Tag: censorship

House Report Reveals GARM’s Role in Stifling Online Discourse

A new report from the House Judiciary Committee released on Wednesday, and confirming our previous reporting, casts the Global Alliance for Responsible Media (GARM) under scrutiny, suggesting potential violations of federal antitrust laws due to its outsized influence in the advertising sector.

We obtained a copy of the report for you here.

Established in 2019 by Rob Rakowitz and the World Federation of Advertisers, GARM has been accused of leveraging this influence to systematically restrict certain viewpoints online and sideline platforms advocating divergent views.

The organization, initially conceived to manage the surge of free speech online, is reported to coordinate with major industry players including Proctor & Gamble, Mars, Unilever, Diageo, GroupM, and others. The collaboration appears to stretch across the largest ad agency holding companies worldwide, known collectively as the Big Six. Such collaboration raises concerns about a concerted effort to police content, especially content that challenges mainstream narratives.

Keep reading

Zuckerberg’s Meta Cracks Down On Speech Criticizing “Zionists”

Mark Zuckerberg’s Meta, the parent company of Instagram and Facebook, announced Tuesday an update to its policies on so-called “hate speech,” specifically users discussing “Zionists.”

The company’s social media platforms will begin removing posts that use the words “Zionism” or “Zionist” to refer to Jewish people or Israelis.

The updated policy will target those who mention Jews are found in prominent roles in financial, political, and media institutions.

Users who compare Zionists to animals or use the term to deny the Holocaust will also be punished under the new rules.

Perhaps using the power of the world’s most wealthy companies to silence your detractors isn’t the best way of convincing them you’re not secretly pulling the strings of the global elite.

Keep reading

Former FBI and Twitter Lawyer Jim Baker Joins Election Task Force Advocating for Social Media Censorship

From presidential election to another election, to Covid – to another election. That is how members of particular, mostly flying-under-the-radar power centers in the US have been moving over the last decades.

From time to time, however, circumstances demand that they show their faces: one is James “Jim” Baker, a former FBI lawyer whose “censorship portfolio” includes the infamous case of endorsing the Hunter Biden laptop story suppression – while he was on Twitter’s payroll.

And while there – Baker also wanted to know how come President Trump was not censored for a post saying – “Don’t fear Covid.”

Well, Baker also seems to be staying true to himself – unfortunately, his “truth” appears to be to never miss the chance to support the wrong thing (the “RussiaGate” saga happens to be among them). Right now, he has joined something called “the National Task Force on Election Crises.”

It’s a crisis, alright. A crisis of online censorship that can, and does, produce multiple “election” crises and a rapid erosion of trust in legacy media and political institutions.

The group’s parent operation is the Protect Democracy Project.

There’s nothing particularly innovative about the group’s lobbying talking points: remove or downgrade “election misinformation” and make sure removing and labeling content (as false) is done ASAP by social and news media (time is clearly of the essence, at this point…)

Keep reading

Advertiser Alliance Members Are Called To Testify After Allegations of Efforts To “Demonetize, and Censor Disfavored Viewpoints”

The Global Alliance for Responsible Media (GARM) is back in the headlines big time – what with the recent decision of X to rejoin the group, and now, as anticipated, the US Congress is stepping up its attempts to shed more light on what GARM actually does, censorship-wise.

Once again it is House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan who is trying to hold Big Tech – and in this case, “the advertising industrial complex” as it were – accountable.

GARM is a World Economic Forum (WEF)-affiliated initiative, launched by the World Federation of Advertisers (WFA); the latter by its own admission represents more than 150 biggest brands and over 60 advertiser associations around the world.

“Brand safety” is what the group says it is offering to these clients. But Jordan, and many conservatives and media outlets and businesses – allied or perceived to be allied with them – have strong suspicions that GARM can and is being used as yet another avenue of censorship and suppression – this time via actions that result in demonetization or boycott of those who hold “disfavored views.”

Concerning GARM, Jordan started fighting what supporters must see as “the good fight” last year (first by requesting information and then by issuing a subpoena once that was ignored).

Then, this March, the Committee sent letters to five members of the GARM Steering Team including Unilever and GroupM (a media investment group) asking for access to documents and communications that might prove the overall anti-conservative bias executed by the imitative.

We obtained a copy of the letter for you here.

Keep reading

The Supreme Court Just Opened the Door to a New Orwellian Censorship Regime

The Supreme Court’s decision in a recent case challenging the Biden administration’s censorship efforts unleashed renewed threats to Americans’ ability to speak and listen freely online while effectively putting a legal remedy out of reach ahead of the 2024 election, legal experts told the Daily Caller News Foundation.

Last year on Independence Day, U.S. District Court Judge Terry A. Doughty issued the initial injunction blocking a range of government agencies from communicating with social media companies to suppress speech, calling the government’s actions “Orwellian.” But one year later, with the Fifth Circuit’s narrower injunction now lifted by the Supreme Court in Murthy v. Missouri, officials have free rein to again employ the same tactics.

“It’s basically a roadmap for government actors, not just the federal government, but also state and local government actors, to reach out to social media companies and pressure them into censoring this disfavored speech,” Center for American Liberty associate counsel Eric Sell told the DCNF.

The Supreme Court held that plaintiffs in the case, who included two states and five individuals, did not have standing to seek an injunction against the government.

In her majority opinion, Justice Amy Coney Barrett said the plaintiffs failed “to link their past social-media restrictions to the defendants’ communications with the platforms.” She also noted that platforms had “independent incentives to moderate content,” making it difficult for the plaintiffs to establish they were harmed directly as a result of the government’s requests.

Justice Samuel Alito worried in his dissent that the Supreme Court’s ruling, though it did not reach the merits of the issue, would send the message that coercive government campaigns against certain speech can run unchecked if “carried out with enough sophistication.”

Keep reading

Biden regime pressured Amazon to censor at least 43 books that discuss vaccine injuries and Big Pharma fraud

The House Judiciary Committee and its Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government has uncovered a book banning operation at Amazon that involves coercive, unconstitutional directives from Joe Biden’s rogue government. According to the Congressional report, Amazon was ordered by the federal government to change its algorithms to reduce visibility for books that are critical of pharmaceutical executives or vaccines.

The federal government compiled a “Do Not Promote” list that targeted at least 43 book titles, effectively limiting their reach and availability to the public. Representative Jim Jordan, Chair of the Judiciary Committee, highlighted these findings on social media, citing internal Amazon communications that link the censorship to requests from the Biden regime.

The Democrats, not the Republicans, are banning books and censoring important information

On numerous occasions, Joe Biden and his propaganda machine claimed that Republicans are fascists who are trying to ban books and take away our rights. We are constantly reminded that “MAGA Republicans are a threat to democracy!”

However, in 2021 and 2022, the Biden regime conscripted the Department of Homeland Security to target moms and dads who speak up at school board meetings about pornography in school libraries and the bodily restrictions that were forced on kids in the name of “safety.” Parents who stood up for common sense, who tried to get forced masking, pornography and perverse gender ideologies out of the schools were deemed “domestic terrorists” by Biden’s DHS.

Keep reading

Former Biden Advisor Claims “The First Amendment Is Out of Control,” Hinders Government Action

Even the New York Times looks like it’s treading somewhat lightly while publishing articles aimed at dismantling the very concept of the First Amendment.

An opinion piece penned by an Obama and Biden administration adviser, Tim Wu, is therefore labeled as a “guest essay.” But was it the author, or the newspaper, who decided on the title? Because it is quite scandalous.

“The First Amendment is Out of Control” – that’s the title.

Meanwhile, many believe that attacks on this speech-protecting constitutional amendment are what’s actually out of control these days.

Wu takes a somewhat innovative route to argue against free speech: he painstakingly frames it as concern that the universally mistrusted Big Tech might be abusing it, with the latest Supreme Court ruling regarding Texas and Florida laws, (ab)used as an example.

When the government colludes with mighty entities like major social platforms – the First Amendment becomes the primary recourse to defend speech now expressed in public square forums forged through the pervasiveness of the internet.

So despite Wu’s effort to make his message seem unbiased, the actual takeaways are astonishing: one is that the First Amendment is an obstacle for the government to protect citizens (for being invoked as a tool restraining censorship?)

But this means that the First Amendment, designed to protect citizens from government censorship, is doing its job.

In the same vein, contrary to the sentiment of this “essay,” the amendment is there not to protect “national security” – nor does free speech undermine that, in a democracy.

Keep reading

Anthony Blinken Reveals Government’s AI Plan To Censor Free Speech

U.S. Secretary of State Anthony Blinken admitted last week that the State Department is preparing to use artificial intelligence to “combat disinformation,” amidst a massive government-wide AI rollout that will involved the cooperation of Big Tech and other private-sector partners.

At a speaking engagement streamed last week with the State Department’s chief data and AI officer, Matthew Graviss, Blinken gushed about the “extraordinary potential” and “extraordinary benefit” AI has on our society, and “how AI could be used to accelerate the Sustainable Development Goals which are, for the most part, stalled.”

He was referring to the United Nations Agenda 2030 Sustainable Development goals, which represent a globalist blueprint for a one-world totalitarian system. These goals include the gai-worshipping climate agenda, along with new restrictions on free speech, the freedom of movement, wealth transfers from rich to poor countries, and the digitization of humanity. Now Blinken is saying these goals could be jumpstarted by employing advanced artificial intelligence technologies.

Listen to Blinken, in the video below, openly describe how the government will use AI to clamp down on the free speech of citizens. (Fast-forward to the 3-minute mark and watch through the 7:07 mark.)

Keep reading

Biden’s Real Legacy Will Be As Silencer Of Speech

Happy birthday, America. 

Now, shut up. 

That’s the greeting card President Joe Biden and his merry band of deep staters should send to U.S. citizens after spending the better part of the past four years bludgeoning the First Amendment. From “Disinformation czars” to tongue-cutting gag orders on political enemies, the Biden years will be remembered for unrivaled attacks on primary rights. 

As Jonathan Turley writes in his new book, The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage, Joe Biden is “the most anti-free speech president since John Adams.”

“He has created an unprecedented system of censorship through financial support and his public statements. So the idea that he is really the symbol of constitutional fealty is really alarming, it’s so detached from reality,” the attorney, law professor, columnist, and popular television analyst recently said on Fox News Radio’s “Brian Kilmeade Show.”  

Criminalizing Criticism

Turley isn’t spinning hyperbole. Adams’ wholehearted support of the Sedition Act saw a sweeping attack on free speech and freedom of the press at the dawn of the republic. Political enemies were arrested and sent to prison for criticizing the government.  

One of the “most dramatic” victims of the law was a representative from Vermont, Matthew Lyon, who was imprisoned for speaking out against President Adams’ “unbounded thirst for ridiculous pomp, foolish adulation, and self avarice.” He also featured such rhetoric in his campaign speeches.  

Lyon won reelection — from his jail cell. 

Sound familiar? 

Keep reading

NewsGuard Co-Founder Advocates Banning Anonymous Social Media Posts, Enabling Lawsuits Against Tech Firms for “False” Content

NewsGuard co-founder and co-CEO Steve Brill has published a book, “The Death of Truth” – but he’s not taking any responsibility. On the contrary.

Namely, Brill’s “apolitical (misinformation) rating system for news sites” as NewsGuard is promoted to customers, is often blasted – and currently investigated by Congress for possible First Amendment violations – as yet another tool to suppress online speech.

But corporate media sing his praises, presenting him as a “media maven.”

A censorship maven more like it, critics would say. And while getting his book promoted, Brill managed to add his name to the steadily growing list of governments, NGOs, and associated figures who are attacking online anonymity.

Keep reading