Subject: Why the West is Losing the Battle for Free Speech 23.09.17 15:13
Why the West is losing the Battle for Free Speech
The Battle for Freedom of Speech in the West
We all tend to pride ourselves on being able to say what’s on our minds, however bizarre it might sound to others. Yet many are increasingly obliged to check what is said on sites running on western servers, simply because these rights have now been eroded, often with semantics as to what constitutes ‘free’. In the same way as a website promises a free download, yet when downloaded, it’s found there’s a price attached to using it. The term ‘download for free’ didn’t break any laws, but was misleading at best.
The term ‘racism’, previously defined as a dislike of skin colour attributed to specific races, now includes a diverse range of add-ons, including a dislike of mass-immigration, opposing open borders and only applicable to non-whites.
Similarly, the term ‘homophobia’ moved from a previous dislike of homosexual behaviour, to subtly change the nuance of behaviour to rights and onto equality and even paedophilia and incest become promoted as lifestyle choices in some countries.
Patriotism and nationalism in parts of the west become equivalent to crimes against humanity and proselytizing the Christian religion can and often attract arrest in the UK.
When free speech becomes a criminal offence
In Sweden since December 2014, it is a criminal offence to criticise Islam, mass immigration, those politicians promoting it and homosexuality. 
"Chapter 15, Section 8 of Sweden’s criminal code prohibits the expression of ‘disrespect’ towards favoured minority groups. The law carries a penalty of up to four years of imprisonment. It requires no evidence of incitement to violence and lacks any objective standard for identifying disrespect."
This applies equally to internet use.
"I do not think it takes very many prosecutions before a signal is transmitted in the community that the Internet is not a lawless country - the sheriff is back in town." Swedish parliamentarian, Andreas Norlén.
Free speech becomes free only if it’s politically correct
Likewise in the UK under the 1986 Public Order Act (amended and otherwise known as the ‘hate Act’), previously used for riots, disorderly behaviour and unlawful assembly, it is now an offence to cause "harassment, alarm or distress", in which dislike is upgraded to hate. As any opinion will invariably cause offence to someone, it has effectively closed down public free speech and reduced a frightened population to a mass of whisperers.
"Shame as British police shut down free speech on mass immigration" 
"When Robinson asks why he is the one being manhandled by the authorities despite the demonstrators being aggressive, the officer explained bluntly that “it’s easier to remove you” than to ‘take on’ the angry crowd."
In the UK, you can be arrested for preaching the gospel, as some American preachers found to their cost. This occurs under the above POA, as it would invariably cause offence to someone else. (Bristol is a multicultural area, largely Muslim). 
Yet Jihadists are allowed to demonstrate freely and publicly.
So what does all this tell us? It warns us that very subtly freedom of speech is being curtailed in favour of narratives from collectivised group identities, replacing the supposed freedom of individual free speech. Does it matter any more when it comes to murder, that Stalin made Hitler look like an Amateur? Does it matter any longer, that despite police shootings of blacks in the US, black on black murder pales them into insignificance? Group beliefs matters, not numbers, facts, or outcomes. Yet what has all this to do with the US? Surely, not in the land of the free?
US - Losing the Battle to Western Identity Politics
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." They don’t have to, Obama’s identity politics did it instead.
Deerborn MA 2016. Opposing free speech and assembly at Charlottesville and who was behind it all in Ferguson.
Slowly but surely, if these identity groups gain dominance, you can kiss the individuality based first amendment goodbye.
The US is a large country and it’s largely invisible, but the beginnings are already there and so are the ‘Shut it down’ warning headlines behind anything based on race or gender, which is just about everything. From student political activists deciding what constitutes free speech to Antifa and BLM using violent methods to oppose it, is how it begins.
The agenda behind all this is the new-age liberal order project.
2017 and Germany’s finance minister, Wolfgang Schaeuble, pleads with the US to clamp down on the now conservative and traditional Russia and China to prevent "the end of our liberal world order." Meanwhile, in a speech to the U.N. in 2016, Obama states, "[…] powerful nations like the United States will have to accept constraints and give up some of their freedom." Vague, but the liberal world order, new world order, call it what you will, won’t happen if you allow people, or other countries to challenge it and free speech is the first casualty.
If all speech based on a hatred of colour, Trump, the police, the 1% ... was suddenly closed down, the college students, flag burners, occupy movements, BLMs and Antifa’s would cease to exist. The US is at least a decade behind European liberal fascism, but it’s catching up quickly and if you look at societies that currently don’t have free speech, you’ll find something very surprising but obvious – there are no liberals there either!