National Coalition Against Censorship

................................................................

The following three emails were sent to the NCAC, which chose not to respond... in the name of free speech and vigorous debate, cornerstones of democracy.

From: George Slone

Sent: Saturday, February 6, 2016 9:15 AM

To: ncac@ncac.org

Cc: Justin Silverman; charles.brownstein@cbldf.org; pen@pen.org; mickey@projectcensored.org; dan@bookweb.org; info@abffe.org; bstripli@syr.edu; info@publishers.org; ftrf@ala.org; madler-kozak@nacs.org; dangelo@nacs.org; info@cbldf.org; oif@ala.org; jlarue@ala.org; dstone@ala.org

Subject: Intrinsic intellectual corruption in the heart of the NCAC

To Joan Bertin, Exec. Dir, National Coalition Against Censorship:  

Why not publish (on your website) the essay I recently wrote highly critical of the NCAC?  The Global Free Press just published it here:  http://www.globalfreepress.org/contributors/usa/g-tod-slone/3936-15-threats-to-free-speech-2015-an-egregious-and-purposeful-omission).  I've also attached it to this email.  I'd be highly interested in your take on my take of your apparent egregious intellectual corruption.  Publishing the essay might actually spark a little debate exterior to the PC-limits of free speech acceptability.  Thanks for your attention.  

From: George Slone

Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2016 5:08 PM

To: ncac@ncac.org

Cc: charles.brownstein@cbldf.org; pen@pen.org; mickey@projectcensored.org; dan@bookweb.org; info@abffe.org; bstripli@syr.edu; info@publishers.org; ftrf@ala.org; madler-kozak@nacs.org; dangelo@nacs.org; info@cbldf.org; oif@ala.org; jlarue@ala.org; dstone@ala.org; justin@nefirstamendment.org

Subject: Intellectual fraud et al

To Joan Bertin, Exec. Dir. NCAC:

Was there a reason why you decided to ignore the egregious fault that I underscored regarding your "15 Threats to Free Speech 2015" report?  Might that reason simply be that you and NCAC cannot bear criticism?  In every issue of The American Dissident, I not only encourage hard-core criticism of me and the journal but publish the harshest received.  You should have published my critical essay on your website!  It likely would have provoked a little much needed vigorous debate, cornerstone of democracy.  

Why did you choose to ignore the Garland, TX near massacre and the San Bernardino massacre in your report?   And what about the effort made by so many Democrat-Party congressmen in 2015 to try to pass HR 569, an anti-blasphemy law regarding specifically ISLAM, a law that would directly contravene the First Amendment, something you are purportedly interested in?  Why the silence?  Are you getting money from CAIR and the Muslim Brotherhood?  If so, you need to take a long look in the mirror.

See attached for the front cover of the next issue of The American Dissident, featuring the sponsor of HR 569 and members of CAIR.  ISLAM should have made your 15 THREATS.  We've seen it in action in Paris and now in Bruxelles.  Will it make your next report?  As a cartoonist, I know damn well that criticizing ISLAM is the most risky of subjects I can sketch.  It is far more threatening to free speech than anything else I can think of.  Cartoonist Molly Norris, wherever she's hiding, would surely agree with me on that!  

And yes, I still do not have my civil liberties here in my town of Barnstable on ole Cape Cod where I am not permitted to attend any political or cultural events held at my neighborhood library.  And yes, neither you nor Karen Wulf of PEN New England nor the ACLUM give a damn about that!  

From: George Slone

Sent: Friday, March 25, 2016 5:40 PM

To: ncac@ncac.org

Cc: charles.brownstein@cbldf.org; pen@pen.org; mickey@projectcensored.org; dan@bookweb.org; info@abffe.org; bstripli@syr.edu; info@publishers.org; ftrf@ala.org; madler-kozak@nacs.org; dangelo@nacs.org; info@cbldf.org; oif@ala.org; jlarue@ala.org; dstone@ala.org; justin@nefirstamendment.org; pamelageller@gmail.com

Subject: Att: Peter Hart and NCAC hypocrisy

To Peter Hart, NCAC Communication Director,

A cartoon I just sketched with your regard, highlighting your bias against free speech, was just posted here:  http://wwwtheamericandissidentorg.blogspot.com/2016/03/peter-hart.html. 

Will you respond?  Likely not because likely you will not be able to offer a cogent counter argument to the message in the cartoon.  All you will likely have in your arsenal is ad hominem or thinly-disguised ad hominem, as in “looking to cause controversy”…  BTW, in case Joan Bertin kept it from you, my critical essay regarding NCAC’s “15 Threats to Free Speech 2015” is located here:    

http://www.globalfreepress.org/contributors/usa/g-tod-slone/3936-15-threats-to-free-speech-2015-an-egregious-and-purposeful-omission.  It features a nice photo of Molly Norris.  Have you ever heard of her?  

On another note, though really the same note, I’ve come to conclude that far too many proponents of free speech are ideologically bound (i.e., blinded) to the extent they are not really proponents of free speech.  Karen Wulf of PEN New England is an example.  Charles Brownstein of CBLDF serves as another example.  You can read my dialogue de sourds with him here:  http://wwwtheamericandissidentorg.blogspot.com/2016/01/comic-book-legal-defense-fund.html.  Or perhaps, like Joan, you too are not curious and abhor criticism when it concerns you and your pals.  

If you are into the HATE SPEECH mantra, then why the hypocrisy and need to pretend to be into FREE SPEECH?  

Peter Hart

...........................................................

From: George Slone
Sent: Friday, March 25, 2016 5:40 PM
To: ncac@ncac.org
Cc: charles.brownstein@cbldf.org; pen@pen.org; mickey@projectcensored.org; dan@bookweb.org; info@abffe.org; bstripli@syr.edu; info@publishers.org; ftrf@ala.org; madler-kozak@nacs.org; dangelo@nacs.org; info@cbldf.org; oif@ala.org; jlarue@ala.org; dstone@ala.org; justin@nefirstamendment.org; pamelageller@gmail.com
Subject: Att: Peter Hart and NCAC hypocrisy

 

To Peter Hart, NCAC Communication Director,

A cartoon I just sketched with your regard, highlighting your bias against free speech, was just posted here:  http://wwwtheamericandissidentorg.blogspot.com/2016/03/peter-hart.html. 

Will you respond?  Likely not because likely you will not be able to offer a cogent counter argument to the message in the cartoon.  All you will likely have in your arsenal is ad hominem or thinly-disguised ad hominem, as in “looking to cause controversy”…  BTW, in case Joan Bertin kept it from you, my critical essay regarding NCAC’s “15 Threats to Free Speech 2015” is located here:    

http://www.globalfreepress.org/contributors/usa/g-tod-slone/3936-15-threats-to-free-speech-2015-an-egregious-and-purposeful-omission.  It features a nice photo of Molly Norris.  Have you ever heard of her?  

On another note, though really the same note, I’ve come to conclude that far too many proponents of free speech are ideologically bound (i.e., blinded) to the extent they are not really proponents of free speech.  Karen Wulf of PEN New England is an example.  Charles Brownstein of CBLDF serves as another example.  You can read my dialogue de sourds with him here:  http://wwwtheamericandissidentorg.blogspot.com/2016/01/comic-book-legal-defense-fund.html.  Or perhaps, like Joan, you too are not curious and abhor criticism when it concerns you and your pals.  

If you are into the HATE SPEECH mantra, then why the hypocrisy and need to pretend to be into FREE SPEECH?  

Kathleen Parker

Adam Weinstein

Alan Levine

Cancer in the Heart of Free Society:  the Freedom-of-Expression Hating “Hate Speechers”

The revolution cannot be made without killing and, to kill, it is best to hate.

—Che Guevara

Unlike un-privileged me, Civil Rights Attorney Alan Levine got to publish a letter in the New York Times on the near Muslim massacre in Garland, Texas.  The letter was highly deceptive, and thus provoked me to sketch a satirical cartoon, which no doubt would constitute an example of “hate speech” in Levine’s perverted thinking.   

          The Southern Poverty Law Center, which Levine cited favorably, is a self-anointed determiner of purported hate-speech offenders, who have not been tried for hate speech because, well, hate speech is not yet a crime in America, though it is in Canada and Europe.  The Center is hardly at all neutral, but far-left socialist.  If Che Guevara were an American living in America today, he certainly would not be on its list.  In essence, one must take the SPLC hate-speech offender list with a grain of salt.  And how not to think of McCarthy’s infamous blacklist or Stalin’s or Castro’s or Hitler’s or Mao’s?

The fundamental fault with “hate speech” is its highly subjective nature, which is the prime reason why it is protected speech in America.  Truth and fact can easily be deemed as “hate speech.” Proponents of “hate speech” regulations, the hate speechers, would certainly opt for burying any truth and fact that offend them.  That is the crux of the problem.  

As for Pamela Geller, who staged the Texas cartoon event, she was pejoratively described by Levine as “wrapping herself in the mantle of the First Amendment.”  Yet thanks to that “mantle” We, the People can still openly express our opinions even when they counter those of civil-rights lawyers like Levine.  Contrary to the Levine’s assertion and that of the kill-the messenger dhimmi media, both right and left-wing, she has made a useful contribution to a public dialogue about Islam. For example, she helped expose Islamist propagandists in America, who seek to spread the false narrative that somehow Islam, which means submission, is a religion of peace and that jihad is somehow a touchy-feely kind of thing.  She has also helped expose stealth jihad at work in America.  Her cartoon contest helped expose that images of Muhammad were not always frowned upon by Islamists and that persons creating those images were not always butchered by them, as in the grotesque Muslim massacre of the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists.  She also helped expose that the media, both left and right, have largely been suckered in by stealth jihad and do not really support freedom of expression, despite the claims to the contrary.  Furthermore, she helped keep the Ground Zero mosque, the one Obama favored, from becoming a horrendous reality.  So, if Geller’s is “hate speech,” then Levine is clearly wrong to stipulate that “the sole purpose of such speech is to inflame bigotry and to inflict injury.”  Speech does not “inflict injury.”  Islamist butchers inflict injury.  Somehow “hate-speechers” like Levine cannot seem to grasp that simple premise, for somehow they’ve been blinded.  They need to ask themselves how that happened. 

Levine mentions how he first came to truly hate Geller, who had denounced one of his clients, Ms. Almontaser, who he described as “a respected educator and community leader.”  As an educator, however, I am quite aware that far too many educators parade around as “respected” when also intellectually bankrupt and outright cowardly conformists.  So I would have to question the description, though I do not know the person.  Levine notes Geller had released a “hate-filled barrage of false and Islamophobic accusations about Ms. Almontaser,” yet fails to evoke just one such accusation.  Moreover, Islamophobic has become an idiot’s term today, used to dismiss any uncomfortable truths about Islam and Muhammad.  Levine should know better than to resort to such base ad hominem, which is normally used to divert attention away from facts that one does not like and cannot disprove.  So, city officials forced Almontaser to resign… all because of Geller’s purported “false accusations”?  Only a severely indoctrinated person could believe that.  

Finally, the real haters are the ones who kill people for drawing cartoons, the ones whose  religious book demands apostates, Jews, and kuffars be treated as inferiors and even murdered.  How can Levine and others NOT understand that?  How much money has he made from CAIR and other Islamic front groups, even if indirectly?  How else to explain the blindness?  Now, I do not know Levine.  I do not know Geller.  However, I have certainly “heard” a hell of a lot more reason from her, than from him.  The problem with ideology is that reason ineluctably becomes its enemy… 

George Gascon

Notice of this blog entry was sent to the San Francisco Chronicle and District Attorney George Gascon, two entities that seem bent on truncating the First Amendment.  Imagine if I'd done something similar in China or even in a European country today, where hate laws exist to censor freedom of expression.  Yes, even in Germany or Denmark, for example, I could be prosecuted for such a cartoon, if it involved a German or Danish D.A. and I were a citizen of the country in question. The First Amendment truly makes America different.  American citizens must continually stand up and fight for it... or lose it.  Far too many American citizens remain ignorant and apathetic with its regard.  Far too many other American citizens seek to truncate it.  Hillary Clinton and Obama fall into that category, in particular, with regards their involvement in the Istanbul Process.