Meaning political speech CANNOT be selectively banned.

By Isabelle Z. | Natural News | Sept. 9, 2018

As the internet continues to enable people to bypass in-person social interaction, savvy tech execs are doing their best to make people feel like they are somehow not missing out on face-to-face conversations. In this spirit, Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey called the platform a “public square” while speaking before Representatives and Senators this week.

Although those of us familiar with actual public squares might find the comparison far more metaphorical than literal, he appeared committed to the idea, repeatedly referring to it as a “public square” and a “digital public square” before the House Energy and Commerce Committee and the Senate Intelligence Committee.

That wording could come back to haunt him, however, as Twitter continues to ban people because of the comments they post to the site. That’s because the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution explicitly protects speech and expression in the public square – even when said public square happens to be under private ownership.

The 1946 Supreme Court ruling in Marsh v. Alabama set the precedent, as Breitbart’s Allum Bokhari points out. It stands to reason, therefore, that as a public square under private ownership, Twitter must protect its users’ First Amendment rights. Moreover, banning speech on the platform that has been afforded constitution protection violates the First Amendment. This means that Twitter should not be the arbiter of what people are allowed to say there, although individual users could decide what they’d rather not see using filters.

Of course, it’s not just Twitter acting this way; they were actually one of the last platforms to ban the controversial radio host Alex Jones after a coordinated suspension was carried out by YouTube, Facebook and Apple a few weeks ago.




After treading carefully initially, Twitter issued a permanent ban to Jones’s accounts as well as that of his show, InfoWars, this week for what the company says are violations of their abusive behavior policies.

In a series of tweets, the official Twitter Safety account wrote: “We took this action based on new reports of Tweets and videos posted yesterday that violate our abusive behavior policy, in addition to the accounts’ past violations,” the company said in a series of tweets.

It appears they also plan to go after those who are affiliated with Jones, tweeting: “We will continue to evaluate reports we receive regarding other accounts potentially associated with @realalexjones or @infowars and will take action if content that violates our rules is reported or if other accounts are utilized in an attempt to circumvent their ban.”

In his speech before Congress – which Jones himself attended – Dorsey said that the purpose of Twitter is to “serve the public conversation.” He said that it must support “free and open discussion” – but apparently that doesn’t apply if you’re a strong far-right voice.

Will social media platforms be held accountable for their conservative bias?

Ultimately, legislators suggested greater scrutiny was in order when it comes to social media companies, with Senator Mark Warner of Virginia calling for an end to “the era of the Wild West in social media.” As allegations of a conservative bias continue – even President Trump has accused Google of silencing conservative voices – Attorney General Jeff Sessions said he planned to meet with a number of state attorney generals to address whether such firms are stifling free speech intentionally.


Contributed by Isabelle Z. of NaturalNews.com


SHARE:

By Ethan Huff | Natural News | August 31, 2018

Having trouble these days finding the information you’re looking for online? It could be the result of search engine censorship, as mega-platforms like Google are increasingly moving conservative and other “non-PC” content to latter search result pages – if it even pulls up this content at all – while blatantly prioritizing liberal and official “fact-checked” content to the front page.

A recent experiment by Paula Bolyard from PJ Media proved this, as she found that while searching for the term “Trump” on Google, a shocking 96 percent of the results were negative, linking back to liberal, Trump-hating fake news outlets that routinely bash the President.

Google claims that it doesn’t alter search results to push any specific agenda like this, but Bolyard’s test results prove otherwise. On the first page, for instance, she observed that there were two anti-Trump articles from fake news giant CNN, another from The Atlantic, and a slew of others from CBS News, The New Yorker, Politico, Reuters, and USA Today.

Missing from Bolyard’s “Trump” search were any hits about the positive things that the President is doing to bring jobs back to America, end globalist policies that hurt American families, and restore order and decency to everyday American life. Instead, it was all just hit pieces, slander, and “the sky is falling” nonsense in relation to the President.

“I expected to see some skewing of the results based on my extensive experience with Google, but I was not prepared for the blatant prioritization of left-leaning and anti-Trump media outlets,” writes Bolyard. “Not a single right-leaning site appeared on the first page of search results.”




CNN is BY FAR the most common Google result when searching for “Trump”

Bolyard went on to conduct an analysis on the top 100 items that Google pulls up when searching for “Trump,” and what she found is even more indicting. By far, the most common news source that comes up in Google searches for “Trump” is CNN articles, capturing 21 percent of Google’s search results.

CNN is followed by both The Washington Post and NBC, which each capture 11 percent – meaning that CNN, The Washington Post, and NBC together occupy a whopping 43 percent of the top Google search results for the term “Trump.”

Following these are CNBC at eight percent, The Atlantic at five percent, Politico at five percent, The New York Times at five percent, Vox at four percent, and CBS as three percent. Together, all of these left-leaning news outlets make up 73 percent of Google’s search results output for “Trump.”

Meanwhile, popular conservative news outlets like the National Review, The Weekly Standard, Breitbart, The Blaze, PJ Media, The Daily Wire, Hot Air, Townhall, Red State and others were nowhere to be found in the top 100 search results for “Trump.”

The only even halfway neutral news outlets that had a place in Google’s search results for “Trump” were The Wall Street Journal and Fox News, which capture three hits and two hits, respectively. This means that less than five percent of what Google turns up for the search term “Trump” has anything even remotely positive to say about the President.

Bolyard conducted the experiment multiple times on multiple different computers and platforms, only to arrive at the same conclusion: Google is intentionally censoring conservative content, and really any content that supports our President and highlights the many good things that he’s doing in the interest of our country.

“As more and more people turn to Google and other social media outlets for their news, it may not be hyperbolic to suggest that the biases inherent in human-created algorithms have the potential to affect the fate of democracy,” Bolyard writes.

“With all the talk and hand-wringing about fake news and bad foreign actors using social media outlets to attempt to manipulate election results, far too little attention has been paid to power brokers like Google, Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube and their ability – and perhaps even desire – to manipulate public opinion and shape the world into their own Silicon Valley image.”

Be sure to read Bolyard’s full analysis of Big Tech censorship at PJMedia.com.


Contributed by Ethan Huff of NaturalNews.com


SHARE:

By Tim Brown | Freedom Outpost | August 22, 2018

Fox News has now begun to engage in propaganda against Infowars host Alex Jones, claiming that he was operating a pirate radio station that was shut down by the FCC and misrepresenting what he actually said on several occasions.

Whether you like Alex Jones or not is pretty irrelevant to what is being done to the man via social media and now by the media.  Some of you may be surprised that Fox News engages in this propaganda, but it’s been going on for years on their network.  Don’t think just because they have some people you share views with that the network is either really conservative or constitutional.

Jones breaks down exactly what took place in this short piece, courtesy of Real.Video.

The Fox News clip is then played at the end of it and sure enough, Jones is right.  Not only did they lie about it being Jones’ radio station, which FCC chairman Agit Pai even said the station was merely broadcasting Alex Jones, but they lied about things he said, editing clips completely out of context.

Furthermore, they continually use the term “conspiracy theorist” to Alex Jones to try and discredit him by using that in a similar manner to how Communists use the term “racist.”  It’s ironic as Fox News pieces together their own conspiracies, and rightly so, about Obama, Clinton, Lynch and Holder, as well as others, and now Comey, Mueller and McCabe in new scandals, but somehow, those aren’t conspiracies.

A conspiracy simply implies that at least two people work together to achieve an end.  Clearly, this took place in something as recent as the New Mexico jihadi camp where someone authorized its destruction and someone carried it out.  That’s a conspiracy!

Theories begin to develop due to lack of transparency and information, whether right or wrong, but one thing is for sure, the media is scared of Alex Jones and it isn’t just the mainstream.

Fox News is not the only so-called “conservative” outlet that has gone after Alex Jones.  Several months ago, I posted vital information regarding a memo about NSA abuses.

SECRET FISA BLUEPRINT DOCUMENT RELEASED! READ IT HERE!

RELEASED FISA DOCUMENT SHOWS NSA VIOLATIONS OF LAW IN QUERIES OF US PERSONS

At that time, these were posted at FreeRepublic.com.  One would think they would be welcomed, but FreeRepublic.com, which I supported financially, removed all of them, and even kicked me off the site because I simply referenced Alex Jones’ Infowars as the source.

Here’s what I got from the moderators there.

So, if you referenced Infowars with credible information, FreeRepublic is “having none of it.”  So much for “free,” and I know they cry about freedom of speech there.  In fact, they have allowed entire posts of mine to be posted in full without permission.  When I asked why they would pull something that exposed the crimes of the federal government, I got this.

And when I challenged that as Nazi-style censorship, I got this.

In any case, the point is that you cannot trust so-called conservative news and other sites to actually uphold free speech.  Yes, sites like FreeRepublic.com are privately owned, but they take in roughly $90,000 every quarter from donors, of which I was one of them.

Sadly, the owner had a problem with me making mention of one of his posters posting my column in full without permission while the poster was blasting me for carrying articles from others that I have written permission to carry on the sites I edit.  Here’s what he had to say.

Now, that sounds like today’s conservative, doesn’t it?

The point I’m making is that both of these outlets have it in for Alex Jones and Infowars.  To his credit, whether you like him or not, Jones has broke major stories that neither Fox News nor FreeRepublic would dare even look in the direction without using the dreaded “conspiracy theory.”

Friends, when someone cries “conspiracy theorist,” just set your mind to think of the Communists who cried “racist.”  The attempt is the same:  They want to shut you down.  Don’t let them.


Contributed by Tim Brown of FreedomOutpost.com

Tim Brown is an author and Editor at FreedomOutpost.com, SonsOfLibertyMedia.com, GunsInTheNews.com and TheWashingtonStandard.com. He is husband to his “more precious than rubies” wife, father of 10 “mighty arrows”, jack of all trades, Christian and lover of liberty. He resides in the U.S. occupied Great State of South Carolina. . Follow Tim on Twitter. Also check him out on Gab and Steemit


SHARE:

By Mac Slavo | SHTFplan | August 20, 2018

In a not-so-shocking interview with CNN, Twitter’s CEO Jack Dorsey admitted that social media has a left-leaning bias. But Dorsey claims that Twitter doesn’t ban over ideology, it will ban or “shadowban” over a user’s “behavior.”

“The real question behind the question is, ‘Are we doing something according to political ideology or viewpoints?’ And we are not. Period. We do not look at content with regards to political viewpoint or ideology. We look at behavior,” Dorsey said according to The Washington Post. 

What makes that statement by Dorsey completely wrong (if not a bold faced lie) and extremely disingenuous, is the fact that Twitter has “shadowbanned” many conservatives over ideology while ignoring the “bad behavior” of leftists, likey because they agree ideologically and politically. And they aren’t the only social media platform that’s taken this approach. Facebook has also suspended conservatives for posting the vile hate-filled messages they’ve received from leftists while allowing the left to continue to threaten and harass those who aren’t left-leaning.

The Death Of Free Speech: Twitter Ramps Up CENSORSHIP Of ‘Hate Facts’

The Death Of Free Speech: Twitter Ramps Up CENSORSHIP Of ‘Hate Facts’

Twitter is banning conservatives and others who don’t subscribe to the leftist mentality plaguing social media.  Using the excuse that people are posting “hate facts,” the social media outlet is just shutting down accounts that post any truth that doesn’t fare well for the liberal agenda.

SHTF Plan – When It Hits The Fan, Don’t Say We Didn’t Warn You

46

Comments

WordPress Embed HTML Embed

The Death Of Free Speech: Twitter Ramps Up CENSORSHIP Of ‘Hate Facts’

Copy and paste this URL into your WordPress site to embed

“We need to constantly show that we are not adding our own bias, which I fully admit is more left-leaning,” Dorsey said. “And I think it’s important to articulate our own bias and to share it with people so that people understand us. But we need to remove our bias from how we act and our policies and our enforcement.”

Dorsey’s comments come amid a growing debate over how tech companies influence public discourse by censorship and banning based on their own political bias. Apple, Facebook, YouTube, and Spotify have taken aggressive steps against right-leaning talk show host and Alex Jones for violating their “hate speech” policies. All Jones really is guilty of, is stating an opinion that those in charge disagree with and offering a different view than the “official narrative” we are being brainwashed into accepting, even when there are red flags and many unanswered questions. Spotify, Facebook, and YouTube removed Jones from their platforms, and Apple followed suit by removing the majority of podcasts published by Jones’s website, Infowars, from iTunes and its podcast apps.

Eerie Censorship Precedent: Big Tech Proves Alex Jones’ Motto Correct

In an interview with The Washington Post last week, Dorsey said he is rethinking core parts of Twitter to curb the spread of hate speech, harassment, and false news (news he disagrees with). He also told The Post that he’s experimenting with new features that would allow people to see alternative viewpoints and reduce “echo chambers.”

“I think people see a faceless corporation . . . They don’t assume that humans are in it, or that they’re genuine or authentic,” Dorsey told CNN. “They just assume based on what the output is. And that’s on us. That’s on me.”

We’ll see.  So far, social media has done away with free speech by purging their platforms of those who spout political opinions that are disagreeable to the left. The whole “fake news” frenzy is nothing more than a way to silence those who don’t conform to the ideology the left deems acceptable.  Anything that’s disagreeable becomes fake giving the left adequate reasoning to silence, censor, and ban.  And it’s all being done to the raucous cheers of those who are willing to become slaves to the government in an increasingly authoritarian regime. They say history repeats itself…

“The things that are going to be blocked are not going to be fake stories. The things that are going to be blocked and censored, the things they are going to keep from people is going to be stuff they just don’t want you to focus on or know about.” – Melissa Dykes


Contributed by Mac Slavo of SHTFplan.com


SHARE:

By Kurt Nimmo | Another Day in the Empire | August 17, 2018

Both Matt Drudge and Alex Jones are responsible for motivating the disenfranchised to vote for Donald Trump. Now that Trump’s the imperial president—a narcissistic version of George W. Bush—it’s up to MAGA media to support the agenda, even if that agenda is markedly different than what he told us while on the campaign trail.

For instance, this morning Drudge posted an article from April warning that Iranian sleeper cells are “operating across the United States mostly unfettered, raising concerns in Congress and among regional experts that these ‘sleeper cell’ agents are poised to launch a large-scale attack on the American homeland, according to testimony before lawmakers,” writes Adam Kredo for The Washington Free Beacon.

Drudge posted a link to this ancient article directly below one pointing to an article on MEMRI’s “Cyber & Jihad Lab” website. The article centers on an Instagram post by Gen. Qassem Soleimani, commander of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps. Soleimani posted a graphic of himself standing before the White House as it explodes. “We will crush the USA under our feet,” the text in Farsi reads.

MEMRI, short for the Middle East Media Research Institute, is basically an Israeli intelligence operation designed to portray Islam as a threat to humanity. It handpicks articles from Arab and Persian media and translates these into Hebrew, English, Chinese, German, Japanese, Spanish, Polish, French, Italian, and Russian. MEMRI maintains offices in Washington, D.C., Jerusalem, Tokyo, Shanghai, Berlin, and London. It was founded by Meyrav Wurmser and Yigal Carmon. Wurmser is the wife of former Dick Cheney adviser David Wurmser, a staunch neocon. Carmon is MEMRI’s president. He is a former colonel in the Israeli military intelligence.

MEMRI is strictly a neocon organization. Current and former board members include Elliott Abrams, Steve Emerson, Bernard Lewis, Elie Wiesel, Gen. Michael V. Hayden, Jose Maria Aznar, Donald Rumsfeld, James Woolsey, John Bolton, John Ashcroft, Ehud Barak, Mort Zuckerman, Michael Mukasey, Norman Podhoretz, William Bennett, Christopher DeMuth (former president of the American Enterprise Institute), Paul Bremer, Herb London (president of the Hudson Institute), Natan Sharanksy, James Q. Wilson, Alan Dershowitz, Richard Holbrooke, Jack Kemp, Jeanne Kirkpatrick, and Irving Kristol.

Now we have Matt Drudge peddling neocon propaganda ahead of an attack on Iran. He might try being “fair and balanced” and link to an article explaining the real history of Iran and the Middle East. For instance: “Overthrow: 100 Years of U.S. Meddling and Regime Change, From Iran to Nicaragua to Hawaii to Cuba,” or hundreds of other articles showing how the US has overthrown and attempted to overthrow dozens of governments since the creation of the national security state and the CIA in the late 40s.

Now that Trump—a geopolitical ignoramus—is in office and the neocons are once again driving US foreign policy, it is time to realize the final objective in regard to Iran. The neocons want to do an Iraq repeat.

And Matt Drudge is here to help by spreading baseless propaganda about Revolutionary Guard sleeper cells in America. The New York Times and The Washington Post draw in the liberals—pro war in that Democrat sort of way—and Drudge is responsible for propagandizing the alt or New Right. Both sides want to annihilate Iran and make sure the neighborhood is safe for Israel and its apartheid system.

So now we have both sides of a manipulated political arrangement calling for war. In fact, the US has been at war since the Islamic Revolution in the late 1970s. Trump recently reaffirmed the neocon plan for Iran.

I’m not hearing MAGA types complaining a whole lot about this. Most support Trump unconditionally—including his wars and fawning love of all things military.

In short, the alt-right or New Right have embraced the neocons. I’m not hearing many complain about John Bolton as national security adviser. We hear a lot about Jared Kushner, Trump’s Jewish son-in-law, but little about his connection to the Israeli Likudniks and their ultra-violent and racist settler allies.

Trump engages in a sword dance with fossilized medieval Saudi kings—long known to support terrorism—and while more than a few complained about this, the majority of the MAGA crew took it in stride while mouthing Islamophobic slogans and calling for Muslims to be deported or refused entry into the United States.

They’re also not interested in putting an end to the shameful behavior of the Trump administration as it helps the Saudis kill Yemeni school children and wedding party guests.

Soleimani’s Instagram post was not a wise move. It allows Trump and his neocons—with the help of Drudge and other neocon friendly MAGA types—to spread the same sort of lies they did in the lead up to the illegal invasion of Iraq (resulting in the murder of 1.5 million people).

It is entirely possible Iran has sleeper cells in America waiting for activation, although there isn’t any conclusive evidence of this.

The US declared economic war on Iran forty years ago following the overthrow of the Shah—installed by the CIA in 1953—and now with the declared noninterventionist Donald Trump in office, an actual attack seems more likely than ever.

Let’s call out Drudge and the MAGAites. If they don’t denounce Trump’s neocons and demand he live up to his noninterventionist rhetoric, it is entirely fair to say they’re neocon-lite, although the neocons hate them.


Contributed by Kurt Nimmo of Another Day in the Empire.

Kurt Nimmo has blogged on political issues since 2002. In 2008, he worked as lead editor and writer at Infowars, and is currently a content producer for Newsbud.


SHARE: