Tag: censorship

Yes, Mark Zuckerberg, You Can Shout ‘Fire’ in a Crowded Theater

Mark Zuckerberg has joined a dubious list of prominent Americans—including judges, members of Congress, and even a vice presidential nominee—who believe that you can’t yell “fire” in a crowded theater. In an interview with Joe Rogan last week, the Meta CEO attempted to justify the company’s pandemic-era censorship policies by arguing that “even people who are like the most ardent First Amendment defenders” know that there is a limit to free speech. 

“At the beginning, [COVID-19 was] a legitimate public health crisis,” Zuckerberg told Rogan. “The Supreme Court has this clear precedent: It’s like, all right, you can’t yell ‘fire’ in a crowded theater. There are times when if there’s an emergency, your ability to speak can temporarily be curtailed in order to get an emergency under control. I was sympathetic to that at the beginning of COVID.”

The thing is, Zuckerberg is simply wrong when it comes to how the First Amendment works.

The common misconception that it’s illegal to shout “fire” in a crowded theater originates with a hypothetical used by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes in the 1919 Supreme Court case Schenck v. United States.

In his opinion, Holmes wrote that “the character of every act depends upon the circumstances in which it is done,” adding that “the most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic.” Not only was this passage a pure hypothetical used to illustrate Holmes’ larger opinion that the First Amendment didn’t protect the dissemination of anti-draft pamphlets, but Schenck itself was overturned in 1969 by Brandenburg v. Ohio.

“To the contrary, if the theater is on fire, you not only may shout ‘FIRE,’ but indeed, you should do so! The constant misstatement of this famous line from a 1919 Supreme Court decision is significant, because it overlooks the critical, common-sense distinction between protected and unprotected speech,” former American Civil Liberties Union President Nadine Strossen said in 2021. “This old canard, a favorite reference of censorship apologists, needs to be retired. It’s repeatedly and inappropriately used to justify speech limitations. People have been using this cliché as if it had some legal meaning, while First Amendment lawyers roll their eyes”

Zuckerberg’s interview came in the wake of a January 7 announcement that Meta platforms would no longer use third-party fact-checkers to label and restrict content, as well as loosen restrictions on some subjects “that are part of mainstream discourse.” 

“After [Donald] Trump first got elected in 2016, the legacy media wrote nonstop about how misinformation was a threat to democracy,” Zuckerberg said in a video announcing the change. “We tried in good faith to address those concerns without becoming the arbiters of truth. But the fact-checkers have just been too politically biased and have destroyed more trust than they’ve created, especially in the U.S.”

While this change is a welcome shift from Meta’s previous content-moderation regime, that Zuckerberg is still getting this basic element of the First Amendment wrong hardly bodes well for Meta’s future as a platform friendly to free expression.

Keep reading

Newsom’s ‘Answer’ to Hard L.A. Fire Questions Is to Censor People Asking Them

California Governor Gavin Newsom doesn’t want to answer the hard questions about the L.A. fires, so he wants the question askers to be censored. That’s not hyperbole, that’s a fact. And you can watch him do it right here.  

That fact alone should be disqualifying for anyone in or seeking public office, as the current California governor surely hopes to in 2028 when he’ll likely run for president.

Newsom is seen on video twice complaining about how these hard questions make him look bad. The questions come from his voters, reporters, and social media.

The governor was so upset by these questions that he asked the president of the United States to censor the people asking them. 

Newsom asked Biden, who was in the Oval Office sitting behind the Resolute Desk with Jill Biden and Kamala Harris in the room, to clamp down on the hard questions.

I ask you – we’ve got to deal with this misinformation. There are hurricane force winds of mis and dis information; lies. People want to divide this country, and we’re gonna have to address that as well. 

There are several things you can divine from this conversation between these powerful Democrats. First, Newsom felt perfectly comfortable asking the president to do something about the information he doesn’t like and wants removed from the public because it is obviously detrimental to his reputation. Also, it’s de rigueur for these people to control the information flow. Third, he’s fully read-in on how “dividing this country” is a reason to invoke censorship. 

Keep reading

We can’t let Mark Zuckerberg pass the buck on Meta’s censorship

No, Mark Zuckerberg doesn’t get to go on Joe Rogan’s podcast and pretend he’s a free speech champion as if there were nothing he could have done to stop the censorship at Facebook that rigged the 2020 election and probably cost lives during the pandemic.

The wanksta-lite makeover can’t hide Zuck’s sins, from throttling The Post’s Hunter Biden laptop story before the 2020 election to deplatforming a sitting president, Donald Trump, to suppressing COVID-19 dissent.

No matter how many “Iron Neck” workouts he does in an attempt to de-nerd himself, the billionaire tech titan will always be a spineless coward whose monopoly needs to be broken up. No one person should be wielding historically unprecedented power to censor political thought and speech, least of all a socially inept tech bro.

The Facebook founder whose Meta group behemoth owns Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp whined to Rogan Friday that “these people from the Biden administration would call up our team, and, like, scream at them, and curse,” to force them to take down posts. Now he tells us.

Keep reading

Biden Slams Mark Zuckerberg’s ‘Shameful’ Decision to Roll Back Meta’s Censorship Regime – ‘Contrary to Everything America is About’

Joe Biden is clearly unhappy with Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg’s attempt to repair his relationship with Donald Trump.

The outgoing president said at a press conference on Friday that Zuckerberg’s decision to roll back his platforms’ censorship policies was “really shameful” and against American values.

“It’s just completely contrary to everything America is about,” he said.

“We want to tell the truth. We haven’t always done it as a nation. We want to tell the truth.”

“The idea that, you know, a billionaire can buy something and say, ‘By the way, we’re not gonna fact check anything,’ and you know, you have millions of people reading, going online, reading this stuff,” he continued.

“Anyway, I think it’s really shameful.”

Keep reading

EU Officials Pressure Meta and X to Enforce Censorship: Threats Linked to “Fact-Checkers” and Disinformation Investigations

This week’s statement by CEO Mark Zuckerberg, and the realization that Meta’s policy shift regarding free speech on the giant’s social platforms doesn’t necessarily end with the US – is clearly sending shivers down the spine of a particular political class in Europe.

The one that, at least currently, gets to do all the talking – and gets that talking reported as gospel by legacy media.

And so, officials in a number of EU countries as well as some members of the European Parliament (MEPs) are scrambling to respond to Meta’s announcement – in a way, it seems, simply as an emergency measure to protect their narrow political, rather than what may be their nations’ long term, greater interest.

The people’s interest, meanwhile, is always the same: being able to speak freely as the very first point of assurance, that we do indeed, live in a democratic way.

But – the bureaucracy obviously has a different agenda.

Meta, as the first of the true tech giants to “turn the free speech ship around” does appear to be following in the footsteps of what Twitter/X has already been doing for several years.

And Meta’s change in policy is, in the grand scheme of things, still minor – Meta is simply now dropping the notorious third-party “fact-checkers.”

But, a number of EU officials and representatives of various agencies are wasting no time making themselves and their priorities known. And free speech, by way of welcoming less online censorship, does not come across as any priority.

Instead, they are warning Meta against abandoning the services of the “Censorship Central” – aka, “fact-checkers” – while at the same time looking to “energetically” pursue the existing investigation against X.

German Federal Network Agency head Klaus Muller is one of those appearing to be trying to stem the free speech tide, all the way to threatening to impose “sanctions” against Meta – should the company decide to extend its new, freedom-respecting policies to Europeans, after Americans start enjoying this privilege first.

Keep reading

Here’s Everything You Still Can’t Say on “Free Speech” Meta Platforms

Meta’s recent announcement of plans to “restore free expression” on its platforms is accompanied by an extensive list of content restrictions, raising questions about the breadth of speech allowed under the new rules. While CEO Mark Zuckerberg claimed the company is “getting back to its roots” with a focus on open discourse, the detailed policies suggest significant limitations remain.

The updated guidelines categorize prohibited content into two tiers. Tier 1 bans dehumanizing speech, such as comparisons to “animals” or “pathogens,” and stereotypes such as claiming that certain groups control financial, political, or media institutions. Allegations of serious immorality or criminality, such as calling someone a terrorist or pedophile, are also prohibited.

The policy also forbids mocking alleged hate crime victims, using targeted slurs, or expressing harmful wishes, such as hoping someone contracts a disease or experiences a disaster. Even expressions as simple as saying someone “makes me vomit” fall under the banned list when targeting individuals based on protected characteristics.

Tier 2 extends restrictions to statements that support exclusion or segregation, such as denying someone access to spaces, jobs, or social services. Insults based on character, mental capacity, or physical worth are similarly prohibited, though some exceptions are made for gender-based insults in specific contexts, like romantic break-ups.

Keep reading

Why is Russiagate’s Origin Story Redacted?

On January 11, 2019, at the peak of Russiagate mania and months before the release of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s deflating report, the New York Times for the first time made public a remarkable fact. In “FBI Opened Inquiry Into Whether Trump Was Secretly Working on Behalf of Russia,” a trio of Times reporters revealed that in the days after Donald Trump’s May 2017 firing of FBI Director James Comey, the Bureau “began investigating whether he had been working on behalf of Russia.”

The country first learned the FBI was investigating “any links between individuals associated with the Trump campaign and the Russian government” when Comey testified in Congress in March, 2017. Comey then was referring to the FBI’s much-ballyhooed Crossfire Hurricane probe, which was opened in July, 2016 and targeted the likes of George Papadopoulos and Carter Page.

This second FBI probe disclosed by the Times in 2019 carried far more explosive implications, making its delayed disclosure unusual. It’s one thing for the FBI to investigate possible “links” between foreigners and a presidential campaign. It’s another for Deputy Director of the FBI Andrew McCabe to open an investigation into whether a sitting president, i.e. his boss, is “working on behalf of Russia.”

“Imagine even opening this investigation up on just your average Joe,” says Aaron Maté of RealClear Investigations. “That would be crazy, unless you have some real predication. But this is the fucking president. Andrew McCabe decides that he can do this. On what basis?”

Either the FBI had evidence to start such an investigation, which would be damning to Trump, or it didn’t, which would be damning to the FBI. Which was it?

The 2019 Times story suggested the FBI probe was begun in part to determine if Trump’s “firing of Mr. Comey constituted obstruction of justice.” Beyond that, details were scant, and once the new investigation was folded into Robert Mueller’s inquiry, the reasons for its opening disappeared into the proverbial dustbin of history. Even when Special Counsel John Durham issued his report on the FBI and Crossfire Hurricane, he made just one mention of this second investigation, saying it was beyond his purview:

We also have not interpreted the Order as directing us to consider the handling ofthe investigation into President Trump opened by the FBI on May 16, 2017.

Nobody seemed to care what this second investigation was about, or what evidence was submitted to justify its opening, until Aaron and RealClear in December, 2022 sent a Freedom of Information request. They sought a copy of the original document explaining why the FBI opened a new “Sensitive Investigative Matter” on May 16, 2017. It took over two full years for the Bureau to respond. The answer was a middle finger: six pages, almost entirely redacted, with the exception of a few paragraphs.

Keep reading

Bulgarian Minister Of Defense Calls For Mass Censorship To Defend Globalist Interests

Bulgaria’s caretake Minister of Defense, Atanas Zapryanov, is calling for strict censorship to stifle any opposition to globalist interests in Bulgaria, especially efforts to stop the government’s support for the war in Ukraine. The fact that the overwhelming majority of Bulgarians oppose the war is of no interest to the globalist puppet politician.

“Disinformation today poses a threat to our country and society comparable to the threat of a conventional war,” Zapryanov said in a written reply to Continue the Change – Democratic Bulgaria MP Ivaylo Mirchev, regarding measures to counter foreign influence on public opinion. Continue the Change – Democratic Bulgaria is one of the most radical globalist political parties in the Balkan country.

In typical globalist fashion, Zapryanov accuses anyone who opposes the globalist agenda of being under Russian influence. “Disinformation is currently the main tool of Russia’s hybrid war against Bulgaria aimed at manipulating public opinion,” the Minister falsely claimed. “Cognitive warfare aims to undermine the critical thinking of citizens, to reinforce divisions in society, to erode trust in institutions and to influence the decision-making processes.”

Determined to stifle free speech and shut down any real democratic debate of the issues that affect Bulgarian citizens, Zapryanov said, “The fight against disinformation must be established as a strategic priority for all state institutions and for society as a whole. An institutional framework for effective government strategic communications with the people is necessary. To this end, a lead national institution should be identified, and sustainable inter-agency and public cooperation should be promoted.”

Keep reading

Facebook Claims it Will Allow More Free Speech Now

Admitting it has gone too far, Meta’s platforms of Facebook and Instagram are ending their ‘fact checking’ programs and restrictions on speech to allegedly restore free expression, according to Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg in a video posted Tuesday.

“We’re going to get back to our roots and focus on reducing mistakes, simplifying our policies and restoring free expression on our platforms,” Zuckerberg said. “More specifically, we’re going to get rid of fact-checkers and replace them with Community Notes similar to X, starting in the U.S.” 

The shift to an X-style model with community notes replacing the heavy hand of internet censorship will be rolled out over the next few months, according to Zuckerberg.

“This is a great opportunity for us to reset the balance in favor of free expression. As Mark says in that video, what we’re doing is we’re getting back to our roots and free expression,” Meta’s chief global affairs officer, Joel Kaplan said in an interview with Fox News Channel’s “Fox & Friends” Tuesday.

The fact checking program was put in place following the Democrats loss of the 2016 election. Its purpose was to manage user’s content and censor what it deemed as ‘misinformation’. The move was initiated by political pressure, explained Zuckerberg.

“After Trump first got elected in 2016, the legacy media wrote nonstop about how misinformation was a threat to democracy. We tried in good faith to address those concerns without becoming the arbiters of truth,” Zuckerberg said. “But fact checkers have just been too politically biased and have destroyed more trust than they created, especially in the U.S.”

Meta’s man went on to discuss specific topics that will no longer be taboo on his website.

Keep reading

Why (and How) We Must Resist “Eve’s Law”

As usual, the state propagandists at The Guardian—who evidently despise investigative journalism—have produced standard government PR spin to promote the emerging UK dictatorship. In this case, off the back of the appalling injustice committed at Richard D. Hall’s trial, The Guardian is supporting a proposed law which, if enacted, will destroy the independent media.

The envisaged “Eve’s Law”—nominally advocated by Martin Hibbert, the claimant in Hall’s kangaroo court hearing—presents no threat to The Guardian. It will censor only independent investigative journalists who question power. The subject is of no concern to The Guardian, a bastion of the legacy media.

The Guardian’s stated mission is to “change the world” and “build hope.” The essential duty of the news media—namely, to act as a public check on the branches of government—was long ago abandoned by the legacy media and is now anathema to them. The legacy media unquestioningly serves the public-private partnership we call “the state.” Certainly, The Guardian is no exception.

The alleged Manchester Arena bombing occurred on 22nd May 2017. Although nearly eight years have passed, the incident is viewed by the UK government as the most important UK “terrorist attack” of the 21st century. It is the event the UK state continues to exploit to supposedly justify some of its most dictatorial legislation. Widespread public belief in the Manchester story remains crucial to government plans.

Keep reading