Tag: censorship

Maine Lawmaker Asks Supreme Court to Reverse Speech Ban

A Maine legislator has turned to the US Supreme Court after being effectively stripped of her ability to represent her constituents over a controversial social media post. Republican Rep. Laurel Libby, who serves District 90, submitted an emergency request to the high court this week, seeking to overturn a disciplinary action imposed by her fellow lawmakers that has barred her from voting or speaking on the House floor since February.

The dispute stems from a Facebook post Libby made criticizing the inclusion of a transgender athlete in a statewide girls’ pole vault competition.

The post included a mention of a Maine student and questioned the fairness of allowing biological males to compete in girls’ sports categories, a stance that ignited outrage among Democratic legislators. In response, the House voted to censure Libby and conditioned her return to full legislative participation on an apology she had refused to give.

Rather than comply, Libby launched a legal fight to restore her role, arguing the punishment amounted to unconstitutional retaliation. After lower courts refused to intervene, she is now asking the Supreme Court to address what she sees as a blatant violation of the First Amendment and a denial of her constituents’ right to representation.

We obtained a copy of the application for you here.

“For over 60 days my constituents have had no say in any actions taken by their government, actions that directly impact their lives,” she wrote in a post on X. “Every vote taken on the floor of the legislature is a vote my constituents cannot get back. The good people of our district have been silenced and disenfranchised.”

Libby emphasized that the case raises serious concerns about the limits of legislative authority when it comes to penalizing elected officials for their speech.

Keep reading

“Male Supremacism Studies Conference” Advocates Aggressive Deplatforming to Suppress Dissent, Criticized for Promoting Censorship Over Dialogue

At the Male Supremacism Studies Conference, held by the Institute for Research on Male Supremacism (IRMS), some of the most extreme calls for censorship yet emerged from figures who see open digital discourse as a problem to be solved, not a value to protect.

Virginia Commonwealth University professor Dr. Kay Coghill and Patrick Hermansson, a senior researcher for the UK-based group Hope Not Hate, openly pushed for aggressive deplatforming as a means of silencing dissenting viewpoints, particularly those labeled as conservative or “supremacist.”

Dr. Karlyn Borysenko, an independent journalist and commentator, attended the conference to document what she describes as a deliberate effort to suppress opposing political views under the banner of “combating extremism.” What she observed was not a nuanced discussion about violence or threats, but rather an open endorsement of censorship as a political weapon.

Coghill, speaking candidly at the event, declared, “I think a solution that will really disrupt capitalism, honestly, is de-platforming people and making specific websites, forums, whatever, illegal and actually having consequences, material consequences.”

She went on to emphasize the need to cut access to digital platforms entirely: “making sure people do not have access to these social media websites and forums that allow them to perpetuate and push this information in digital spaces, because that’s where the youth is getting this information from.”

Coghill also criticized Elon Musk’s decision to reinstate previously banned figures on X, such as President Donald Trump and Milo Yiannopoulos, suggesting that once individuals are removed, they should stay removed, permanently.

Patrick Hermansson, representing Hope Not Hate, a group that openly champions deplatforming, conceded that while this tactic remains central to their mission, its effectiveness is waning. “I spent my whole career doing deplatforming. It’s like the core strategy we do,” he stated.

But as platforms multiply and decentralize, he acknowledged, “they have their own platforms and … it’s very hard to control them.” He lamented the lack of pressure on major social media companies to continue aggressive bans and noted the growing financial and technical independence of those targeted by such efforts.

Keep reading

WHOA! Marco Rubio Announces He Has Located Dossiers Created by Biden Regime to CENSOR Americans Including Trump Officials: “There’s at Least One Person at This Table Today Who Had a Dossier On Them”

Secretary of State Marco Rubio dropped a bombshell today that should frighten every conservative nationwide.

As The Gateway Pundit’s Jordan Conradson reported, President Trump and his team held a cabinet meeting Wednesday. Team Trump spent a good portion of the meeting touting the president’s impressive record on issues ranging from immigration to the economy.

But amid the celebration, Rubio mentioned some disturbing information. He revealed that Biden’s Department of State had created dossiers with the full intention of spying on the content and censoring Americans’ free speech rights.

‘We had an office in the Department of State whose job it was to censor Americans,” Rubio said.

Then, he dropped another bombshell. At least one of the people affected was at the table.

“And by the way, there is at least one person at this table today who had a dossier on them in that building of social media posts to identify them as purveyors of disinformation,” Rubio revealed. “We are going to be turning over these dossiers to these individuals.”

Keep reading

Report: FBI Agent Elvis Chan, Key Figure in 2020 Election Censorship Scheme, Placed on Terminal Leave

FBI Assistant Special Agent in Charge Elvis Chan, one of the central figures in the federal government’s censorship of conservative voices during the 2020 presidential election, has reportedly been placed on terminal leave.

The development was first reported by independent journalist Breanna Morello.

Chan, who served as the FBI’s key liaison between the Foreign Influence Task Force (FITF) and Big Tech companies like Twitter, Facebook, and Google, was instrumental in a government-led censorship campaign to silence conservative voices and suppress damaging information about Hunter Biden in the lead-up to the election.

Morello, citing sources familiar with Chan’s situation, reports that the longtime San Francisco-based agent has not accessed any of his government devices for over a month.

Chan still lists himself as the Assistant Special Agent in Charge on his LinkedIn page, which includes preferred pronouns — “he/him.”

The House Judiciary Committee filed a lawsuit against FBI Assistant Special Agent in Charge Elvis Chan last year for refusing to comply with a congressional subpoena tied to the 2020 election censorship scandal.

The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, lays out damning allegations: that Chan, acting as the FBI’s liaison with Big Tech platforms like Facebook and Twitter, played a central role in the federal government’s backdoor scheme to censor Americans online before the 2020 presidential election.

Despite being subpoenaed by Congress to testify, Chan—under orders from Biden’s Department of Justice—refused to appear. Why? Because Congress wouldn’t allow DOJ lawyers to sit in and monitor the interview. Yes, the DOJ wants to babysit its agents during congressional investigations, undermining the House’s constitutional oversight authority.

According to the complaint, Chan was a “pivotal figure” passing information from the FBI to social media companies in the months leading up to the election—information that often led to the silencing of viewpoints inconvenient to the ruling regime.

According to Morello, Chan also testified in the landmark case Missouri v. Biden—a case in which I, Jim Hoft, am a plaintiff—where he conveniently claimed to have “no internal knowledge” of the FBI’s role in pressuring tech companies to censor the explosive Hunter Biden laptop story.

Keep reading

UK: Ofcom Appoints “Experts” to Advisory Committee on “Disinformation” Under New Censorship Law

UK’s regulator Ofcom, which is tasked with enforcing the sweeping online censorship and age verification law, the Online Safety Act, has appointed members of its “Online Information Advisory Committee” (formerly known as “Advisory Committee on Disinformation and Misinformation”), which will advise Ofcom on “misinformation” and “disinformation.”

Lord Richard Allan, who was last November appointed a non-executive director of Ofcom’s Board for a four-year term, now chairs the Committee, comprised of five members – most of whom have prominent track records as pro-censorship advocates.

One is Jeffrey Howard, a political philosophy professor at University College London (UCL), whose website’s research page includes an upcoming article titled, “The Ethics of Social Media: Why Content Moderation is a Moral Duty.”

Howard says the article defends platforms’ “moral responsibility” to “proactively” moderate “wrongfully harmful or dangerous speech” as one of justifications for platforms to censor out of a sense of “moral duty.”

Elisabeth Costa, Chief of Innovation and Partnerships at the Business Insights Team (BIT, which started off as the “Nudge Unit“) is another Committee member.

Costa should feel right at home helping enforce the Online Safety Act, given that BIT has close ties to many governments and international organizations that push for the kinds of censorship like “prebunking.”

Keep reading

London Mayor Sadiq Khan Cites Southport Stabbing to Justify Targeting Online “Conspiracy Theories” and “Misinformation”

London Mayor Sadiq Khan has announced an £875,000 ($1,170M) expansion of his Shared Endeavour Fund, using the tragic mass stabbing and murders in Southport to justify an intensified campaign against what he describes as “online conspiracy theories and misinformation.”

London Mayor Sadiq Khan has announced an £875,000 ($1,170M) expansion of his Shared Endeavour Fund, using the tragic mass stabbing and murders in Southport to justify an intensified campaign against what he describes as “online conspiracy theories and misinformation.”

More: Southport Tragedy Becomes Starmer’s Stage for Big Brother Britain

Despite the gravity of the Southport attacks, Khan appeared to frame the event more as a case study for the dangers of social media rather than focusing on the violence itself, saying: “The Southport disorder and chilling hate crime attacks that followed shocked our nation and showed how false information on social media spread like wildfire with devastating consequences.”

The move directs a significant portion of the new funding toward policing online speech under the guise of protecting “vulnerable young Londoners from radicalization and misinformation online.” This expansion fits within the Mayor’s broader £15.9 ($21.31M) million anti-extremism agenda, the largest of its kind initiated by a London mayor.

According to the official press release, the Southport incident highlighted “increased concern about online radicalization and the spread of misinformation,” even while admitting that overall hate crime incidents have been declining across London.

Nevertheless, the Mayor maintains that the numbers, despite dropping, are still “too high,” justifying the fresh wave of funding and monitoring efforts.

Keep reading

House passes “Take it Down Act,” sending revenge porn bill backed by Melania Trump to president’s desk

The House passed a bipartisan bill Monday that makes it a federal crime to post real and fake sexually explicit imagery online of a person without their consent, sending the legislation that was backed by first lady Melania Trump to the president’s desk. 

The bill, known as the “Take It Down Act,” cleared the lower chamber in a 409-2 vote. The two “no” votes came from Republicans. The Senate unanimously passed the measure in February. 

The legislation requires social media companies and other websites to remove images and videos, including deepfakes generated by artificial intelligence, within 48 hours after a victim’s request. 

“If you’re a victim of revenge porn or AI-generated explicit imagery, your life changes forever,” Sen. Ted Cruz, a Texas Republican, said at a March 3 roundtable promoting the bill. 

Cruz, who introduced the bill, recalled the experience of a teenage victim, Elliston Berry, whose classmate used an app to create explicit images of her and then sent them to her classmates. Berry’s mother had tried unsuccessfully to get Snapchat to remove the images for months before she contacted Cruz’s office for help. 

“It should not take a sitting senator or sitting member of Congress picking up the phone to get a picture down or video down,” Cruz said. 

The first lady, who rarely appears in public, attended the March discussion at the U.S. Capitol to advocate for the bill’s passage in the House. 

“It’s heartbreaking to witness young teens, especially girls, grappling with the overwhelming challenges posed by malicious online content like deep fakes,” she said. “This toxic environment can be severely damaging.” 

The first lady applauded Congress after its passage and said the bipartisan vote made a “powerful statement that we stand united in protecting the dignity, privacy, and safety of our children.” 

“I am thankful to the Members of Congress — both in the House and Senate — who voted to protect the well-being of our youth,” she said in a statement. 

According to the FBI, in recent years there have been an alarming number of cases where victims have been extorted that have ended in suicide. Lawmakers said they hope the bill will save lives by providing recourse for victims. 

Keep reading

Meta’s Oversight Board Condemns Free Speech Reforms, Pushes for Continued Censorship Over “Human Rights” Concerns

Welcomed by opponents of the multi-year Big Tech-government censorship collusion in the US, Meta’s decision to abandon its controversial “fact-checking” program is receiving criticism from others.

Among them is Meta’s Oversight Board, which is also unhappy that the company is allowing more freedom to users of its platforms when it comes to discussing issues like gender identity and immigration.

Announcing the changes earlier this year, CEO Mark Zuckerberg admitted that the “moderation” system in place until that point had produced “too many mistakes and too much censorship.”

The content was flagged, downranked, or removed, as were users if either censorship algorithms or third-party “fact-checkers” decided it contained “misinformation” or “hate speech” – and the criteria for this was heavily biased in favor of the former administration’s agendas.

But looking back at the policy shift announced on January 7, the Board expressed its concern that Meta went about this “hastily, in a departure from the regular procedure, with no public information shared as to what, if any, prior human rights due diligence the company performed.”

The Board decided to put the emphasis on “human rights” rather than free speech, in particular the handling of topics related to LGB and transgender issues.

Meta’s policy now allows users to make allegations about mental illness or abnormality “when based on gender or sexual orientation.” This is essentially explained as a way to allow the discourse about transgenderism and homosexuality that is already happening in society, in political and religious contexts.

But the Board thinks this may result in human rights violations and wants Meta to investigate whether that is happening, and to “update it” on the findings twice a year.

Just how restrictive the rules around these issues have been is illustrated in the two cases the Board was considering – attempts to ban videos expressing views about the participation of transgender persons in sports and their “access” to bathrooms.

Keep reading

US Attorney for the District of Columbia, Ed Martin, Calls Out Wikimedia Foundation (Wikipedia) of Violating 501(c)(3) Status by Allowing Propagandists to Flood Platform – Gives Them Til May 15th to Turn Over Documents

It’s not a secret that The Gateway Pundit, the fifth-largest conservative news website in America today, has one of the most dishonest and vile entries on Wikipedia.

This works out well for the globalist left in the fact that we do not own our name on Wikipedia – the far-left editors do, we cannot comment or explain any entry under our name, we cannot edit our entry to include our award-winning journalism, we cannot rebut any of their lies about us.

It’s a great tool for the left and it has cost conservatives, including this website, millions of dollars in potential traffic and income.

The Gateway Pundit is not the only conservative website that Wikipedia smears and lies about.

In December 2019, T. D. Adler at Breitbart News reported that Wikipedia blacklists now included The Epoch Times and The Gateway Pundit for our truthful reporting on Russiagate.

Wikipedia highlighted The Gateway Pundit’s reporting that was true and factual and used it against us as an excuse to censor our website.

Keep reading

Von der Leyen’s paws are all over Ireland’s counter disinformation strategy

The government of Ireland’s 55 page counter disinformation strategy, available for free download here, is worth perusing to show how pervasive and thorough Von der Leyen’s emerging censorship web is. The first thing that critical readers might note is that there is no mention of Irish sources of disinformation, but that Russian sources of disinformation are mentioned five times.

In addition to that blatant show of Russophobia, its obsession with Moscow shows that this report is not only lop-sided, biased and partisan but that it comes up short in the empirical stakes as well. Though one might imagine that such a government funded report would give example after example of mis-information to bolster its case, that would be to mis-interpret its function, which is to put in place the censorship pillars on which not only Ireland but all of von der Leyen’s Europe will rest. Far better to close the angle, forget specific examples of mis-information and prattle on with catechisms of pseudo scientific cliches.

Thus, though there is no mention of the recurring patterns of NATO false flag operations that other SCF contributors frequently draw attention to, there are lists after lists of the pillars that must be legislated for to make not only Ireland but all of Europe safe again from the free flow of information.

The table of contents shows how the report is neatly divided into a number of sections to achieve von der Leyen’s aims. We first of all have an overview of the issue, explaining how Ireland is challenged by disinformation and how Ireland and Europe must respond, presumably by banning Russia Today, which I can now only get by using a VPN. Although an empirical or applied approach might devote a line or two to the mortal challenge Russia Today or SCF’s excellent Bruna Frascolla poses to us all, there is none of that. Instead, we must accept that Russia Today and Bruna Frascolla are coming for our jugulars and only von der Leyen and her Irish-based minions can save us from them, which is rather odd as I find the information to noise ratio much higher in them than I do in the Irish or British media.

So much for their silly overview. The next section spells out five principles through which counter-information will be fought. These essentially amount to the European Union agreeing on a narrative and that narrative being bolstered from the local level right up to von der Leyen herself. No matter whether it is Israeli war crimes in Gaza or NATO war crimes in Ukraine and Syria, all parties will spread the agreed narrative and gang up on those, who might suggest subversive counter-narratives regarding Hunter Biden’s lap top, von der Leyen’s Covid 19 vaccine profiteering and so on. Regarding Covid 19, the views of paid political and scientific hucksters will be accepted and those with alternative views will be punished on whatever pretext best suits the particular situation.

Although freedom of expression will be guaranteed, that freedom will not extend to those heretics, who question the prevailing narrative and who thereby put the entire clown show at risk. “Resilience and trust” in the powers that be will be drilled into the masses and the civil society networks they work though and “corporate accountability and regulatory enforcement” will further cement the narrative into our collective psyche. As in all quasi-military campaigns, there will be “cooperation, collaboration and coordination”, otherwise known as C3 or command, control and communications by the U.S. Military. Finally, there will be punishments as a matter of principle for dissenters and other heretics.

Keep reading