90 Miles From Tyranny

infinite scrolling

Wednesday, March 6, 2019

Modern Day Book Burning: Amazon Bans Tommy Robinson’s Book, ‘Mohammed’s Koran’

On January 7 of this year, Robert Spencer published an article at PJ Media about Amazon removing doormats featuring Qur’an verses from sale because the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) found them offensive. In that article, I asked:

How long will it be before Hamas-linked CAIR starts demanding that books that criticize jihad terror and Sharia oppression of women, gays, and others also be dropped by Amazon?
The answer turned out to be 51 days.
It’s the British government and the BBC, rather than CAIR, that are likely behind this, but Amazon has just dropped the book Mohammed’s Koran by the renowned British activist Tommy Robinson and Peter McLoughlin -- and apparently only because its censors dislike Robinson. In the last two weeks, Robinson spectacularly embarrassed the BBC by exposing the bias and dishonesty of its reporter John Sweeney. The retaliation has been swift and severe: Robinson has been banned from YouTube and Facebook, and now his book has been withdrawn from sale.

Coauthor Peter McLoughlin states:

[T]his is the twenty-first century equivalent of the Nazis taking out the books from university libraries and burning them. Can you think of another scholarly book on Islam that has been banned by Amazon? Mein Kampf is for sale on Amazon. As are books like the terrorist manual called The Anarchist Cookbook.
McLoughlin is correct that Amazon’s behavior has been wildly inconsistent. He adds that Amazon officials are steadfastly mum on why the book was banned:

[They] refuse to reinstate the book and refuse to explain why it has been banned. So they have banned the No.1 best-selling exegesis of the Koran. I can’t get my head round it. Every few weeks for the past 18 months they had emailed me asking to put it into special sales programmes, as it was selling so well. For 18 months they sought to profit even more from the sales.

“As dark as my vision is,” McLoughlin concludes, “I thought we were 10 to 20 years away from dissenting books from being banned.”

Indeed. Those who object to my labeling Leftist totalitarians “fascists” should take careful note of this story. What group is most famous for burning books? That’s right. And what group is doing it now? Right again. I predicted this, but like Peter McLoughlin, I didn’t think it would come so soon.

This is an extremely ominous development. Amazon and Barnes and Noble -- which is also not carrying this book -- have a virtual monopoly on book sales. When these two giants refuse to carry a book, that book effectively does not exist. If they are now going to ban books that are critical of Islam and opposed to jihad terror and Sharia oppression of women, gays, and others, then an Islam-critical perspective will be almost impossible to find anywhere.

Some will applaud this as the ultimate and laudable demise of “Islamophobia,” but it is actually far more insidious. If the motivating ideology of jihad terrorists cannot be criticized or even discussed openly, jihad terrorists will have an absolutely free...

Morning Mistress

The 90 Miles Mystery Box: Episode #552


You have come across a mystery box. But what is inside? 
It could be literally anything from the serene to the horrific, 
from the beautiful to the repugnant, 
from the mysterious to the familiar.

If you decide to open it, you could be disappointed, 
you could be inspired, you could be appalled. 

This is not for the faint of heart or the easily offended. 
You have been warned.

Hot Pick of The Late Night

PRIVILEGE, Victim & Oppressor Culture: EXPLAINED


Tuesday, March 5, 2019

Continued harassment & intimidation of my family by media working with far left


Girls With Guns

Why Do Leftists Hate Facts?


More On Media Bias And Discrimination...


The Difference Between A Socialist And An Anti-Socialist...


More Ronald Reagan:

TRUTH Is The New Hate Speech...






Florida Lawmaker Introduces 'Stop Social Media Censorship Act' to Protect Free Speech Online

Florida bill SB 1722 would fine giant social media sites for censoring protected religious and political speech.

Florida State Senator Joe Gruters (R) has introduced a bill to protect free speech on social media and fine the biggest sites a minimum of $75,000 in statutory damages if they delete or censor a user's religious or political speech.

The law would only apply to social media sites with "more than 75 million subscribers" which are "open to the public" and from their inception have "not been specifically affiliated with any one religion or political party."

The bill also prohibits large social media sites from citing so-called "hate speech" as a justification for political and religious censorship and authorizes the Attorney General to "bring a civil cause of action ... on behalf of a social media website user who resides in this state and whose religious speech or political speech has been censored..."

The bill makes clear it would allow social media sites to censor "calls for immediate acts of violence," "obscene or pornographic" material, that which "entices criminal conduct" and that which "involves minors bullying minors."

Here's the full text of Sen. Gruters' bill, SB 1722:

  • 1 A bill to be entitled
  • 2 An act relating to social media websites; providing a
  • 3 short title; defining terms; providing that the owner
  • 4 or operator of a social media website is subject to a
  • 5 private right of action by a social media website user
  • 6 in this state under certain conditions; providing
  • 7 damages; authorizing the award of reasonable attorney
  • 8 fees and costs; prohibiting a social media website
  • 9 from using hate speech as a defense; authorizing the
  • 10 Attorney General to bring an action on behalf of a
  • 11 social media website user; providing exceptions for
  • 12 the deletion or censure of certain types of speech;
  • 13 providing an effective date.
  • 14
  • 15 WHEREAS, this state has a compelling interest in holding
  • 16 certain social media websites to higher standards for having
  • 17 substantially created a digital public square, and
  • 18 WHEREAS, this state has an interest in helping its citizens
  • 19 enjoy their free exercise of rights in certain semi-public
  • 20 forums commonly used for religious and political speech, NOW,
  • 21 THEREFORE,
  • 22
  • 23 Be It Enacted by the Legislature of the State of Florida:
  • 24
  • 25 Section 1. This act may be cited as the “Stop Social Media
  • 26 Censorship Act”.
  • 27 Section 2. Social media website speech; cause of action;
  • 28 penalties.—
  • 29 (1) As used in this section, the term:
  • 30 (a) “Algorithm” means a set of instructions designed to
  • 31 perform a specific task.
  • 32 (b) “Hate speech” means a phrase concerning content that an
  • 33 individual finds offensive based on his or her personal moral
  • 34 code.
  • 35 (c) “Obscene” means that an average person, applying
  • 36 contemporary community standards, would find that, taken as a
  • 37 whole, the dominant theme of the material appeals to prurient
  • 38 interests.
  • 39 (d) “Political speech” means speech relating to the state,
  • 40 government, body politic, or public administration as it relates
  • 41 to governmental policymaking. The term includes speech by the
  • 42 government or candidates for office and any discussion of social
  • 43 issues. The term does not include speech concerning the
  • 44 administration, law, or civil aspects of government.
  • 45 (e) “Religious speech” means a set of unproven answers,
  • 46 truth claims, faith-based assumptions, and naked assertions that
  • 47 attempt to explain such greater questions as how the world was
  • 48 created, what constitutes right and wrong actions by humans, and
  • 49 what happens after death.
  • 50 (f) “Social media website” means an Internet website or
  • 51 application that enables users to communicate with each other by
  • 52 posting information, comments, messages, or images and that
  • 53 meets all of the following requirements:
  • 54 1. Is open to the public;
  • 55 2. Has more than 75 million subscribers; and
  • 56 3. From its inception, has not been specifically affiliated
  • 57 with any one religion or political party.
  • 58 (2)(a) The owner or operator of a social media website who
  • 59 contracts with a social media website user in this state is
  • 60 subject to a private right of action by such user if the social
  • 61 media website purposely:
  • 62 1. Deletes or censors the user’s religious speech or
  • 63 political speech; or
  • 64 2. Uses an algorithm to disfavor or censure the user’s
  • 65 religious speech or political speech.
  • 66 (b) A social media website user may be awarded all of the
  • 67 following damages under this section:
  • 68 1. A minimum of $75,000 in statutory damages per purposeful
  • 69 deletion or censoring of the social media website user’s speech.
  • 70 2. Actual damages.
  • 71 3. If aggravating factors are present, punitive damages.
  • 72 4. Other forms of equitable relief.
  • 73 (c) The prevailing party in a cause of action under this
  • 74 section may be awarded costs and reasonable attorney fees.
  • 75 (d) A social media website that restores from deletion or
  • 76 removes the censoring of a social media website user’s speech in
  • 77 a reasonable amount of time may use that fact to mitigate any
  • 78 damages.
  • 79 (3) A social media website may not use the social media
  • 80 website user’s alleged hate speech as a basis for justification
  • 81 or defense of the social media website’s actions at trial.
  • 82 (4) The Attorney General may also bring a civil cause of
  • 83 action under this section on behalf of a social media website
  • 84 user who resides in this state and whose religious speech or
  • 85 political speech has been censored by a social media website.
  • 86 (5) This section does not apply to any of the following:
  • 87 (a) A social media website that deletes or censors a social
  • 88 media website user’s speech or that uses an algorithm to
  • 89 disfavor or censure speech that:
  • 90 1. Calls for immediate acts of violence;
  • 91 2. Is obscene or pornographic in nature;
  • 92 3. Is the result of operational error;
  • 93 4. Is the result of a court order;
  • 94 5. Comes from an inauthentic source or involves false
  • 95 impersonation;
  • 96 6. Entices criminal conduct; or
  • 97 7. Involves minors bullying minors.
  • 98 (b) A social media website user’s censoring of another
  • 99 social media website user’s speech.
  • 100 (6) Only users who are 18 years of age or older have
  • 101 standing to seek enforcement of this act.
  • 102 Section 3. This act shall take effect July 1, 2019.

This is a superb bill which every Floridian needs to pressure their representatives to get behind and state lawmakers across the country need to introduce in...