patrick.net

206 Democrats vote against bill banning federal officials from policing online speech
Democrats said the government needs to take steps to guard against 'disinformation'

House Democrats on Thursday unanimously voted against legislation that would prohibit federal officials from taking any action to squelch the sharing of views and opinions online, a bill Republicans called up after Twitter’s internal files showed the FBI was constantly pressuring that company to suppress certain stories — including stories related to Hunter Biden.

Matt Taibbi
@mtaibbi

8.This story is important for two reasons. One, as Orwellian proof-of-concept, the Virality Project was a smash success. Government, academia, and an oligopoly of would-be corporate competitors organized quickly behind a secret, unified effort to control political messaging. ...

10.THE BEGINNING: On February 5, 2021, just after Joe Biden took office, Stanford wrote to Twitter to discuss the Virality Project. By the 17th, Twitter agreed to join and got its first weekly report on “anti-vax disinformation,” which contained numerous true stories. ...

30.Even in its final report, VP claimed it was misinformation to suggest the vaccine does not prevent transmission, or that governments are planning to introduce vaccine passports. Both things turned out to be true. ...

36."OFTEN TRUE CONTENT" The Virality Project communications mirror those produced in the recent court case Louisiana vs Biden, which showed Facebook admitting to the WHO that it, too, was censoring true content. ...

44.To recap: America’s information mission went from counterterrorism abroad, to stopping “foreign interference” from reaching domestic audiences, to 80% domestic content, much of it true. The “Disinformation Governance Board” is out; but truth-policing is not.

The staffers at the Brooklyn branch of Jackson McNally Bookstore, an independent bookstore which had for years been a stalwart outpost of free-thinking publishing, were still masked, against all reason. I walked in with some trepidation.

Peacefully, faces covered, three years on, they stacked books on the shelves.

I was astonished, as I wandered the well-stocked aisles. Independent bookstores usually reflect the burning issues in a culture at that given time.

But — now — nothing.

It takes about two years to write a book, and about six months to publish one. It was surely time for the new important books from public intellectuals, about the world-historical years through which we had just lived, to appear.

But — but, no.

In the center of an altar to literate culture, it was as if the years 2020-2023 simply did not exist and had never existed.

This can’t be possible, I thought. This all — the “pandemic”,
lockdowns, denial of education for children, forced masking, forced vaccinations, “mandates” — a crashed economy — globally — this all, as an aggregate, was of course the most important thing ever to have happened to us as a generation of intellectuals.

I kept on searching the stacks. Nothing.

I checked the Top Ten Nonfiction Books in Time.

None had to do with the pandemic policies or the “lockdowns” or the mandated mRNA injections into billions.

None, not one. [https://time.com/6238717/best-nonfiction-books-2022/] ...

The bizarre thing about this moment in culture, is that the really important journalism, and the really important nonfiction books about the history, culture, the racial and gender injustice, the economics, the public policy of the “pandemic” years — are being written by — non-writers; by people who are trained as doctors, medical researchers, lawyers, politicians, and activists.

And their books are not displayed or even stocked in bookstores such as Jackson McNally.

So there is a massive hole in the central thought process of our culture.

The courageous non-writers have stepped in to tell the truth, because the famous writers, for the most part, can’t.

Or won’t. Or, for whatever reason, didn’t. ...

In the polite elite-media circles of Brooklyn and New York, to which I returned briefly to dip a toe in the water, people are — not talking about any of it.

They are not talking about the enslavement of humanity. They are not talking about young people dropping dead.

Big news today in Missouri v. Biden, the case filed by the states of Missouri and Louisiana against various Biden administration officials over their alleged coordinated efforts with Big Tech to censor discussion surrounding COVID and other failures of the administration on social media. Although the Defendants had moved to dismiss all of the claims, the Court denied that motion, in large part, and the case will proceed.

The U.S. Government Is Building A Vast Surveillance And Speech Suppression Web Around Every American
BY: MARGOT CLEVELAND
MARCH 21, 2023

Our government is preparing to monitor every word Americans say on the internet and censor citizens who don’t toe the party line.

While the “Twitter Files” offer a glimpse into the government’s efforts to censor disfavored viewpoints, what we have seen is nothing compared to what is planned, as the details of hundreds of federal awards lay bare. Research by The Federalist reveals our tax dollars are funding the development of artificial intelligence (AI) and machine-learning (ML) technology that will allow the government to easily discover “problematic” speech and track Americans reading or partaking in such conversations.

Then, in partnership with Big Tech, Big Business, and media outlets, the government will ensure the speech is censored, under the guise of combatting “misinformation” and “disinformation.”

@drsimonegold
WOW: Dr. John Littell was KICKED OUT of a Sarasota Memorial Hospital Board Meeting after testifying to the effectiveness of Ivermectin to treat Covid-19.

This is shocking.

In January I reported that a new peer reviewed paper by US academic Mark Skidmore had found the bleeding obvious: Covid vaccine injury causes vaccine hesitancy. The other major finding of the paper was an estimate of Covid vaccine deaths in the US up to end of December 2021 (emphasis mine):

“With these survey data, the total number of fatalities due to COVID-19 inoculation may be as high as 278,000 (95% CI 217,330–332,608) when fatalities that may have occurred regardless of inoculation are removed.” ...

At the time, Skidmore was well aware of the controversial nature of his paper. He told DDU,

“A number of studies which challenge the narrative that the vaccines are “safe and effective” have been retracted. I think the senior editor will receive a tremendous amount of pressure from powerful parties. I tried to be very careful in this study to only present the data and analysis in a dispassionate “just the facts” manner. It passed peer review and the managing editor approved it. Is the article perfect? No. Should it be retracted? Absolutely not. Will it be retracted? I don’t know, but it may very well be retracted.”

On 5 April 2023, Skidmore announced that the editorial board of BMC Infectious Diseases has decided to retract the article.

Salman Rushdie in Imaginary Homelands:

“Free speech is a non-starter,’ says one of my Islamic extremist opponents. No, sir, it is not. Free speech is the whole thing, the whole ball game. Free speech is life itself.

…How is freedom gained? It is taken: never given. To be free, you must first assume your right to freedom. In writing The Satanic Verses, I wrote from the assumption that I was, and am, a free man.

What is freedom of expression? Without the freedom to offend, it ceases to exist. Without the freedom to challenge, even to satirize all orthodoxies, including religious orthodoxies, it ceases to exist. Language and the imagination cannot be imprisoned, or art will die, and with it, a little of what makes us human.

In America today, Rushdie’s “Islamic extremists” are people like MSNBC hosts and Biden Admin apparatchiks.

U.S. — In the tumultuous wake of Elon Musk taking over Twitter, many Leftists on the platform are reporting a disturbing rise in the number of people they hate being allowed to use speech.

"Ever since Elon took over, I see more and more people saying things that I don't like, and I hate them!" said BBC reporter and Twitter user James Clayton. "Just the other day, I saw an opinion I hated, voiced by a person I hated. I can't remember what it was, except that I really hated it. How is this allowed? Can't the government do something about this? Waaaaaaaa!"

Several internet disinformation experts have concurred with the worries expressed by Clayton. "Hated people having a voice is dangerous to democracy, and to marginalized voices, like mine," said Vice President Kamala Harris, briefly interrupting herself to laugh at inappropriate moments. "Imagine if everyone I hated was allowed to talk! That would be so many people talking! HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!"

Experts are recommending government officials reign in Twitter before more hated people get away with saying things freely. According to reports, government officials finally acknowledged the need to do something about Twitter after seeing Elon Musk tweet something and realizing they hated that.

@ElonMusk
shut down this pro-censorship BBC reporter and left him scrambling on how to justify his own questions on misinformation and the supposed rise in hate speech.

Listen till the end.

Anti Lockdown Alliance(GLOBAL)
@Demo2020cracy
NOT ON BBC "NEWS" Large crowd in Glasgow today out for the vaccine injured and bereaved

Canadians will soon be relieved of the stress of seeking out content they find interesting on social media. Instead they will be able to relax, while the government chooses it for them.

This is the intention of Bill C-11, the Online Streaming Act, which is currently being debated in the Canadian Senate. If passed, it will empower the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC), a government agency, to filter what Canadians see in their social-media feeds and on YouTube. ...

It was Trudeau’s Liberal Party, you may recall, that pushed through Bill C-16 with next to no public debate back in 2017. This law introduced ‘gender identity’ as a protected category under the Canadian Human Rights Act. It also opened the door to classifying ‘transphobic’ acts, like ‘misgendering’, as hate crimes. The Liberal Party dismissed all criticism of Bill C-16 and the CBC framed all dissenters as hateful bigots.

Women like me who fought back, arguing it was important to protect women’s spaces and rights, were labelled as ‘despicable’’ purveyors of hate speech. ...

Then, of course, came the Covid pandemic. When Canadian truckers organised to fight back against Trudeau’s vaccine mandate in February 2022, the prime minister invoked the Emergencies Act for the first time in history. This act gives the state the power to deprive Canadians of their Charter rights. It is designed for a situation that ‘seriously endangers the lives, health or safety of Canadians and is of such proportions or nature as to exceed the capacity or authority of a province to deal with it’. Trudeau, however, used it to silence, punish and criminalise those who opposed his authoritarian Covid policies. He even went so far as to freeze the bank accounts of protesters.

“When we see the few truth-tellers who are the stars of their organizations jettisoned – Tucker Carlson from Fox News, Matt Taibbi from Rolling Stone, Glenn Greenwald from The Intercept, James O’Keefe from Project Veritas… we must face the fact that there is an organized conspiracy to suppress truth.” — Paul Craig Roberts

ABC News Admits It Censored RFK Jr. Interview For “False Claims About Covid-19 Vaccines”
by Steve Watson
April 28th 2023

He said something about vaccines that ABC News didn't like, but we are not allowed to hear what it is.

ABC Censors & Misrepresents RFK Jr.
Network cuts statements it deems heretical so that listeners won't hear them.

On Thursday, April 27, ABC aired an interview—conducted by prime time news anchor Linsey Davis—with US presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. It seems to me that the interview is the most shocking and corrupt censorship of political speech since the US Constitution was ratified.

In the interview, anchor Linsey Davis assumed a role reminiscent of Cardinal Roberto Bellarmino during the trial of Galileo. Without citing any evidence to support her claims, Davis vehemently asserted that RFK Jr. had, in effect, committed heresy by expressing his concerns that there is a link between MMR vaccines and autism, and by questioning the safety and efficacy of COVID-19 gene transfer injections, which Davis erroneously called “vaccines.”

Instead of engaging in a debate with RFK Jr. about this public policy issue of vital importance, Ms. Davis and her network CUT the presidential candidate’s statements from the pre-recorded interview so that the audience wouldn’t be able to hear them. ...

At the risk of sounding intemperate, I would like to state my opinion that, with this act of censorship and misrepresentation, ABC has revealed itself to be a garbage network acting like Glavlit—the Soviet censorship office. Though I’m usually not one to quote Bolshevik criminals, I’m reminded of Trotsky’s famous exhortation to the Mensheviks at the 1917 Congress of Soviets

"Go to the place where you belong from now on - the dustbin of history!"

Who Helped Overturn the "Pentagon Papers Principle"? The Washington Post and New York Times
First reported by Michael Shellenberger, new details about the "Burisma leak" tabletop exercise of summer 2020 reveal a notable betrayal of principle by two famed papers ...

Newly uncovered documents show the war-gamed, choreographed response to the New York Post piece in October, 2020 — which included temporary suppression by those tech platforms Twitter and Facebook — may have been part of a broader plan to re-think basic journalistic standards in general, beyond just the one incident. This included junking what experts involved with the tabletop exercise referred to as the “Pentagon Papers Principle,” under which journalists since Daniel Ellsberg’s 1971 leak had “operated under a single rule: Once information is authenticated, if it is newsworthy, publish it.” ...

The concept theoretically represented a major shift, asking reporters to move from focusing on the what of news to why? and who from?

“That seems to be the whole predicate of why they ignored the laptop story, even though they knew it was real,” says Miranda Devine, author of the New York Post exposé. ...

For nearly half a century since 1971, the Washington Post and the New York Times earned fame and praise for standing up to government attempts to suppress newsworthy information in the Pentagon Papers. In 2020, key figures from both papers openly abandoned the legacy of that episode in favor of a questionable new standard that stresses the mechanics of information suppression. How much more evidence do we need that the traditional role of media has been turned upside down?

US Bill S. 686: The Restrict Act – 20 Years In Prison For VPN Use?