Oct 11, 2024
seen from Malaysia
seen from Russia
seen from Germany
seen from Türkiye
seen from Malaysia
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Netherlands
seen from China
seen from United States
seen from Russia
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Malaysia
seen from United States
seen from Italy
seen from United States
seen from Italy
seen from United States
Today marks the five (5) year anniversary of the Jussie Smollett Hate Hoax & he's still not in prison.
When they ask you why Trump?
The point they seem to be making was that they should not have the right to say it.'
By: Jennifer Kabbany
Published: Mar 3, 2023
‘The point they seem to be making was that they should not have the right to say it’
Massachusetts Institute of Technology students behind flyers and chalkings recently found at the school that included slurs against LGBTQ people were protesting the university’s emerging policies in support of free speech.
The incident came in the wake of a two-month-old MIT faculty resolution that defends freedom of speech and expression — even speech some find “offensive or injurious.”
A Feb. 23 memo from MIT administrators stated flyers posted across campus and some chalking outside a school entrance “contained slurs directly targeting the LBGTQ+ community.”
MIT’s bias response team investigated, the memo added, and determined “the messages were put up by students choosing to use extreme speech to call attention to and protest what they see as the implications of” several new pro-free speech policies and efforts at the school.
“The chalking and flyers that carried slurs were put up as part of a much larger set of flyers, expressing a wide range of views, many framed in provocative terms. We have been told that these flyers were intended to probe the boundaries of MIT’s commitment to freedom of expression and to determine how this commitment comports with MIT policies, including those on harassment,” stated the memo, written by Dean for Student Life Suzy Nelson and Institute Community and Equity Officer John Dozier.
Peter Bonilla, executive director of the MIT Free Speech Alliance, said he couldn’t say for sure whether the students who posted the messages are left-leaning progressives, but added “whatever the content of the messages, whatever was being said, the point they seem to be making was that they should not have the right to say it.”
From the little MIT administration has released about the content of the flyers and chalkings, “that kind of protest should be protected under MIT’s policies,” Bonilla told The Fix in a telephone interview Thursday.
He said meeting the legal threshold of unprotected speech categories like incitement, targeted harassment and unlawful threats probably could not be met with flyers and chalkings, that “it’s hard for a message posted in that kind of medium to meet that threshold on its own.”
Campus leaders “are working on creating a range of different opportunities to engage and inspire individuals across campus to learn about, practice and model the skills to confidently, constructively, respectfully express ourselves – and listen to each other – across differences,” Allen stated.
Asked for details on the content of the flyers and chalkings, Allen stated the university’s full statement on that matter is encompassed in Nelson’s and Dozier’s memo.
The new pro-free speech policies that have upset MIT students and prompted the false flag campaign include the free speech faculty resolution approved in December as well as a final report of the faculty Ad Hoc Working Group on Free Expression.
In the wake of these developments, Kornbluth — who took the helm of MIT on Jan. 1 — stated in a Feb. 16 announcement plans to review the school’s existing policies on academic freedom and free expression and determine “what changes if any may be necessary to bring them in line with” the faculty’s final report.
She also called for creating “a range of different opportunities to engage and inspire all of us, across our community, to learn about, practice and model the skills to confidently, constructively, respectfully express ourselves – and listen to each other – across differences.”
MIT was engulfed in controversy in 2021 for canceling a guest lecture to be given by University of Chicago geophysicist Dorian Abbot.
A report released in mid-January by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression also found that “Large portions of MIT faculty and students are afraid to express their views in various academic settings. Faculty and students are at least as afraid of each other as they are of the administration.”
In response to the flyers and chalkings, the MIT Free Speech Alliance stated in a news release that “protesting against the scope of the free speech protections offered by MIT’s new free expression statement is itself protected expression, and students are well within their rights to engage in such protest.”
“…Assuming the speech at issue is protected, disciplinary investigations or charges against students over the content of this expression are unwarranted.”
==
When the demand for hate exceeds the supply.
While it's true there's no reason or need for disciplinary action, that doesn't preclude them recovering the costs of the investigation into a phony incident.
Sixty years ago, students were protesting for free speech. Today, power-mad authoritarian student groups conduct false flag campaigns to abolish it.
I’ll take “The whole bus stood up and clapped” for 500, Alex.
And before any apologists say, “BUT IT’S DRAWING ATTENTION TO REAL PROBLEMS” I have just the meme for you:
Ask yourselves this-
If racism is such a widespread and urgent problem, then you wouldn’t need to be a narcissistic jagoff and cry wolf like this.
Why fake the severity of a problem that should apparently have plentiful examples?
Why do you need to lie?
As if nothing even happened...
Is it possible that former “Empire” actor Jussie Smollett walks free without even a slap on the wrist? A famous minority can now commit a hate crime against oneself, blame white men and just head off to Hawaii like nothing ever happened, huh? What a shame. After refusing to reimburse the city of Chicago for his hate hoax, Smollett decided he deserved a vacation.
From Daily Caller:
Jussie Smollett has been spotted in Hawaii on vacation with his family. And while the disgraced “Empire” actor is in Hawaii, officials in Chicago are preparing to file a civil lawsuit against him to recover the money that was lost during the city’s investigation into the alleged hate crime hoax he orchestrated against himself, TMZ reported Thursday.
The city wants Smollett to pay back the $130,000 that was spent to fund the investigation. Rahm Emanuel, Democrat mayor of Chicago, has not been on Smollett’s side 100% of the time. Surprisingly enough, Rahm, a former top aide to Barack Obama, has smacked down Smollett on a number of occasions since he was let off the hook with nothing more than a slap on the wrist. However, Emanuel now says “toxic” President Trump is to blame for Jussie’s actions.
From Breitbart:
Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel blamed President Donald Trump in a press conference Thursday for the alleged hate hoax carried out by Empire Jussie Smollett, claiming that the president created a “toxic” and “vicious” cycle for which the star thought he could get away with the purportedly staged attack on himself.
“Look, I’ve always said from day one this is a Trump-free zone, the city of Chicago, and I mean it,” Emanuel told reporters. “Let me be really clear about something: The only reason Jussie Smollett thought he could take advantage of a hoax about a hate crime is for the environment, the toxic environment Donald Trump created.”
“This is a president who drew a moral equivalency between people who are trying to perpetuate bigotry and those who are trying to fight bigotry,” the mayor continued. “As somebody who started his own journey in politics fighting the neo-Nazis in Skokie and Marquette Park, President Trump should literally take his politics, move it aside.”
Emanuel wants Smollett to cut the city a $130,000 check.
LOOK:
Check out what should be written by Jussie in the memo line…
More, via USA Today:
Chicago’s Department of Law sent Smollett a letter threatening that if the $130,000 “is not timely paid,” the city will go after him in court for making false statements, thus allowing them to collect more money from him under the municipal code. According to the letter, violation of the false statement ordinance allows the city to collect up to three times the amount of damages the city sustains as a result of the violation – in Smollett’s case, that would be $390,000.
Emanuel said police department officials are still assembling the costs of the investigation that began shortly after Smollett reported to police on Jan. 29 that he was the victim of a brutal attack by assailants who yelled racial and homophobic slurs as they beat him. The actor also told police that the assailants yelled “This is MAGA country” during the assault.
More from Emanuel, per The Blaze:
“From top to bottom, this is not on the level,” Emanuel told reporters, adding “there needs to be a level of accountability throughout the system, and this sends an unambiguous message that there is no accountability, and that is wrong.”
The mayor also called the dropped charges a “whitewash of justice” and that the grand jury, which handed down 16 charges against Smollett, “could not have been clearer.”
https://ilovemyfreedom.org/jussie-smollett-lives-large-in-hawaii-after-refusing-to-reimburse-chicago-for-hate-hoax-photos/
Well thank you Jussie for proving there is no such thing as white privilege. Only proving there is a thing called minority (black, gay, criminal) privilege thanks to the Left.
Visit the post for more.
There have been so far about three general reactions to the concocted Jussie Smollett psychodrama.
One, and the most common, has been apprehension that Smollett’s lies will discredit future real incidents of hate crimes against gays and minorities. This could be a legitimate concern, given the tensions within a multiracial society.
Yet, in fact, there is no evidence in the past that false reports (some lists of such fake hate crimes put the number at around 400) have had such an effect—either on spiking real hate crimes, suppressing reporting, discouraging police investigations, or preventing even more race-crime hoaxes.
…
From Tawana Brawley to the Covington kids, fictive accounts of race-based bias and violence have not stopped purported victims from believing that they, too, could invent such incidents and win credibility—to say nothing of profitable attention. After all, the publicity of the Duke Lacrosse or Covington hoaxes did not suggest to Jussie Smollett that he would not be found credible. In fact, the opposite may be true. The more we hear of fake hate crimes, the more we will likely hear of future fake hate crimes.
…
None of recent concocted racially motivated attacks have had any effect in demolishing public credibility about even the most improbable allegations of such assaults. Indeed, in our Orwellian world of racial melodrama, those who rushed to judgment to condemn Donald Trump and his supporters for Smollett’s suffering, turned 180 degrees on hearing the news of the Smollett fabrication. They now soberly and judiciously warned us not to do what they had just done. Instead America was “to wait for all the facts” and not “rush to judgement” in assuming that Smollett was guilty of fraud.
Smollett has shown that the most absurd narratives imaginable will continue to gain credence because they fill a deep psychological, cultural—and, yes, careerist—need for millions in the country to believe that hate crimes are epidemic, that they are the currency of the Right, and that they can only be addressed by more government scrutiny of a particular class of victimizers such as the Duke Lacrosse team, the Covington kids, or Smollett’s mythic red-hatted Trump racists.
…
A second reaction was the far more legitimate worry that thousands of hours of careful police work were squandered, as resources were diverted from real crime investigations. Although so far, the overburdened Chicago police have been careful in downplaying this redirection in limited resources, it was no doubt gargantuan.Yet Smollett’s supporters almost immediately questioned the police department’s ethics when authorities ever so cautiously hinted that the facts and Smollett’s own behavior did not line up with a racist attack.
Smollett’s probable preemptive O.J. Simpson-like defense will run contrary to facts, but he has learned that ginning up popular furor against the police can, at worst, lead to leverage in plea bargaining and, at best, turn potential local jurors into nullifying social justice warriors.
…
Yet the third, most important, and most ignored reaction was that in some sense Smollett himself was a racist and had committed a hate crime.
His farce is yet another example that it is now largely permissible to slur and smear millions of purported Trump supporters, as either defined by their stereotyped race and gender or their red hats (with or without a logo). As pundits and talking heads nearly wept on screen in their worries about future potential hate crimes that might now not be taken seriously, they abjectly ignored the real hate crime that had just occurred. In truth, Smollett had done his best to ignite some sort of popular racially driven vendetta against conservative white male voters, previously known as “clingers,” “crazies,” “deplorables,” and “irredeemables” who, our elites warn, smell up Walmart, gross America out with toothless smiles, and should be swapped out for new immigrants.
…
Given that the Smollett myth followed so closely after the Covington kids fiction, we can surmise that Smollett counted on two popular reactions: the left-wing public was still thirsty for more “proof” of MAGA white hatred, even if poorly scripted and logically implausible; and, second, Smollett was not much worried about any serious consequences if he should be caught once again in a made-up hate crime.
To paraphrase CNN anchorwoman Brooke Baldwin, who in careerist fashion immediately sought to gin up popular outrage over the Smollett “hate crime” attack: “This is America, 2019.”
Part of the reason your warnings about socialism will fall on deaf ears, Mr Dreher, is that we already live in a society with media-constructed Potemkin villages like this hate hoax, Covington, and the Duke lacrosse and UVA frat fake rapes; we already have samizdat that has to get passed around via backchannels like Steve Sailer even though–no, because– it tells the truth about our culture, and we already have a psychotic Inner Party that openly despises the kulaks and loudly tells them at every opportunity to hurry up and die. You can write all the books warning about socialism that you want. It’s too late. We already have all of the toxic cultural psychosis *without* the economic restribution and soaking of the rich; and since that’s the only part people actually want, and apparently we have to live with the rest of it anyway, why not demand that we get the part of socialism that’s actually appealing? Republicans think we should have to live with the rest of it while billionaires get tax cuts. Screw that!
Matt in VA
Wade was sentenced to five years in federal prison for the string of attacks carried out at the time he was out on bond for the Wendy's arson and wearing an ankle monitor.
A group of Black Lives Matter and Antifa rioters were convicted on federal charges after attempting to frame the Proud Boys for a series of vandalism and arson attacks the far-left extremists carried out on Atlanta police vehicles and United States Postal Service property during the lead up to the 2020 presidential election.
John Wesley Wade, 35, Ellie Melvin Brett, 37, and Vida Jones, 19, were arrested in late October 2020 on federal charges in connection to the string of incidents.