U stupid, moronic scum, called "the people," need to observe this satanic censorship activity is happening under ur very noses, PAID for by u idiots

[Apollonian]

We have a satanic society, run by satanists, tolerated by stupid scummy ("liberal," self-righteous) puke, called "the people" (like the "Judeo-Christian" [an oxymoron] imbeciles, who say Christ was a Jew, who imagine Judaism is something akin to Christianity), encouraging censorship, paid for by the very suckers who are afflicted by such censorship and tyranny. We're in a CIVIL WAR, u dumb scum, against satanists-globalists financed by the criminal central-bank, called US Federal Reserve (literally legalized counterfeiting) which takes away real money (which is a commodity, the best being gold/silver, which is necessarily scarce, which thus gives it value--BECAUSE it is scarce, morons), while substituting mere currency (which is infinite, hence intrinsically worthless, hence which causes "inflation")--that's basis of their power (--the "fed," again, by which oligarchs just PRINT-UP [literal counterfeiting, which morons can't figure-out], but which the dumb morons have to WORK for [because if they did it (just printing it up), they'd go to jail]), the stupid puke (the "people") who are suckered by "infinite," hence WORTHLESS, currency--why successful civilizations breed up morons, scum, inferiors, and weaklings who ALWAYS, typically, go for this sort of subjectivistic, child's wishful-thinking kind of insanity.

 

[Apollonian]

Docs Offer Glimpse Inside Censorship Industrial Complex​

by Pete McGinnis, RealClearPolicy
September 1, 2023

Link: https://discernreport.com/docs-offer-glimpse-inside-censorship-industrial-complex/

• Drudge Report is dead. America First Patriots are getting aggregated, curated, and original content every day from Discern Report.

Welcome to the Censorship Industrial Complex. It’s rather like the old “military industrial complex,” which was shorthand for the military, private companies, and academia working together to achieve U.S. battlefield dominance, with the R&D funded by the government that buys the final product.
But the censorship industrial complex builds algorithms, not bombers. The players aren’t Raytheon and Boeing, but social media companies, tech startups, and universities and their institutes. The foes to be dominated are American citizens whose opinions diverge from government narratives on issues ranging from COVID-19 responses to electoral fraud to transgenderism.
When first exposed a few months ago, many of the actors and their media defenders perversely claimed that they, as private entities, were acting out of concern for “democracy” and exercising their own First Amendment rights.
However, the records and correspondence of an advisory committee to an obscure government agency tell a different story. The Functional Government Initiative (FGI) has obtained through a public records request documents of the Cybersecurity Advisory Committee of the U.S. Cybersecurity & Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA). The committee was composed of academics and tech company officials working with government personnel in a much closer relationship than either they or the media want to admit. Several advisory committee members who appear throughout the documents as quasi-federal actors are among those loudly protesting that they were private actors when censoring lawful American speech (e.g., Kate Starbird, Vijaya Gadde, Alex Stamos).
But the advisory committee members met often and worked so closely with their government handlers that the federal liaison to the committee regularly offered members his personal cell phone and even reminded them to use the committee’s Slack channel. Your average concerned citizen doesn’t have a Homeland Security bureaucrat on speed dial.
What were they working on? CISA’s “Mis-, Dis-, and Mal-information” (MDM) subcommittee discussed Orwellian “social listening” and “monitoring,” and considered the government’s best censorship “success metrics.” Who was to be censored? CISA was formed in response to misinformation campaigns from foreign actors, but it evolved toward domestic “threats.” Meeting notes record that Suzanne Spaulding of the Center for Strategic and International Studies said they shouldn’t “solely focus on addressing foreign threats … [but] to emphasize that domestic threats remain and while attribution is sometimes unclear, CISA should be sensitive to domestic distinctions, but cannot focus too heavily on such limitations.” So CISA should combat “high-volume disinformation purveyors before the purveyor is attributed to a domestic or foreign threat” and not worry so much about First Amendment niceties.

---

• Beef Company CEO: “I’ll Shut Down The Company Before We Ship A Single Bag With MRNA-Injected Meat”​

---

More telling is the group’s attitude toward what it called “mal-information” – typically information that is true, but contrary to the preferred narratives of the censor. Dr. Starbird wrote in an email, “Unfortunately current public discourse (in part a result of information operations) seems to accept malinformation as ‘speech’ and within democratic norms …” Therein lies a dilemma for the censors, as Starbird wrote: “So, do we bend into a pretzel to counter bad faith efforts to undermine CISA’s mission? Or do we put down roots and own the ground that says this tactic is part of the suite of techniques used to undermine democracy?”
It is chilling that there is no consideration of whether the information is true or of the public’s right to know it. “Democracy” in this formulation is whatever maintains the government’s narrative.
Accordingly, the group discussed recommendations for countering “dangerously inaccurate health advice.” It contemplated the roles of the FBI and Homeland Security in addressing “domestic threats,” and a CISA staffer felt the need to remind the subcommittee “of CISA’s limitations in countering politically charged narratives.”
CISA couldn’t censor all the people the advisors wanted. And it could face the same outrage that greeted President Biden’s Disinformation Governance Board, led by singing censor Nina Jankowicz. Americans didn’t want that body deciding what they could say, and Biden shut it down within three weeks. CISA’s advisers were acutely aware their work could be conflated with that of the DGB, and even considered changing the name of the MDM subcommittee. Dr. Starbird noted in an email that she’d “removed ‘monitoring’ from just about every place where it appeared” and made “other defensive word changes/deletions.” Similarly, Twitter’s Vijaya Gadde “cautioned the group against pursuing any social listening recommendations” for the time being.
“This is shockingly great coffee.” – JD Rucker. Promised Grounds is a Christian company that’s giving back to the world, but even if they weren’t their coffee is good enough to make it you’re new morning grind.
The group also sought cover from outside and inside the government. They spent an inordinate amount of time talking about “socializing” the committee and its work – something DGB apparently hadn’t done. And like a partisan campaign, they looked for natural allies. Meeting notes record that they sought to “identify a point of contact from a progressive civil rights and civil liberties angle to recruit as a [subject matter expert].”
A government committee that seeks partisan allies, obfuscates its purpose, and can’t even be honest about the nature of its members’ participation is going to sort out online truth for Americans? Welcome to the Censorship Industrial Complex.

 

[Apollonian]

Big drama presently, suckers--will these scum judges uphold 1st Amendment freedom of speech?--they haven't so far, going along w. Jew-friendly "hate-speech" censorship

 

[Apollonian]

The First Amendment Should Restrain CISA Too​

by Brownstone Institute
September 27th 2023, 1:51 pm

Link: https://www.infowars.com/posts/the-first-amendment-should-restrain-cisa-too/

CISA, a division of the Department of Homeland Security, was at the center of Covid tyranny

In court filings, it appears that the US Security State may be held responsible for its deliberate usurpation of the First Amendment as the judiciary has an opportunity to remedy past failures.

The Fifth Circuit agreed to rehearing in Missouri v. Biden on whether to reinstate an injunction against CISA, the State Department, and their collaborations with the Election Integrity Partnership and Virality Project (“EIP”). As petitioners outline in their briefing, this issue is critical to the censorship apparatus.

CISA, a division of the Department of Homeland Security, was at the center of Covid tyranny. In March 2020, CISA divided the workforce into categories of “essential” and “nonessential.” The agency did this with no record of consultation with other agencies with labor-force jurisdiction and no consultation with legislatures.

Hours later, California used the order as the basis for the country’s first “stay-at-home” order. Nearly every state followed suit as a previously unimaginable assault on Americans’ civil liberties ensued.

After eradicating due process, the agency turned to monitoring speech. CISA organized monthly “USG-Industry” meetings with the FBI and seven social-media platforms, including Twitter, Microsoft, and Meta, that allowed federal agencies to advance censorship requests and demands. These meetings were the origin of the suppression of the Hunter Biden laptop story in October 2020.
https://www.infowarsstore.com/infowars-life-trifecta-pack-dna-red-pill-bodease
CISA also launched the Election Integrity Project, a government-controlled operation dedicated to censoring unwelcome online speech. As the District Court explained, “The EIP was started when CISA interns came up with the idea; CISA connected the EIP with the CIS [Center for Internet Security], which is a CISA-funded non-profit that channeled reports of misinformation from state and local government officials to social-media companies.”

CISA and EIP were more than collaborators; they were effectively a unified agency. The three leaders of EIP all have roles at CISA. CISA employees and interns reported to EIP and “were simultaneously engaged in reporting misinformation to social-media platforms on behalf of both CISA and the EIP,” the District Court wrote.

CISA then directed state and local officials to work with EIP to coordinate censorship efforts. In a process known as “switchboarding,” the agency flagged content it wanted removed from social media platforms. These determinations were not based on veracity; CISA targeted “malinformation,” truthful information that the agency labeled inflammatory.

This is not just a theory from the plaintiffs; the defendants admit and often celebrate this process. Brian Scully, the head of CISA’s censorship operations, testified that switchboarding would “trigger content moderation.” The government boasted that it “leverage[d] DHS CISA’s relationship with social media organizations to ensure priority treatment of misinformation reports.”

They then sought to overturn hundreds of years of free speech protections. Dr. Kate Starbird, a member of CISA’s “Misinformation & Disinformation” subcommittee, lamented that many Americans seem to “accept malinformation as ‘speech’ and within democratic norms.” This runs contrary to the Supreme Court’s holding that “Some false statements are inevitable if there is to be an open and vigorous expression of views in public and private conversation.” But CISA – led by zealots like Dr. Starbird – appointed themselves the arbiters of truth and colluded with the most powerful information companies in the world to purge dissent.

It was a coordinated and highly organized effort to usurp Americans’ free speech rights. They used excuses of “misinformation” and “public health” to cover for their true aim, political expediency. The flagged posts that threatened the nation’s power centers: Hunter’s laptop, natural immunity, the lab-leak theory, and side effects of the vaccine were all censored at the government’s behest.

The pattern is evidence of the national security state’s primary objective: domestic and foreign control. They are agnostic to concerns of civil liberties or constitutional liberties; they’ve plotted killing Julian Assange and forced Edward Snowden to live in exile for challenging their lawless regime.

Citizens would likely object if they knew that supposed civil servants were launching a war against their constitutional rights. Thus, anonymity is critical to CISA’s success. The agency relies on the protection of remaining relatively unknown to the general public.

That may be why the Biden Administration declined to file a reply brief to the motion for reargument. It may be best served by avoiding any publicity surrounding CISA and the Security State’s role in suppressing dissent. Suzanne Spaulding, a member of the Misinformation & Disinformation Subcommittee, warned that it was “only a matter of time before someone realizes we exist and starts asking about our work.”

Cable hosts can bicker over Anthony Fauci, but the source of Covid tyranny was far more insidious. In the shadows, the US Security State undermined American democracy in a technocratic coup d’état. Now, the Fifth Circuit has a second chance to defend free speech against the coordinated assault from CISA and its cohorts at the State Department.

 

[Apollonian]

Canada Launches UN Declaration Targeting Online 'Disinformation'​

BY TYLER DURDEN
WEDNESDAY, SEP 27, 2023 - 10:20 PM
Authored by Amanda Brown via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Link: https://www.zerohedge.com/political/canada-launches-un-declaration-targeting-online-disinformation/

Foreign Affairs Minister Melanie Joly has launched a United Nations declaration that calls for action to protect what it calls "information integrity" and to tackle "disinformation."
Foreign Affairs Minister Melanie Joly speaks with reporters in the foyer of the House of Commons in Ottawa on April 27, 2023. (The Canadian Press/Adrian Wyld)
Ms. Joly launched the Global Declaration on Information Integrity Online jointly with Dutch Foreign Affairs Minister Hanke Bruins Slot during the U.N. General Assembly in New York on Sept. 20.
“Information integrity is essential to help ensure the strength of democratic processes and to protect fundamental rights,” says a joint statement by Canada and the Netherlands.
“The erosion of information integrity, including the propagation of disinformation, weakens the strength of democratic engagement.”
In a speech on Sept. 20, Ms. Joly said the declaration is a “concrete step toward establishing global norms on disinformation, misinformation, and information integrity,” the National Post reported.
Speaking to the U.N. on the same day, Ms. Bruins Slot said the emerging online environment makes it difficult to determine what is and what is not truthful.
“Every day, the world is flooded with disinformation and misinformation. Rapid advances in technology—particularly generative AI—make it more and more difficult to tell fact from fiction,” she said.
Canada, the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany, Australia, Japan, and South Korea are among the 30 countries that have signed the declaration.
The declaration promotes concepts such as respect for "the right to freedom of opinion and expression, and the freedom to seek, receive, and impart information."
It says signatories need to "take active steps to address misinformation and disinformation targeted at women, LGBTIQ+ persons, persons with disabilities and Indigenous Peoples."
It also calls on signatories to "refrain from unduly restricting human rights online, especially the freedom of opinion and expression, under the guise of countering disinformation," and to "promote and respect pluralistic media and journalism, and protect access to media content as one measure to counter disinformation."

Multiple Strategies​

In recent years, the federal government has initiated a number of projects to counter “misinformation,” “disinformation” and what it considers extremist ideologies.
Some initiatives are the result of international collaborative efforts to shape the flow of information, and others have been conceived closer to home.
Canada's participation in the Rapid Response Mechanism, established by G7 leaders at the 2018 G7 Summit in Charlevoix, Quebec, monitors the digital information environment. Its goal is to encourage cooperation among member countries to provide a coordinated response to "foreign state-sponsored disinformation" and the “evolving foreign threats to democracy.”
The Liberal government has enacted legislation to shape the information space, with bills C-18 and C-11 being passed in recent months.
The Online News Act, Bill C-18, which passed in June, has been framed as an attempt to defend democracy by bolstering the coffers of flailing legacy media with money from Big Tech.
In reaction to the new legislation, Meta has restricted Canadians’ access to news content in their feeds, to avoid sharing revenue with media outlets. Google has threatened to take action but hasn't yet.
The Liberal government also passed Bill C-11, the Online Streaming Act, in order to boost Canadian content and to regulate some aspects of online streaming and social media.
A new bill to address "online harms" is also in the works, but it does not appear to be a legislative priority for the government at this time.
43,182331

MORE POLITICAL STORIES ON ZEROHEDGE​

Murder Crisis Plagues DC As Mayor Begs For More Officers After 'Defunding Police'​

Explaining The $18 Million Mar-a-Lago Valuation By NY Trump Case Judge​

Watch: Biden Tells People To Stop Questioning COVID Shots​

​

 

[Apollonian]

Democrats Oppose Free Speech

GREGORY HOOD • SEPTEMBER 28, 2023

Link: https://www.unz.com/ghood/democrats-oppose-free-speech/

The largest cultural change in recent years is not transgenderism or mumble rap. It’s the attack on free speech. Among Democrats, support for free speech is a fringe position. According to a new poll from RealClearPolitics, free speech is increasingly unpopular, especially among the young and among Democrats.
Some of the poll findings seem promising. More than 90 percent of respondents said First Amendment protections are a good thing. Just a small minority disagreed with the statement that “Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech or of the press.” More than 75 percent thought it was better to allow free speech without government interference than to let the government “decide what types of hateful or inaccurate speech should be banned.” The First Amendment itself remains popular. Perhaps the best finding is that only 30 percent thought the Founders would have approved of private companies setting limits on speech.

Credit Image: © Alexander Pohl / NurPhoto via ZUMA Press
However, some of the more specific findings are shocking. More than 61 percent said the government should restrict “hateful posts and disinformation on social media platforms” rather than allow an “open forum of free speech.” About three-quarters thought social media platforms themselves should restrict these things. Majorities said free speech should not extend to groups “like” the Nazi party, the Ku Klux Klan, or the Communist Party. More than 74 percent said social media companies had a responsibility to restrict “hateful posts and disinformation.”
Among Democrats, the findings are worse. About a third of Democrats think Americans have “too much freedom” to speak. Only about half of Democrats think speech should be legal “under any circumstances,” compared to large majorities of independents and Republicans. Three-quarters of Democrats think the government should restrict “hateful” social media posts. Democrats are also more likely to favor censoring “extreme” groups and just 31 percent strongly agree with the famous quotation “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” More than half of Republicans do.
Most Democrats think the government should be able to censor social media in the name of national security, while Republicans disagree. Young Americans are also more likely to favor censorship in the name of national security.
According to RealClearPolitics, liberals believe conservative media are less truthful than liberal media, while conservatives are more likely to believe in free speech even for statements they think false. A study called “Partisan conflict over content moderation is more than disagreement over facts” found that “even when Republicans agree that information is false, they are half as likely as Democrats to say that content should be removed and more than twice as likely to consider removal as censorship.” Another way to look at this is that Democrats agree with the media’s self-appointed role as watchdogs of “misinformation.” While most people’s faith in the media has collapsed in recent years, Democrats have significantly more trust in the media.
The situation is very bad for race realists. The truth about race is censored because it is true, not because it is misinformation. “Misinformation” and “hate” are excuses to censor truth and prevent debate on important topics. That’s why there can be no compromise on free speech. Those with power will define what is “misinformation” or “hate” and many people will believe them.
Almost every business or commentator needs to be online to survive, so media outlets can destroy rivals. Big media have charged British actor Russell Brand with sexual assault. He hasn’t been arrested nor have there been charges filed, but YouTube demonetized his account. “If creators have off-platform behavior, or there’s off-platform news that could be damaging to the broader creator ecosystem, you can be suspended from our monetization program,” said YouTube CEO Neal Mohan.
Dame Caroline Dinenage, chair of the House of Commons media committee, wrote to TikTok, Rumble, X, and Meta asking them to follow suit.
The letter read:

We would be grateful if you could confirm whether Mr Brand is able to monetise his content including his videos relating to the serious accusations against him. If so, we would like to know whether Rumble intends to join YouTube in suspending Mr Brand’s ability to earn money on the platform.
We would also like to know what Rumble is doing to ensure that creators are not able to use the platform to undermine the welfare of victims of inappropriate and potentially illegal behaviour.

It would be interesting to see if this standard applies to platforms that host people who have actually been convicted of or have confessed to crimes.
Rumble fired back: It is “deeply inappropriate and dangerous that the UK Parliament would attempt to control who is allowed to speak on our platform or earn a living from doing so.” In response, Burger King and Hello Fresh pulled advertisements from the platform until the investigation into Mr. Brand concludes. It’s unclear what will happen if no charges are filed, especially since at least one of the accusations is 20 years old. The attempt to force a platform to purge people in response to media demands is similar to the fight the ADL is waging against X. The British government is likely to take the fight against Rumble even farther.
According to the (Conservative) British government’s newly passed “Online Safety Act,” social media companies have to reduce user access to “harmful” content, including “racism, misogyny, or antisemitism.” (Presumably, anti-white content isn’t worth even mentioning.) A former Facebook executive approvingly quoted by The Times says a “free speech” platform (scare quotes from The Times) could be shut down in the United Kingdom by the new bill. The United Kingdom has already boasted about its censorship and spying.
In the United States, tech platforms have largely banished race realists and white advocates, working closely with the federal government. During a time when most people get their news from the internet, this undermines democracy. An election is illegitimate if the government and major companies can control what people can see. Likewise, everyday business (including raising or sending money) or even operating (if someone uses Etsy or Instagram) can be halted without appeal. The federal government is investigating Google for antitrust violations, but few seem to worry that tech companies and news media outlets can shut down competitors or businesses they don’t like.
The time to act would have been during the Trump Administration, but that opportunity was wasted with pointless grandstanding and President Trump’s endless self-congratulation. Time is short. Democrats will continue to consolidate opposition to free speech, silence more and more voices on the American Right, and punish dissident platforms that host them. Those conservatives left behind will benefit from the reduced competition, so they will keep quiet.
Unfortunately for them, progressives always look for new “oppressors” to censor. If the GOP doesn’t act before 2024, it is unlikely to get another chance, because another Democratic administration is likely to shut down what’s left of free speech for good and give us UK-style regulations. Conservatives may not want to defend us, but if they don’t, they will be next.

 

[Apollonian]

Supreme Court Ruling To Bring Hobbs’ Censorship Into Sharp Focus​

October 22, 2023 ADI Staff Reporter

Link: https://arizonadailyindependent.com...g-to-bring-hobbs-censorship-into-sharp-focus/

[see vid at site link, above]

Governor Katie Hobbs. [Photo via Governor Katie Hobbs]

This month’s testimony in Arizona by the former solicitor general of Missouri on how then-Secretary of State Katie Hobbs illegally censored her political opponents has taken on new significance in light of a U.S. Supreme Court ruling on Friday.

The Supreme Court agreed to take up a case and decide whether government officials, like Hobbs, can suppress speech by conservatives on platforms like Facebook, YouTube and X. The case, known as Murthy v. Missouri, stems from a suit brought by five social media users and the Republican attorneys general of Missouri and Louisiana.
The attorney in that case, Dean John Sauer, testified in detail on Hobbs’ actions in front of the Arizona State House of Representatives’ Ad Hoc Committee on Oversight, Accountability, and Big Tech of the Arizona House of Representatives, chaired by Rep. Alex Kolodin.
Sauer, the former solicitor general of Missouri, frequently refers to the Elections Infrastructure Information Sharing & Analysis Center (EI-ASAC) and the Cybersecurity & Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) and the Secretary of State’s interaction with them and other federal level groups in his testimony.
The EI-ISAC claims to be “a community of dedicated election officials and cybersecurity professionals working side-by-side to ensure the integrity of elections among U.S. State, Local, Tribal, and Territorial (SLTT) governments.”
CISA describes itself as the nation’s “cyber and infrastructure security agency, designed not to be another government bureaucracy but something much more akin to a public/private collaborative.”
In truth, according to Sauer and other critics, EI-ASAC and CISA became little more than arms of the government intent on squelching “core political speech,” through private companies at the behest of Hobbs and other political actors.
“…What’s being flagged in those emails is absolutely core political speech, including core political speech of your direct political opponents,” testified Sauer.

“I reviewed those emails,” said Sauer, referring to emails obtained through a public record’s request from the Arizona Secretary of State, “and I find an astonishing series of takeaways. First of all, it’s clear that those emails are examples of the very federal national security consortium that was set up in 2020. There’s a direct participation of Arizona State officials in that and as I went through those emails, I thought I had a number of key takeaways.
“First of all, you see emails from 2020, 2021, and 2022 so it’s a yearslong process. It’s not the sort of thing that shows sign of flagging any time soon. Once state officials’ kind of get a hold of the power and silence speech on social media they don’t like – they’re unlikely to relinquish it voluntarily,” said Sauer. “Secondly you see you a series of emails where they’re emailing reports of misinformation directly to the platforms, but also they’re emailing them to the very alphabet soup of agencies that I talked about earlier; EI-ASAC, which is a clearing house funded by the federal national security state to ensure that there can be – that that gives the backing of the federal national security state to these reports of disinformation from state and local officials.
“You see multiple emails where the Arizona Secretary of State’s Office is participating in this very federal censorship apparatus that was set up at the point of a federal bayonet. Thirdly if you look at those emails you see the highest levels of the Secretary of State’s Office involved. It isn’t sort of career staffers who decided to do this on their own,” claimed Sauer. “Almost all the reports come from the communications director who’s a very senior sensitive officer within the Secretary of State’s Office and some of them come from the Secretary of State herself. Fourthly what’s being flagged in those emails is absolutely core political speech, including core political speech of your direct political opponents.”
“There’s multiple emails or tweets or social media posts by the Arizona Republican party are flagged by the Secretary of State’s office to the platform saying please take down off social media what the Arizona Republican party states. There’s another where a senator elect published a long series of posts, I believe on Facebook about election integrity and election concerns and the request from the Secretary of State’s office is not ‘we disagree with this, here’s our counter speech,’ it is ‘take that down so nobody can read it.’ So, there’s an attempt to silence political opponents that goes on here,” stated Sauer.
“What you see, is repeated emails for the Secretary of State’s Office is not just saying take down this post or that post is expressing disinformation but what they say to the platforms is ‘we’re flagging an entire account. We want an entire social media account examined.” They want to silence not just acts of speech but the speakers themselves,” argued Sauer. “’These disfavored speakers we don’t want them to be able to talk at all on social media.’”
“You see situations where the Arizona Secretary State’s Office is engaged in its own bit of misinformation when it’s doing the flagging it’s mischaracterizing the posts that it’s trying to get taken down from social media in its emails to the platforms and to the federal consortium and saying for example there’s an email chain where somebody was trying to lobby the Secretary of State’s office about the eligibility of Kamala Harris to be on the ballot in 2020 and the Secretary of State’s Office says ‘take this down because it falsely implies that Secretary Hobbs supports this. Well, if you read that email there’s nothing in it suggests that Secretary Hobbs supported it was just a mischaracterization that there was an engagement in their own misinformation when they were flagging them and that one. In fact, the platform saw through it and they said, ‘we don’t see any violation of our policies here,” alleged Sauer. “And in response to that, there’s an internal chain where they say – make – derogatory comments about Facebook and how terrible it is for not taking down the misinformation.”
Sauer testified that the censorship was far more insidious than previously thought.
“In the election Integrity partnership, you see an attempt to throttle entire narratives not just individual acts of speech but umbrella of speech. Entire narratives of speech,” said Sauer.
Kolodin called on Sauer, Carl Szabo, Vice-President and General Counsel at NetChoice, and professor of Internet Law at George Mason University, Ilya Shapiro to testify before the committee, who proposed potential reforms for consideration in the upcoming legislative session. These include measures to enhance transparency, impose record-keeping requirements, and regulate the conduct of state officials and social media platforms. The committee also explored the concept of “jawboning,” which involves the application of pressure and coercion by government officials to compel private social media companies to restrict user speech.
“The committee gathered insights from distinguished speakers across the nation to gain a deeper understanding of emerging issues and legal proceedings related to Free Speech in the face of increasing concerns about government interference in social media platforms,” said Representative Kolodin. “As emphasized by our panel of speakers, the government cannot do indirectly what it may not directly do itself. Any forthcoming legislation or regulation must be guided by this principle.”

 

[Apollonian]

Glenn Beck: Biden’s plan to end free speech online​

November 8, 2023 8:42 am by CWR

Link: https://citizenwatchreport.com/glenn-beck-bidens-plan-to-end-free-speech-online/

[vid at site link, above]

See also First Amendment Obliterated: Weaponiza

 

[Apollonian]

CTIL FILES #1: US AND UK MILITARY CONTRACTORS CREATED SWEEPING PLAN FOR GLOBAL CENSORSHIP IN 2018, NEW DOCUMENTS SHOW​

30 December 2023 by Larry Johnson

Link: https://sonar21.com/ctil-files-1-us...global-censorship-in-2018-new-documents-show/

Michael Shellenberger, Alex Gutentag and Matt Taibbi produced a blockbuster report on November 28 that I neglected to cover at the time. My bad. The report exposes a genuine conspiracy — i.e., the Censorship Industrial Complex aka CIC. It is not a theory. It is a fact. This blog posting carries the title of their piece. Here is the introductory paragraph:

A whistleblower has come forward with an explosive new trove of documents, rivaling or exceeding the Twiter Files and Facebook Files in scale and importance. They describe the actvities of an “anti-disinformation” group called the Cyber Threat Intelligence League, or CTIL, that officially began as the volunteer project of data scientists and defense and intelligence veterans but whose tactics over time appear to have been absorbed into multiple official projects, including those of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The CTI League documents offer the missing link answers to key questions not addressed in the Twiter Files and Facebook Files. Combined, they offer a comprehensive picture of the birth of the “anti-disinformation” sector, or what we have called the Censorship Industrial Complex.

There is an active partnership between the U.S. Government’s security and intelligence agencies and the private sector that is engaged in information warfare against the American people. Michael Shellenberger provided a succinct explanation of this conspiracy in his written testimony to the U.S. Congress (you can read it at his new substack site, PUBLIC).

A highly-organized network of U.S. government agencies and government contractors has been creating blacklists and pressuring social media companies to censor Americans, often without them knowing it.
We and others have already reported on some of the actions of this complex, including its disinformation campaigns. But the extent of its censorship was unknown to us until very recently. And, as importantly, we now understand the ways in which this complex simultaneously spreads disinformation and demands censorship.

The CIC is the mechanism that this combination of private and public entities are using to fabricate lies about a whole host of issues, such as the war in Ukraine, Donald Trump inciting an insurrection and Israel fighting terrorists who behead babies.
As you celebrate the New Year please take some time to read the article (click here).

 

[Apollonian]

As Secretary of State, Governor Katie Hobbs Used Official Government Resources To Coordinate Censorship With Google During Her AZ Gubernatorial Campaign in Shocking Election Interference​

Link: https://aclj.org/government-corrupt...al-campaign-in-shocking-election-interference

Jordan Sekulow
February 14
3 min read

GOVERNMENT CORRUPTION
In August of last year, we submitted an Arizona Public Records Law request to the Arizona Secretary of State. We sought “records regarding [then-]Secretary of State Katie Hobbs’s communications with Twitter (also known as X), Facebook (also known as Meta), Google (also known as Alphabet) or Instagram from January 7, 2019 to January 1, 2023.” Last August, reports broke that then-Secretary of State Katie Hobbs, who was running for Governor, used her government office to unconstitutionally censor her critics online.
As you know, Katie Hobbs is the current Governor of Arizona. She was elected in 2022 and assumed office on January 2, 2023. Previously, she was the Secretary of State of Arizona from 2019 to 2023.
In the latest tranche of documents sent to fulfill this request (provided February 1, 2024), there is an email from the then-Secretary of State’s Communications Director sent to Google staff, clarifying the process of reporting “dis/misinformation on Google or YouTube.” The email reads:

This is Murphy Hebert, the comms director for the Arizona Secretary of State, We are putting together our materials for the volunteers monitoring Twitter on Election Day. I have these protocols from the last cycle: If you see dis/misinformation on Google or YouTube, please get a screenshot and then send it, a link to the issue, and a description of what is inaccurate to all of the following people: Erica Arbetter (redacted)@google.com; Joe Dooley [redacted]@google.com; John Ruxton [redacted]@google.com; and Andrea Holtermann [redacted]@google.com. Are there any updates?

Shockingly, you have the government official charged with overseeing free and fair elections – and who is also running for higher office – using government resources to organize a “volunteer” army to target free speech surrounding her own election and colluding with social media giants to censor it.
According to the Cybersecurity & Infrastructure Security Agency at the Department of Homeland Security, “misinformation” is false information without intent to create harm, while “disinformation” means false information with intent to mislead. A third category, “malinformation” is not mentioned here but is true information used to mislead.
Yet – as we have detailed before here – the self-appointed, supposedly objective “fact checkers” who police this material too often share the political biases of the radical Left. Consequently, information that is both true and fair is often categorized as mis-, dis-, or malinformation to censor legitimate free and political speech, especially when that speech expresses the corruption and failures of the radical Left. Time and again the “noble” motives of Deep State bureaucrats are revealed to be a façade to advance self-serving and authoritarian ends.
The FBI has even candidly shared in their internal emails that they believe the private industry is their “most valuable asset” in censoring free speech. Leftist political campaigns seem to have taken the same tactics, including employing armies of volunteers to remove politically inconvenient details freely disseminated in the public square online. While we have now uncovered Hobbs’ use of government resources to violate First Amendment rights, there is significantly more digging to do to determine how and in what ways this was used to sway the electorate before and during the election.
The ACLJ will keep investigating until we find out what happened.