'Briefs laden with the f-word and vulgar references to the female anatomy attempt to provide a crash course on Eminem and Wu-Tang Clan for the justices, whose tastes lean more toward Wagner and Puccini, and illuminate what some scholars say are the misunderstood storytelling attributes of rap...'

Get a kick out of this piece, at the Washington Post, "Supreme Court case tests the limits of free speech on Facebook and other social media."

Sabo

This is interesting, at the Blaze, "Secret Service Agents Pay a Visit to Anti-Obama Artist Sabo — and the Entire Exchange Is Seemingly Captured on Video."

And on Twitter:

TINA DAUNT OF THE HOLLYWOOD REPORTER IS WRAPPING UP MY INTERVIEW WITH THE SECRET SERVICE. NO PRISON BOYFRIEND AS OF YET! :)

— unsavoryagents (@unsavoryagents) October 29, 2014

IF YOU ARE ON TWITTER AND YOU HAVE A POLITICAL OPINION THAT IS NOT LEFTIST, BE SCARED, BE VERY SCARED. OBAMA'S SECRET SERVICE IS WATCHING.

— unsavoryagents (@unsavoryagents) October 29, 2014

THE SECRET SERVICE INTERVIEWED ME THIS MORNING ABOUT SOME TWEETS. HERE'S THE INTERVIEW. http://t.co/t4ubq75Ilr

— unsavoryagents (@unsavoryagents) October 29, 2014

MY NAME IS SABO, I RUN UNSAVORYAGENTS. I MAKE SHEPARD FAIREY AND BANKSY LOOK LIKE QUEENS. http://t.co/2mbyi0pgl9

— unsavoryagents (@unsavoryagents) October 30, 2014

U.C. Berkeley Chancellor Places Limits on 'Free Speech'

The ultimate in civility bullshit.

Christina Hoff Sommers tweets:

Place this annoying letter from Berkeley Chancellor to all students in file called "mealy-mouthed doublespeak." http://t.co/UV3ASn4azZ

— Christina H. Sommers (@CHSommers) September 6, 2014

And see Downtrend, "U.C. Berkeley Sets Free Speech Limits: Must Be Courteous and Respectful."

Supreme Court Unleashes Wave of Leftist Lies and Intolerance — #HobbyLobby

At the Wall Street Journal, "Hooray! The War on Women Is Back":

Do Democrats seem livelier than usual this week—more spring in their step, maybe, their cheeks rosier, extra gleam in the eye? Verily, the Supreme Court has liberated them to unleash their gender and other identity-politics grievances in an election year.

Democrats claim to be distraught over the Court's Hobby Lobby decision, but really they can barely suppress their glee. Allowing some religious objectors in business to opt out of the contraception mandate lends them a campaign theme that isn't the economy, the Middle East in flames or incompetent governance. No agenda, no problem. Patriarchs and Republicans—if that's not redundant—are coming for your womb, ladies.

 Here's White House press secretary Josh Earnest : "President Obama believes that women should make personal health-care decisions for themselves rather than their bosses deciding for them. . . . The constitutional lawyer in the Oval Office disagrees with that conclusion." This appeal to diploma is weird, because Hobby Lobby turned on the straightforward application of a federal statute. The First Amendment's free-exercise clause wasn't reached.

There's another ex-lawyer who should also know better, given that her husband signed the relevant law "to protect perhaps the most precious of all American liberties," as Bill Clinton put it in 1993. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) sailed through the House unanimously and the Senate 97-3.

Yet today Hillary Clinton thinks the Clinton family's RFRA legacy is nearly Iranian. Its protections belong to "a disturbing trend that you see in a lot of societies that are very unstable, anti-democratic and frankly prone to extremism," which is "women and girls being deprived of their rights," including "control over their bodies," she said this week.

America's mullahs are also after Democratic Party chairman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who warned on MSNBC that "Republicans want to do everything they can to have the long hand of government, and now the long hand of business, reach into a woman's body and make health-care decisions for her." Democrats made Hobby Lobby-based fundraising pitches over the weekend, before the decision was even handed down.

One of them featured Sandra Fluke, the middle-aged Georgetown Law coed now enjoying a 16th minute of fame after demanding that Congress give her free birth control in 2012...

Remember Sandra Fluke last name sounds like "fuck."

More.

Sandra Fluke Decries Hobby Lobby Decision's 'Attack on Women'

My good friend Bree was cracking me up on Twitter this morning:

Hahahahahaha IF I DON'T HAVE SEX I WILL DIE, OKAY? @SandraFluke @washingtonpost

— Bree :) (@bree_mars) July 2, 2014

Flows for the hoes with low self-esteem --> @SandraFluke

— Bree :) (@bree_mars) July 2, 2014

And, FWIW, here's Ms. Fluke's (rhymes with fuck), at the Washington Post, "The Hobby Lobby case is an attack on women."

Supreme Court Rules for Hobby Lobby Religious Exemption on #ObamaCare Contraception Mandate

Obviously, a huge decision out of the Supreme Court today.

At LAT, "Supreme Court rules on contraceptives; setback for Obama healthcare law." And at NYT, "Updates on the Supreme Court’s Decision in Hobby Lobby Case," and "Supreme Court Rejects Contraceptives Mandate for Some Corporations."

Althouse has analysis, "The Supreme Court — in Hobby Lobby — upholds religious exemptions to Obamacare."

Radical leftists completely lost it.

At the Other McCain, "The #HobbyLobby Hysteria," and National Review, "Hobby Lobby Sparks Twitter Outrage on the Left."

Goodness gracious. RT @SheaDiamond: F**k you #hobbylobby keep your rosaries off my ovaries!!! #womensrights

— Bethany Bowra (@BethanyBowra) June 30, 2014

Plus lots more at Twitchy, "‘Fu*k you:’ Left-wingers want to ‘burn down’ Hobby Lobby after SCOTUS win," and "#BoycottHobbyLobby: Opponents say it’s time to ‘lynch’ a few corporations."

And at Memeorandum.

Charles Koch: 'I'm Fighting to Restore a Free Society...'

At WSJ, "Instead of welcoming free debate, collectivists engage in character assassination":

I have devoted most of my life to understanding the principles that enable people to improve their lives. It is those principles—the principles of a free society—that have shaped my life, my family, our company and America itself.

Unfortunately, the fundamental concepts of dignity, respect, equality before the law and personal freedom are under attack by the nation's own government. That's why, if we want to restore a free society and create greater well-being and opportunity for all Americans, we have no choice but to fight for those principles. I have been doing so for more than 50 years, primarily through educational efforts. It was only in the past decade that I realized the need to also engage in the political process.

A truly free society is based on a vision of respect for people and what they value. In a truly free society, any business that disrespects its customers will fail, and deserves to do so. The same should be true of any government that disrespects its citizens. The central belief and fatal conceit of the current administration is that you are incapable of running your own life, but those in power are capable of running it for you. This is the essence of big government and collectivism....

Instead of fostering a system that enables people to help themselves, America is now saddled with a system that destroys value, raises costs, hinders innovation and relegates millions of citizens to a life of poverty, dependency and hopelessness. This is what happens when elected officials believe that people's lives are better run by politicians and regulators than by the people themselves. Those in power fail to see that more government means less liberty, and liberty is the essence of what it means to be American. Love of liberty is the American ideal...

Keep reading.

Interesting timing in light of today's ruling in McCutcheon.

Perhaps Mr. Koch was all ready to go with the op-ed in expectation of the Court's decision. Either way, the leftists are howling. Here's the headline at the (ironically billionaire-backed) Think Progress, "How The Supreme Court Just Legalized Money Laundering By Rich Campaign Donors." And the no-surprise headline from Politico, "Democrats bash SCOTUS ruling."

Right. Democrats are collectivists who oppose free speech, want to control people's lives, and advocate the expansion of government to give more power to leftist bureaucrats and regressive politicos. They're un-American and depraved.

McCutcheon v. FEC: Supreme Court Strikes Down Overall Limits on Campaign Contributions

Wow. Another blow to leftist hypocrite speech muzzlers.

Headline via Puff Ho.

And at WaPo, "Supreme Court strikes down limits on federal campaign donations":

Here's the SCOTUS McCutcheon ruling striking down aggregate campaign donation limits ==> http://t.co/CeahbeetCA

— Michelle Malkin (@michellemalkin) April 2, 2014

Free speech wins again! http://t.co/chgOfgMgku #tcot

— David Bossie (@David_Bossie) April 2, 2014

Looks like Koch-mas came early this year! http://t.co/zB68IT28M8

— Philip Klein (@philipaklein) April 2, 2014

The 5 to 4 decision sparked a sharp dissent from liberal justices, who said the decision reflects a wrong-headed hostility to campaign finance laws that the court’s conservatives showed in Citizens United v. FEC , which allowed corporate spending on elections.

“If Citizens United opened a door,” Justice Stephen G. Breyer said in reading his dissent from the bench, “today’s decision we fear will open a floodgate.”

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote the opinion striking down the aggregate limits of what an individual may spend on candidates and political committees. He noted that the limit on individual contributions to a specific candidate was not affected by the ruling.

“Money in politics may at times seem repugnant to some, but so too does much of what the First Amendment vigorously protects,” Roberts wrote. “If the First Amendment protects flag burning, funeral protests and Nazi parades — despite the profound offense such spectacles cause — it surely protects political campaign speech despite popular opposition.”

Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy and Samuel A. Alito Jr. joined Roberts. Justice Clarence Thomas provided the crucial fifth vote for overturning the limits, but said the others should have gone further to strike all contribution limits.

Breyer was joined in dissent by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.

The aggregate totals that the court struck down in the case — McCutcheon v. FEC --imposed a $48,600 limit on contributions to candidates during a two-year election cycle, plus $74,600 total on giving to political parties and committees.

The base limits on contributions left unchanged by the ruling allow donations to candidates of $2,600 for both primary and general elections.

The decision provides a financial boost to political parties, which have lost their dominance with the rise of super PACs and other independent political groups that can raise unlimited sums.

I love it! What a fabulous victory for money in politics.

And at Twitchy, "‘Koch-mas came early!’ SCOTUS upholds 1st Amendment, crazy Harry Reid hardest hit."

'Officer Bledsoe, meet the Streisand Effect...'

At Instapundit, "KNOW YOUR PLACE, PEASANT! Man ordered to take down police officer’s name and picture from Internet."

Yep, the video's here.

New York Times v. Sullivan Remains Free Speech Cornerstone

An interesting piece at AP, "AT 50, LANDMARK LIBEL CASE RELEVANT IN DIGITAL AGE."

In Blow to Free Speech, U.S. Ninth Circuit Upholds School Ban on Wearing American Flag T-Shirts

I understand that a high school campus is not the public square, and that school administrators must protect the safety and welfare of their students, but if you can't wear an American flag shirt at an American high school because radical leftist reconquista activists students threaten violence, then this isn't a free America anymore. The forces of leftist anti-speech have truly won the day.

At the Heritage Foundation, "Federal Court Upholds School Ban on American Flag T-Shirts."

And don't miss this outstanding analysis from Eugene Volokh, at the Washington Post, "Not safe to display American flag in American high school":

This is a classic “heckler’s veto” — thugs threatening to attack the speaker, and government officials suppressing the speech to prevent such violence. “Heckler’s vetoes” are generally not allowed under First Amendment law; the government should generally protect the speaker and threaten to arrest the thugs, not suppress the speaker’s speech. But under Tinker‘s “forecast substantial disruption” test, such a heckler’s veto is indeed allowed.

The 9th Circuit decision may thus be a faithful application of Tinker, and it might be that Tinker sets forth the correct constitutional rule here. Schools have special responsibilities to educate their students and to protect them both against violence and against disruption of their educations. A school might thus have the discretion to decide that it will prevent disruption even at the cost of letting thugs suppress speech.

Yet even if the judges are right, the situation in the school seems very bad. Somehow, we’ve reached the point that students can’t safely display the American flag in an American school, because of a fear that other students will attack them for it — and the school feels unable to prevent such attacks (by punishing the threateners and the attackers, and by teaching students tolerance for other students’ speech). Something is badly wrong, whether such an incident happens on May 5 or any other day.

And this is especially so because behavior that gets rewarded gets repeated. The school taught its students a simple lesson: If you dislike speech and want it suppressed, then you can get what you want by threatening violence against the speakers. The school will cave in, the speakers will be shut up, and you and your ideology will win. When thuggery pays, the result is more thuggery. Is that the education we want our students to be getting?

A terrible decision.

Religious-Freedom Bills Proliferate in Statehouses

Well, Jan Brewer couldn't take the heat, but a lot of these bills are being signed into law and will ultimately wind up in court for adjudication.

At the Wall Street Journal:

Arizona has become a major flashpoint in the national debate over the boundaries between religious freedom and discrimination, as legislators there push to enact a new law that would allow business owners to deny service to customers for religious reasons.

But the state is hardly alone in mulling more explicit protections for religious business owners and individuals, whose objections to same-sex marriage have come into increasing conflict with newer laws expanding the rights of gays and lesbians.

Here’s a roundup of various religious-liberty measures circulating in other statehouses. Most have yet to pass a single chamber and a number have been tabled. Some deal specifically with the rights of businesses or students, while others are more broadly worded. In at least two states, the issue may go before voters as a ballot initiative...

Keep reading.

And see TPNN, "Several Other States Follow AZ’s Lead, Propose Religious Rights Legislation."

A Constitutional Right to Public Masturbation in the Presence of Children?

It's hard to believe this, but it's happening.

At iOWNTHEWORLD, "Is Whacking Off in Front of Children an Exercise in Free Speech?" Well, it's a "right" if you're a deranged, depraved regressive leftist:

PJ Media’s Megan Fox continues to battle a local library that seems to think that filtering porn on their computers, and in the process blocking the fap material for public masturbators and the mentally deranged that enjoy watching porn around children, is an assault on the 1st amendment.

You know what else is a 1st amendment right? Taking pictures of people who access porn in the library and posting it on a website called PornSurfersAtThePublicLibrary.

Do leftists have a problem with that? Well, to wrap their heads around it they can think of it as akin to publishing the names and addresses of people who legally own guns.

Click through to read the Megan Fox piece. She's got a whole series on this going at Pajamas Media.

Hobby Lobby Video on #ObamaCare and Religious Freedom

Via Young Cons, "Hobby Lobby made a Video about Obamacare and Religious Freedom… and it’s Awesome."

Ax-Grinding Kook Roger Shuler and 'First Amendment Questions'

The New York Times claims the case of jailed Alabama blogger Roger Shuler raises "First Amendment questions," and perhaps it does, although I doubt readers'll even get an inkling of this douchebag's full story. I highlight this because Shuler's been the subject of Robert Stacy McCain's periodic coverage on the various lunatic personalities that populate the left's "Wonderland" of conspiracies and hardcore ideological recrimination.

Here's the key essay at the Other McCain, "Roger Shuler: Another Kook Succumbs to ‘Investigative Blogger Syndrome’." And check TOM's tagged results for this idiot as well.

And now over at the Times, "Blogger’s Incarceration Raises First Amendment Questions":

BIRMINGHAM, Ala. — For over six years, Roger Shuler has hounded figures of the state legal and political establishment on his blog, Legal Schnauzer, a hothouse of furious but often fuzzily sourced allegations of deep corruption and wide-ranging conspiracy. Some of these allegations he has tested in court, having sued his neighbor, his neighbor’s lawyer, his former employer, the Police Department, the Sheriff’s Department, the Alabama State Bar and two county circuit judges, among others. Mostly, he has lost.

But even those who longed for his muzzling, and there are many, did not see it coming like this: with Mr. Shuler sitting in jail indefinitely, and now on the list of imprisoned journalists worldwide kept by the Committee to Protect Journalists. There, in the company of jailed reporters in China, Iran and Egypt, is Mr. Shuler, the only person on the list in the Western Hemisphere.

A former sports reporter and a former employee in a university’s publications department, Mr. Shuler, 57, was arrested in late October on a contempt charge in connection with a defamation lawsuit filed by the son of a former governor. The circumstances surrounding that arrest, including a judge’s order that many legal experts described as unconstitutional and behavior by Mr. Shuler that some of the same experts described as self-defeating posturing, have made for an exceptionally messy test of constitutional law.

“You’ve got a situation where sometimes there’s no good guys,” said Ken White, a former federal prosecutor in Los Angeles who writes about and practices First Amendment law.

Mr. Shuler is no stranger to defamation suits, as one might surmise from reading his blog. He started it in 2007 to document a property dispute with his neighbor that blew up into a legal war and ended with the neighbor’s lawyer becoming a part-owner of Mr. Shuler’s house, which is in Birmingham. Later, the blog branched out to expose what he alleged were the corrupt machinations of powerful figures, mostly Republicans, and with a particular animus toward former Gov. Bob Riley.

His allegations are frequently salacious, including a recent assertion that a federal judge had appeared in a gay pornographic magazine and a theory that several suicides were actually a string of politically motivated murders. Starting in January 2013, Mr. Shuler, citing unidentified sources, began writing that Robert Riley Jr., the son of the former governor, had impregnated a lobbyist named Liberty Duke and secretly paid for an abortion. Both denied it, and Ms. Duke swore in an affidavit that they had never even been alone in the same room.

In July, Mr. Riley and Ms. Duke sought an injunction in state court against such posts, citing Mr. Shuler and his wife, Carol, in defamation suits. A judge issued a temporary restraining order in September barring the Shulers from publishing “any defamatory statement” about Mr. Riley and Ms. Duke and demanding that the offending posts be immediately removed.

Such a sweeping order struck some lawyers as far too broad, and Mr. Shuler says he did not even know about it.

The Shulers refused to answer the door when officials came to serve court papers, stating their suspicions in blog posts that the visits were part of an “intimidation and harassment campaign” stemming from the reporting on another topic.

One afternoon as the Shulers drove to the local library, where Mr. Shuler had been writing his blog since they could no longer pay for their Internet connection, a member of the Sheriff’s Department pulled them over, saying they had run a stop sign. The officer then served them the papers, which the Shulers refused to accept, contending that service under such a pretext was improper.

“We were both throwing the papers out of the windows as we were driving off,” Ms. Shuler said in an interview.

The Shulers missed a hearing the next day, and the restraining order was superseded by a similarly worded preliminary injunction, which some free-speech advocates saw as a clear violation of Mr. Shuler’s First Amendment rights.

“It seems to me that the judge’s order was really way out of bounds,” said David Gespass, a civil rights lawyer in Birmingham, who was further troubled by the judge’s initial decision to keep the case under seal...

That's a long block quote, so keep reading at the link. (Ali Akbar's National Bloggers Club is cited in the next couple of paragraphs.)

Ken White, who writes the blog Popehat, has some additional quotes at the link as well. And at the blog, "Alabama Court, Roger Shuler Continue to Thwart Roger Shuler’s First Amendment Rights." Kinda funny, that. But more later either way.

Nobody Should Fear a Merry Christmas

From Jonathan Tobin, at Commentary:

The notion of a liberal war on Christmas has become something of a seasonal evergreen discussion topic for pundits. As such, at this point at times it’s not clear whether conservatives like Fox’s Bill O’Reilly talk about it more than politically correct secularists wage it. In this overwhelmingly Christian country, there is little doubt that Christmas is a national holiday and is often practiced in such a manner as to make it more of a secular celebration of consumerism than a Christian religious observance.

Nevertheless, it must be admitted that the holiday plays a not unimportant role in the ongoing battle over the height of the so-called wall of separation between church and state. The fight about whether crèches, the lyrics in carols, or Christmas trees constitute an unconstitutional establishment of Christianity has done little to undermine the hold of the holiday or to make religious minorities more comfortable in America. To the contrary, such disputes do much to undermine good community relations between members of different faiths. Dennis Prager is correct when he writes today that those who claim to be “emotionally troubled” by the sight of a Christmas display on public property are indeed emotionally troubled...

Continue reading.

Modesto Junior College Restricts Constitutional Speech on Constitution Day

Greg Lukianoff of FIRE reports, "“I Bet They Wouldn’t Even Let You Pass Out Constitutions on Constitution Day”":

Robert Van Tuinen, a student at Modesto Junior College in California, had a theory. He believed that the policies at his college limiting protests and expression were so restrictive that the college would try to shut him down even if he tried to hand out copies of the United States Constitution on September 17--Constitution Day.

Sadly, he was correct.

Continue reading at the link.

Also embedded there is this clip from FIRE:



More at Tech Dirt, "California College Tells Student He Can't Hand Out Copies Of The Constitution On Constitution Day."

Obama Administration Abolishes Free Speech on America's Campuses

From Walter Olson, at Commentary, "Sentence First, Verdict Afterward":

Perhaps the Obama administration was not expecting a great public outcry this spring when it unveiled a “blueprint” for how campuses across the nation will henceforth need to handle complaints of sexual misconduct. Under the scheme as announced on May 9, colleges must crack down on a wide array of sexually oriented conduct defined as “unwelcome” to one or more persons, including many instances of what the feds quaintly term “verbal conduct,” better known as “speech.”

Colleges will also have to tighten up disciplinary procedures that the feds view as excessively observant of due process toward those accused of sexual misbehavior. For example—in what one critic called an “Alice in Wonderland” standard of “Sentence first, verdict afterward”—colleges will often need to take action against an accused student or faculty member before an investigation reaches any conclusion as to whether the charges against that person are accurate.

The initiative, a joint project of the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) and the U.S. Department of Justice, took the form of a “resolution agreement” sent to administrators at the University of Montana. As the term “blueprint” indicates, however, the new scheme is meant to bind colleges and universities across the nation, at least those that receive federal money in one form or another—which in practice means nearly all of them.

Whether or not the administration was expecting an outcry, it got one. The civil-libertarian lawyer Wendy Kaminer wrote in the Atlantic that the blueprint unacceptably blurs the line between unwanted date requests and rape: “If a student feels harassed, she may be harassed, regardless of the reasonableness of her feelings, and school administrators may be legally required to discipline her ‘harasser.’” Kaminer dubbed this “an educational nightmare.” The “breathtakingly bold” move has “mandated the effective abolition of free speech on college campuses, as well as the almost certain conviction of large numbers of students, many of whom will be innocent, of ‘harassment,’” contended another noted civil libertarian, Harvey Silverglate, writing with Juliana DeVries. George F. Will called the blueprint “so patently unconstitutional that it will be swiftly swatted down by the courts” and stated that it “underscores today’s widespread government impulse for lawless coercion.” Education blogger Joanne Jacobs said the scheme “makes every student a sex harasser.”

Not quite three weeks later, the Office of Civil Rights backed down, or seemed to, on a couple of the blueprint’s most outrageous aspects. In a May 29 letter sent to members of the public who had expressed concern, the agency said it did not expect universities to discipline students for conduct that was not objectively offensive after all, or for isolated low-level offensive conduct that did not add up to some more serious pattern. (In good bureaucratic fashion, OCR refused to concede that it had modified its position at all, insisting that it was merely clarifying the policy it intended all along.)

Even with that concession, the blueprint is a document full of ominous portent: for the fairness of the disciplinary processes that have now come under federal prescription, for the once proud independence of the higher-education sector, and, yes, for the continued health of what passes for free speech on the American campus.

RTWT.

Man, it's gonna take a while to root out and eradicate the disease of leftism destroying the country. As folks warned during 2012, with Barack Hussein's reelection America's become virtually unrecognizable. But no reason to lose hope. The pendulum is swinging back. When Missouri officials ban a circus clown for mocking the president we've clearly reached some macabre, farcical threshold. Of course we'll see more of such perfidy as the left gasps toward decimation in 2014 and beyond.

RELATED: "Wall Street Journal Weekend Interview: Greg Lukianoff, 'How Free Speech Died on Campus'."

Free Speech Dies in UK: Robert Spencer, Pamela Geller Banned from Entering

From Roger Kimball, at Pajamas Media:

Geller and Spencer are denied entry to the UK. Quoth a government spokesman: individuals whose presence “is not conducive to the public good” may be denied entry by the Home secretary. He explained: “We condemn all those whose behaviours and views run counter to our shared values and will not stand for extremism in any form.”

That pretty much covers the waterfront, doesn’t it? Disagree with me and I’ll have you named an enemy of the state.

Entertain views that conflict with the dominant left-wing narrative, and I’ll see to it that you are branded a hatemonger and are ostracized (or worse). Say or write something I don’t like, and I’ll pretend you did something criminal. I’ll deliberately confuse the expression of opinion and criminal behavior, so that the expression of opinion blends seamlessly into criminal behavior.

George Orwell anatomized this technique in 1984. Joseph Stalin pioneered it “on the ground” in the Soviet Union. It’s all part of what Anthony Trollope wrote in his great, dark novel The Way We Live Now.

Lee Rigby is hacked to death by Muslim fanatics. That’s an instance of what former Home Secretary Jacqui Smith insisted we call “anti-Islamic activity.” Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer say and write things the timid, politically correct bureaucrats who run Britain don’t like, and they’re declared pariahs.

Continue reading.

Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals Reinstates Caveman Blogger's First Amendment Challenge

At the Institute for Justice, "Free Speech Victory."

The decision reverses a previous ruling by a federal district judge that had dismissed Cooksey’s case, reasoning that advice is not protected speech and hence Cooksey had suffered no injury to his First Amendment rights.

“This decision will help ensure that the courthouse doors remain open to speakers whose rights are threatened by overreaching government” said Institute for Justice Senior Attorney Jeff Rowes. “In America, citizens don’t have to wait until they are fined or thrown in jail before they are allowed to challenge government action that chills their speech.”

The dude dispenses "paleo-style" dietary advice on his blog.

Amazing what's threatening to the permanent political class, via Instapundit.