Anyone calling themselves a pastor while actively supporting a criminal coup against the free world is nothing but another criminal and an abomination to the faith.
Some people need to be checked out 😕 it clearly has to do with mental issues (inmate or conditioned) to be so adement against other people's humanity ...
What’s the point Judd is making here? imho Judd just informed us of more Billionaires trying to tell us what we should believe. Their views about what’s a Christian. Using their specific bible with so many versus that fit their narrative. Yet what they want most is chaos not discussion. They want persecution rather than understanding. What they like to show is how righteous they are but what they really want is to spread so much hate and division they get more control. Now armed with this knowledge we can handle another divider in a smarter manner.
Judd Thank You for the information. The more we know the better we push back and stay strong together.
Hate and division are the point. They are against America. They are confident that they hold the power and will prevail. Our fight has to be to oppose and defeat them.
How long before we find child porn on his computer? Seems like a logical outcome. He is an example that White Supremacy is no longer just white people, it is a might is right and by God, we know what is right! Forget the actual words of Jesus. Like the 10 Commandments. The right hates it when you point out that those are Jewish law.
These people want freedom of speech so they can be irresponsible.
Sadly, as Goebbels said "Democracy has the very tools with which to destroy it." The conservative/libertarian agenda in Project 2025 is using the very democratic tools to destroy America.
Our bureaucracy protects our democracy and is in fact our democracy. Destroy the bureaucracy and taking over the democracy is much easier. In Democracy In Chains, the radical right was disappointed the Reagan and both Bush presidencies did not go far enough and the heritage Foundation saw that the federal bureaucracy stood in the way of implementing their failed policies of the past. It is what Voght (sp) meant when he sadi "personnel is policy" in his chapter of Project 2025. America is fixing to find out that the democracy protecting bureaucracy is being replaced by a fascist bureaucracy set on trampling on the rights of others. Promising a bigger piece of a smaller and smaller pie or there will be more rights and liberty for a few and the law for the rest of us.
You know, freedom of speech, and the old adage of: if you don't like what's being said, change the channel. This guy's words cannot harm you. So what? He's a bigot and when his daughter starts dating other women, he's a childless father. What goes around comes around.
Don’t agree that internet amplified hate speech should be free. I believe this was an expedient but an unwise court judgement.
Our too narrow legal exceptions are insufficiently enforced, and indeed, even if rigorously enforced, remain insufficient given the difference between modern recorded, amplified and globally distributed ’speech’, vs the spoken and hard copy ‘speech’ that was the scope and original intent of the First Amendment in 1791.
It is impossible to ‘just change the channel’, particularly when it changes itself and the screens are in the hands of minors.
Our current ‘free speech’ distribution screens are personally targeted to cater to the basest motives of a child’s id, not the mature superego or ‘the better angels of our nature’.
Sex, fear, appetites, conformity, …sell.
Proof: We elected America’s unhealthy id for president as a result of the attention economy’s ‘race to the bottom’.
Not a lawyer, but REGULATION of violence inducing, hateful, and intentionally destructive discourse, and the internet amplification of the same, as is done in many (most?) EU nations, seems NECESSARY for having a civil society that is not a race to the bottom for views and dopamine hits.
Yes, such laws DO require constant review and vigilance - exactly like the freedom it helps to preserve!
This vigilance IS the price of freedom.
And in the end, the preservation of freedom of speech also requires eternal vigilance and adjustment of judgment to cases.
Gotta say yours is a slippery slope. This pastor, while despicable, is not necessarily spewing hate speech, or perhaps better said, he believes he is right to speak against certain books' contents. Hate speech must accompany a crime to be criminal. I do not agree with him AT ALL but I do defend his right to speak.
As for Internet speech, that's way beyond whatever laws we have in place to protect free speech while determining what is unlawful. It is not a crime to lie, to spew, to rant, to opine in a disgusting manner. It is simply not unlawful. There are exceptions to the free speech clause but we need to be careful when we apply our own opinions on speech because we disagree with it.
Also, whatever algorithms that social media are using should be against the law, not the speech itself.
My suggestion is to stay off of social media, teach your children to do the same, and if you run into someone like this pastor, push back with your own speech. Otherwise, change the channel.
I do believe, however, that lying by elected officials to the general public should be against the law. Can we get that to the SCOTUS, please?
Number of good distinctions in your note, as I see them, Katy. And yes, management of harmful speech IS definitely a slippery slope, and perhaps infinitely complex, as may be applied moral judgment in general.
I would defend his right to speak IN TURN and within the framing for allowed community speech at these board meetings. But do not agree with a right to say ANYTHING he feels if it imposes on the rights of others.
Agree with the principle “hate speech must be accompanied by [I might say, credibly linked to] a crime to be criminal”. But I would argue that the statement by a king, “Who will rid me of this meddlesome priest?” was inciting speech accompanied by a culpable death - just as was Jan. 6.
These are crimes: murder, manslaughter, reckless endangerment, and each may be a speech crime.
But the intentional and systematic hijacking of these school board settings for ends of his own, and the subsequent misrepresentations he is said to employ, and massively disseminate, should not be tolerated by these school boards, or the American public, or the courts.
He SHOULD (my view) be sued and held liable for his actions (disorderly conduct / harm to the educational process) and perhaps be held statistically liable for a share of his harmful speech (misrepresentation / and threatening incitement ) particularly in all subsequent cases of violence against teachers/librarians/school board members on this matter, until he equally publicly (/#views) has retracted and apologized for such threats and incitement.
Liability should accrue as well to the platforms that fund or amplify his tirades to get views, and especially to vendors who target intolerant content toward participants of intolerant echo chambers. Time to end Section 230.
‘More free speech’ is no longer a sufficient antidote to amplified, personalized, targeted hateful or intolerance inciting free speech. If it EVER was, which I doubt! One corollary of the law of entropy is that it is MUCH easier to destroy trust, than to earn or inspire it. And government (and civilization itself) is built on trust AND trustworthiness.
From the maths of reciprocal altruism it is clear that a population of would-be altruists that is unable to identify AND ostracize and reject the ‘cheaters’ in their midst, will NOT prevail or continue to exist.
The cheaters will ‘rise to the top’ evolutionarily, displacing the altruists, since cheaters share equally in the benefit of the synergistic society, but do not carry the burden of doing their fair share.
It is a sad but true fact that identification and exclusion of such ‘cheaters’ from society cannot be done without error. Nevertheless it must be pursued. [A very strong ‘tell’ that someone is a ‘cheater’ is a hugely disproportionate magnitude of their assets to their number.]
A community and a society must have standards that it enforces;since those are the only standards that persist. These standards are the empirical definition of that community- or nation.
It is not the U.S. Constitution that defines us, it is our enforcement (& non-enforcement) of our principles that defines us.
Free speech that threatens or incites violence, even if that violence is only statistically linked, is criminal. &, Should be criminally enforced.
If one has a million viewers and one makes a public statement that 1 person in 10 thousand understands to be an order to kill, one is liable for 100 deaths - 100 murders if you imagined this result, or should have- even if that 1 in ten thousand might be crazy, psychotic, & off their meds.
When one has an audience of a million, even more than when one pilots an airliner of ‘400 souls’, one has constraints on one’s freedom to say whatever one feels in the moment. With greater power one has greater responsibility to not cause harm by one’s speech. Also, one is liable when one does.
But let's all focus on the bigger problem with regard to our kids: the algorithms of social media. The AG of Washington DC filed a lawsuit this week against TikTok and you know what? It makes me have faith that people are awake and thinking instead of being distracted by bloat boy and his monkey. Read this from the filing:
"Child and adolescent brains, which lack the impulse control of adults, are particularly susceptible to exploitation through the desire, reward, and reinforcement system that endless scrolling provides. To get users hooked on the app, TikTok uses a dopamine-inducing algorithm that spoon-feeds users highly tailored videos to keep them trapped on the platform for hours on end. TikTok capitalizes on young users’ heightened risk of online financial exploitation, deploying an illegal virtual currency layered with cartoon characters and appealing graphics that are intended to get them to spend money without adequate safeguards in place."
I seriously doubt this clown can get much traction. Humans, by and large are tribal and react poorly or not at all to a guy with a foreign sounding name screaming and hollering. If he has an accent people will be even more resistant. School voucher programs are far more dangerous to our democracy than this bible toting doofus. What school boards ought to be doing is asking if science should be dropped from the school curriculum. You see, you can have the bible or you can have science.
If this guy can't confine his remarks to items on a board's agenda, boards should simply have him escorted out. Sure, it'll generate some viral video, but school boards are neither legally nor morally obligated to let their proceedings be hijacked by a narcissistic, sanctimonious pecksniff.
This is why we can't have nice things, like civil school board meetings ...or democracy.
Techbro billionaires build their machines to maximize "engagement" by pushing hate-filled, divisive ragebait like this. So, of course, conmen (like Amanchukwu) arise to provide the content and grifters (like Kirk) monetize it.
This would all disappear if the tech platforms were properly regulated - and if the adtech industry weren't such an opaque, corrupt money mill.
So, who cuts this miscreant's checks for real and funneling the money through Charlie Kirk's (another bottom feeder of the "conservative" stripe) organization Turning Point and other laundries er, "conservative organizations," funds causes intended to further division, disruption and chaos among our citizenry?
Oh yes. We need to identify and impede him from making progress with his agenda. Put sand in his gears, sugar in his tank and a potato in his tailpipe.
If lunacy was easily dismissed, we wouldn’t find ourselves in our present situation. Red wine and blue (red wine.blue ) is a productive group to explore for community in responding to these types of threats.
Don’t agree that internet amplified hate speech should be free. I believe this was an expedient but an unwise court judgement.
This presents a conundrum: how to prevent doxing and incitement to violence that statistically harms, but clear cause and effect are too soft for convictions with our laws?
And on the other hand, how to protect freedoms of personal or victimless ‘life-style’ and religious choices which may offend and frighten people of different/opposing views?
Our too narrow legal exceptions to violent free speech are insufficiently enforced, and indeed, even if rigorously enforced, remain insufficient given the net real life IMPACT difference between modern recorded, amplified and globally distributed ’speech’, vs the evanescent spoken word and the sparsely distributed & mostly curated hard copy ‘speech’ that was the scope and original intent of the First Amendment in 1791.
It is impossible to ‘just change the channel’, particularly when the channel changes itself and the screen is in the hands of minors who are constantly notified about something they might miss.
Our current ‘free speech’ distribution screens are personally programmed to cater to the basest motives of a child’s id, not the mature superego or ‘the better angels of our nature’.
We elected America’s unhealthy id for president as a result of the attention economy’s ‘race to the bottom’.
I don’t agree with book banning, but I do agree with media and book curation for minors. One doesn’t teach kids that infidels must die, any more than we teach thou must not suffer a witch to live, even if such (non-representative) sentiments are written in our holy books.
If we can only do what Australia did, and protect kids from cell phone mediated commercial exploitation, that would be huge!
Not a lawyer, but regulation of violence inducing, hateful, and intentionally destructive discourse, and the internet amplification of the same, as is done in many (most?) EU nations, seems necessary for having a civil society that is not a race to the bottom for views and dopamine hits.
Yes, such laws DO require constant review and vigilance - exactly like the freedom it helps to preserve!
This vigilance IS the price of freedom.
And in the end, it is how one preserves freedom of speech.
This guy may seem to be a clown but then again look how a clown has taken over our government
Anyone calling themselves a pastor while actively supporting a criminal coup against the free world is nothing but another criminal and an abomination to the faith.
20 years ago, nutcases would stand on street corners and get ignored. Thanks to the internet, they get podcasts and funding. Is this progress?
Nice reporting PI.
The internet has changed our social and economic structure,
but unlike past changes the internet has caused these changes to happen faster than humans can handle.
Movies, Vhs, and dvd replaced by Netflix streaming.
Sears catalog replaced by Amazon.
Mail replaced by e-mail (package delivery is what keeps USPS alive)
The home phone replaced by the smartphone which is connected to the internet.
The change that people are not handling well is radio,tv,and newspapers being replaced by algorithms.
The algorithms customize the information for each person. The result is a fragmented reality and social division.
If the algorithms were limited to truth they would converge to one reality.
The algorithms are not bound by truth they are open to lies, and lies have multiple false realities.
The algorithms use the lies to capture people in multiple divisive false realities.
As long as Section 230 immunity exists the internet will use lies to divide people into false realities.
Section 230 immunity and an endless supply of money to steal via the adtech industry.
All around a lovely guy, no?!
Some people need to be checked out 😕 it clearly has to do with mental issues (inmate or conditioned) to be so adement against other people's humanity ...
What’s the point Judd is making here? imho Judd just informed us of more Billionaires trying to tell us what we should believe. Their views about what’s a Christian. Using their specific bible with so many versus that fit their narrative. Yet what they want most is chaos not discussion. They want persecution rather than understanding. What they like to show is how righteous they are but what they really want is to spread so much hate and division they get more control. Now armed with this knowledge we can handle another divider in a smarter manner.
Judd Thank You for the information. The more we know the better we push back and stay strong together.
Hate and division are the point. They are against America. They are confident that they hold the power and will prevail. Our fight has to be to oppose and defeat them.
How long before we find child porn on his computer? Seems like a logical outcome. He is an example that White Supremacy is no longer just white people, it is a might is right and by God, we know what is right! Forget the actual words of Jesus. Like the 10 Commandments. The right hates it when you point out that those are Jewish law.
These people want freedom of speech so they can be irresponsible.
Sadly, as Goebbels said "Democracy has the very tools with which to destroy it." The conservative/libertarian agenda in Project 2025 is using the very democratic tools to destroy America.
Our bureaucracy protects our democracy and is in fact our democracy. Destroy the bureaucracy and taking over the democracy is much easier. In Democracy In Chains, the radical right was disappointed the Reagan and both Bush presidencies did not go far enough and the heritage Foundation saw that the federal bureaucracy stood in the way of implementing their failed policies of the past. It is what Voght (sp) meant when he sadi "personnel is policy" in his chapter of Project 2025. America is fixing to find out that the democracy protecting bureaucracy is being replaced by a fascist bureaucracy set on trampling on the rights of others. Promising a bigger piece of a smaller and smaller pie or there will be more rights and liberty for a few and the law for the rest of us.
Hahahahaha! Yep. Who was that dude in N. Cackilakee (Carolina)? Hahaha! Had a "similar issue."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Robinson_(American_politician)#:~:text=Mark%20Keith%20Robinson%20(born%20August,Carolina%20from%202021%20to%202025.
You know, freedom of speech, and the old adage of: if you don't like what's being said, change the channel. This guy's words cannot harm you. So what? He's a bigot and when his daughter starts dating other women, he's a childless father. What goes around comes around.
Don’t agree that internet amplified hate speech should be free. I believe this was an expedient but an unwise court judgement.
Our too narrow legal exceptions are insufficiently enforced, and indeed, even if rigorously enforced, remain insufficient given the difference between modern recorded, amplified and globally distributed ’speech’, vs the spoken and hard copy ‘speech’ that was the scope and original intent of the First Amendment in 1791.
It is impossible to ‘just change the channel’, particularly when it changes itself and the screens are in the hands of minors.
Our current ‘free speech’ distribution screens are personally targeted to cater to the basest motives of a child’s id, not the mature superego or ‘the better angels of our nature’.
Sex, fear, appetites, conformity, …sell.
Proof: We elected America’s unhealthy id for president as a result of the attention economy’s ‘race to the bottom’.
Not a lawyer, but REGULATION of violence inducing, hateful, and intentionally destructive discourse, and the internet amplification of the same, as is done in many (most?) EU nations, seems NECESSARY for having a civil society that is not a race to the bottom for views and dopamine hits.
Yes, such laws DO require constant review and vigilance - exactly like the freedom it helps to preserve!
This vigilance IS the price of freedom.
And in the end, the preservation of freedom of speech also requires eternal vigilance and adjustment of judgment to cases.
Gotta say yours is a slippery slope. This pastor, while despicable, is not necessarily spewing hate speech, or perhaps better said, he believes he is right to speak against certain books' contents. Hate speech must accompany a crime to be criminal. I do not agree with him AT ALL but I do defend his right to speak.
As for Internet speech, that's way beyond whatever laws we have in place to protect free speech while determining what is unlawful. It is not a crime to lie, to spew, to rant, to opine in a disgusting manner. It is simply not unlawful. There are exceptions to the free speech clause but we need to be careful when we apply our own opinions on speech because we disagree with it.
Also, whatever algorithms that social media are using should be against the law, not the speech itself.
My suggestion is to stay off of social media, teach your children to do the same, and if you run into someone like this pastor, push back with your own speech. Otherwise, change the channel.
I do believe, however, that lying by elected officials to the general public should be against the law. Can we get that to the SCOTUS, please?
Good luck.
Number of good distinctions in your note, as I see them, Katy. And yes, management of harmful speech IS definitely a slippery slope, and perhaps infinitely complex, as may be applied moral judgment in general.
I would defend his right to speak IN TURN and within the framing for allowed community speech at these board meetings. But do not agree with a right to say ANYTHING he feels if it imposes on the rights of others.
Agree with the principle “hate speech must be accompanied by [I might say, credibly linked to] a crime to be criminal”. But I would argue that the statement by a king, “Who will rid me of this meddlesome priest?” was inciting speech accompanied by a culpable death - just as was Jan. 6.
These are crimes: murder, manslaughter, reckless endangerment, and each may be a speech crime.
But the intentional and systematic hijacking of these school board settings for ends of his own, and the subsequent misrepresentations he is said to employ, and massively disseminate, should not be tolerated by these school boards, or the American public, or the courts.
He SHOULD (my view) be sued and held liable for his actions (disorderly conduct / harm to the educational process) and perhaps be held statistically liable for a share of his harmful speech (misrepresentation / and threatening incitement ) particularly in all subsequent cases of violence against teachers/librarians/school board members on this matter, until he equally publicly (/#views) has retracted and apologized for such threats and incitement.
Liability should accrue as well to the platforms that fund or amplify his tirades to get views, and especially to vendors who target intolerant content toward participants of intolerant echo chambers. Time to end Section 230.
‘More free speech’ is no longer a sufficient antidote to amplified, personalized, targeted hateful or intolerance inciting free speech. If it EVER was, which I doubt! One corollary of the law of entropy is that it is MUCH easier to destroy trust, than to earn or inspire it. And government (and civilization itself) is built on trust AND trustworthiness.
From the maths of reciprocal altruism it is clear that a population of would-be altruists that is unable to identify AND ostracize and reject the ‘cheaters’ in their midst, will NOT prevail or continue to exist.
The cheaters will ‘rise to the top’ evolutionarily, displacing the altruists, since cheaters share equally in the benefit of the synergistic society, but do not carry the burden of doing their fair share.
It is a sad but true fact that identification and exclusion of such ‘cheaters’ from society cannot be done without error. Nevertheless it must be pursued. [A very strong ‘tell’ that someone is a ‘cheater’ is a hugely disproportionate magnitude of their assets to their number.]
A community and a society must have standards that it enforces;since those are the only standards that persist. These standards are the empirical definition of that community- or nation.
It is not the U.S. Constitution that defines us, it is our enforcement (& non-enforcement) of our principles that defines us.
Free speech that threatens or incites violence, even if that violence is only statistically linked, is criminal. &, Should be criminally enforced.
If one has a million viewers and one makes a public statement that 1 person in 10 thousand understands to be an order to kill, one is liable for 100 deaths - 100 murders if you imagined this result, or should have- even if that 1 in ten thousand might be crazy, psychotic, & off their meds.
When one has an audience of a million, even more than when one pilots an airliner of ‘400 souls’, one has constraints on one’s freedom to say whatever one feels in the moment. With greater power one has greater responsibility to not cause harm by one’s speech. Also, one is liable when one does.
Yes, the remedy is in the courts.
But let's all focus on the bigger problem with regard to our kids: the algorithms of social media. The AG of Washington DC filed a lawsuit this week against TikTok and you know what? It makes me have faith that people are awake and thinking instead of being distracted by bloat boy and his monkey. Read this from the filing:
"Child and adolescent brains, which lack the impulse control of adults, are particularly susceptible to exploitation through the desire, reward, and reinforcement system that endless scrolling provides. To get users hooked on the app, TikTok uses a dopamine-inducing algorithm that spoon-feeds users highly tailored videos to keep them trapped on the platform for hours on end. TikTok capitalizes on young users’ heightened risk of online financial exploitation, deploying an illegal virtual currency layered with cartoon characters and appealing graphics that are intended to get them to spend money without adequate safeguards in place."
Jesus wept.
So true.
I seriously doubt this clown can get much traction. Humans, by and large are tribal and react poorly or not at all to a guy with a foreign sounding name screaming and hollering. If he has an accent people will be even more resistant. School voucher programs are far more dangerous to our democracy than this bible toting doofus. What school boards ought to be doing is asking if science should be dropped from the school curriculum. You see, you can have the bible or you can have science.
If this guy can't confine his remarks to items on a board's agenda, boards should simply have him escorted out. Sure, it'll generate some viral video, but school boards are neither legally nor morally obligated to let their proceedings be hijacked by a narcissistic, sanctimonious pecksniff.
Youth pastors are notorious child predators....I can give you hundreds of examples. Maybe this dude doth protest too much? Just asking.
He's a pedo through and through. He protests too much.
If you find and share his schedule sounds like a great opportunity for some protests.
This is why we can't have nice things, like civil school board meetings ...or democracy.
Techbro billionaires build their machines to maximize "engagement" by pushing hate-filled, divisive ragebait like this. So, of course, conmen (like Amanchukwu) arise to provide the content and grifters (like Kirk) monetize it.
This would all disappear if the tech platforms were properly regulated - and if the adtech industry weren't such an opaque, corrupt money mill.
As always: Follow the money.
So, who cuts this miscreant's checks for real and funneling the money through Charlie Kirk's (another bottom feeder of the "conservative" stripe) organization Turning Point and other laundries er, "conservative organizations," funds causes intended to further division, disruption and chaos among our citizenry?
Can we find that dude and get him?
If by "get" you mean cut off his funding, I'm all in.
Oh yes. We need to identify and impede him from making progress with his agenda. Put sand in his gears, sugar in his tank and a potato in his tailpipe.
If lunacy was easily dismissed, we wouldn’t find ourselves in our present situation. Red wine and blue (red wine.blue ) is a productive group to explore for community in responding to these types of threats.
Don’t agree that internet amplified hate speech should be free. I believe this was an expedient but an unwise court judgement.
This presents a conundrum: how to prevent doxing and incitement to violence that statistically harms, but clear cause and effect are too soft for convictions with our laws?
And on the other hand, how to protect freedoms of personal or victimless ‘life-style’ and religious choices which may offend and frighten people of different/opposing views?
Our too narrow legal exceptions to violent free speech are insufficiently enforced, and indeed, even if rigorously enforced, remain insufficient given the net real life IMPACT difference between modern recorded, amplified and globally distributed ’speech’, vs the evanescent spoken word and the sparsely distributed & mostly curated hard copy ‘speech’ that was the scope and original intent of the First Amendment in 1791.
It is impossible to ‘just change the channel’, particularly when the channel changes itself and the screen is in the hands of minors who are constantly notified about something they might miss.
Our current ‘free speech’ distribution screens are personally programmed to cater to the basest motives of a child’s id, not the mature superego or ‘the better angels of our nature’.
We elected America’s unhealthy id for president as a result of the attention economy’s ‘race to the bottom’.
I don’t agree with book banning, but I do agree with media and book curation for minors. One doesn’t teach kids that infidels must die, any more than we teach thou must not suffer a witch to live, even if such (non-representative) sentiments are written in our holy books.
If we can only do what Australia did, and protect kids from cell phone mediated commercial exploitation, that would be huge!
Not a lawyer, but regulation of violence inducing, hateful, and intentionally destructive discourse, and the internet amplification of the same, as is done in many (most?) EU nations, seems necessary for having a civil society that is not a race to the bottom for views and dopamine hits.
Yes, such laws DO require constant review and vigilance - exactly like the freedom it helps to preserve!
This vigilance IS the price of freedom.
And in the end, it is how one preserves freedom of speech.