Showing posts with label truth revolt. Show all posts
Showing posts with label truth revolt. Show all posts
Thursday, July 16, 2015
Canada:misandric hellhole
A Canadian man, Gregory Elliott, faces six months in jail for having a disagreement with feminists on Twitter. He has been charged with criminal harassment.
The case involves two feminists (originally it was three) who claim they were harassed in 2012 by Elliott on Twitter. They are currently in court in Toronto. One of the complainants, Stephanie Guthrie, met with Elliott three years ago to interview him about working for her organization "Women in TO politics." But according to The Toronto Star, Guthrie was "creeped out" by the man and said he was "really intense" and so she decided not to hire him.
Court documents show that the two remained cordial through e-mail correspondence after their meeting and also continued their casual relationship via social media for almost 10 months. But things took a turn when Guthrie went after an online video game that allowed players to virtually punch the face of a feminist blogger. She joined other feminists who made it clear they wanted to publicly shame the game's creator. Guthrie had written on Twitter: “I want his hatred on the Internet to impact his real-life experience."
Seeing this message, Elliott reacted creating the hashtag #FascistFeminists and attacked their viewpoints, without once being threatening or violent. Yet, he was arrested in November of 2012, fired from his job, and now faces jail time.
In court this last week, Guthrie rolled her eyes during cross-examination by Elliott's attorney who asked about her "left-leaning politics." He then asked, "Why would you roll your eyes at a trial where my client faces serious charges of criminal harassment?" She said she didn't see the relevancy of such a question.
Source
Tuesday, November 11, 2014
Lena Dunham persecutes conservative group over book that Dunham wrote
From Truth Revolt:
Liberal Hollywood actress and darling of Planned Parenthood, Lena Dunham, is gunning for the Freedom Center and Truth Revolt --- and now I urgently need your help to build up our legal defense fund.
You might have read about it on the Drudge Report or seen it in The Hollywood Reporter, The Daily Mail, the Los Angeles Times, or People Magazine or any other mainstream media outlet...
Leftwing Hollywood feminist Lena Dunham is threatening to sue Truth Revolt and the David Horowitz Freedom Center, because we wrote an article in which we quoted her book, Not That Kind of Girl!
Who is Lena Dunham, you may wonder? She is the New Hot Thing-a leftist actress who is the darling of the liberal media; who has been one of Obama's most rabid backers; who has been in America's face as a supporter of what she calls "reproductive rights" and "female sexuality"; and who teams up with groups such as Emily's List and Planned Parenthood to try to tilt the playing field in favor of leftwing causes.
She's also a best selling author whose new book causes the flesh to crawl because, among other things, of the way it describes her relationship with her younger sister. This part of Not That Kind of Girl caught our eye, which is why we described it, using Dunham's own words, in Truth Revolt.
Without going into detail, I'll just say that it's very disturbing, especially coming from someone who has presented herself as so very progressive and such a critic of sexual abuse --- and in particular, a spokesperson against the right's fictitious War on Women.
Whether you want to call what Dunham wrote an admission of sexual abuse or just a very progressive view of sibling relations is up to you. What is not up for debate is that she wrote some bizarre and graphic passages that Truth Revolt quoted -- and the next thing we knew, we had a letter from her attorney, threatening suit for defamation.
In his "cease-and-desist" letter, Dunham's lawyer stated "Our client intends to vigorously pursue all possible legal remedies available to her . . . Remedies available to my client include, without limitation, actual damages to her personal and professional reputation which likely would be calculated in the millions of dollars [plus] punitive damages." The letter demanded that the story be immediately removed.
The letter also stated: "Demand is further made that you immediately print a prominent public apology and retraction at all media whereat you published the Story, stating that the Story is false, that you regret having published it, and that you apologize to Ms. Dunham and her family for having published it."
We refused to comply with these demands. In response to the attorney's threat, we stated: "We refuse. We refuse to withdraw our story or apologize for running it, because quoting a woman's book does not constitute a "false" story, even if she is a prominent actress and leftwing activist. Lena Dunham may not like our interpretation of her book, but unfortunately for her and her attorneys, she wrote that book - and the First Amendment covers a good deal of material she may not like."
Our lawyer advises us that we have a strong legal defense, based on the First Amendment, and we fully expect to prevail. But the costs of defending a case are high, and now we could be facing $250,000 in legal defense costs-a negligible sum for someone like Dunham, but a serious expense for us.
So can we count on your emergency, tax-deductible donation of $25, $50, $100 or more to start building or legal defense fund right now?
Lena Dunham is a very public figure that stars and directs the HBO show "Girls." She has made a career out of shocking her audiences and exploiting her celebrity to push hard-left causes. Her book is certainly fair game, as are questions about her sickening conduct with regard to her sister. That is what the First Amendment is for and what it protects.
Truth Revolt criticized Dunham. Dunham fired back on Twitter, and her sycophants in the media covered for her. But she didn't stop there. She decided, as leftists often do, that to silence critics is more appealing than simply utilizing her own freedom of speech under the First Amendment. People like Dunham want to be as "provocative" and "edgy" as they choose. But when anyone calls them on their conduct they want to unplug the microphone.
So, she ordered her attorney to issue this letter threatening suit. If she does sue, the Freedom Center and Truth Revolt are prepared to go to the wall in defense of free speech. Lawsuits can be incredibly expensive, especially when the other side is a major entertainer with millions in the bank and fellow Hollywood leftists urging her to silence a fearless conservative publication like Truth Revolt. But we will do what needs to be done to protect the First Amendment.
And we need you to help us.
We have to raise $250,000 immediately to fund our legal defense fund. We have to be able to tell Dunham and all the other leftists who try to shut Truth Revolt down to bring it on. We're not backing down, we stand by the truth, and we'll see them in court.
That's why we're asking you to stand with us today as we begin building our legal defense fund by making an emergency donation of $25, $50, $100 or more.
Thank you for standing with the Freedom Center, Truth Revolt and the freedom of speech.
Liberal Hollywood actress and darling of Planned Parenthood, Lena Dunham, is gunning for the Freedom Center and Truth Revolt --- and now I urgently need your help to build up our legal defense fund.
You might have read about it on the Drudge Report or seen it in The Hollywood Reporter, The Daily Mail, the Los Angeles Times, or People Magazine or any other mainstream media outlet...
Leftwing Hollywood feminist Lena Dunham is threatening to sue Truth Revolt and the David Horowitz Freedom Center, because we wrote an article in which we quoted her book, Not That Kind of Girl!
Who is Lena Dunham, you may wonder? She is the New Hot Thing-a leftist actress who is the darling of the liberal media; who has been one of Obama's most rabid backers; who has been in America's face as a supporter of what she calls "reproductive rights" and "female sexuality"; and who teams up with groups such as Emily's List and Planned Parenthood to try to tilt the playing field in favor of leftwing causes.
She's also a best selling author whose new book causes the flesh to crawl because, among other things, of the way it describes her relationship with her younger sister. This part of Not That Kind of Girl caught our eye, which is why we described it, using Dunham's own words, in Truth Revolt.
Without going into detail, I'll just say that it's very disturbing, especially coming from someone who has presented herself as so very progressive and such a critic of sexual abuse --- and in particular, a spokesperson against the right's fictitious War on Women.
Whether you want to call what Dunham wrote an admission of sexual abuse or just a very progressive view of sibling relations is up to you. What is not up for debate is that she wrote some bizarre and graphic passages that Truth Revolt quoted -- and the next thing we knew, we had a letter from her attorney, threatening suit for defamation.
In his "cease-and-desist" letter, Dunham's lawyer stated "Our client intends to vigorously pursue all possible legal remedies available to her . . . Remedies available to my client include, without limitation, actual damages to her personal and professional reputation which likely would be calculated in the millions of dollars [plus] punitive damages." The letter demanded that the story be immediately removed.
The letter also stated: "Demand is further made that you immediately print a prominent public apology and retraction at all media whereat you published the Story, stating that the Story is false, that you regret having published it, and that you apologize to Ms. Dunham and her family for having published it."
We refused to comply with these demands. In response to the attorney's threat, we stated: "We refuse. We refuse to withdraw our story or apologize for running it, because quoting a woman's book does not constitute a "false" story, even if she is a prominent actress and leftwing activist. Lena Dunham may not like our interpretation of her book, but unfortunately for her and her attorneys, she wrote that book - and the First Amendment covers a good deal of material she may not like."
Our lawyer advises us that we have a strong legal defense, based on the First Amendment, and we fully expect to prevail. But the costs of defending a case are high, and now we could be facing $250,000 in legal defense costs-a negligible sum for someone like Dunham, but a serious expense for us.
So can we count on your emergency, tax-deductible donation of $25, $50, $100 or more to start building or legal defense fund right now?
Lena Dunham is a very public figure that stars and directs the HBO show "Girls." She has made a career out of shocking her audiences and exploiting her celebrity to push hard-left causes. Her book is certainly fair game, as are questions about her sickening conduct with regard to her sister. That is what the First Amendment is for and what it protects.
Truth Revolt criticized Dunham. Dunham fired back on Twitter, and her sycophants in the media covered for her. But she didn't stop there. She decided, as leftists often do, that to silence critics is more appealing than simply utilizing her own freedom of speech under the First Amendment. People like Dunham want to be as "provocative" and "edgy" as they choose. But when anyone calls them on their conduct they want to unplug the microphone.
So, she ordered her attorney to issue this letter threatening suit. If she does sue, the Freedom Center and Truth Revolt are prepared to go to the wall in defense of free speech. Lawsuits can be incredibly expensive, especially when the other side is a major entertainer with millions in the bank and fellow Hollywood leftists urging her to silence a fearless conservative publication like Truth Revolt. But we will do what needs to be done to protect the First Amendment.
And we need you to help us.
We have to raise $250,000 immediately to fund our legal defense fund. We have to be able to tell Dunham and all the other leftists who try to shut Truth Revolt down to bring it on. We're not backing down, we stand by the truth, and we'll see them in court.
That's why we're asking you to stand with us today as we begin building our legal defense fund by making an emergency donation of $25, $50, $100 or more.
Thank you for standing with the Freedom Center, Truth Revolt and the freedom of speech.
Sunday, October 20, 2013
Anti-male article from Time magazine
One of the most pernicious biases in the media is the bias against men. Time today published a piece by Jeffrey Kluger titled: “Women Make Better Doctors Than Men.”
In a new report released by the University of Montreal, investigators found that women outperformed men on certain metrics of patient care.
Kluger suggests, ironically, that the difference may be due to some of the oldest stereotypes of the sexes.
It’s possible the female doctors were simply more willing to devote more time to their patients.
No fear, though, because no anti-male, sexist article can be complete with out a bit of ageism thrown in for good measure.
…there’s hope for improvement. The younger the doctors in their study were, the narrower the divide between the sexes, suggesting that hurry-up male doctors are aging out of the system, being replaced by a newer, gentler generation.
One need not wonder whether a similar story might have appeared in Time had the results been inverted. A quick search of the Time online archives reveals the following titles:
"Women at the Auto Repair Shop: Better at Haggling, Yet More Likely to Get Ripped Off" – a piece that celebrates women for being good at shopping, and then blames men for their failure to protect themselves from being ripped off.
"Do Women Make Better Traders than Men?"
"What Stereotype? Women Are Better Than Men at Parking, Study Finds"
"Why Women Are Better at Everything"
"Study: Women Better at Using Social Media to Keep in Touch"
"Survey: Women More Satisfied With the College Experience"
All of these titles return on the first page of results. The search criteria: men better than women!
Not surprisingly, there were no exact returns for that criteria.
Source: click here
More bullshit at Crime uh er Time Magazine. Watch them become irrelevant. The same irrelevancy that the New York Times was looking at. In fact it got so bad at the NYT that they had to actually print genuine news stories without the usual liberal bias. They were looking at their finances going into the red. The same will happen with Time Magazine: it's either sink or swim.
In a new report released by the University of Montreal, investigators found that women outperformed men on certain metrics of patient care.
Kluger suggests, ironically, that the difference may be due to some of the oldest stereotypes of the sexes.
It’s possible the female doctors were simply more willing to devote more time to their patients.
No fear, though, because no anti-male, sexist article can be complete with out a bit of ageism thrown in for good measure.
…there’s hope for improvement. The younger the doctors in their study were, the narrower the divide between the sexes, suggesting that hurry-up male doctors are aging out of the system, being replaced by a newer, gentler generation.
One need not wonder whether a similar story might have appeared in Time had the results been inverted. A quick search of the Time online archives reveals the following titles:
"Women at the Auto Repair Shop: Better at Haggling, Yet More Likely to Get Ripped Off" – a piece that celebrates women for being good at shopping, and then blames men for their failure to protect themselves from being ripped off.
"Do Women Make Better Traders than Men?"
"What Stereotype? Women Are Better Than Men at Parking, Study Finds"
"Why Women Are Better at Everything"
"Study: Women Better at Using Social Media to Keep in Touch"
"Survey: Women More Satisfied With the College Experience"
All of these titles return on the first page of results. The search criteria: men better than women!
Not surprisingly, there were no exact returns for that criteria.
Source: click here
More bullshit at Crime uh er Time Magazine. Watch them become irrelevant. The same irrelevancy that the New York Times was looking at. In fact it got so bad at the NYT that they had to actually print genuine news stories without the usual liberal bias. They were looking at their finances going into the red. The same will happen with Time Magazine: it's either sink or swim.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)