patrick.net

Biden Justice Dept. Intervened to Block Release of Social Media Censorship Docs
Newly obtained emails reveal an attempt to censor the censorship documents. ...

The federal government maintains what is known as the “state secrets privilege,” which permits the Department of Justice to block the release of any information that could undermine national security. There are, no doubt, cases in which the federal government’s stated national security concerns provide a legitimate reason for withholding a document from the public.

But there is abundant evidence that the federal government abuses this power to shield itself from scrutiny. Multiple administrations in the past have intervened in record release cases to prevent transparency using similar legal tactics.

Criminal charges now urged for police who arrested Christian for preaching
'You do have a crime on your tapes. It's your officers'

Criminal charges have been dropped against a Christian man who preached the Gospel in public this month at an LGBT event in Pennsylvania, and now many are calling for charges and lawsuits to be filed against the police who made the arrest.

As WND reported, Damon Atkins was arrested June 3 by Sgt. Bradly T. McClure on disorderly conduct charges after voicing biblical opposition to the Pride event in Reading, Pennsylvania.

But once prosecutors examined the video, Berks County authorities announced the dismissal of the charges against Atkins. ...

Comments posted on the district attorney's own Facebook page include:

"That sergeant lied on his arrest affidavit after blatantly violating Damon Atkins' constitutional rights. He should be charged locally (by your office) and/or federally (by the DOJ's Civil Rights Division). Regardless of criminal prosecution, I hope Damon Atkins makes an example for others by filing a Section 1983 suit in federal court against the city and police department."

"When are you bringing charges against the little tubby officer with an overexaggerated sense of self-importance and apparently a massive chip on his shoulder, and the two 'females' that felt that harassing and manhandling a citizen on public property ... after 60 seconds of 'existing' (doing nothing wrong)? When are these (hopefully soon to be ex-)cops going to be educated that their views and opinions don't trump the law, and since they're law enforcement, and can't seem to handle themselves or follow the law ... they're going to be given 'opportunities' to find other employment? This is inexecusable ...we all know it." ...

Criminal charges now urged for police who arrested Christian for preaching
'You do have a crime on your tapes. It's your officers'

Officers who clearly violate basic Constitutional rights should be immediately fired at the very least, and hopefully also prosecuted for betraying their oath of office.

All Western countries have a twofold political discourse, bifurcated into what I’d call formal and informal spheres. The formal sphere consists of the major press and broadcast media, where content is heavily influenced by corporate advertising; and of the establishment political parties and their politicians. This sphere is an arena for staged debates, for the performance of acceptable opinion and for the forging of broad political consensus on all matters which the establishment considers important. The formal sphere still makes sporadic efforts to cast itself as the whole discourse, but especially since the rise of the internet it’s hard to deny the existence of a vast informal discourse, sustained largely on social media, in smaller independent press venues and by outside political candidates. In Germany, this informal sphere, which consists of the populist AfD party and all media to the right of Axel Springer, is considered fundamentally illegitimate if not directly illegal. American political culture, which is genuinely influenced by speech protections more robust than those in Europe, requires a different approach. Before 2016, the American informal sphere was largely unmoderated, apparently because the establishment considered it politically unimportant. After the populist backlash of that crucial year, social media became the object of unusual fear and scrutiny, while steps were taken behind the scenes to neuter its political influence. ...

Tucker Carlson, who served as a crucial juncture between the two spheres and brought many arguments from informal into formal discourse, has been removed, all the better to seal the one arena off from the other and limit the range of ideas and arguments at play in mainstream American politics.

In sum, we’re seeing the consolidation of what elites hope will be the new, post-Trump American political and media system – one which will be more firmly controlled and robust to populist interference. Social media censorship is obviously very bad, but it’s also a sign that what you’re saying has some hope of making a difference.

they are still unearthing new forms of embedded censorship on twitter even now. it’s the literal core of the software and embedded at who knows how many levels. the whole system appears to have been built not so much for information sharing as for informational suppression. facebook is an an engine of ideological manipulation. google buries search results and amplifies others for ideological and political ends.

this is not distortion, manipulation has become the signal. and you can see why. this passel of pernicious plunderers will not be able to withstand even rudimentary scrutiny. they are in deep, deep trouble if information gets free. and they know it. ...

and they are getting increasingly desperate because the worm here is turning, memes and messages are spreading in manners they do not like, and this is not only destroying the totalitarian power of their cultures of cancellation but inverting them. “experts” are being annihilated by “amateurs” and those who seek to dictate are finding themselves dictated to instead.

and this is a very good thing.

we the people have become “we the market” and are escaping the baleful glare of the gaslights with which so many have for so long been blinded. we are coming once more to know our own minds through the simple expedient of losing our fear to speak and realizing the the pervasive puppetshow of purported public opinion was a hoax, a fugazi fellowship of false narrative that never actually existed. and this is killing the B2C information economy because none of the folks who have firehosed phony zeitgeist at an unsuspecting public are trusted anymore. ...

all the value has moved to interpretation and curation.

but AI is also the solution to this as it can cut through the noise and find signal.

this is why they so desperately want to control it: if you are allowed access to the vast engines of interpretive power, what might you learn? what might you create? perhaps most important, who might you cut out of the value chain?

AI poses dire threats to the credentialed classes. lawyers, doctors, lower level and possibly soon higher level coders. lots of people with expensive educations, credentials and licensure that grants guild privilege (and assures guild level profit protection) ...

consumer sovereignty is a decisive force and we the people may vote with these, our wallets and in so doing we may bring this to heel.

we are nothing like powerless, we are only being gaslit into thinking that we are.

and as we find our footing and seek to support those who earn our trust and shun those who violate it, we have flipped cancel culture upon its misbegotten head. ...

people are sick and tired of being lied to, spun, and manipulated.

the age of honesty and honor is coming.

because we will make it so.

vote with your dollars and vote with your attention.

support those who earn your trust and who trust you in return. spurn those taking you for granted or for fools or for dupes.

consumer sovereignty is the tool by which societal sovereignty may be retaken.

" 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.