#FreedomofExpression

[planet-gay-comic]

Cheeky Boys in the Wintergarden Waves of Freedom A Journey through the Evolution of Sexual Morality from Art Nouveau to Late Modernism

The development of sexual morality in the 20th century is a fascinating journey from strict societal norms to an era of personal freedom and self-expression. From Art Nouveau to the vibrant decades of the 60s, 70s, 80s, and 90s, we witnessed an impressive evolution in the perception and practice of sexuality and individual expression.

Art Nouveau - A New Aesthetic Emerges: Art Nouveau not only brought about a change in art and design but also ushered in a relaxation of traditional sexual morals. During this era, there was a growing interest in human sexuality and a subtle challenge to societal taboos, along with a new body consciousness, in an effort to move away from the prudish and rigid Victorian era. A notable feature of Art Nouveau was its association with the Roman Baths, which became a meeting place for people of different sexual orientations. In the Roman Baths, individuals of all sexual preferences came together without inhibition, creating an atmosphere of tolerance and openness. This ambiance contributed to Art Nouveau often being seen as a precursor to the sexual revolution of the 60s.

The 60s and 70s - The Age of the Sexual Revolution: The next decades brought an explosive change in sexual morality in the Western world. The 60s brought a new wave of sexual freedom with the Hippie movement and the introduction of the birth control pill, but that was just the beginning.

In the 70s, growing awareness and increasing acceptance led to a more open attitude toward diverse sexual identities and orientations. This time was marked by the emerging LGBT movement, advocating for the rights and visibility of lesbians, gays, bisexuals, and transgender individuals.

In the 80s and 90s, clubs and discos reached their peak as places of freedom and expression. Iconic songs like "YMCA" by the Village People and "We Are Family" were not only hits but also anthems of the LGBT community, which found a safe and accepting environment in these establishments. Concurrently, the first gay saunas emerged, serving as safe havens and meeting places. The sexual revolution of this era was characterized by an openness and diversity that continues to shape the LGBT movement to this day and represents an important part of the history of sexual liberation.

The evolution of sexual morality in the 20th century tells a story of freedom and progress. From the subtle beginnings of Art Nouveau to the exuberant freedom of the late modern era, these changes reflect the ongoing struggle for personal freedom and the acceptance of different lifestyles.

Text supported by Chat-GPT-4.0 These image is generated with StableDiffusion v1.5. The poses and the backround were obtained with ControlNet v1.1.410 via open pose. Faces and background overworked with composing and inpainting.

[illuminatingfacts]

The will of the people is the only legitimate foundation of any government, and to protect its free expression should be our first object. – Thomas Jefferson ✨

[thehetrophobe]

they won't ever stop. no matter how much we scream. no matter how many of us fall dead. no matter what we put in TV or books. we aren't humans to their understanding. we're savages, villains, deviants of God's order.

Perhaps it's time we start acting like it.

g

[tmarshconnors]

Rushdie’s Attacker Deserved Life.

In a world that pretends to value freedom of speech, how do we respond when someone tries to stab it to death literally?

This week, Hadi Matar, the man who brutally attacked Sir Salman Rushdie on stage in New York in 2022, was sentenced to 25 years in prison. And frankly, it’s not just disappointing it’s a travesty. A mockery of justice. 

A slap in the face to every writer, every thinker, every freedom loving citizen who believes that you don’t get to kill someone because you didn’t like their book.

Let’s not forget the facts: Rushdie was stabbed repeatedly on stage, in broad daylight, at a public literary event. The man nearly died. He lost the sight in one eye. And all of this why? Because three decades ago, he wrote a novel that offended the sensibilities of some extremists. So, someone tried to carry out a fatwa as if it were still the Middle Ages.

And now, this attacker, this coward, gets 25 years?

We Should Be Outraged

This isn’t just about Salman Rushdie. This is about a principle. When someone attempts to assassinate an author for exercising free speech, the punishment should match the crime not be a glorified sabbatical in prison.

Where is the deterrent in this? Where is the clear, moral message that we in the West supposedly stand for that ideas are not crimes, and that physical violence in response to art is evil?

The courts called it attempted murder. But I call it attempted censorship by terrorism, and the sentence should reflect the gravity of that. Life in prison isn’t too harsh it's the bare minimum.

A Society of Cowards

Here’s the hard truth: we’re losing our moral backbone. Instead of boldly defending freedom of expression, we’ve become too cautious, too apologetic, too afraid of being labelled “insensitive.” And so, we allow cowardly acts like this to be underpunished, all in the name of “balance” or “fairness.” There is nothing fair about a man like Rushdie living the rest of his life half-blind while his attacker will one day walk free.

Rushdie’s very existence has always stood as a line in the sand: the moment we stop defending him, we lose that line. And that line is Western civilisation’s backbone.

What Should’ve Happened

What the judge should have said was simple: “You attacked a man for words. You tried to kill freedom itself. You will spend the rest of your natural life behind bars, because that’s what it costs when you try to bring darkness to the light of civilisation.”

Instead, we got 25 years. And with parole, good behaviour, and the inevitable human rights lawyers getting involved, it could be far less.

Final Thought

We either believe in free speech, or we don’t. There is no middle ground. And when someone tries to murder an author on a stage for doing his job, and we respond with a light slap on the wrist… what are we even defending anymore?

We need courage. We need clarity. And we need leaders and judges who remember what civilization actually means.

[hindusforhumanrights]

First They Came for the Comedians": Kunal Kamra and the Silencing of Satire in Modi’s India

After facing backlash and censorship for a political parody, comedian Kunal Kamra responds with a bold new satire video on March 25th. Read how Kamra’s comedy is challenging free speech suppression in India. Learn More

[0illuminated1]

Find Premium Content on Patreon https://www.patreon.com/c/Illuminatedforhire In this video, I’m diving into the reality of the censorship industrial complex and how it’s impacting content creators like me. After experiencing a dramatic drop in views on YouTube, I suspect my channel is being shadowbanned due to the sensitive and controversial nature of the topics I cover. Rather than fight against the system, I’ve decided to pivot and move some of my content to a more private platform: Patreon. This gives me the freedom to create and share ideas without algorithmic limitations. I’ll be sharing deeper, more exploratory content with fewer restrictions, focusing on the topics I’m passionate about. I’m also asking for your support during this transition. If you appreciate my content and want to see more, consider joining me on Patreon for exclusive access and to help me continue sharing these important ideas without fear of censorship. If you don’t see the link to my Patreon yet, please keep an eye out for it soon—big things are coming, and I promise we’ll be breaking new ground together! Tags: censorship, shadowban, content creation, YouTube algorithm, censorship industrial complex, Patreon, new direction, exclusive content, deeper discussions, conspiracy theories, philosophical content, controversial topics, freedom of speech, content creator journey, alternative platforms, breaking new ground, truth seekers, uncensored content

[rockinjohnny]

It’s Even WORSE Than We Thought!

[executive-orders]

Restoring Freedom of Speech and Ending Federal Censorship (EO 14149)

Source: https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2025-01902

The executive order titled "Restoring Freedom of Speech and Ending Federal Censorship" issued by President Donald Trump on January 20, 2025, reflects a significant policy shift aimed at addressing perceived overreach by the federal government in the realm of free speech, particularly on digital platforms. Here are some key insights:

Purpose and Background:

The order explicitly criticizes the previous administration for allegedly using coercive measures to control speech on social media platforms under the pretext of fighting misinformation, disinformation, and malinformation. This reflects a narrative of government overreach that was a significant talking point in Trump's political rhetoric.

Policy Objectives:

Protection of Free Speech: The order mandates that no federal officer or employee should engage in or facilitate actions that infringe upon First Amendment rights. This is rooted in a strong stance on constitutional rights to free expression.

Resource Allocation: It prohibits the use of taxpayer resources for censorship activities, aligning with conservative views on government spending and public trust in governmental actions related to speech.

Implementation and Accountability:

Investigation into Past Actions: The Attorney General is tasked with investigating past government actions that might have curtailed free speech. This includes looking into interactions with social media companies, which could lead to policy changes or even legal actions against government officials or agencies.

Legal and Practical Implications:

Legal Constraints: The order acknowledges that it does not inherently grant new rights or benefits legally enforceable against the government, suggesting that any enforcement would likely depend on existing legal frameworks or new legislation.

Operational Challenges: Implementing this order would require a nuanced understanding of where government influence ends and private company autonomy begins, especially in an era where misinformation can have real-world consequences.

Political and Social Impact:

Political Messaging: This order serves as a strong political statement, reinforcing Trump's image as a defender of free speech and critic of "big tech" censorship, appealing to his voter base who value these principles.

Social Media and Public Discourse: It could lead to less government interaction with social media platforms regarding content moderation, potentially affecting how misinformation is handled online but also possibly leading to an increase in unchecked speech.

Future Actions:

The order calls for a report with recommendations for remedial actions, which could result in policy changes, new guidelines for government interaction with private entities, or even legislative proposals to further protect free speech.

This executive order, if fully implemented as intended, could reshape how free speech is managed in the digital age, emphasizing a hands-off approach from the government in content regulation, while still navigating the complex interplay between freedom of speech and public safety or misinformation. However, its effectiveness would largely depend on how clearly these boundaries are defined and adhered to by both government and private entities.

Analysis of Executive Order 14149 in Relation to United States Law

Constitutional Basis:

First Amendment: The core of this order is rooted in the First Amendment, which prohibits the government from abridging the freedom of speech. The order explicitly aims to reinforce this constitutional right by ending what it describes as federal censorship.

Legal Interpretation of Speech: The order's reference to "misinformation," "disinformation," and "malinformation" touches on a nuanced area of First Amendment law. The Supreme Court has generally held that the government cannot regulate speech based on its content unless it falls into certain unprotected categories (like incitement, defamation, or true threats).

Policy Implications:

Government Coercion of Private Entities: The order addresses the issue of government influence over private companies (like social media platforms) to censor speech. This is legally complex because while the government itself is constrained by the First Amendment, private entities are not. However, if government action can be shown to coerce private censorship, this might be considered an unconstitutional state action.

Resource Allocation: The directive in Section 2(c) to ensure no taxpayer resources are used for unconstitutional speech abridgement aligns with the constitutional mandate but could complicate existing programs or initiatives aimed at combating misinformation if they are perceived as censorship.

Legal Precedents and Challenges:

Precedent on Government Influence: Legal precedents like Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan (1963) suggest that government coercion of private entities to censor content can be seen as state action under the First Amendment. This executive order might be seen as an attempt to preempt or address such concerns.

Investigation and Remediation: The Attorney General’s role in investigating past actions (Sec. 3(b)) could lead to legal proceedings or policy changes. However, proving unconstitutional government conduct would require substantial evidence of coercion or direct government involvement in censorship.

Implementation Challenges:

Interagency Coordination: Effective implementation would require coordination across federal agencies to ensure compliance, as seen in Section 4(a). This might involve revising existing policies or guidelines on how agencies interact with private entities regarding content moderation.

Legal Boundaries: The order must navigate the fine line between protecting free speech and maintaining national security or public safety, areas where government has traditionally had some leeway to regulate speech.

Potential Legal Actions or Challenges:

Challenges from Affected Parties: If this order results in changes that impact how misinformation is handled, there could be legal challenges from parties who believe their rights or interests are compromised, either in terms of free speech or in combating misinformation.

Judicial Review: The order's effectiveness and legality might eventually be tested in court, particularly if there are claims of overreach or if the order leads to significant policy shifts in government interaction with private platforms.

Conclusion:

Executive Order 14149, while clearly aimed at reinforcing First Amendment rights, enters a legally contentious area regarding the balance between free speech and government's role in information dissemination. Its success in law will hinge on how it's implemented, how agencies interpret its directives, and how courts view the balance between free speech and other governmental interests.

Evaluation of the Effect of Executive Order 14149 on the Spreading of Misinformation, Disinformation, and Malinformation

Potential Reduction in Government-Driven Censorship:

Positive Impact: By explicitly prohibiting federal agencies from engaging in or facilitating censorship, the order could reduce instances where the government pressures platforms to suppress information. This might lead to a broader range of voices and perspectives on platforms, potentially including those previously labeled as misinformation.

Negative Impact: Without government oversight, there might be less structured intervention in combating false information. This could inadvertently allow more misinformation to proliferate if platforms become more cautious or less aggressive in content moderation due to perceived government withdrawal.

Impact on Platform Responsibility:

Increased Responsibility for Platforms: With less perceived governmental pressure, social media platforms might have to take more independent action or develop more robust, transparent policies for dealing with misinformation. This could lead to:

Improved Tools: Platforms might invest more in AI and community guidelines to manage content without government influence.

Potential Inconsistency: Without uniform government guidance, different platforms might handle similar content differently, leading to varied user experiences across platforms.

Public Trust and Information Ecosystem:

Trust in Information: The order might increase public skepticism or trust depending on one's view:

Skepticism: Critics might argue that this could lead to an information environment where false narratives flourish unchecked, reducing trust in digital information sources.

Trust: Proponents might see it as a step towards a more open discourse, where the public can better engage with a variety of viewpoints to discern truth.

Educational Impact: There might be an increased focus on media literacy as both individuals and institutions recognize the need for better public discernment of information.

Legal and Policy Implications:

Legal Clarity: The order could potentially lead to clearer legal guidelines or lawsuits defining the boundaries of free speech versus misinformation control, especially in cases where misinformation leads to harm.

Policy Shifts: Federal agencies might need to adjust how they communicate or engage with the public on issues like public health or national security, where misinformation can have significant consequences.

International Considerations:

Influence Abroad: The U.S. setting such a precedent might influence other countries' policies on information control, potentially affecting global norms on free speech and misinformation.

Cross-Border Information: Misinformation often transcends national boundaries, and this order might complicate international efforts to coordinate responses to global disinformation campaigns.

Long-term Effects on Public Discourse:

Polarization: While aiming to protect free speech, the order might inadvertently increase polarization if unchecked misinformation fuels extreme viewpoints without counter-narratives.

Innovation in Information Sharing: There could be a push towards new forms of communication or platforms that prioritize veracity, possibly leading to innovations in how information is disseminated and verified.

Conclusion:

Executive Order 14149 could significantly alter the landscape of information control by reducing direct government involvement in content moderation. While this might promote a broader spectrum of free speech, it also poses challenges in managing the spread of false information. The ultimate effect will depend on how platforms, the public, and other institutions adapt to this new policy environment, balancing the right to free speech with the need to maintain an informed public.

[firuzkutal]

#20January

[reexrco]

Jestem wolna od oczekiwań. Nie będę się zamykać w żadnych ramach. Jestem po prostu sobą."

"Życie to nie konkurs na idealność. To przestrzeń, gdzie każdy ma prawo być sobą, w pełni. 🌟"

"Ciało to sztuka, a my jesteśmy w niej tą najpiękniejszą paletą. 🌸👑 Nagość? To tylko forma wyrażania siebie, niczym wiatru dotykające skórę w letni dzień. Niczego nie trzeba ukrywać, niczego się nie wstydzić. W tej przestrzeni nie chodzi o ciała, tylko o dusze, które nie boją się pokazać całej swojej mocy."

"Ciało nie jest czymś, co trzeba ukrywać. Jest częścią naszej podróży. I zasługuje na szacunek. 💛"

"Ciało to tylko jedna z wielu form, w jakich istnieje nasza dusza. Nieważne, jak wygląda. Ważne, jak się czujesz. 🌸"

[latestnews-now]

Hollywood’s beloved Scream star Melissa Barrera faced backlash after speaking up for Palestine, resulting in her firing from Scream 7. In a raw interview, she shares the emotional toll, fan reactions, and her journey of resilience. Watch her inspiring story and join the conversation!

[monteage-official]

On this National Press Day, let us salute the guardians of truth and freedom! 📰✨ Wishing all journalists the strength to keep inspiring and informing. 📢💬

[technmaket360]

✈️ California Women Removed From Flight for Wearing Crop Tops: Reports 👚🚫

In a shocking turn of events, two women were reportedly removed from a flight due to their crop tops! 😲 What should’ve been a normal flight turned into a major controversy over dress codes and personal freedom. 🤔 What do you think about this incident? Is it fair, or an overreach? ✈️👗

👉 Read more here: California Women Removed From Flight for Wearing Crop Tops: Reports 🔗

#FlightDrama #DressCodeDebate #CropTopControversy #CaliforniaNews #FreedomOfExpression #TravelNews #TechNMarket360 #ViralStories #TrendingNow #NewsUpdate #WomenEmpowerment

[tmarshconnors]

“It is the characteristic of the revolutionary to be always on the alert, always suspicious of those in power.”

Jean-Paul Marat was a French political theorist, physician, and scientist. A journalist and politician during the French Revolution, he was a vigorous defender of the sans-culottes and a radical voice, publishing his views in pamphlets, placards, and newspapers.

Born: 24 May 1743, Boudry, Switzerland

Assassinated: 13 July 1793, Paris, France

Radical Journalist and Revolutionary Jean-Paul Marat was a fiery political activist who used his newspaper, L'Ami du peuple ("The Friend of the People"), to incite the masses against the French monarchy and later the revolutionary government’s perceived enemies. His radical views often called for violent action against the aristocracy and anyone opposed to revolutionary ideals.

The Champion of the Sans-Culottes Marat was a staunch advocate for the sans-culottes, the working-class revolutionaries who made up the backbone of the French Revolution. He believed they were the true defenders of the Revolution and should have a greater role in shaping the new French government.

A Doctor Turned Revolutionary Marat was originally trained as a physician. He used his medical background in his early years, but after moving to Paris, he became increasingly involved in politics. His pamphlets and political writings made him one of the most influential figures in the Revolution.

A Martyr to His Cause Marat’s radicalism eventually led to his assassination by Charlotte Corday, a Girondist sympathizer, on July 13, 1793. She believed his fiery rhetoric and calls for violent retribution were detrimental to the Revolution. Marat’s death turned him into a martyr for the radical cause.

A Controversial Legacy While Marat is remembered as a hero by some for his radical defence of the people and his role in the Revolution, his legacy is highly controversial. His violent calls for bloodshed and his part in the Reign of Terror have made him a figure of both admiration and condemnation. He remains a symbol of the uncompromising spirit of revolutionary zeal.

[hindusforhumanrights]

Hindus for Human Rights Condemns Attempts to Intimidate Human Rights Activist Nadeem Khan

On November 30, 2024, Delhi Police attempted to detain Nadeem Khan, a prominent human rights activist and the National Secretary of the Association for the Protection of Civil Rights (APCR), at his brother’s residence in Bengaluru without presenting a valid warrant or legal notice.  Learn Full Story- https://www.hindusforhumanrights.org/en/blog/hindus-for-human-rights-condemns-attempts-to-intimidate-human-rights-activist-nadeem-khan