« First « Previous Comments 206 - 245 of 878 Next » Last » Search these comments
It used to be called the “New York Times Problem.” It asks at what point does the First Amendment stop protecting journalists against the receipt of stolen property, particularly classified documents.
“The Problem” stems originally from the Pentagon Papers, a classified history of the Vietnam War stolen by Daniel Ellsberg and handed over to the Times and later others. The government sought prison time for reporters and editors but failed. What once threatened the Times has now been turned directly against Project Veritas, Ashley Biden’s diary, and perhaps Julian Assange as well.
The goal out of the tangled case outlined below is to create two standards for applying the 1A, one for journalists and one for “journalists” ostensibly based on skill and reputation but in reality based on politics. It is a direct challenge to freedom of the press by Biden’s DOJ.
In June 2020, a woman and a man moved into a Delray Beach, Florida, house where Ashley Biden, President Joe Biden’s daughter, previously resided and where she’d left several items, including a diary. The diary mentioned, among other things, “inappropriate” showers taken together by daughter Ashley and Joe (whom Hunter Biden at one point appeared elsewhere to refer to as “Pedo Pete”).
Potentially important stuff, though the woman who found them failed to interest the Trump campaign. She then tried Project Veritas. Veritas paid for the diary holder to meet with their staffers in New York, inspected the diary, and paid for it, only to ultimately decide not to publish it. Veritas instead turned the diary over to law enforcement as unverified (the diary was eventually published by a less-well known site).
Though Veritas never published the diary, the New York Times Problem came into play — does the 1A protect media outlets who receive or even pay for stolen property, i.e., the Pentagon Papers and Ashley Biden’s diary? Obviously taking in stolen goods, say, a diamond watch or purloined car, is a crime. But with snatched or stolen documents of public interest, in steps the First Amendment, which has been held to protect journalists in these cases.
This is also why the New York Times Problem has more recently been called the Julian Assange Problem. Assange never stole any documents himself — that was Chelsea Manning — and only published what he was handed. Any prosecution of Assange would be as a publisher, a clear rub against the 1A and the key issue in any trial that someday might be held.
That’s where the Veritas case should have ended, with the feds doing nothing. Plenty of stolen documents (there is also the open question of whether finding Biden’s diary left behind in an rental house constitutes theft at all) are published all the time by American media outlets, including Trump’s tax returns in the Times and Edward Snowden’s bombastic NSA source materials in the Washington Post. It is an essential part of a free press and protected by the 1A.
But the DOJ did not stop with Veritas, which, after all, did not even publish any of the allegedly stolen documents. The FBI instead conducted a predawn search in November 2021 against Project Veritas founder James O’Keefe’s home and similar raids on two associates to take possession of their cell phones and journalistic notes. The raid warrants cited concerns over the stolen Biden diary.
In response, University of Minnesota law professor Jane Kirtley, a former executive director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, said, “I’m not a big fan of Project Veritas, but this is just over the top. I hope they [the FBI] get a serious reprimand from the court because I think this is just wrong.”
UN Secretary for Global Comms says they "own the science" on "climate change," and opposing viewpoints have now been pushed down in search results through their partnership with Google.
U.N. Under-Secretary-General for Global Communications Melissa Fleming said at a World Economic Forum event that the U.N. partnered with Google to manipulate search results for 'climate change.'
Enemies list? Fed-backed censorship machine targeted 20 news sites ...
The report also identified the 21 "most prominent repeat spreaders [of misinformation] on Twitter," all of them politically classified as "right." ...
Christina Pushaw 🐊 🇺🇸
@ChristinaPushaw
5h
Twitter censored @FLSurgeonGen for sharing FL Dept of Health study, part of which @LisaMarieBoothe highlighted below. So, Twitter hall monitors know more than a Harvard MD/PhD?
Also, Dr. Ladapo is a STATE HEALTH OFFICIAL - an “authoritative source” by Twitter’s own definition.
https://justthenews.com/accountability/watchdogs/news-organizations-targeted-fascist-public-private-partnership-stamp-out
Enemies list? Fed-backed censorship machine targeted 20 news sites ...
The report also identified the 21 "most prominent repeat spreaders [of misinformation] on Twitter," all of them politically classified as "right." ...
It's kind of nice of them to make a list of good news sites for us! Please check out all the sites on that hit list.
Radical billionaire George Soros spent $30 million on efforts to pressure Big Tech companies to censor so-called “disinformation” on their platforms, financial records have revealed.
Soros has been funding a network of groups that have been publicly urging the heads of major online platforms to ramp up censorship ahead of the 2022 midterm elections.
The same network of groups reportedly pressured Big Tech companies to censor “disinformation” in the run-up to the 2020 election, most notably forcing them to suppress the Hunter Biden laptop scandal.
The groups are now applying heavier-handed pressure tactics by publicly calling on Silicon Valley executives to censor information before the midterms.
On October 13, the Soros-funded Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights (LCCHR) spearheaded an open letter demanding tougher censorship online.
The letter is signed by 11 other liberal groups and calls on Big Tech CEOs to “[t]ake immediate steps to curb the spread of voting disinformation in the midterms and future elections and to help prevent the undermining of our democracy.”
The letter agonized over how “[t]he 2022 midterm elections are only a few weeks away, but online disinformation continues to confuse, intimidate, and harass voters, suppress the right to vote, and otherwise disrupt our democracy.”
The groups addressed the letter to:
Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg
Google CEO Sundar Pichai
Twitter CEO Parag Agrawal
YouTube CEO Susan Wojcicki
TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew
Snap (formerly Snapchat) CEO Evan Spiegel
Instagram CEO Adam Mosseri
Between 2016 and 2020, Soros gave a staggering $30,325,500 to at least seven of the 12 total signatories.
October 15, 2022
Pfizer board member Scott Gottlieb flagged Alex Berenson tweet to Twitter
Gottlieb is accused of trying to get the journalist banned.
I have to admit that the US media tolerates no criticism of Jews as a group at all, ever.
https://bigleaguepolitics.com/tiktok-bans-users-from-searching-the-term-white-lives-matter/
@gavinashenden
11h
Bournemouth 2022. It is now. illegal to cross yourself. Stop for a moment and think about the implications….
https://notthebee.com/article/google-just-took-down-a-map-that-showed-gender-clinics-around-the-united-states-created-by-conservatives-because-it-was-considered-harassment
October 19, 2022
Germany fines Telegram $5M
For allegedly ignoring German law and takedown orders.
@tweettruth2me
Pro Tip: Add a question mark at the end of your controversial tweets. They can’t suspend you for asking questions.
@ShaggyKC
They'll suspend you anyway.
@tweettruth2me
Nope. I’ve tested it. Same info with and without a ? Got suspended on the one without.
Pro Tip: Add a question mark at the end of your controversial tweets. They can’t suspend you for asking questions.
I thought that way. Then I thought, it's free, and why cede the field and let them dominate by default?
AmericanKulak says
I thought that way. Then I thought, it's free, and why cede the field and let them dominate by default?
Because it's a propaganda site.
If you keep posting what they don't like, they just shadowban you.
What you are reading is what is acceptable. There's literally no reason to be on it. If you want to know what is going on in the world, you can't do it by using Facebook, Youtube, or Twitter. There's a reason this very site exists.
Please believe me Google, Twitter, and Facebook basically ARE the government. Posting there is like writing letters to the editor to Pravda in 1985 trying to explain to them the usefulness of voluntary markets of exchange. People need to stop wasting their time on these sites or begging them to PLEASE allow free speech, it's never going to happen.
In 1995, sites that pulled this shit went ...
And, Elon will eventually take it over. It's gonna be hilarious because I have lists of obvious bots/boiler roomers (less than 300 followers, claims to be account dating to 2009) and I bet most of them will disappear shortly after Elon.
Don't cede the field, if it's fun to drop a few banana peels, do it.
The issue isn't it's full of propaganda and it might be read, the issue is that it's full of propaganda so fuck with them a bit.
Dr. Anthony Fauci, the president’s chief medical advisor, and nine other top White House officials will be deposed as part of an ongoing lawsuit that was filed by Louisiana and Missouri attorneys general Jeff Landry and Eric Schmitt, alleging collusion between the federal government and social media companies to censor certain viewpoints.
You're fighting on land that isn't worth keeping.
When youtube was still a useful place to discuss things, I would use it to discuss things, and even after censorship was activated, I continued, for a bit, but after a point, all that's left are the dregs of society. Morons, bots, idiots, twats. Nobody worth engaging with.
and here is where the gig may be up for fauci and a great many others.
the lawsuit missouri et al vs about the whole of US public health is progressing in its exploration of the explicit and deliberate role of the US government and many of its agents including fauci, murthy, biden, and jankowicz (amidst a cast of dozens and several agencies) in the systematic shaping, suppression, and censorship of information regarding covid. as those quaint few who still believe in things like “the 1st amendment” may recall, this is a bit of a constitutional no no.
the government is not allowed to dominate the press.
this is a matter of sound and settled law.
2. A private entity violates the First Amendment “if the government coerces or induces it to take action the government itself would not be permitted to do, such as censor expression of a lawful viewpoint.” Biden v. Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia Univ., 141 S. Ct. 1220, 1226 (2021) (Thomas, J., concurring). “The government cannot accomplish through threats of adverse government action what the Constitution prohibits it from doing directly.” Id.
Tucker Carlson slammed Amazon for banning the sale of books by Russian philosopher Alexander Dugin and signed a light on the government's key role in this censorship on "Tucker Carlson Tonight."
TUCKER CARLSON: So you go on Amazon.com and you remember this started as a bookstore and online bookstore. It's the biggest bookstore in the world. They have everything. There's nothing you can't find an Amazon, including used books. So if you were to go into Amazon to read books by a man who is in the news and whose ideas are directly bearing on world events, you look for a guy called Aleksandr Dugin.
Dugin is one of Russia's most famous authors and political philosophers. He doesn't work for the government; he doesn't work for Vladimir Putin. He's just a philosopher. So if you're interested in like, "What are they thinking over there?'" you would search Dugin's author page on Amazon, but you would not find any results. Really? Kind of a big author to be left off Amazon. ...
Then we learned that Amazon and the Justice Department were ignoring our Bill of Rights. Amazon apparently based its decision on a Treasury Department designation concerning "disinformation." And that designation applies not only to Dugin, but also to his family, though not to his daughter, who was murdered recently by the Ukrainian government. But we're not allowed to say that. What did she do wrong?
I tried the Left’s new social media platform and was banned in 20 minutes ...
I came across a tweet from October 17th claiming the platform doesn't “...censor any posts. [The] algorithms simply filter out fake news, bigotry, and hostility” and I thought this was a great opportunity to put their claim to the test.
I opened an account and posted a few messages, the first reading “Men cannot get pregnant.” Others included “men cannot become women and women cannot become men,” and “Joe Biden sniffs little girls.” ...
In less than 20 minutes, my account was suspended and I was banned from the platform. Tribel posted statements categorizing me as “racist,” “transphobic” and bigoted. So much for Tribel Social combating “fake news!” Apparently stating “men cannot get pregnant” is transphobic— Biology is bigoted and racist!
The World Economic Forum (WEF) is calling for increased censorship and “interventions” in free speech rights to “improve safety” online.
In a new twist, German economist Klaus Schwab’s organization claims it is “thinking of the children” with its new push for online content moderation.
« First « Previous Comments 206 - 245 of 878 Next » Last » Search these comments
It's coming, and it will encapsulate the Social Justice Revolution as part of American Canon, so to criticize it will be subject to censorship.