WATCH: HOW THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS SILENCING THE PEOPLE

On Saturday, Breitbart News, American Principles Project, and Cornerstone Action will be sponsoring a forum entitled “Practical Federalism: How the Federal Government Is Silencing the People” at Southern New Hampshire University in Hooksett, NH from 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. ET. The objective of this forum is to shine a light on how the federal government overreach works, the Framers’ view that state elected officials must guard against federal intrusion, and how the federal government undermines that duty. And we aim to make this a central issue in the public square through this event.
Broadcast live streaming video on Ustream

CHILLING! The ‘conservative’ British government is considering imposing wide-reaching blasphemy laws

Under the new proposed ‘Extremism Disruption Orders,’ if you are an opponent of sharia law, you could be considered as dangerous as ISIS and be branded an “extremist” under sweeping new powers planned by the Conservatives to combat terrorism.

UK Telegraph  Theresa May, the Home Secretary, unveiled plans last month for so-called Extremism Disruption Orders, which would allow judges to ban people deemed extremists from broadcasting, protesting in certain places or even posting messages on Facebook or Twitter without permission.

Mrs May outlined the proposal in a speech at the Tory party conference in which she spoke about the threat from the so-called Islamic State – also known as Isis and Isil – and the Nigerian Islamist movement Boko Haram.

But George Osborne, the Chancellor, has made clear in a letter to constituents that the aim of the orders would be to “eliminate extremism in all its forms” and that they would be used to curtail the activities of those who “spread hate but do not break laws”.

He explained that that the new orders, which will be in the Conservative election manifesto, would extend to any activities that “justify hatred” against people on the grounds of religion, sexual orientation, gender or disability.

http://www.barenakedislam.com/

TweetMe Please

Holder Gets Serious About Limiting Speech, Investigates Obama Outhouse Parade Float

  

Eric Owens

Education Editor

• See All Articles
• Email Eric Owens
• Subscribe to RSS
• Follow on Twitter

The U.S. Department of Justice is investigating a float that appeared at the annual Fourth of July parade in the small town of Norfolk, Neb. because the float featured a blue flatbed truck carrying a zombie-looking mannequin in overalls on the door of an outhouse labeled “OBAMA PRESIDENTIAL LIBRARY.”

The Justice Department sent a member of its Community Relations Service team to Norfolk (pronounced “Norfork” by many locals), reports the Omaha World-Herald.

The Community Relations Service team investigates disputes concerning discrimination.

http://goo.gl/mDaumw

TweetMe Please

Sean GSCHWIND v. Linda HEIDEN - Grammar School Violence, Freedom of Speech

Teaching can be a hazardous profession as the many school massacres in recent years have shown. This violence and series of threats take many forms of a far lesser degree. How would you handle a stabbing threat from a student? That was the problem for grammar school teacher Sean GSCHWIND.
The plaintiff taught sixth-grade math at a public school in Harvard, Illinois. He was forced to resign after he complained to school administrators and the police about a threat to him made by one of his students. He claimed in this civil rights suit against the school's principal and assistant principal and against the school district that his forced resignation was in retaliation for his exercising his First Amendment right of free speech. The district court granted summary judgment for the defendants on the ground that the plaintiff's complaint about being threatened was not protected by the First Amendment because it did not involve a matter of public concern.

Before the student threatened him, the plaintiff had met with the parents about a threat the student had made to another student. Several days later the plaintiff called on the student in class to perform his "math karaoke" — an assignment to create a song in which the lyrics would relate to something they'd learned in class. The student's song added "I stabbed Gschwind" to the lyrics of the Gangsta Rap song "Boyz in da hood," www.youtube.com/watch?v=GeNDnYc QOA (visited Aug. 28, 2012). GSCHWWIND was disturbed and stopped the class. The student was 12 or 13.

 Teacher GSCHWIND spoke to the school's police liaison and to the principal and the assistant principal (the latter had been the victim of the assault by the student's brother). The plaintiff talked of filing a criminal complaint, and later did. Illinois law declares a knowing threat of violence against a person at a school to be a form of disorderly conduct, 720 ILCS 5/26-1(a)(13), and telling him that "the city feels it's important that this student go in front of a judge and explain his actions." Somewhat suprisingly, the principal and assistant principal were not supportive.

 The day after the plaintiff signed the complaint, the assistant principal gave him an "unsatisfactory" evaluation, a 180 degreee change from all of his previous evaluations. The basis of the new evaluation was "lack of interpersonal skills in relating to students, parents, and colleagues." A jury could easily find that the real reason was a threat of litigation by the student's belligerent father. But they argue that even if they fired the plaintiff in retaliation for his complaining to them about the student and particularly for his filing the criminal complaint, the complaining and the filing were purely personal acts on his part and thus not the exercise of his right of free speech. Houskins v. Sheahan, 549 F.3d 480, 490-92 (7th Cir.2008).

The district judge agreed, saying that "the undisputed facts overwhelmingly demonstrate that plaintiff signed the complaint purely as a matter of private interest ... as a perceived victim of a crime and out of concern for his own personal safety."

The Court  also considered the liability of the particular defendants should the plaintiff succeed on remand in proving a violation of his right of free speech. The principles on which this suit was based are well settled, which defeated the individual defendants' claim of qualified immunity. The school district, however, cannot be held liable for the tortious conduct of the principal and assistant principal under the doctrine of respondeat superior.
In Illinois the school board is the ultimate policymaking body with regard to personnel decisions. 105 ILCS 5/10-20. After the holding in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, ___ U.S. ___, 131 S.Ct. 2541, 180 L.Ed.2d 374 (2011), that an employer's policy of granting its supervisors discretion to make personnel decisions can't be the subject of a class action against the employer by employees complaining of discrimination by the supervisors, it is easy to jump to the conclusion that such a policy cannot be the basis of an individual (as distinct from class action) suit against the employer, either. Easy, but wrong.

 The suit was terminated prematurely.

 REVERSED AND REMANDED.
692 F.3d 844 (2012) Sean GSCHWIND, Plaintiff-Appellant,v.Linda HEIDEN, et al., Defendants-Appellees. No. 12-1755. United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit. Argued August 7, 2012. Decided August 31, 2012.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12945165193211548606&q=YouTube&hl=en&as_sdt=4,14,112,127,268,269,270,271,272,314,315,331,332,333,334,335,377,378&as_ylo=2009