advocacy
Responsibilities:
* Report directly to the Center director in designing a multi-year fundraising plan, including an action timetable * Research and identify potential corporate and philanthropic sponsors, draft grant proposals to those identified * Research, identify, and cultivate individual donors * Stewardship of past donors * Occasional travel to meet with potential donors * Plan and supervise special fundraising events * Devise effective messages for print, web, and video that will raise public awareness of the Center's efforts
Located in Charlottesville, Virginia, the Thomas Jefferson Center enjoys close ties to the University of Virginia but is an autonomous, not-for-profit entity. Its independence is assured by a Board of Trustees whose members reflect a broad spectrum of views, yet share a commitment to protecting the right of others to express views different from their own. Recognizing that threats to free expression come from all parts of the political spectrum, the Center maintains a nonpartisan stance in all that it does. Since its founding in 1990, the Center has sought to fulfill its mission through a variety of programs designed to foster greater awareness of, and appreciation for, the role of free speech in a democratic society. The Center has organized dozens of conferences, programs, and presentations on timely First Amendment issues, including one that reunited formal legal adversaries Jerry Falwell and Larry Flynt. The Center also defends the right of free speech in state and federal courts across the country, including the U.S. Supreme Court. Each year on or near April 13 (the anniversary of the birth of Thomas Jefferson) the Center focuses national attention on especially egregious or ridiculous affronts to free expression by awarding "Jefferson Muzzles" to the responsible individuals or organizations.
Apply to: fundraiser@tjcenter.org
Read this article:
By Caroline Lamb | Published 6 hours ago
More than 60 UNC law faculty have signed onto a statement asserting that the UNC Board of Governors recommendations on the future of two centers in the law school limit academic freedom and chill free speech.
The response comes after a working group tasked with reviewing the UNC systems 237 centers and institutes recommended the elimination of the Center on Poverty, Work & Opportunity. Some board members also suggested that the Center for Civil Rights stop engaging in litigation against the state and municipalities which law professors say would limit their work.
Such active suppression of free speech contravenes the very lifeblood of a public university, where dialogue and dissent must be permitted to survive, the statement said.
Some faculty believe the recommended closing of the poverty center is an attempt to chill the free speech of Gene Nichol, the centers director, who is known for his passionate editorials opposing Republican state leadership.
Jack Boger, dean of UNCs law school, said faculty were distressed to hear the poverty center might close since it does a lot of good work.
Boger said academic freedom is at risk because the board is suggesting that they will take action if they disagree with what faculty members say.
Thats what would strike at a universitys core circumstances, that the first-rate university is a place where people are permitted to speak freely and controversially on lots of issues, Boger said.
Conflicting court rulings regarding the free speech rights of public employees such as professors make the topic a national debate, said Victoria Ekstrand, a UNC media law professor.
Its about whether the employees interest in speaking outweighs the employers interest in regulating that expression, she said.
See more here:
The Free Speech Movement (FSM) was a student protest which took place during the 196465 academic year on the campus of the University of California, Berkeley under the informal leadership of students Mario Savio,[1] Michael Rossman, Brian Turner, Bettina Aptheker, Steve Weissman, Art Goldberg, Jackie Goldberg, and others. In protests unprecedented in scope, students insisted that the university administration lift the ban of on-campus political activities and acknowledge the students' right to free speech and academic freedom. The group's primary goals were to promote the ideas of the Cuban Revolution and weaken the Cold War consensus.[2]
In 1958, activist students organized SLATE, a campus political party, to promote the right of student groups to support off-campus issues. In the fall of 1964, student activists, some of whom had traveled with the Freedom Riders and worked to register African American voters in Mississippi in the Freedom Summer project, set up information tables on campus and were soliciting donations for civil rights causes. According to existing rules at the time, fundraising for political parties was limited exclusively to the Democratic and Republican school clubs. There was also a mandatory "loyalty oath" required of faculty, which had led to dismissals and ongoing controversy over academic freedom. On September 14, 1964, Dean Katherine Towle announced that existing University regulations prohibiting advocacy of political causes or candidates, outside political speakers, recruitment of members, and fundraising by student organizations at the intersection of Bancroft and Telegraph Avenues would be "strictly enforced." (This strip was until then thought to be city property, not campus property.)
On October 1, 1964, former graduate student Jack Weinberg was sitting at the CORE table. He refused to show his identification to the campus police and was arrested. There was a spontaneous movement of students to surround the police car in which he was to be transported. Weinberg did not leave the police car, nor did the car move for 32 hours. At one point, there may have been 3,000 students around the car. The car was used as a speaker's podium and a continuous public discussion was held which continued until the charges against Weinberg were dropped.
On December 2, between 1,500 and 4,000 students went in to Sproul Hall as a last resort in order to re-open negotiations with the administration on the subject of restrictions on political speech and action on campus. Among other grievances was the fact that four of their leaders were being singled out for punishment. The demonstration was orderly. Some students studied, some watched movies, some sang folk songs. Joan Baez was there to lead in the singing, and to lend moral support. "Freedom classes" were held by teaching assistants on one floor, and a special Channukah service took place in the main lobby. On the steps of Sproul Hall Mario Savio[1] gave a famous speech:
...But we're a bunch of raw materials that don't mean to be have any process upon us. Don't mean to be made into any product! Don't mean Don't mean to end up being bought by some clients of the University, be they the government, be they industry, be they organized labor, be they anyone! We're human beings! ...There's a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious makes you so sick at heart that you can't take part. You can't even passively take part. And you've got to put your bodies upon the gears and upon the wheels, upon the levers, upon all the apparatus, and you've got to make it stop. And you've got to indicate to the people who run it, to the people who own it, that unless you're free, the machine will be prevented from working at all. [3]
At midnight, Alameda County deputy district attorney Edwin Meese III telephoned Governor Edmund Brown, Sr, asking for authority to proceed with a mass arrest. Shortly after 2 a.m. on December 4, police cordoned off the building, and at 3:30 a.m. began arresting close to 800 students. Most of the arrestees were transported by bus to Santa Rita Jail in Dublin, about 25 miles away. They were released on their own recognizance after a few hours behind bars. About a month later, the university brought charges against the students who organized the sit-in, resulting in an even larger student protest that all but shut down the university.
After much disturbance, the University officials slowly backed down. By January 3, 1965, the new acting chancellor, Martin Meyerson (who had replaced the resigned Edward Strong) established provisional rules for political activity on the Berkeley campus, designating the Sproul Hall steps an open discussion area during certain hours of the day and permitting tables. This applied to the entire student political spectrum, not just the liberal elements that drove the FSM.
Most outsiders, however, identified the Free Speech Movement as a movement of the Left. Students and others opposed to U.S. foreign policy did indeed increase their visibility on campus following the FSM's initial victory. In the spring of 1965, the FSM was followed by the Vietnam Day Committee, a major starting point for the anti-Vietnam war movement.
The Free Speech Movement had long-lasting effects at the Berkeley campus and was a pivotal moment for the civil liberties movement in the 1960s. It was seen as the beginning of the famous student activism that existed on the campus in the 1960s, and continues to a lesser degree today. There was a substantial voter backlash against the players involved in the Free Speech Movement. Ronald Reagan won an unexpected victory in the fall of 1966 and was elected Governor; the newly elected governor directed the UC Board of Regents to dismiss UC President Clark Kerr because of the perception that he had been too soft on the protesters. The FBI had kept a secret file on Kerr.
Reagan had gained political traction by campaigning on a platform to "clean up the mess in Berkeley". In the minds of those involved in the backlash, a wide variety of protests and a wide variety of concerned citizens and activists were lumped together. Furthermore, television news and documentary filmmaking had made it possible to photograph and broadcast moving images of protest activity. Much of this media is available today as part of the permanent collection of the Bancroft Library at Berkeley, including iconic photographs of the protest activity by student Ron Enfield (then chief photographer for the Berkeley campus newspaper, the Daily Cal). A reproduction of what may be considered the most recognizable and iconic photograph of the movement, a shot of suit-clad students carrying the Free Speech banner through the University's Sather Gate in Fall 1964, now stands at the entrance to the college's Free Speech Movement Cafe.
Read the rest here:
Part 2: The "Don #39;t Judge" Agenda Censoring Christians| Free Speech | Opinions
Kingdom Flava PART 2 - Bible Study: REAL TALK - Censorship of Christian Free Speech The "Don #39;t Judge" Agenda. A comprehensive study on the free speech debate. Who has the right to judge?...
By: F.A.M.E TV (Faith Music Evangelism)
View original post here:
Part 2: The "Don't Judge" Agenda & Censoring Christians| Free Speech | Opinions - Video
News The quarterly debate showcase, hosted by the Chicago Debate Society, came after discussions over free speech on campuses across the country and governments around the world.
Posted Feb 21, 2015 by Sonia Schlesinger
The Chicago Debate Society hosted its Winter Quarter Showcase Debate on Thursday regarding whether free speech restrictions should be implemented in universities.
Third-year and president of the society Jing Chai and fourth-year David Peterson argued in favor of the claim that universities ought to prioritize the well-being of students over traditional free speech rights, while third-year Michelle Jiang and fifth-year Chris Riehle opposed the claim. Rights are social and legal constructsdetermined by the people who frame the system of a particular society, usually the dominant groups, Peterson said. He argued that this has allowed them to use discourse that drowns out minority voices and legitimates outright racism, classism, sexism, and homophobia in speech.
The University has some sort of moral obligation to protect the people who come here from physical harm, he continued. Wetell you that psychological harm is fundamentally analogous to physical harm in that it prevents you from self-actualizing.
Jiang and Riehle emphasized the difficulty of quantifying the severity of psychological harm and of implementing such restrictions realistically. Jiang also drew attention to the consequences of restricting discourse: The fact they shut down discourse by always saying theres a right side is fundamentally problematic, she said.
Jiang and Riehle then addressed the potential danger of limiting free speech in universities, which are intended to prepare students for life after college; they argued that the real world does not necessarily operate under these limitations.
Following this portion of the debate, several members of the Debate Society made floor speeches in favor of one side or the other, and the debate was concluded with closing arguments from both sides.
This structure is typical of Parliamentary Debate; the Chicago Debate Society is a part of the American Parliamentary Debate Association and is one of the oldest RSOs on campus. The team competes in tournaments nearly every weekend at colleges and universities around the country and is usually quite successful, winning several awards each year and often qualifying for the National Championship.
The debate topic itself is particularly pertinent in light of debates on free speech both among governments throughout the world and on college campuses across the country, including multiple discussions surrounding free speech rights here at UChicago. Recently, shootings at a free speech debate in Copenhagen and at the office of satirical newspaper Charlie Hebdo in France have sparked such questions, particularly in America and Europe.
Go here to see the original:
The Alex Jones Show(Commercial Free AUDIO) Thursday February 12 2015: Free Speech
SUBSCRIBE TO PRISONPLANET.TV-- -- Share With 20 People -- http://tv.infowars.com/ -- http://www.youtube.com/TheAlexJonesChannel/ -- http://www.infowars.co...
By: Ron Gibson
Read the original:
The Alex Jones Show(Commercial Free AUDIO) Thursday February 12 2015: Free Speech - Video
US Gov/Central Bankers Getting Ready To Limit Free Speech - Episode 591
Get economic collapse news throughout the day visit http://x22report.com More news visit http://thepeoplesnewz.com Report date: 2.13.2015 ECB give another 5 ...
By: X22Report
Go here to see the original:
US Gov/Central Bankers Getting Ready To Limit Free Speech - Episode 591 - Video
Police Kill Suspect in Denmark Shootings
Danish police shot and killed a man early Sunday suspected of carrying out shooting attacks at a free speech event and later at a Copenhagen synagogue. (Feb. 15) Subscribe for more Breaking...
By: Associated Press
Continued here:
Copenhagen Attack Witness Inna Shevchenko Debates Scholar Tariq Ramadan on Religion and Free Speech
http://democracynow.org - Danish police have shot and killed a man they say carried out attacks on a synagogue and an event promoting free speech in Copenhag...
By: democracynow
Read the original post:
If you said something really controversial, or created an incredibly offensive page on Facebook, whats the worst that could happen? In other words, what is Facebooks recourse?
It could block your content. It could remove your page. It could suspend your account. Facebook cant throw you in jail.
Facebook cannot violate your First Amendment rights to free speech because Facebook isnt bound by the nations oldest set of laws to protect your free speech rights. Facebook is a company with the ability to set its own rules on what kind of content it wants on its site. End of story. Facebook can say that its all about protecting free speech and if it wanted to protect the idea of true free speech, then it could. But that would be a choice. Facebook doesnt owe you First Amendment protections.
Should Facebook remove certain content if it feels its a danger to public health? Let us know in the comments.
This has been said over and over again, but it bears repeating because were about to get into another Facebook censorship debate. No, Facebook hasnt done anything. Instead, a rather prominent figure from a rather prominent publication has suggested nay demanded that Facebook shut down an entire group of people on the site because what they say is a danger to the public at large.
TIME magazines editor-at-large Jeffrey Kluger has just called on Facebook to shut down the anti-vaxxers.
One thing that would helpsomething Zuckerberg could do with little more than a flick of the switch, as could Twitter CEO Dick Costolo and the other bosses of other sitesis simply shut the anti-vaxxers down. Really. Pull their pages, block their posts, twist the spigot of misinformation before more people get hurt, he says.
His argument is that Facebook supposedly bans content thats harmful, specifically a direct threat to public safety. He says that the anti-vaccination movement is just that a direct threat to public safety. Thus, Facebook should just yank their pages and block their posts before more people get hurt.
Its not as if the folks at Facebook arent clear about the kinds of things they will and wont allow on the site, providing a brief listing and a detailed description of what are considered no-go areas. You may not credibly threaten others, or organize acts of real-world violence, is one rule, so nobody would get away with posting instructions for, say, how to build a pressure cooker bomb. There is nothing in the regulations that specifically prohibits trafficking in bogus medical information, but the first section of the policy statement begins, Safety is Facebooks top priority, and then goes on to say We remove content and may escalate to law enforcement when we perceive a genuine risk of physical harm, or a direct threat to public safety, says Kluger.
Do you think the anti-vaccine movement is a direct threat to public safety? I do. But if I didnt, it wouldnt matter. The point is that Facebook can pull every single anti-vaccination page off its site and you shouldnt really bat an eye. You shouldnt cry censorship! and you should bitch about Facebook and free speech.
Go here to read the rest:
Reddit, the long-time haven of weirdos, perverts and miscreants the Internet over, has been, from its beginning, the mainstream bulwark for free speech online.
But in a strange twist that perfectly illustrates the current culturewide debate around online speech, a group of disgruntled users has begun an exodus off the site claiming, against all odds, that Reddit is censoring them as a matter of corporate policy.
This is, for the record, the same Reddit that defended Violentacrez, the Texas man who ran forums on beating women and sexualizing underage girls. The Reddit that allowed rampant speculation about the Boston bombing, even when it became dangerous. The Reddit that, just this past fall, supported a booming trade in stolen celebrity nude photos, and still, even now, hosts a variety of racist, misogynistic, homophobic and otherwise NSFL content that I dare not link to.
If this isnt enough free speech, what is?
To understand that question (let alone the answer to it), you have to start with a working knowledge of Reddits labyrinthine depths. The site is, for the uninitiated, basically a social news service divided into tens of thousands of themed forums, called subreddits. Users submit links, photos and in-jokes to the forums, which are voted up or down by other users.
The forums themselves are run by volunteer moderators, or mods, who can basically make and enforce rules as they see fit. In general, corporate Reddit Advance Media-owned Reddit, $50-million-funding-round Reddit, only-35-employees Reddit doesnt step in unless the company is at risk of being sued.
The core philosophy, co-founder Alexis Ohanian explained in a book on Reddits early days, was giving the people what they want. Whatever they want. Accordingly, each forum looks a little different. In r/aww one of my personal favorites mods ban slurs, harassing comments and anything sad. In r/thefappening, where users shared the celebrity nudes that ruled Septembers news cycle, slurs and harassing comments were basically the norm. (And that was, on its own, pretty sad.)
We will not ban questionable subreddits, Reddits CEO, Yishan Wong, wrote in the aftermath of that catastrophe. You choose what to post. You choose what to read. You choose what kind of subreddit to create and what kind of rules you will enforce. We will try not to interfere not because we dont care, but because we care that you make your choices between right and wrong.
That echoed Reddits official line on the Violentacrez scandal in 2012: We stand for free speech. This means we are not going to ban distasteful subreddits.
That said, Reddit doesnt necessarily stand for absolute free speech i.e., free speech above/to the detriment of every other human right in existence. Its important to note that corporate Reddit does explicitly prohibit five types of speech, including child pornography, personal information and requests for up-votes, which manipulate post rankings. It also allows, and even encourages, individual moderators to make their own rules, which can range from dont post the same thing twice to no disrespectful commentary.
Read more from the original source:
How the Reddit exodus illustrates the state of free speech on the Web
FRANKFORT, Ky. (AP) Wading into the volatile issue of invoking God at graduations and ball games, the Kentucky Senate on Thursday passed a bill touted as providing a guide to public schools on the religious and political free-speech protections of students.
A leading supporter, Kent Ostrander, executive director of The Family Foundation, said after the Senate's 30-4 vote that the bill would put "a stake in the ground for free speech and religious liberty" for students.
An online service is needed to view this article in its entirety. You need an online service to view this article in its entirety.
If you subscribe to home delivery of the Advocate Messenger newspaper, please click here to activate your free online access to the articles, videos, photo galleries and more.
Need an account? Create one now.
kAmQxEVD 32D:42==J E@ 2==@H DEF56?ED E@ 92G6 E96 D2>6 C6=:8:@FD 7C665@> E92E 2?J3@5J 6=D6 92D[Q 96 D2:5]k^Am
kAm%96 3:== 😀 @AA@D65 3J E96 p>6C:42? r:G:= {:36CE:6D &?:@? @7 z6?EF4
kAmQqJ 255:?8 >@C6 8@G6C?>6?E C68F=2E:@? :?E@ E96 2C62 @7 DEF56?EDV 7C66 DA6649 C:89ED[ E96 3:== H:== C6DF=E 😕 ?665=6DD 2?5 4@DE=J =:E:82E:@?[ A2CE:4F=2C=J @G6C DEF56?EDV 23:=:EJ E@ :?E6C;64E C6=:8:@FD @C A@=:E:42= G:6HD :?E@ D49@@= 2DD:8?>6?ED E92E 92G6 ?@E9:?8 E@ 5@ H:E9 6:E96C[Q 96 D2:5 😕 2 DE2E6>6?E]k^Am
kAm!2DD286 😕 E96 #6AF3=:42?=65 $6?2E6 D6?5D E96 3:== E@ E96 s6>@4C2E:4CF? w@FD6 7@C 4@?D:56C2E:@?] t77@CED 😕 C646?E J62CD E@ AC@E64E C6=:8:@FD 2?5 A@=:E:42= DA6649 @7 DEF56?ED 92G6 DE2==65 😕 E96 v6?6C2= pDD6>3=J]k^Am
kAmp>@?8 @E96C E9:?8D[ E96 3:== DE2E6D E92E 2 DEF56?E D92== 36 A6C>:EE65 E@ G@=F?E2C:=J AC2J @C 6?8286 😕 C6=:8:@FD 24E:G:E:6D 😕 2 AF3=:4 D49@@= E@ E96 D2>6 6IE6?E 2D 2 DEF56?E 😀 A6C>:EE65 E@ 6?8286 😕 ?@?C6=:8:@FD >2EE6CD] xE D2JD E9@D6 C:89ED 2C6 E@ 36 4@?D:DE6?E H:E9 E96 DE2E6 2?5 7656C2= 4@?DE:EFE:@?D]k^Am
See the rest here:
OPINION: The problem with defending free speech is that if you go to bat for the dead and heroic cartoonists of Charlie Hebdo, you also have to defend Hollywood's right to make jokes about killing the leader of North Korea and a daft heavy metal band's right to insult a chunk of the public simply because they feel like it.
It was apt that the story about the Canterbury Museum's display of an offensive anti-Christian T-shirt broke on Black Friday. On February 13, the world learned that among the hundreds of collectable shirts in the T-Shirts Unfolding show, there was an infamous one produced by UK band Cradle of Filth in the 1990s.
On the front of the black shirt, there is a picture of a sexualised nun. On the back, in large white letters, the slogan "Jesus is a c...".
The T-shirt was ruled objectionable in 2008 by the Office of Film and Literature Classification which said that it degraded and demeaned women and represented Christians as "inherently inferior to other members of the public". It crossed the censorship threshold and was "injurious to the public good".
If you own one, you risk up to five years in jail. An Invercargill retailer was fined $500 in 2012 for owning eight, which were then destroyed.
The shirt is not just a problem in New Zealand. There have been several convictions in the UK, with one man pleading guilty to the arcane crime of religiously aggravated offensive conduct. The judge in that case told the 35-year-old to "grow up".
Even Cradle of Filth's drummer was charged with creating a public disorder after being caught in his band's shirt. But you expect that kind of tomfoolery from an attention-seeking metal act. What about a responsible institution like the Canterbury Museum?
"We bent over backwards to follow the letter of the law," says Canterbury Museum director Anthony Wright.
We met in his office on Wednesday morning. There had been an incident at the museum just the day before when a woman got past a guard and into the small booth where the T-shirt is displayed in a perspex case. She produced a can of paint and began spraying the case black. The paint was cleaned off and the matter is now with the police, Wright says.
There is a strong element of deja vu about all this. The display case containing Tania Kovats' Virgin in a Condom, which featured a condom on a statue of the Virgin Mary, was attacked in 1998 when it was in a show of contemporary British art at Te Papa.
See the original post here:
Copenhagen free speech debate shooting: False Flag ?
In this video Axel Ptur Axelsson talks about Copenhagen free speech debate shooting . . . For an interview with Axel Petur Axelsson call: +47 47257450 For Donations: PayPal: https://www.paypa...
By: Scandinavian Report
See the article here:
Copenhagen free speech debate shooting: False Flag ? - Video
Friday, February 20, 2015
By Stephen Lee Byrd, S.B.
The News-Press just will not let it go about the illegals controversy and its derogatory speech toward Latinos. The latest was Andy Caldwells Guest Opinion which I would love to rebut point-by-point, but no one will extend me anywhere near the space he got in which he makes a number of specious criminal allegations, that he never really lays out factually, and just calls a councilmember a bunch of pejorativenames.
To my knowledge, the pro-Latino dissidents have exerted their right to assemble (in De la Guerra Plaza) and their free speech rights, but have not involved the government at all. What use of the power of government to crush and silence others? If the daily paper is going to wail and gnash its teeth about its own free speech rights, the bottom line is that the paper needs equally to respect the free speech rights of the pro-Latino dissidents. They have a right to speak up and say that the journalistic choices made were disrespectful, lacked a civil tone, and were bogus. Equally, the daily needs to respect my free speech rights by not censoring and suppressing my critical responses of January 6, 20, and 24. Free speech rights are not just for newspaper editors and owners. They are truly a two-way street. Otherwise its the pot calling the teakettleblack.
The continued reckless, combative, and confrontational rhetoric of the daily about this will remind us of the Rev. Ian Paisley in Northern Ireland or Slobodan Milosevic in Serbia vs. Bosnia (and later Kosovo). They too recklessly fanned the flames of inter-ethnic tension into a campaign of ethnic cleansing and ended up ripping apart their communities. Do not think it cannot happen here. As ye shall sow, thus shall yereap.
Original post:
The Alex Jones Show(Commercial Free AUDIO) Sunday February 15 2015: Attack on Free Speech
SUBSCRIBE TO PRISONPLANET.TV-- -- Share With 20 People -- http://tv.infowars.com/ -- http://www.youtube.com/TheAlexJonesChannel/ -- http://www.infowars.co...
By: Ron Gibson
See the original post here:
The Alex Jones Show(Commercial Free AUDIO) Sunday February 15 2015: Attack on Free Speech - Video
A visit to Norrebro | Journal
Every Dane knows of Norrebro, the Copenhagen neighbourhood where police shot dead the gunman suspected of carrying out attacks on a synagogue and a free speech event that shocked the ...
By: DW (English)
Read the rest here:
Ring of Fire on Free Speech TV - 02/15/2015 (FULL EPISODE)
00:50 - GOP Mad Scientists Create A Disaster. Howard Nations will tell us how Republican-controlled states are becoming cesspools of corruption and incompetence. #RepublicanDisasters...
By: Ring of Fire Radio
Read more:
Ring of Fire on Free Speech TV - 02/15/2015 (FULL EPISODE) - Video