Tag: censorship

MIT suspends student and bans magazine for article opposing Gaza genocide

Last Friday, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) issued an immediate “interim” suspension of graduate student Prahlad Iyengar for penning an article titled “On Pacifism” in an MIT student magazine, Written Revolution, opposing Israel’s genocide against the people of Gaza. The publication itself has been banned from campus.

Zionist groups and the MIT administration have falsely claimed the article incites violence and have attempted to paint Iyengar as a terrorist. The article, which appeared in the fifth edition of the magazine, which is an American Sociological Association-recognized publication, does nothing of the sort as is obvious from the text of the article itself which is academic in character.

The World Socialist Web Site opposes this flagrant attack on free speech and academic freedom and calls on workers, students and youth to demand the immediate rescinding of all administrative measures against Iyengar.

As Iyengar wrote in a statement opposing the ban, “The administration has also banned Written Revolution outright, meaning students who disseminate or read this publication on campus may face discipline.” Some students reading the magazine were approached by the police. According to a recording of the call made to police, it was to stop the handing out “banned pamphlets.” Students face Orwellian disciplinary actions for distributing or merely reading the article on campus. 

The suspension and ban represent an escalation of the bipartisan campaign led by the Biden administration and Democratic Party against opposition on the campuses to the Gaza genocide. It takes place after over 186,000 people in Gaza have been massacred by Israel, according to an estimate by The Lancet from July. The United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) has warned that everyone in northern Gaza “is at imminent risk of dying,” while there is a massive and unprecedented amount of photographic and video evidence both from the victims and killers themselves on social media documenting the genocide, which could correctly be described as the first live-streamed genocide in history.

Iyengar, a second-year electrical engineering Ph.D. student, was summarily banned from campus under the bogus justification that he presented an immediate risk of violence, with the administration falsely claiming his article supports “terrorism.” This was done solely on the basis of anonymous allegations by Zionist students’ claims that statements in the article “could be interpreted as a call for more violent or destructive forms of protest at MIT.” The rule for interim banning of students is ostensibly aimed only at those who actually present a risk of violence, like those suspected of rape, murder or assault. This is clearly not the case.

Essentially no evidence has been presented beyond a People’s Front for the Liberation of Palestine poster being used as an illustration in Iyengar’s article. The administration falsely used this to claim that the article supported terrorism. The banning opens a veritable Pandora’s Box of avenues for censorship, meaning all manner of media from textbooks and dictionaries which have pictures of real or supposed “terrorist” organizations to documentaries and non-fiction books and even news articles in the mainstream press could be banned.

Keep reading

US Lawmakers Investigate Biden White House-Affiliated UK Censorship Group’s Plot To “Kill” Elon Musk’s X

Among the investigations currently carried out by the US House Committee on the Judiciary and its Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government is the one into a case involving UK-based “censorship group” – the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH).

In a letter dated November 7, Committee chairman Jim Jordan is asking CCDH CEO Imran Ahmed to, by November 21, comply with a subpoena issued on August 30, 2023.

We obtained a copy of the letter for you here.

According to Jordan, it covers the group’s activities as well, including documents showing the Biden-Harris administration’s alleged collusion with Big Tech to censor Americans’ lawful online speech.

Keep reading

UN Wants Digital IDs To Combat “Hate Speech,” “Misinformation”

A United Nations (UN) committee has adopted two resolutions, one of them aimed at the World Organization’s Department of Global Communications establishing and strengthening “partnerships with new and traditional media to address hate speech narratives.”

The Fourth Committee (Special Political and Decolonization) also adopted a resolution further promoting the UN’s “Our Common Agenda” plan, which, among other points, proposes bank account-linked digital ID – as well as the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), UN Pact for the Future, and Global Digital Compact – also pushing for digital IDs, censorship, and surveillance, with major countries as the schemes’ key backers.

Ahead of the adoption of the documents, representatives of a number of countries spoke in favor of expanded censorship under the UN umbrella, with Italy’s delegate advocating for the use of AI in combating “misinformation and disinformation.”

UK’s representative reiterated the country’s commitment to the UN Pact for the Future and Global Digital Compact, highlighted the far-reaching censorship law, Online Safety Act, and noted that it forces companies “to remove illegal online content, including illegal mis and disinformation generated by AI.”

Another thing the UK remains committed to, the address revealed, is digging its heels in when it comes to characterizing “misinformation” as a major threat.

Keep reading

Book banning, cover-ups and censorship: Understanding the “AIDS” crisis

The history behind the “AIDS” crisis is fraught with coverups, deceptive narratives and censorship.

The first cases of “AIDS” reported by the CDC were based on pneumocystis pneumonia infections of previously healthy gay men. This infection is caused by the normally harmless fungus Pneumocystis jirovecii, but the infection became severe in these individuals. Instead of asking why these infections were more severe in these individuals, medical authorities dismissed further inquiry into underlying factors. No attempt was made to investigate these cases through the perception of the terrain theory of disease, which addresses the whole individual and the conditions that breed disease. By only seeing disease through the perception of the germ theory, medical authorities played right into the hands of the pharmaceutical industry and snuffed out scientific progress on the matter.

Controversy behind the emergence of the term AIDS and its sole causative agent, HIV

By September of 1982, the medical establishment coined a new medical condition called AIDS (acquired immunodeficiency syndrome). This umbrella term was used as a cover for many different types of infections, malnutrition, the negative effects of immunosuppressant drugs and other personal health decisions that damage the blood. The underlying causes exacerbating immunosuppression could easily be ignored for individuals who struggled with these different infections, because the umbrella term AIDS covered up the underlying causes of their health conditions.

By 1982, medical authorities claimed that AIDS had affected 335 people, killing 136 of them. Remarkably in 1983, scientists discovered human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1). By 1984, HIV was attributed as the sole cause of AIDS, and many medical coverups began from here. Because the condition overwhelmingly affected men who practiced homosexuality, the disease was often referred to as gay-related immune deficiency, or GRID.

Since then, billions of dollars in research money has been awarded to scientists who uphold the HIV-AIDS connection. Today, medical authorities continue to postulate that HIV is the sole cause of AIDS, and discussion about the underlying factors of immunosuppression are disregarded as conspiracy theory. One of the first books to be censored was “The Health Scandal” written by Dr. Vernon Coleman in 1988.

Keep reading

To Fight Donald Trump, the Media Contemplates Vast Censorship

The sheer impressiveness of Donald Trump’s Election Day victory continues to grow, with the former president winning not just all of the swing states, but probably the popular vote, the Senate, and possibly even the House of Representatives. Trump also exercises much greater control over his party than he did previously. This is an utter rout for the Democratic Party, and one that will clear the way for the implementation of GOP policy goals on a scale hitherto undreamt of (at least since 2004).

Democratic officials and pundits know that this is bad, though not all of them are willing to admit that the main fault lies with their candidate, Vice President Kamala Harris. If she does not deserve all of the blame, it is only because she shares it with President Joe Biden, whose stubborn decision to seek reelection despite his advanced age and declining cognitive abilities compromised both of their candidacies. Various commentators have lashed out, not at Harris, but at Americans.

Keep reading

Hands Off My Social Media!

Democrats have found a new superstar to help get out the progressive vote: Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Chair Lina Khan. Khan has done town halls with Representatives Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-IL) and Mark Pocan (D-WI), Senate candidate and current Representative Ruben Gallego (D-AZ), and Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT).

Khan’s appearances are official government events—not campaign rallies. However, politicians would not appear at an event in an election year unless they where sure it would appeal to a key constituency. It may seem odd that politicians would consider it helpful to appear with an FTC chair. However, Lina Khan is no ordinary agency head. Khan has been a star in progressive circles since, while still a law student, she penned “Amazon’s Antitrust Paradox.” This article argued that the rise of Big Tech companies like Amazon and Google required government to take a more aggressive approach to antitrust. Khan has brought high-profile antitrust cases against Amazon and META (parent company of Facebook, Instagram, and What’s App), as well as attempts to block mergers and acquisitions in areas ranging from  handbags to grocery stores.

Khan advocates a “holistic” approach to antitrust that recognizes how “workers and independent businesses, in addition to consumers, can be harmed by antitrust and consumer protection violations.” She has also called for the FTC to consider how certain business practices can help facilitate antitrust violations. This holistic approach gives federal antitrust enforcers justification for second-guessing almost any decision made by almost any American business.

The FTC chair has a number of fans on the “populist-nationalist” right. These “Khanservatives” want Republicans to embrace a Lina Khan-like approach to antitrust. Khanservatives want to use antitrust to punish Big Tech for manipulating their algorithms to suppress conservative news and opinions. Some Khanservatives believe the Big Tech companies influenced the outcome of the 2016 and 2020 presidential elections.

The most prominent Khanservative is Republican vice presidential nominee JD Vance. Senator Vance (R-OH) has publicly praised Khan and, before being picked as Donald Trump’s running mate, suggested that if Trump returns to the Oval Office he should “use the administrative state” to advance a conservative agenda. Senator Vance has also called for the government to break up Google because “the monopolistic control of information in our society resides with a progressive company.”

Keep reading

‘Kill Musk’s Twitter’: British Intel Again Targets Donald Trump

On October 22nd, independent journalists Paul D. Thacker and Matt Taibbi published a bombshell investigation, exposing how the intelligence-adjacent Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH) hatched a covert plot at the start of 2024 to “kill [Elon] Musk’s Twitter.” This highly politicised attack on ‘X’ is just one component of a wider British invasion of the US political sphere, designed to sabotage Donald Trump’s presidential campaign, guarantee the election of Kamala Harris, and keep Washington embroiled in the Ukraine proxy war quagmire.

CCDH was founded by Morgan McSweeney, a British political svengali widely credited with masterminding Keir Starmer’s landslide July general election win, now closely advising Harris’ presidential campaign. The organisation, which targets both left and right dissident voices for censorship and deplatforming, was spun out of Labour Together, a “think tank” McSweeney led 2017 – 2020. In this position, he drew up Machiavellian plans for Starmer’s seizure of power, and neutralising then-Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn and his party support base, much of which subsequently came to fruition.

CCDH was a key element of McSweeney’s anti-Corbyn crusade. Officially founded in early 2019, its first act was to launch Stop Funding Fake News (SFFN). Initially operating without any clarity on who or what was funding and running the endeavour, it promoted boycotts of independent English-language news outlets. Resultantly, major businesses were pressured into withdrawing their adverts from target websites, to starve them of revenue. The approach was devastatingly effective, shutting down several websites and forcing others, like The Canary, to downsize.

Fast forward to today, and McSweeney is leading a pack of veteran British political strategists Stateside who, in the words of Politico, are teaching Harris and her campaign “how to win.” Multiple mainstream reports indicate this unprecedented support is concerned with maintaining the “Grand Atlantic Alliance” between London and Washington, and ensuring Starmer isn’t left “alone” in backing Kiev. Given the Machiavellian histories of McSweeney and CCDH, it is beyond doubt these efforts are but the visible tip of something far larger, and more destructive.

Keep reading

They Are Scrubbing the Internet Right Now

Instances of censorship are growing to the point of normalization. Despite ongoing litigation and more public attention, mainstream social media has been more ferocious in recent months than ever before. Podcasters know for sure what will be instantly deleted and debate among themselves over content in gray areas. Some like Brownstone have given up on YouTube in favor of Rumble, sacrificing vast audiences if only to see their content survive to see the light of day. 

It’s not always about being censored or not. Today’s algorithms include a range of tools that affect searchability and findability. For example, the Joe Rogan interview with Donald Trump racked up an astonishing 34 million views before YouTube and Google tweaked their search engines to make it hard to discover, while even presiding over a technical malfunction that disabled viewing for many people. Faced with this, Rogan went to the platform X to post all three hours. 

Navigating this thicket of censorship and quasi-censorship has become part of the business model of alternative media. 

Those are just the headline cases. Beneath the headlines, there are technical events taking place that are fundamentally affecting the ability of any historian even to look back and tell what is happening. Incredibly, the service Archive.org which has been around since 1994 has stopped taking images of content on all platforms. For the first time in 30 years, we have gone a long swath of time – since October 8-10 – since this service has chronicled the life of the Internet in real time. 

As of this writing, we have no way to verify content that has been posted for three weeks of October leading to the days of the most contentious and consequential election of our lifetimes. Crucially, this is not about partisanship or ideological discrimination. No websites on the Internet are being archived in ways that are available to users. In effect, the whole memory of our main information system is just a big black hole right now. 

Keep reading

Civil Liberties Groups Push DOJ to Probe UK-US Collusion in Online Censorship

America First Legal (AFL) has announced that it has filed a formal complaint, based on new evidence, urging an investigation into the activities of the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH).

This UK-based group has been accused of direct involvement in online censorship, including in the US, notably in the affair around the “naming and shaming” of the supposed Covid “Disinformation Dozen” – which is why the AFL’s complaint has now been submitted to the US Department of Justice (DOJ).

The key question that AFL wants to be answered is whether those behind CCDH should be treated as “agents of a foreign principal” who took on the role of stifling free speech in the US.

Such a designation of the group, if confirmed, would be in line with the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA).

We obtained a copy of the request for you here.

Keep reading

Unmasking a Social Media Crackdown: NCLA Seeks Full Discovery on Government Censorship Tactics

The New Civil Liberties Alliance (NCLA) is pushing forward in Missouri v. Biden, aiming to uncover the depth of government-led censorship on social media. This legal action follows a June Supreme Court ruling that vacated a preliminary injunction in the case, previously known as Murthy v. Missouri, which barred officials from the White House, CDC, FBI, CISA, and the Surgeon General’s office from pressuring social media platforms to censor constitutionally protected speech.

NCLA’s clients, including prominent figures such as Drs. Jayanta Bhattacharya, Martin Kulldorff, and Aaron Kheriaty, as well as free speech advocate Jill Hines, allege that they were systematically blacklisted, shadow-banned, de-boosted, throttled, and even suspended across major social media platforms due to their viewpoints on Covid-19, public health, and government policies. NCLA claims this censorship campaign was orchestrated as part of a “whole-of-government” initiative that saw coordinated efforts across a dozen federal agencies, with direction from top White House officials.

We obtained a copy of this new filing for you here.

While the Supreme Court ruled that NCLA’s clients lacked the standing needed to sustain the preliminary injunction, the organization argues that this ruling does not spell an end to the lawsuit. According to NCLA, the standard for standing at the injunction stage is higher than what’s required to advance a case through its initial pleadings. The Alliance is seeking further discovery to show that government actions indeed stifled speech and violated the First Amendment—an assertion that Supreme Court Justices Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch echoed in their partial dissent, in which they warned that the government’s actions raised “serious First Amendment concerns.”

Keep reading