Tag: censorship

Federal Memo From National Cancer Institute Lists Marijuana As ‘Controversial ‘Topic That Needs Special Approval Before Publication

“Marijuana” is one of nearly two dozen “controversial or high-profile topics” that staff and researchers at the National Cancer Institute (NCI) are required to clear with higher-ups before writing about, according to a newly leaked memo from within the federal agency.

The government directive puts marijuana and opioids on a list along with vaccines, COVID-19, fluoride, measles, abortion, autism, diversity and gender ideology and other issues that are believed to be personal priorities of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and President Donald Trump.

NCI is part of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), which itself is part of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

Prior to publishing anything on the specified topics, NCI staff are required to send the materials to an agency clearance team, says the new memo, first reported by ProPublica.

“Depending on the nature of the information, additional review and clearance by the NCI director, deputy directors, NIH, and HHS may be required,” it advises staff. “In some cases, the material will not need further review, but the NCI Clearance Team will share it with NCI leadership, NIH, and/or HHS for their awareness.”

It notes that staff “do not need to share content describing the routine conduct of science if it will not get major media attention, is not controversial or sensitive, and does not touch on an administration priority,” according to the ProPublica report.

The investigative news outlet says the directive “was circulated by the institute’s communications team, and the content was not discussed at the leadership level,” adding that “it is not clear in which exact office the directive originated.”

Experts said the policy could have a chilling effect, slowing publication of important findings and pushing researchers to censor their work.

Keep reading

Top Streamer Says Violent Threats on Reddit Will Lead to Real ID For the Internet

Top streamer Asmongold predicts that the sheer amount of violent threats being posted on Reddit will grease the skids for an Internet ID system that will end online anonymity.

Since Donald Trump took office, the far-left website has seen a massive uptick in threats of violence targeting Trump, people in his administration and conservatives in general.

Last month, Reddit temporarily banned multiple pages after users began posting threats aimed at staff working for the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).

“Time to hunt,” one user posted, while another asserted, “Lets drag their necks up by a large coil up rope.”

According to popular streamer Asmongold, the deluge of threats will provide a pretext for the government to mandate tying a person’s real identification to their online user accounts.

Keep reading

Brazilian Supreme Court Justice Orders Arrest of US Citizen for Political Speech

Brazil’s pro-censorship Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes has issued an arrest warrant for Flavia Cordeiro Magalhaes, a US citizen of Brazilian origin, who has lived in Florida for over 20 years.

According to her legal representative, what Moraes is attempting to do here is lock up a US citizen for political speech expressed on US soil – meaning that the warrant in effect “raises questions about US sovereignty.”

Moraes appears to have first ordered Magalhaes’ X account blocked in Brazil because of a post from 2022, which she made while in the US.

According to Magalhaes, she was unaware of the block at the time, since she was not notified by the Brazilian court. But because she continued posting on X, this eventually led to an order to place her in pre-trial detention, under the pretext that she was allegedly in contempt of court.

That is supposed to have occurred when she traveled to Brazil in December 2023 and was told her Brazilian passport was “under restriction” – but even though she entered and left the country legally, using her US passport, Moraes decided to treat this as the use of “a false document” – and issue the pre-trial detention order in February of last year.

All this, despite Brazil’s federal police documents stating that Magalhaes traveled to and from Brazil legally.

Keep reading

French Government Proves JD Vance Right After Silencing Conservative Broadcaster

In a recent speech at the Security Conference in Munich, Vice President JD Vance warned European leaders that the real threat to the sanctity of the west is not foreign enemies but the enemies within.  EU governments have been destroying the very values of “democracy” that they claim to defend and cherish, all in a bid to keep power in the hands of an extremist leftist oligarchy.

European officials attending the Munich conference did so with the expectation that the focus of the event would be on the Ukraine war.  Specifically, the event was supposed to be another rally party in the name of continuing the war in the name of “protecting democracy”.  Vance flipped the conference upside-down, pointing out that Europe doesn’t actually believe in democracy, not even in the way they define it. 

European officials were indignant after Vance called them out on their own stage, claiming his accusations of authoritarianism had no basis in reality.  France’s Foreign Minister Jean-Noel Barrot defended European policies following the criticism by Vance stating:

“Freedom of expression is guaranteed in Europe…Nobody is obliged to adopt our model, but nobody can impose theirs on us…”

This, of course, is a lie.  The French government went on to prove JD Vance right this week after they finalized a move to shut down conservative French TV station C8.  The outlet will cease broadcasting on February 28th after the Council of State, France’s top court, rejected their appeal against the removal of their frequency.

Arcom, France’s audiovisual regulator, excluded the channel in July from the shortlist of selected candidates for the reallocation of digital terrestrial television frequencies which expire at the end of the month. Arcom confirmed its decision on December 12th.

Arcom pulled up C8 for a lack of editorial control over its programming following a series of incidents on the conservative “Touche pas à mon poste” show hosted by Cyril Hanouna, who regularly criticized the progressive establishment.  The show racked up fines of over 7.5 million euros.

The closure of C8 has caused uproar among conservatives in France. The station is owned by Vincent Bolloré, a media tycoon whose conservatism and Catholicism has long made him a hate figure among the progressive left.  French officials claim that Bolloré was trying to “take over the media”, conveniently overlooking the fact that France’s state-run broadcaster (like the BBC) is staffed overwhelmingly by people who lean leftist.  C8 was one of the few broadcasters in France presenting a conservative viewpoint. 

French journalists are often fined and even fired for stepping outside the boundaries of acceptable political opinion.  There is no freedom of speech in France, just as there is no freedom of speech in most of Europe and the UK.  JD Vance was absolutely correct in his assessment in Munich. 

Keep reading

Supreme Ct. Filing Exposes How Charlottesville Officials Enabled 2017 Violence to Suppress Speech

A new Supreme Court petition filed by political activist Warren Balogh sheds light on what he calls the ‘intentional dereliction of duty’ by Charlottesville officials during the infamous 2017 “Unite the Right” rally. The petition, appealing a lower court decision from the Fourth Circuit, raises serious constitutional questions about whether local governments can deliberately allow chaos and violence as a means of suppressing speech they dislike.

Balogh is a self-described ‘pro-white’ activist. Far-left groups use a variety of labels to describe him as a ‘white nationalist’ and other such defamatory terms. Balogh says he was at the Charlottesville rally for only one purpose: to oppose the destruction of a historical monument. The Lee monument was destroyed in 2023, despite promises by officials it would be relocated.

Balogh is appealing the Fourth Circuit’s dismissal of his claims, as part of Balogh v. Virginia, 120 F.4th 127. That appeal was decided by Chief Judge Albert Diaz, an Obama appointee. That court said that because the participants engaged in violence, they were not entitled to protection from the police, a ruling at odds with the evidence in the case.

You can read the request for Supreme Court review here.

Charlottesville’s supposed right-wing violence is the reason Joe Biden gave for running against Donald Trump in the 2020 election.

Keep reading

Trump Admin Serious About Combatting Global Censorship

President Donald Trump is well known for his America First agenda. Some have interpreted this as an isolationist stance of retreat from the world stage. If anything, the first few weeks have shown an energetic engagement on foreign policy. America First hasn’t meant disengagement with the world. Rather, it has meant taking seriously American foundational principles and believing those are core values that other nations will look up to when demonstrated proudly.

One of those fundamental American principles is free speech, and the Trump administration is making sure that the world sees America vigorously fighting for it.

This new posture of strongly proclaiming the American value of free speech on the global stage had its biggest demonstration yet for the new administration last week. On Friday, Vice President J.D. Vance spoke at the Munich Security Conference. Rather than focusing on external global threats from Russia and China – as important and real as they are – Vance turned his attention to a major worrisome trend in Europe: the rise of aggressive censorship.

Vance lamented the “retreat of Europe from some of its most fundamental values, values shared with the United States of America.” For Americans, censorship is itself an attack on democracy. As the Vice President stated, “Dismissing people, dismissing their concerns, or worse yet, shutting down media, shutting down elections, or shutting people out of the political process protects nothing. In fact, it is the most surefire way to destroy democracy.” Free speech is not supposed to just be an American value but a universally shared fundamental right, protected in international treaties and charters enthusiastically signed onto by European allies.

Vance highlighted one example in particular of the attack on freedom of expression, that of British Army veteran and ADF International client Adam Smith-Connor. Smith-Connor was charged in November 2022 for violating a “buffer zone” outside an abortion clinic in the UK when he had silently prayed outside of it. This past October, Smith-Connor was criminally convicted for his three minutes of silent prayer. Smith-Connor’s appeal will be heard in July.

But that is just one example of what has become increasingly systematic attempts in Europe at ever larger scales to censor and control public discourse to exclude “wrong” opinions.

Other cases abound, like that of Päivi Räsänen, the Finnish member of Parliament who has been hounded on “hate speech” criminal charges now for almost four years and investigations for even longer because she posted a picture of a Bible verse on then-Twitter.

But on a broader level, Europe’s Digital Services Act (DSA) would make every European social media user subject to the censorship regime and potentially export that censorship throughout the world, including America. The DSA imposes enormous penalties on large social media companies that do not comply with orders to censor so-called “illegal content,” broadly defined as anything that is illegal under EU or national law. Notably, this can include vague and subjective terms like “hate speech,” “misinformation,” and “disinformation,” which are readily weaponized against disfavored religious views, as the stories above show.

Keep reading

FEMA Allocated $2.6M for “War on Misinformation” Contract in 2023

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) – an incorporated agency of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) – earmarked $2.6 million to fund a “war on misinformation” contract in 2023, according to data on the usaspending.gov website.

The blanket purchase agreement note lists “misinformation, disinformation, and malinformation analysis” as the subjects of the order, with $1.2 million spent, and as much currently listed as the obligated amount.

As noticed by Foundation For Freedom Online, the recipient is the consultancy firm Guildehouse, a government contractor owned by Bain Capital. A post on the company’s website that has since been deleted spoke about Guildehouse engaging with social media platforms to report misinformation (including flagging posts for removal).

Guildehouse also “maintained a proprietary internal database” to track content designated as “misinformation,” and a list of “higher risks” sites that might have published such content.

The case looks like another piece in the puzzle that has been the Big Government-Big Tech collusion to suppress speech in the US, unfolding over the last four years.

Keep reading

Did Facebook Conspire With the Government to Censor Speech in Violation of the First Amendment? Case Could Redefine Social Media Censorship

The Rutherford Institute is calling on the U.S. Supreme Court to hold Facebook accountable for conspiring with the government to censor and suppress speech and address Facebook censorship issues.

Weighing in before the U.S. Supreme Court with an amicus brief in Children’s Health Defense v. Meta, The Rutherford Institute argues that Meta Platforms should be held accountable as a government actor for violating the First Amendment by partnering with the government in order to restrict the Facebook posts, fundraising, and advertising of Children’s Health Defense (“CHD”). Although the Trump Administration has ordered federal officials to cease the government’s censorship efforts, The Rutherford Institute warned that political stances can change quickly and social media companies are likely to censor speech again at the government’s direction unless they are held accountable as government actors for violating the First Amendment rights of the people. Facebook censorship leads to the suppression of diverse ideas.

“We should all be alarmed when prominent social media voices are censored, silenced, and made to disappear from Facebook, X, YouTube, and Instagram for voicing ideas that are deemed politically incorrect, hateful, extremist, or conspiratorial,” said constitutional attorney John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute and author of Battlefield America: The War on the American People. “At some point, depending on how the government and its corporate allies define what constitutes ‘extremism,’ we might all be considered guilty of some thought-crime and subjected to technocensorship like Facebook censorship.”

Keep reading

Report: Fact Checker Group Received $2.4M in US Government Funds Amid Fact-Checking Controversy

The Poynter Institute for Media Studies is one of the organizations that received US taxpayer money over the last 12 years – most of it during the Biden administration and during about six months leading up to the former president’s election.

The Media Research Center (MRC) said it discovered this by searching the USASpending.gov site, which showed Poynter received the majority of funds from the Small Business Administration ($1.67 million), followed by the US Agency for Global Media and the State Department with $423,781, and $367,435.

The total amount the government gave Poynter in obligations from 2013 until this year is reported to be at least $2.4 million.

The problem with this “arrangement” is not simply irresponsible spending of public money, but the nature of the Poynter Institute.

Since 2015, it has been running the International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN), certifying and supporting more than 170 fact-checking outfits around the world with training, resources, and organizing of events.

Throughout the former administration’s time in power, conservatives and others engaging in “disfavored” speech online accused these third-party groups of bias that led to censorship.

Keep reading

ORCHESTRATED CENSORSHIP: $2.4 million in U.S. government fund to Poynter Institute raises alarms

In a shocking revelation that underscores the insidious reach of government over media and online speech, the Media Research Center (MRC) has uncovered that the Poynter Institute for Media Studies received at least 2.4 million in government funds from 2013 to 2025. The majority of this funding, totaling over 1.67 million, came from the Small Business Administration (SBA) during the Biden administration, with additional significant contributions from the U.S. Agency for Global Media and the State Department.

A historical context of concern

The Poynter Institute, home to the International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN), has long been a focal point of controversy, particularly among conservatives and those advocating for free speech. Since its inception in 2015, the IFCN has certified and supported over 170 fact-checking organizations worldwide, a network that has often been accused of bias and censorship. The allocation of taxpayer dollars to such an entity raises serious questions about government influence over the media and the suppression of dissenting voices.

Government-funded censorship: A dangerous precedent

The funding of the Poynter Institute is not merely a case of irresponsible spending; it is a potent example of the government’s role in shaping online discourse. The IFCN, with its extensive network of fact-checkers, including Poynter’s own PolitiFact, was integral to Meta’s (formerly Facebook) fact-checking program. This program, which flagged content and reduced its visibility by up to 95%, was a powerful tool for suppressing speech—particularly conservative viewpoints.

“The critical issue here is the extent to which the government is funding organizations that have a direct hand in moderating and censoring online content,” said Tim Graham, a senior analyst at MRC. “This is a clear violation of the First Amendment and a dangerous precedent for free speech in America.”

Keep reading