It isn’t only Muslims striving to impose sharia tyranny on the West. Even Twitter has joined in.
As Andrew McCarthy notes,
[T]he top agenda item of Islamic supremacists has long been the imposition of sharia blasphemy standards on the West. This campaign is not waged exclusively or even primarily by violent jihadists. Instead, its leading proponents are the Muslim Brotherhood’s network of Islamist activist groups in the West and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (a 57-government bloc of, mainly, majority-Muslim countries).
It is also waged by treasonous Islamophiles among the liberal ruling class.
[T]he Obama administration — particularly the president and his former secretary of state, Hillary Clinton — has colluded with them. So have other left-leaning governments and institutions that are naturally hostile to free speech and open debate. One prominent result … is U.N. Human Rights Council Resolution 16/18. This blatantly unconstitutional provision, co-sponsored by Obama, Clinton, and OIC members, calls on all nations to ban speech that could promote mere hostility to Islam. Essentially, this is a codification of sharia, which prohibits all expression that subjects Islam to critical examination.
How can we defend ourselves against ever-encroaching Islam if we are not allowed to say anything that Islamists deem to be unsupportive of their expansionist ideology?
That anyone purporting to or aspiring to represent the American people would go along with this would have been unthinkable prior to Hope & Change. But by now we are accustomed to treason at the highest levels of government.
The jihad also has support from the private sector, now including Twitter.
Twitter has announced new regulations on content communicated via its social-networking service. They are prohibitions on speech similar in effect to Resolution 16/18. As usual, this is shrewdly done under the guise of suppressing “hate” speech. In fact, the regulations cast a much wider net that potentially calls for the suppression of political and educational speech.
Twitter effectively equates “hate speech” with violence, then goes even further by prohibiting the promotion of “sensitive topics.” The policy applies (but is not limited to) “advocacy against” an individual, organization, or group that has “protected status.” Since 9/11, no status is more protected under the rules of political correctness than Muslim status.
Anything that could put Islam in a bad light — i.e., most any truthful information about Islam — violates the policy, which goes further still by banning “inflammatory content which is likely to evoke a strong negative reaction.”
But it’s still okay to tweet about gardening and crochet.
Here’s a remarkable coincidence:
One of the prime movers in the campaign to impose Islamic blasphemy standards and other aspects of sharia law on the West is Saudi Arabia. In 2011, Prince Alwaleed bin Talal — a prominent member of the Saudi royal family with a prodigious record of buying up and influencing Western media and educational institutions — ponied up $300 million to purchase Twitter stock. By the end of 2015, bin Talal had doubled his investment in Twitter: His stake now has a market value of approximately $1 billion, good enough for a 5 percent share.
The First Amendment does not apply to private services like Twitter, unlike sharia, which when fully imposed will apply to every conceivable aspect of existence.
Twitter is however subject to the laws of the free market, which will banish it to obscurity if the new restrictions are imposed to the fullest extent.
On tips from Torcer and Stormfax.