At Seminar, Lawyers Agree to Snitch on Clients Who Have Guns

By Jose Nino

Gun owners could be at risk of losing their Second Amendment rights and other freedoms if their lawyers believe that possessing firearm defines them as dangerous.

At The Federalist, Rebecca Kathryn Jude highlighted a troubling scenario at an ethics seminar, “The ‘Perfect’ Match: Selecting Clients for Successful Representation (Ethics),” that she was attending.

Adam Kilgore, general counsel for the Mississippi Bar, put forward a hypothetical scenario the group of civil and criminal lawyers in attendance:

A man has been fired from his job. He is upset. He hires you as his attorney. You are of the opinion he has an excellent case and file a complaint on his behalf. You later discover he possesses a permit to carry a firearm. He also has a so-called enhanced carry license. While his case is wending through the courts, your client goes to a public area outside his former workplace. He displays signs that say he has been wrongfully fired. The man has no history of criminal activity, violence, or threatening anyone.

The instructor then asked the class what action they would  pursue in this situation. In Jude’s view, “there was no reason to do anything except proceed with the client’s case.”

She then added that she “would also advise my client to avoid confrontations with anyone who worked for his former employer and what he might consider saying if approached by the media.”

Much to her surprise, however, was her peers’ response.

According to Jude, “many lawyers immediately said they would terminate the attorney-client relationship and contact law enforcement to report their client was potentially dangerous. The only reason offered was his firearm permits.”

Jude was “flabbergasted” and for good reason.

Mississippi is one of the most pro-gun states in the country, ranked in 16th place according to the Guns & Ammo magazine.

It is also one of the 16 states in the country with Constitutional Carry.

Jude was appalled that her colleagues “were proposing to violate the attorney-client privilege, which establishes one of the most sacrosanct confidential relationships” in this hypothetical scenario put forward.

She noted that the attorneys “focused on the fact the client owned a gun and had firearm permits” and that this “was enough to label him as reasonably certain to cause death or serious bodily harm and report him to the police.”

This case highlighted by Jude shows the kinds of different tactics anti-gun proponents are using these days to subvert gun rights.
BLP has reported on numerous occasions how certain corporate interests like Dick’s Sporting Goods and CEOs have pitched in to undermine gun rights.
Gun controllers recognize that they don’t have full legislative control, so they’ll find other means to subvert gun rights.

Snoop Dogg Encourages Everyone to Post Louis Farrakhan Footage on Facebook and Instagram

Credit: Daniel Boczarski / Stringer Editorial #: 467066492 Collection: Getty Images Entertainment Date created: March 20, 2015

By Jerome Hudson

Rapper and game show host Snoop Dogg took to Instagram late Thursday and urged his 31 million followers to post and share videos of Louis Farrakhan to Facebook and Instagram. The antisemitic Nation of Islam leader was banned from both platforms for what the social media giant said was Farrahkahn’s decision to “promote or engage in violence and hate.”

“If you’re down with it like I’m down with it, post your favorite Mr. Farrakhan videos on your Instagram and Facebook page,” Snoop Dogg said in an Instagram video posted Thursday. “Show some love to a real brother.”

***Graphic Langauge***

Breitbart TV

View this post on Instagram

P. S. A. 👊🏿🎥

A post shared by snoopdogg (@snoopdogg) on

“How the fuck y’all gonna ban Minister Louis Farrakhan for putting the truth out there?” Snoop asked in a separate video. “I stand with him. I’m with him. Ban me, motherfucker.”

Snoop Dogg encouraging his followers to post videos of Farrakahn on Facebook and Instagram appears to be in clear violation of the platform’s rules, which do not allow the promotion of “hate speech […] because it creates an environment of intimidation and exclusion and in some cases may promote real-world violence.”

As recently as October Farrakhan posted a video to Twitter in which he called Jews “termites.” Twitter removed Farrakhan’s “verified” blue checkmark for hate speech.

Facebook and Instagram’s purge of conservative personalities also included Infowars host Alex Jones, Infowars contributor Paul Joseph Watson, and journalist and activist Laura Loomer.

CNBC COMPLAINING FACEBOOK NOT DELETING INFOWARS ACCOUNTS FAST ENOUGH

CNBC Complaining Facebook Not Deleting Infowars Accounts Fast Enough

Compares removing accounts to a game of whack-a-mole

Daniel Taylor | Old-Thinker News – MAY 3, 2019

While anti-establishment voices are silenced, technological advancements are being made that will bring “fake news” to a whole new level. Who will remain to challenge it?

CNBC lamented shortly after Facebook announced its ban of Infowars that Facebook cannot completely clamp down on accounts, essentially playing “whack-a-mole.” CNBC reported:

It’s yet another sign that while huge companies such as Facebook and YouTube have to fight to keep content under control, it’s tough for both to monitor and remove accounts and content that can pop right back up with new pages. It’s like a big game of whack-a-mole.

Censorship is ramping up around the world as mainstream news outlets rally for “regulations” on the first amendment.

While anti-establishment voices are silenced, technological advancements are being made that will bring “fake news” to a whole new level.

Artificial Intelligence systems are currently being developed that will “deep fake” news articles, just as photos and videos have been infamously faked.

In a little-noticed story in July of 2017, it was revealed that a Google grant of €706,000 was given to the United Kingdom’s Press Association to use artificial intelligence to write news articles.

The A.I. system, called RADAR (Reporters And Data And Robots), comes from Google’s Digital News Initiative.

As reported by the Guardian, RADAR will “…auto-generate graphics, video and pictures to add to stories.”

 

POYNTER ‘BLACKLIST’ OF CONSERVATIVE NEWS SITES WAS CREATED BY SPLC EMPLOYEE

Poynter ‘Blacklist’ of Conservative News Sites Was Created by SPLC Employee

List contains sites such as Free Beacon, Daily Caller, Breitbart

By Joe Schoffstall

A journalism institute released a “blacklist” of media outlets they deemed as “unreliable” that was created by an employee of the left-wing Southern Poverty Law Center and overwhelmingly contains conservative new media outlets.

The Poynter Institute for Media Studies, a Florida-based nonprofit journalism school, released the list on Wednesday and declared dozens of mainstream conservative sites such as the Washington Free BeaconDaily Caller, Daily Signal, CNS News, and Breitbart as “unreliable” while listing few liberal sites,” Newsbusters reports

The study notes it trimmed the list “by removing several sites whose stories, though highly politicized, were mostly not fake: alternet.org, cato.org, heritage.org, nationalreview.com, thedailybeast.com, the intercept.com, thinkprogress.org, and weeklystandard.com.”

A majority of the removed sites lean left. Of the removed conservative sites, the Heritage Foundation, a think tank – and not in itself a news site — was taken off the list. However, the Daily Signal, which is hosted by the Heritage Foundation, is included on the list. Another conservative site that was removed from the list, the Weekly Standard, was shuttered in December.

While most of the sites are labeled as “unreliable”, “fake”, or “conspiracy” – or a combination of the three — the Free Beacon is listed as “bias”, a label that prompted further review of the sites that were ultimately removed from the list upon further review and before its release.

Barrett Golding, an employee at the Southern Poverty Law Center, a far-left nonprofit embroiled in controversy over accusations of internal racism from its top management that led to its co-founder, Morris Dees, and president, Richard Cohen, being ousted from the group, created the list for Poynter.

Golding appears to have followed the SPLC “list” model in its creation of “unreliable” news sites, as many of the mainstream conservative sites on the list are thrown in with actual sites that push conspiracy theories. This mirrors the SPLC’s “hate group” list, which contains mainstream conservative organizations alongside racist organizations such as the Ku Klux Klan. The SPLC’s “hate” list, which it is perhaps best known for today, has helped the controversial — and allegedly internally racist group itself towards its black employees – to garner more than $500 million in total assets, $120 million of which is parked overseas.

“These sites stood next to conservative organizations like Alliance Defending Freedom, which represented baker Jack Phillips in the Supreme Court case Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission,” Newsbusters writes. “While the ADF is not a news site, it was likely targeted because Golding works for the SPLC. The ADF is considered a ‘hate group’ by the SPLC and is marked on the ‘hate map.’ The Washington Post even questioned SPLC’s ‘political activism’ and ‘bias.'”

“SPLC has been dropped by Twitter from its Trust and Safety Council and slammed by the mainstream media after multiple scandals rocked the organization. Its hate map even helped shooter Floyd Lee Corkins find the location of the Family Research Council, where he shot and wounded five people.”

Factcheck.org, Fake News Codex, OpenSources, and PolitiFact were also involved in the study alongside Golding.

RACIST ATTACK? BLACK MAN TAKES MAGA HATS FROM GROUP OF ASIANS

Racist Attack? Black Man Takes MAGA Hats From Group of Asians

Viral clip shows man stomping on Trump hat

Infowars.com – MAY 1, 2019

A short video depicting a black man taking MAGA hats from a group of Asians went viral Wednesday.

Interestingly, one of the members from the group being accosted can be heard saying “we are from North Korea.”

AG Barr: “I Can’t Fathom” Why Obama Admin Did Not Tell Trump Campaign About FBI Investigation

Published on May 1, 2019

Attorney General William Barr told Sen. John Cornyn that “I can’t fathom” why the Obama administration did not tell the Trump campaign about the FBI investigation into Russian interference in 2016 during his hearing on the Mueller Report before the Senate Judiciary Committee on 5/1/19. Be sure to like, subscribe, and comment below to share your thoughts on the video. 

CAP

(CENSORSHIP) – Poynter Wants 515 Outlets Blacklisted, Including Breitbart Leaves Out All Corporate Media Behind Dangerous Hoaxes… …Vast Majority of Blacklist Compiled by One Assistant Prof

Screen Shot 2019-05-01 at 10.13.07 AM

By John Nolte

Poynter Institute claims on its About page that “it champions freedom of expression.” And yet, on another page, Poynter published a list of 515 media sites, including Breitbart News, that it wants blacklisted and shut down.

Poynter calls this list an “index of unreliable news sites” and is openly calling for advertisers to stop sponsoring these sites, to pull their sponsorship, to put these sites out of business.

If that’s not a blacklist, tell me what is [emphasis added]:

Advertisers don’t want to support publishers that might tar their brand with hate speech, falsehoods or some kinds of political messaging — but too often, they have little choice in the matter.

Most ad-tech dashboards make it hard for businesses to prevent their ads from appearing on (and funding) disreputable sites. Marketers can create blacklists, but many of those lists have been out-of-date or incomplete.

Aside from journalists, researchers and news consumers, we hope that the UnNews index will be useful for advertisers that want to stop funding misinformation.

This is straight-up McCarthyism. This is nothing less than the return of the 1950s’ blacklisting crusade against those who hold inappropriate, unacceptable, and unapproved opinions.

And what’s more, the lion’s share of the list cites a single source — “OpenSources,” a list curated by a single Assistant Professor from Merrimack College, Melissa Zimdars (pictured). She is the author of academic papers such as “Watching Our Weights: The Consequences and Contradictions of Televising Fatness in the ‘Obesity Epidemic’” and “Having It Both Ways: ‘Two and a Half Men,’ ‘Entourage’ and the Televising of Juvenile Postfeminist Masculinity.”

What is Zimdars’s methodology? Can’t say, exactly, as the OpenSources official site is totally blank. About two years ago, she gave an interview where she said that one of her criteria for blacklisting a site is “hate” — that is, she still believes the far-left SPLC is a credible organization whose “hate” labels should get you kicked out of public discourse.

Those of you who suddenly approve of blacklisting will argue, “Hey, this is how democracy works! A private company has the right to do or not do business with whoever they want!”

Well, how the hell do you think the 1950s’ blacklist worked? That was nothing more than private companies (movie studios, advertising sponsors) and private individuals (studio heads, producers) deciding all on their own whom they did and did not want to do business with.

Nevertheless, we rightly look back on this dark era with disgust, as an un-American era where people were persecuted and silenced (by private corporations and private individuals) for holding ideas and opinions the powerful establishment did not want shared or discussed.

And now, the 1950s’ blacklist has returned with a vengeance because the establishment media are fighting for advertising dollars and have lost their moral authority and ability to influence public opinion due to outlets like this one and the Media Research Center, Pajamas Media, Washington Examiner, The Daily Wire, The Blaze, Red State, Project Veritas, Newsmax, Zero Hedge, LifeSite, Judicial Watch, Frontpage, The Washington Free Beacon, The Daily Caller, and the Drudge Report — all of which are on Poynter’s blacklist — exposing their lies and biases, and…

Just as the blacklisters did during the McCarthy era, they are trying to silence us by targeting our advertising sponsors.

Sure, just as some of those people targeted in the 1950s were actual communists looking to do our country harm, there are some legitimate bad faith players on Poynter’s blacklist. But here’s where Poynter’s blacklist gets especially sinister…

There is no one on Poynter’s list of “unreliable news outlets” responsible for spreading the biggest, most irresponsible and dangerous lies of the last half-decade — lies that have caused race riots and destroyed innocent lives.

In other words, the outlets Poynter does not want blacklisted are every bit as revealing as those Poynter does want blacklisted.

There is simply no question that for over five years, CNN, the New York Times, the Washington Post, NPR, ABC, CBS, PBS, NBC, MSNBC, Politico, BuzzFeed, etc., have relentlessly and deliberately misled the American people on the biggest stories of the day…

  • The Trayvon Martin Hoax

  • The Hands Up, Don’t Shoot Hoax

  • Donald Trump Can’t Win

  • The Russia Collusion Hoax

  • The Brett Kavanaugh Serial Rapist Hoax

  • The Covington High School Boys Hoax

And yet, every outlet I listed above that are part of Poynter’s blacklist either got these stories 100 percent correct, as Breitbart News did, or was at least skeptical of them.

But we are the ones these so-called “champions of free expression” are openly calling to be blacklisted, not those who have relentlessly and deliberately lied to the public for more than a half-decade.

Which proves this is not a blacklist targeting the unreliable, but a blacklist targeting those who hold ideas the un-American Poynter finds inappropriate and unacceptable.

How else to explain why Poynter wants the Media Research Center blacklisted for bias but not Media Matters?

The Poynter Institute is nothing less than a non-profit version of Joseph McCarthy, Father Coughlin, and Big Brother.

CBS News, NYT Reporter Suggest U.S. Scrap Free Speech In Favor Of New Zealand-Style Censorship

Chris Menahan
InformationLiberation
Apr. 30, 2019
https://twitter.com/zyntrax/status/1122955568921100288

Both the CBS News host and NYT reporter Cecilia Kang said the US should look to countries like Australia, New Zealand, Germany and India — which do not have free speech — as models for suppressing free speech on the internet.

Here’s the full segment:
As I reported in November 2018, the New York Times editorial board wrote a propaganda piece comparing right-wingers to jihadists and demanded authoritarian censorship of the internet to stop the spread of “toxic ideas.”

The New York Times last year hired virulent anti-white racist Sarah Jeong in August 2018 as their lead technology writer and made her a member of their editorial board.

CAP
Jeong’s Twitter feed featured her attacking “dumbass f**king white people” for “marking up the internet with their opinions like dogs pissing on fire hydrants.”

She also said she gets a sick “joy” out of “being cruel to old white men” and wondered if white people’s light skin is a sign they’re “only fit to live underground like groveling goblins.”

The New York Times said they were aware of her anti-white tweets when they hired her and argued her tweets were justified because some trolls called her mean names on the internet.

While journos love to act as though they’re crusaders for free speech and a free press, as we saw over the weekend during the White House Correspondents’ Dinner, they’re actually the biggest crusaders against free speech and the free press in America and throughout the West.

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑