patrick.net

" https://twitter.com/ClownWorld/status/1671460771811979264 "

Patrick says
" https://twitter.com/ClownWorld/status/1671460771811979264 "

From the link...

Student kicked out of class for stating a fact. 'There are only two genders.' In fact, every human being has a biological mother and father!

In this school evidently the inmates are running the asylum.

'There are only two genders.'

Some of the language from the school supports the view. For instance, the student handbook says at one point that all aspects of education “must be fully open and available to members of both sexes” and at another point says that sexual harassment is defined as … “written materials or pictures derogatory to either gender.”

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/wearing-shirt-saying-there-are-only-two-genders-not-protected-speech-rules-obama

Biden's Propaganda Job Creation Chart Was Fact-Checked, And Then the Note Disappeared

"Biden's Propaganda Job Creation Chart Was Fact-Checked..."

Judge Delivers Major Blow to Biden Admin in Social Media Censorship Case
https://www.theepochtimes.com/judge-delivers-major-blow-to-biden-admin-in-social-media-censorship-case_5373891.html?utm_source=share-btn-copylink

A federal judge has made a historic ruling by partially granting an injunction that blocks various Biden administration officials and government agencies like the Justice Department and the FBI from working with big tech firms to censor posts on social media.

The injunction came in response to a censorship-by-proxy lawsuit brought by attorneys general in Louisiana and Missouri, who have accused Biden administration officials and various government agencies of pressuring social media companies to suspend accounts or take down posts.

The judge, Terry A. Doughty, wrote in the July 4 judgment (pdf) that various government agencies, including the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Agency (CISA), the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the U.S. Department of State, the Department of Justice (DOJ), and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) are prohibited from taking a range of actions with regards to social media companies.

Specifically, the agencies and their staff members are prohibited from meeting or contacting by phone, email, text message or “engaging in any communication of any kind with social-media companies urging, encouraging, pressuring, or inducing in any manner for removal, deletion, suppression, or reduction of content containing protected free speech,” per the injunction.

The agencies are also barred from flagging content on posts on social media platforms and forwarding them to the companies with requests for action such as removing or otherwise suppressing their reach.

Encouraging or otherwise egging on social media companies to change their guidelines for the removal, suppression, or reduction of content that contains protected free speech by the government is also not allowed.

⚖️ The Missouri v. Biden case delivered another magnificent win yesterday when the judge entered a most remarkable blockbuster order — entered on Independence Day, when federal courts are closed. Make of that what you will.

Here’s how the state-affiliated Washington Post headlined the story:



Haha, the sub-headline explained the decision will “upend years of efforts to enhance coordination between government and social media companies.” As if that were a bad thing. At least they’re admitting it happened now.

The decision will upend years of efforts all right — efforts to censor Americans on social media.

To remind you, I have often called Missouri v. Biden the most important civil rights case in our generation, our version of Brown v. Board of Education or something. In the case, several State Attorneys General sued the Biden Administration and a long list of deplorable Administration officials over their systematic social media censorship.

The case has already uncovered tons of significant details explaining exactly how the censorship scheme worked, such as through Facebook’s private web portal giving government censors the convenient ability to put folks in directly social media jail, do not pass “Go,” without having to bother reporting anything. Discovery in the case also revealed the massive extent of cooperation between social media companies and government actors involving dozens of agencies and hundreds or thousands of federal employees.

But yesterday, the government’s gravy train derailed in Louisiana, spilling hazardous “misinformation” all over the tracks.

After spending a year wisely developing the evidence, the States’ attorneys had moved for an injunction against the government’s censorship machine. Litigation ensued, and yesterday the judge entered its remarkable order granting the injunction and forbidding the government from working with social media companies except in three limited cases (national security, criminal matters and deliberate elections interference).

In his 155-page opinion, the judge wrote that the State attorneys general had “produced evidence of a massive effort by Defendants, from the White House to federal agencies, to suppress speech based on its content.”

Effective immediately, the government and social media companies may no longer enforce information litmus tests on anything other than those limited areas, such as in the case of scientific orthodoxy. They can no longer be official arbiters of what is deemed “information” or “disinformation” related to, say, a pandemic virus. The order also forbids the government from working with so-called “academic groups” that have been colluding with federal officials to suppress conservative speech.

So, of course The Washington Post thinks it’s the worst thing ever. It quoted cherry-picked Stanford Law School assistant professor, Evelyn Douek, who darkly warned, “The injunction is strikingly broad and clearly intended to chill any kind of contact between government actors and social media platforms.”

Silly professor. The Constitution forbids the GOVERNMENT from chilling CITIZEN’S speech, not the other way around. Read it again.

There’s obviously a lot in the 155-page order, and to be honest I haven’t finished reading it yet. I can’t imagine how long it took the judge to write this book-length judgement. But it was clear from the get-go, from the other Supreme Court cases he cited, that the judge was not impressed with the government’s argument they are protecting the public from the bad ideas of stay-at-home moms and school board critics...

This is an only preliminary injunction, and will end when the case ends. But it’s still important. In order to grant an injunction, the Court must find that the plaintiffs are substantially likely to win the case. So in that sense, the Court is strongly hinting that, based on what he’s seen so far, he is likely to find that the Biden Administration violated Americans’ First Amendment guarantees.

Yesterday, Judge Terry Doughty of the Western District of Louisiana issued a preliminary injunction that - in essence - tells the White House and much of the executive branch to stop bothering social media companies over opinions and reporting and other content they carry.

Judge Doughty’s ruling doesn’t violate the federal government’s own First Amendemnt rights to speak.

It doesn’t say the White House can’t use Facebook or Twitter. it doesn’t say the White House can’t express its own views on vaccines or Russia or other issues as forcefully as it likes. It doesn’t say that law enforcement agencies can’t go after child pornography or terrorist threats on social media.

What it says is government must end its aggressive and growing censorship and quasi-censorship complex - and whose reach and power Judge Doughty details in the 155-page memorandum supporting the injunction.

What is says is that if speech is legal and protected by the First Amendment, social media platforms have the right to carry it, and the federal government must stop telling them not to do so. ...




... This genius of this vision it that is simple, clear, easy to understand, and obviously should apply equally whether Democrats or Republicans are in power.

Maybe I’m too hopeful, but I think that within a few months public opinion even on the left will have shifted hard against these unconstitutional efforts. I’m hopeful we will shake our heads over the fact that senior federal and law enforcement officials ever thought they could tell social media companies what opinions to carry.

I’m hopeful we will look at this censorship episode like World War 2 interment camps for Japanese-Americans - as a terrible, unconstitutional, never-to-be-repeated mistake.

And if we do, the power and clarity of Judge Doughty’s opinion will deserve a lot of the credit.

Biden Admin Appeals Injunction Preventing It From Coordinating With Social Media To Suppress Speech

As time passes and the coronavirus pandemic recedes further and further into the past, it's becoming increasingly clear that there is little chance anyone will be held accountable for the colossal blunders, the infringement on our rights, and the incalculable damage done to our children as a result of the government's COVID policies. Yet in a sea of unpunished abuses of power, there was some good news last week, in the form of an injunction issued by a federal judge in Louisiana.

And that's fake Biden again. Look at the forehead.

" https://dailycaller.com/2023/07/05/biden-admin-appeals-injunction-preventing-it-from-coordinating-with-social-media-to-suppress-speech/ "

WaPo:

One day after a Louisiana federal judge set limits on the Biden administration’s communications with tech firms, the State Department canceled its regular meeting Wednesday with Facebook officials to discuss 2024 election preparations and hacking threats, according to a person at the company.

State Department officials said all future meetings, which had been held monthly, have been “canceled pending further guidance,” said the person, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to preserve working relationships. “Waiting to see if CISA cancels tomorrow,” the person added, referring to the Department of Homeland Security’s Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency.

The person at Facebook said they presumed similar meetings the State Department had scheduled with other tech companies also were canceled, but that could not be confirmed immediately. Representatives for the State Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment. CISA declined to comment, referring questions to the Justice Department, which did not immediately respond. Representatives for Google, which owns YouTube, and other social media companies also did not immediately respond.

MENLO PARK, CA — In an exciting announcement, Facebook/Meta founder Mark Zuckerberg unveiled his new social media app Threads which will not only compete with Twitter but also give the government a new platform it can actively censor.

"With Threads, our doors are always open to government agencies looking to suppress speech. This is an exciting day for the thought police!" Zuckerberg said at the launch announcement. "Since Elon Musk bought Twitter, our overlords have been limited in their ability to censor ideas and discussions on that platform. It's time to bring back the good old days of government censorship and biased content guidelines. That's what Threads is all about!"

Threads launched with great fanfare and had already reached over 15 million users in its first 12 hours. Reports quickly began circulating that conservatives were being censored, letting Zuckerberg and his development team know their goal had been met. "It's a great feeling to bring partiality and imbalance back to social media," Zuckerberg hissed after darting his long, sticky tongue out to catch and devour a nearby cricket. "If there's anything a social media community should be, it's an exercise in total uniformity of thought without any differing views. This is a vision Meta shares with the federal government."

Government officials were eager to see the app grow in popularity. "Without any pesky conservatives or free speech policies, this social media platform will be able to flourish," said a source within the U.S. intelligence community who asked to remain anonymous. "It's nice to have the chance to roll our sleeves back up and get back to the work of telling people what they can and can't say or think."

At publishing time, former President Donald Trump had been notified that he was banned from Threads before he even created an account.

A U.S. federal judge has revealed that Big Tech giant Facebook censored one of Tucker Carlson’s videos in response to a demand from Democrat President Joe Biden’s White House.

The video, in which Carlson discussed Covid vaccines, was “shadowbanned” by Facebook, meaning it was hidden from other users but without the immediate knowledge of the person who posted it.

The news comes as more information emerges about the Biden admin’s efforts to censor the speech of the American people by using Big Tech companies as a proxy.

As the Daily Caller reported, Judge Terry Doughty issued an injunction over the White House’s efforts to censor their own citizen’s speech by getting Big Tech platforms like Facebook to do so.

Doughty issued an order to block the Biden admin from communicating with any social media companies.

While it would be a violation of the First Amendment to censor the American people, the Biden admin believed it could skirt the Constitution by pressuring Big Tech firms to silence people instead.

Lancet Preprint Showing COVID-19 Vaccine Responsible for 74% of Deaths - REMOVED!
A preprint review of 325 autopsies found that COVID-19 vaccine was the cause of death in 73.9% of the cases - 24 hours later the study was removed.

Meta's Twitter clone launches, immediately censors anyone with unapproved thoughts

💉 After the blaze of interest in the new Paul Alexander / Peter McCullough autopsy preprint that went online Wednesday, the Lancet fled the kitchen yesterday, and took their blockbuster study right back down.

You have to move fast these days to keep up.

Curiously, having been taken down, the article is receiving even more attention now than it was getting before. So.

https://notthebee.com/article/document-shows-the-white-house-pressuring-facebook-to-censor-tucker-carlson-for-vaccine-hesitancy

The White House emailed Facebook to ask the company to censor Tucker Carlson because he voiced independent thoughts about the vax

Good news!

Wall Street Journal ran an op-ed yesterday headlined, “Covid Censorship Proved to Be Deadly.” The sub-headline explained “Government and social-media companies colluded to stifle dissenters who turned out to be right.”

Being a stifled dissenter myself, I was glad to see it in print, even if just in the editorial section.

The author sensibly pointed out that forbidding doctors from recommending effective alternative treatments and hiding the fact of recovered immunity is not only unethical and droolingly moronic but led to countless preventable deaths:

Legions of doctors stayed quiet after witnessing the demonization of their peers who challenged the Covid orthodoxy. A little censorship leads people to watch what they say. Millions of patients and citizens were deprived of important insights as a result… Excess mortality in most high-income nations was worse in 2021 and 2022 than in 2020, the initial pandemic year. Many poorer nations with less government control seemed to fare better. Sweden, which didn’t have a lockdown, performed better than nearly every other advanced nation.

The article quoted Nobel Prize-winning physicist Richard Feynman, who in 1969 famously said “Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.” Truer words were never spoken. So I guess all us of contrarians were doing science all along. Who knew.

Gosh. How many times over the last three years have I written about the dangers of ceding decision-making to experts? Historically, “experts” as a class were only supposed to INFORM our decision making, not MAKE decisions for us. That key historical distinction seems utterly lost on our friends from the left, and our present woeful circumstances constitute the best evidence of why we’ve never before put “experts” in charge of anything.

One editorial is not enough, not by a long shot, but it’s a start. Even though corporate media is still valiantly trying to defend official “disinformation censorship,” the truth, like water, keeps relentlessly finding ways to seep out. And — we aren’t seeing too many full-throated defenses of pandemic policy, are we?

Tick, tock, experts.

" https://twitter.com/toadmeister/status/1676931177674862592 "

Yesterday, not surprisingly, the Judge in the Missouri v. Biden case denied the government’s motion to stay the injunction forbidding it from censoring Americans. He’s being careful; he typed up a well-drafted, thirteen-page order. In this new order, in showing that the government was likely to lose, Judge Doughty provided examples of clear censorship from each of the following federal agencies: the White House, the Surgeon General and his staff, the CDC, the NIAID, the FBI, the CISA, and the State Department.

The government’s misconduct was so widespread, one wonders what the federal government was doing during the pandemic apart from censoring Americans.

Sometimes it only takes reading one sentence in an order to tell which way the Court plans to go. Here’s that one sentence from this order:

CISA Director Jen Easterly views the word “infrastructure” [expansively] to include our “cognitive infrastructure,” which deals with the way people acquire knowledge and understanding.
Easterly’s remark was not just a throwaway line. CISA is part of Homeland Security, which has jurisdiction over the Nation’s “critical infrastructure.” Easterly meant that “cognitive infrastructure” — our collective brains and the thoughts in them — are part of the country’s critical infrastructure and thus subject to HomeSec oversight and control.

Orwell himself would never have believed that a real, unelected, unaccountable government official said something that sinister.




Federal court rules required the government to try to seek a stay from Judge Doughty first. Now that he’s denied the stay, they can try again at the Fifth Circuit. As I’ve noted before, the Plaintiffs picked possibly the very best circuit in the country to bring this once-in-a-lifetime civil rights case, since the Fifth Circuit was reliably pro-freedom during the difficult cases of the pandemic. ...

Haha, while the government’s lawyers in Missouri v. Biden were busy arguing that no censorship occurred, in a recent podcast interview, Meta/Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg admitted straight out that government censorship went too far and undermined trust in the institutions. In part:

“There hadn’t been time to vet a lot of the scientific assumptions, and, you know, unfortunately I think a lot of the kind of establishment on that, um, kind of waffled on a bunch of the facts, and you know, asked for a bunch of things to be censored, that in retrospect wound up being more debatable, or true, and that stuff is really tough, right, and really undermines trust.”

Zuck didn’t say, not explicitly, but WHO has the juice to ask Facebook “for a bunch of things to be censored?” It wasn’t my Aunt Sally. Unless Jen Easterly is my Aunt Sally. Which she isn’t. So.

Taibbi: Newest Twitter Files Shows Twitter ‘Immediately’ Took Down Accounts FBI Requested Without Investigation Based on False Charges

Federal Agencies Can Start Censoring Again: A 3 judge panel in New Orleans issued a 'stay' today on Judge Doughty's order pending an appeals panel rule on the merits