The title of the Independent article below is misleading. It states: “Donald Trump suggests he wants US law to limit free speech in wake of publication of explosive new book.”
Unfortunately, far too many people read little more than headlines, so in this case, they are left with the impression that Trump — due to being personally offended — is now attempting to assail the fundamental democratic right to free speech, the cornerstone of democracy and a principle that is vitally important to his support base. In reality, Islamic supremacists and their far-left cronies, not Trump, have been the pros at trying to restrict the freedom of speech. Nice try, Independent.
Although the “storm of controversy” and skirmishes over Wolff’s book Fire and Fury is not over, Trump’s reference to “weak libel laws” is not an attack on free speech, and neither has he “suggested that he wants a new US law to limit free speech.”
Strengthening libel laws potentially hits at the core of malicious defamatory libel, the kind that freedom fighters have routinely fallen victim to as their reputations became publicly sliced and diced due to overt “fake news” and the troubling new acceptance of it without question. Now Trump’s enemies are using the release of Fire and Fury to make a case that his “mental state” makes him unfit for office.
Conversely, those who attack free speech aim to impose penalties upon anyone they subjectively deem to have caused religious offense or hurt feelings. For example, Islamic supremacists and their Western aiders and abettors have branded the criticism of Islam or mocking of Islam “racist,” “hateful,” “provocative,” “controversial,” “islamophobic” and the like, and therefore deserving of punitive measures. In other words, don’t touch Islam, but it is acceptable to save the mockery and criticisms for Christianity.
Western subjugation to sharia values has set in; the Independent puts its own twist on their story title below, which intends to wrongly charge Trump with trying to limit free speech.
“Donald Trump suggests he wants US law to limit free speech in wake of publication of explosive new book”, by Chris Stevenson, Independent, January 6, 2018:
President Donald Trump has hit out at “very weak” libel laws in the US as he branded an explosive new book detailing the inner workings of the White House as “fiction”.
Suggesting he would like to see tougher laws on speech, Mr Trump said that if libel laws “were strong… you wouldn’t have things like that happen where you can say whatever comes into your head” – referring to Michael Wolff’s book Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House.
The book has caused a storm of controversy and has left the President facing questions about his mental state, with quotes in Fire and Fury – including from Mr Trump’s former chief strategist Steve Bannon – suggesting that even those close to Mr Trump had questioned his capability.
Early on Saturday, Mr Trump wrote a string of messages on Twitter where he rejected such claims, saying he was a “very stable genius” whose two greatest assets are his “mental stability and being, like, really smart”.
Mr Wolff’s new book, which has shot to the top of the bestseller list on Amazon after being released four days early, has clearly riled the President and he used a rare news conference during a retreat with Republican leadership to reinforce what he sees as a stellar list of life achievements.
Answering a question about why he saw the need to tweet about his mental state, Mr Trump said that he had attended “the best college” and was an “excellent” student. He added that he came out of college and “made billions and billions of dollars… [and] became one of the best business people” before touting his “tremendous success” over a decade on television. He went on to add that he ”ran for President one time, and won”.
Mr Trump also called Mr Wolff a “fraud” and the book “a complete work of fiction”, saying that “he doesn’t know me at all” and said that he had not been interviewed in the White House as Mr Wolff had said….
Bev says
United Kingdom wants to bash Trump for limiting free speech. Really? The country whose police run down nasty comments about Islam on Facebook and charge people for expressing their opinion. Hypocrite much?
mgoldberg says
I believe the written and unwritten rules for the police not to discuss or detail massive muslim rape increases and the denial of their involvement in this massive gang rape culture in England constitutes a
real limiting of free speech.
milad says
Independent, is owned by Arabs – what do you expect
Jayell says
I never knew that! But it has been obvious for a long time that the ‘Independent’ isn’t particularly ‘independent’.
Prebanian says
That those who own the Independent are Arab is not the problem, the problem is that they are they adhere to Islam. There are Arab Christians, and all flavors of belief but the great majority are Islamic.
gravenimage says
Guys, Russian Alexander Lebedev owns The Independent:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Independent
I know he has been involved in editorial policy, but I do not know what his politics are.
gravenimage says
I wrote the above before seeing Bill’s post and link, below:
https://www.jihadwatch.org/2018/01/uks-independent-falsely-accuses-trump-of-trying-to-limit-free-speech-ignores-real-islamic-attempts-to-limit-it#comment-1810029
Apparently between 25% and 50% of The Independent is Muslim-owned as of last year. Very disturbing.
Linnte says
It makes me wonder about just WHO owns the UK period! I know that the Saudis own most of the shipping ports in the UK. What else has been sold to Islam, and maybe that’s the reason UK Government is overtly acquiescing to Muslims? Just a thought.
gravenimage says
Yes, Linnte–there is more and more of this. Very troubling.
duh swami says
The book was supposed to put gravy on sedition…
An attempt to overturn the Trump election…If that’s free speech it’s lousy free speech…The Book will be a holy book for the left and Wolf their new savior…They are already showering him with money…
The UK locked free speech up in the Tower of London so it wouldn’t offend Muslims…Complaining about Trump is hypocrisy…
BillV says
Yes,
Saudi investor buys significant stake in the Independent.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/jul/29/saudi-investor-buys-up-significant-stake-in-the-independent
gravenimage says
Thanks for the link, Bill.
sheik yer'mami says
That’s why it has become a propaganda rag for Islamic jihad.
MFritz says
Whereas limiting free speech in the UK is no topic for the Independent at all…
Buraq says
Until a few weeks ago, I posted regularly in The Independent, using the ‘handle’ Free Speech. But my posts supporting Israel and castigating Islam (not Muslims!) caught the attention of the leftist fascists running the so-called ‘independent’ on-line newspaper.
My posts have been blocked for a couple of weeks now. So, it’s the clowns at The Independent who are stifling Free Speech, literally!
StellaSaidSo says
Yep. Those who accuse others are those who are doing it themselves. The hypocrisy is staggering.
R Russell says
Buraq
Same thing happened to me. I have also been blocked on MSN
gravenimage says
Very disturbing, Buraq.
Georg says
“…leftist fascists running the so-called ‘independent’
It’s a Saudi not leftists paper. But for our purposes, that doesn’t make much difference.
Ibrahim itace muhammed says
So, savage devil Trump want make law limiting freedom to about his sexual assault scandals ? such a proposed law by devil Trump Will be declared by law courts as “legis adhominem(law for one person).
Christine Williams now heaps accusations to Islam and leftists to cover up thé scandals.
Buraq says
@ Ibrahim itace muhammed
You’re a clown, Ibrahim! Freedom to say what is true about a person is forbidden under Shariah. We use the word ‘slander’ or ‘libel’ to indicate that someone has said something that is substantially untrue about someone, and which damages their reputation.
In Sharia, the word translated as “slander” is the Arabic word ‘ghiba’. It means saying anything about someone that they do not like, even though it is true. This rule was given by Mohammed himself:
“Do you know what slander is? It is to mention of your brother that which he would dislike.” Someone asked, “What if he is as I say?” And he replied, “If he is as you say, you have slandered him, and if not, you have calumniated him.”
You’re a hypocrite Ibrahim. You criticize Trump of wanting to stifle free speech, while ignoring Shariah’s bizarre ruling. And me saying you’re a clown is not slander, it is true!
don vito says
itass, Trump can’t make a law.. Get your head out of the shitty koran, and get a well rounded education. Oh yeah, itass, how does kufr save their blood and property from the vile, twisted hands of your filthy prophet?
StellaSaidSo says
What ‘sexual scandals’? Surely you don’t believe all that Russian dossier nonsense? Get a grip, lad, when it comes to scandal, the Democrats offer far richer pickings. POTUS is dull in comparison.
R Russell says
Ibrahim,
So much hate. You are consumed by it. It makes you susceptible to illness.
The Bible Jesus offers to fill your heart with love.
Recommended
gravenimage says
The idea that President Trump is trying to get a law passed that would only apply to himself is just ludicrous, as is the claim–which Ibrahim itace muhammed makes below–that Trump is a pedophile rapist.
Given the fact that Ibrahim itace muhammed has himself affirmed that child marriage and the rape of Infidel women and girls is legal in Islam, it is clear that this is just projection on his part.
eduardo odraude says
Here’s a video that points out some interesting things about several verses in sura 33 of the Qur’an — any Muslim who thinks about these should realize that Muhammad was not a prophet but a con artist:
Lydia Church says
islam has enough scandals already, right?
eduardo odraude says
I read a chilling interview at Vox last night. A psychiatrist who has testified to Congress is organizing a group of psychiatrists to try to force Trump to have a psychiatric evaluation because, so the psychiatrist claims, Trump is literally mentally unfit for the presidency and is a danger. She says that she and her group are not talking about removing Trump from office, as that, she admits, would look too much like an attempted coup! Yet that seems to be exactly what her proposals would amount to. She makes me think of a combination of Orwell’s Big Brother, and Nurse Ratchet from One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest. She seems to be under the delusion that all or most psychiatrists believe that Trump is crazy enough that a psychiatric evaluation could be forced upon him. Evidently she also thinks that if he is thus evaluated, virtually all psychiatrists will agree that he is not fit for office. I found the interview chilling because it is obvious to me that psychiatrists will not agree that Trump is psychiatrically unfit for office. The psychiatrist in the interview must live in some kind of mental bubble, ironically, and due to her own ignorance of her own ignorance is prepared to demand actions that she thinks urgently necessary and reasonable but that would, outside her subjective mental bubble, turn us into a nation to be ruled not by elections, but by self-appointed psychiatric “experts.” It is not clear to me how she is all that different from those who put Soviet dissidents into “reeducation” camps. She is trying to turn political differences into medical issues, though she claims she is not political at all and is concerned only in purely professional psychiatric terms. It’s a bit shocking to see this kind of thing often on the left lately. Some of them are so convinced of their own views that they believe themselves justified in criminalizing or medicalizing political differences. After all, anyone who disagrees with them could not do so legitimately and must be simply crazy or evil. They thus are becoming the very danger they point to in Trump — they are threatening the constitutional, democratic character of the US. I doubt they are even remotely close to succeeding, but the widespread character of their unconsciously seditious talk and proposals is a cause for concern.
StellaSaidSo says
Yes, this is the latest attempt by the Democrats / Deep State / Obama Holdovers to oust Trump. None of their dirty tricks has had any impact so far, and this one is similarly unlikely to succeed. But it will keep Trump’s enemies in the news and make them feel like they matter, and annoy the hell out of those who simply want to get on with the job of restoring America. There are a couple of interesting clips on YouTube by Dr Steve Pieczenik, a psychiatrist well-qualified to comment on the issue, that you may find reassuring.
gravenimage says
Yes–Leftists have been trying to oust Trump ever since he won the election.
The January 2017 issue of New York magazine had a cover story on how to impeach President Trump. Keep in mind this issue came out *before Trump even took office*.
Obviously, these efforts are not even linked to anything he has done in office.
eduardo odraude says
Thanks for that tip. Here’s one of them:
eduardo odraude says
However, at one point in the video he says something that suggests he might be anti-Semitic. The remark in question need not be interpreted that way, but more research needed on this guy.
eduardo odraude says
Is not the Independent a UK paper? Yet the story does not note that the UK’s libel laws are much stricter than the libel laws in the US. Trump suggested that it might be good for the US to have stricter libel laws. But Trump is not doing anything serious actually to tighten the US libel laws. Is the Independent doing anything to loosen up the UK libel laws? Unlikely, because they don’t actually care about this issue. They just want to make Trump look bad on free speech, though they themselves are arguably worse. And they must tar Trump because of the significant Muslim population of the UK and the thousands of would-be jihadists roaming free there. As a journalist, better not step too far over the line in the UK, or you might find your throat getting slit some day.
gravenimage says
Good points, Eduardo.
Ibrahim itace muhammed says
Buraq, savage mad devil Trump did it and ï can Prove it. Those little girls he has been sexually assaulting are still alive and ï can Call them as winesses together with documents including vidéo clip showing him digging deep into these little girls. Had it been that i abhor pornography i would have shared it for you to See. such sexual scandals are not hidden or concocted by Trump’s enemies as some myopic idiots want us to believe
gravenimage says
The grotesque Ibrahim itace muhammed wrote:
Buraq, savage mad devil Trump did it and ï can Prove it. Those little girls he has been sexually assaulting are still alive and ï can Call them as winesses together with documents including vidéo clip showing him digging deep into these little girls. Had it been that i abhor pornography i would have shared it for you to See. such sexual scandals are not hidden or concocted by Trump’s enemies as some myopic idiots want us to believe
………………………..
So Ibrahim itace muhammed would prove this, save for his distaste of pornography? Riiiiiiiiight…
Note that he does not say how all of this supposedly came into his possession in Nigeria. Surely if this is available in Nigeria, it would be broadly available to Americans.
All of this is just projection, in any case.
Ibrahim itace muhammed has defended the rape of children in Islamic child “marriage”. He has also defended the taking of Infidel women and girls, and Muslims using them as sex slaves. *Ugh*.
StellaSaidSo says
LOL his ‘distaste for pornography’! Methinks the lad doth protest too much…!
gravenimage says
He does indeed, Stella!
eduardo odraude says
Here is proof from the canonical Muslim sources themselves that Muhammad in his 50s consummated marriage with Aisha when she was 9 years old.
https://www.bitchute.com/video/yzqNBvSPfzY5/
eduardo odraude says
Not only that, but the Qur’an, considered Allah’s verbatim word, assumes consummation of marriage with prepubescent girls:
http://quotingislam.blogspot.com/2011/06/islamic-scholars-explanations-of-quran.html
Because Muhammad pretended that it was God who allows marriage of adult men with prepubescent girls, child marriage has been difficult to eradicate from many parts of the Islamic world. In Islam, the practice has the support not merely of a some long-ago century’s culture. Such marriages have the support of the allegedly eternal Qur’an.
gravenimage says
Ibrahim itace muhammed is a fan. He has openly condoned the rape of children here. *Ugh*.
Champ says
The rotten fruit of islam is put on full display within ibrahim’s wretched writings, and it stinks to high heaven …P U!!
gravenimage says
Yes, Champ–his posts are very revealing of the Muslim mindset. *Ugh*.
sheik yer'mami says
The ‘Independent’ has recently been sold to an Arab investor. Does it show?
Lydia Church says
Again with the ironies!
Do these folks ever take a break?!
Owen Morgan says
The moronic commentary and hideous bias from “The Independent” wouldn’t be a problem in itself, given that hardly anybody reads it. After all, the “Morning Star” was propped up throughout the Cold War by subventions from the USSR and that, too, had minimal influence over its readership, because it had none. The problem with “The Independent”, however, is that the one place where it is read is the BBC, although prejudice of the sort displayed in this particular piece from “The Independent” is already so rife at the BBC that this new example may not make much difference.
Mmmuk1 says
At least this forum allows free speech. Even from the vile Ibrahim Itace Muhammad!
gravenimage says
Very true.
Horseman says
The problem with the UK is that there are too many Chamberlains and not enough Churchills.
gravenimage says
Grimly true.