Tag: censorship

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

Munich Security Conference Chairman Goes on Stage and Cries Like a Baby After J.D. Vance Rocks His World

Vice President J.D. Vance delivered a fiery speech at the Munich Security Conference on Friday, taking direct aim at European elites for their war on free speech and authoritarian censorship tactics.

In a no-holds-barred address, Vance exposed the hypocrisy of European leaders, who claim to champion democracy while silencing dissent and weaponizing so-called ‘misinformation’ laws to crush political opposition.

Vice President Vance warned Europe that the greatest danger the continent faces today is from within and that censorship of free speech and silencing of their political opponents.

Vance accused European leaders of fear of their own people and warned them that the real threat against their democracy was their assault on individual rights.

The EU elites did not take the news well. They were hoping for another empty, vapid speech filled with exaggerated praise from the Trump regime.

Boy, were they wrong!

Following Vice President Vance’s speech Christoph Heusgen, the Chairman of the Munich Security Conference took the stage – and started to cry.

There is nothing that brings terror to the evil global forces than a grown man crying after J.D. Vance rocked his world.

Of course, the crowd gave Chairman Heusgen rousing applause.

Keep reading

Germany’s Shocking War on Online Speech: Armed Police Raids for Online “Insults,” “Hate Speech,” and “Misinformation”

A shocking discussion on CBS News’ 60 Minutes has highlighted the stark limits of online speech in Germany, where oppressive scenes once thought to be relegated to history and dystopian fiction, show law enforcement has been conducting pre-dawn raids and confiscating electronics from individuals accused of posting content deemed as “hate speech.”

In typical Orwellian fashion, despite these speech raids, officials insist that free speech still exists.

Dr. Matthäus Fink joined host Sharyn Alfonsi to explain how these laws operate and how those targeted by authorities typically react. According to Fink, most individuals are initially shocked when police confront them over online posts.

“They say — in Germany we say, ‘Das wird man ja wohl noch sagen dürfen,’” Fink remarked, illustrating the disbelief many express when they realize their statements can result in legal action. He noted that many Germans assume they are protected by free speech laws but learn too late that specific kinds of speech are punishable.

Alfonsi delved deeper, questioning the scope of these restrictions. Beyond banning swastika imagery and Holocaust denial, Fink pointed out that publicly insulting someone is also a criminal offense.

“And it’s a crime to insult them online as well?” Alfonsi asked.

Fink affirmed that online insults carry even steeper penalties than face-to-face insults. “The fine could be even higher if you insult someone in the internet,” he elaborated. “Because in internet, it stays there. If we are talking face to face, you insult me, I insult you, OK. Finish. But if you’re in the internet, if I insult you or a politician…”

Keep reading

US Tech companies, Including X and Google, Threaten To Leave Starmer’s Leftist Britain Over the Cost of Funding Online ‘Safety’ Censorship

As the ‘Trump Tornado’ is forcefully rearranging things all over Europe, there’s a justified expectation about the Donald J. Trump administration’s reaction to the ill-disguised push for censorship in the upcoming ‘Online Safety Act.’

As of now, Tech companies, including Elon Musk’s X and Google, have warned businesses could leave the PM Keir Starmer’s leftist experiment in Britain over the cost of funding the online safety crackdown.

Google said the fees charged to internet companies will drive services out of the UK, while X says it will ‘disincentivize’ global companies from entering the British market.

The Telegraph reported:

“Ofcom [British Office of Communications] has laid out plans to raise around £70m a year to cover the costs of enforcing the new laws, which take effect in the coming months. They will require tech companies to introduce age checks and limit exposure to harmful content. The bill would almost entirely be borne by the largest five providers – believed to be Meta, Google, Microsoft, Apple and TikTok – [that] would face charges equal to 0.02pc of global revenue.”

Keep reading

‘An Alamo Moment for the First Amendment’: Congress Holds Hearing on Government Censorship

Censorship by the U.S. government dominated Wednesday’s U.S. House of Representatives Judiciary Committee hearing on the censorship-industrial complex Wednesday.

The often-contentious hearing featured testimony by investigative journalists Matt Taibbi and Michael Shellenberger, who released documents as part of the “Twitter Files” that revealed the government’s efforts to censor online speech, including narratives that contradicted official government policy on COVID-19.

Taibbi and Shellenberger’s testimony, and that of Canadian journalist Rupa Subramanya of The Free Press, also focused on the global encroachment of the censorship-industrial complex and the Trump administration’s efforts to shut down the U.S. Agency for International Development or USAID, which is accused of funding censorship-related efforts globally.

“USAID is just a tiny piece of the censorship machine” which uses “think tanks, research, fact-checking, anti-disinformation, commercial media scoring and … straight up censorship” to “transform the free press into [a] consensus machine,” Taibbi said.

Shellenberger suggested the “censorship-industrial complex is on the defensive” today, but that “it’s also clear that many governing and media elites worldwide view expanding censorship of online platforms as a must have, not a nice to have feature of global governance.”

Keep reading

UK Could Weaken Online Censorship Law To Avoid US Trade Battle

As European leaders scramble to shield their economies from impending US tariffs, the UK’s Labour government appears ready to make significant concessions. Facing the risk of economic fallout, Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s administration has reportedly signaled to Washington that it is open to revising the controversial and dangerous Online Safety Act — legislation critics have described as an aggressive censorship regime.

The Act, which gives UK regulators the power to fine tech companies for failing to remove vaguely defined “harmful content,” has been a major point of contention between the two allies and has become a major threat to free speech online. The Trump administration has been especially vocal in its opposition, viewing the law as an affront to free speech and a potential financial burden on US tech giants.

According to The Telegraph:

“Downing Street is willing to renegotiate elements of the Act in order to strike a trade deal, should it be raised by the US, The Telegraph understands. The law has been heavily criticized by free speech advocates and economists, who argue its broad provisions to tackle harmful online content could lead to excessive censorship and deter investment from American tech giants.”

The Online Safety Act arms UK media regulator Ofcom with sweeping new authority over social media platforms, enabling the imposition of multimillion-pound fines for failing to police content according to government directives. While supporters claim the law is necessary to protect users, critics argue that its vague wording and punitive approach encourage preemptive censorship — where platforms remove lawful content simply to avoid regulatory punishment.

Keep reading

Censorship Industrial Complex Hearing Highlights Democrat Denial of Big Tech Censorship Collusion

US House Democrats seem to have chosen the path of not taking any accountability whatsoever for the goings-on during a number of previous years, which resulted in an unprecedented form of “public-private partnership” – what is known, and investigated, as the government-Big Tech censorship collusion.

The House Judiciary Committee is behind one of the more prominent investigations (yet another is conducted by the Committee on Small Businesses) and the Judiciary body just held a hearing titled, “The Censorship-Industrial Complex.”

But it was mostly an opportunity for Democrats who showed up to deny, deflect, downplay – pretty much every point of this fundamentally important problem.

Democrat members of the House of Representatives present – Jamie Raskin, Eric Swalwell, Jasmine Crockett, Pramila Jayapal – had to first sit there and listen to Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan, a Republican, open by painting the big, and damning picture of how the events relevant to the inquiry unfolded over the years of the Biden administration.

Keep reading