Tag: censorship

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

A Law Professor’s Beef With a First Amendment ‘Spinning Out of Control’: Too Much Speech of the Wrong Sort

“The First Amendment is spinning out of control,” Columbia law professor Tim Wu warns in a New York Times essay. While Wu ostensibly objects to Supreme Court decisions that he thinks have interpreted freedom of speech too broadly, his complaint amounts to a rejection of the premise that the principle should be applied consistently, especially when it benefits speakers and messages he does not like.

The immediate provocation for Wu’s diatribe is yesterday’s Supreme Court decisions in two cases challenging Florida and Texas laws that aimed to restrict content moderation on social media. Although the justices remanded both cases for further consideration by the lower courts, Justice Elena Kagan’s majority opinion in Moody v. NetChoice made it clear that the “editorial discretion” protected by the First Amendment extends to the choices that social media platforms make in deciding which content to host and how to present it, even when those decisions are inconsistent, biased, or arguably unfair. And that discretion, she said, includes the use of algorithms that reflect such value judgments.

Although Wu has reservations about “the wisdom and questionable constitutionality of the Florida and Texas laws,” he thinks “the breadth of the court’s reasoning should serve as a wake-up call.” He faults the justices for “blithely assuming” that “algorithmic decisions are equivalent to the expressive decisions made by human editors at newspapers.” The ruling, Wu says, reflects a broader trend in which “liberal as well as conservative judges and justices have extended the First Amendment to protect nearly anything that can be called ‘speech,’ regardless of its value or whether the speaker is a human or a corporation.”

As Wu sees it, freedom of speech should hinge on the “value” of the ideas that people express. It is hard to imagine a broader license for government censorship.

Keep reading

Supreme Court Demands Deeper Look at Social Media Anti-Censorship Laws

The US Supreme Court has unanimously remanded two crucial cases involving social media regulation laws from Florida and Texas back to lower courts. This move concerns cases relating to both Florida and Texas, where the primary question was whether laws that restrict certain websites from making editorial censorship decisions violate the First Amendment.

On May 24, 2021, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis signed into law SB 7072, which aims to regulate social media platforms by prohibiting the deplatforming of political candidates and requiring platforms to provide explanations when censoring content, among other stipulations.  SB 7072 places several specific restrictions and requirements on social media platforms, including:

  • Prohibiting the willful deplatforming of political candidates,
  • Banning the censorship or deplatforming of journalistic enterprises based on content,
  • Imposing hefty fines on social media platforms that deplatform candidates for political office—up to $250,000 per day for statewide candidates and $25,000 per day for other candidates,
  • Requiring platforms to notify users and provide explanations before taking actions like censoring or deplatforming,
  • Granting Floridians the right to sue platforms for violations and seek monetary damages,
  • Empowering the Florida Attorney General to sue technology companies under the state’s Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act,

That same year, Texas Governor Greg Abbott signed HB 20, a law regulating social media platforms by prohibiting them from censoring content based on viewpoint and imposing several obligations related to content moderation processes.

Keep reading

Free Speech Legislation Gains Attention Following Supreme Court Siding with Biden in Social Media Censorship Case

US House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan has reacted to Wednesday’s ruling by the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) in the Murthy v. Missouri case, to call for new legislation that would, going forward, reinforce the rules, already contained in the First Amendment, meant to protect citizens from government-orchestrated censorship.

Jordan, whose Committee is probing alleged government-Big Tech collusion in violation of the First Amendment through the Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government, noted that the US Constitution’s First Amendment is “first for a reason.”

According to the Republican congressman, free speech that this amendment protects (from government intervention) should extend to any government infringement – be it in Congress, or online.

Jordan said that while respectfully disagreeing with the SCOTUS ruling the Committee’s own oversight “has shown the need for legislative reforms.”

“While we respectfully disagree with the Court’s decision, our investigation has shown the need for legislative reforms, such as the Censorship Accountability Act, to better protect Americans harmed by the unconstitutional censorship-industrial complex,” Jordan wrote in a statement.

In other words, the increasingly pressing issue of how the government “interacts” with social platforms (because of their massive reach and therefore influence among the electorate) should be put into the hands of courts and their interpretations based on new and clear legislation to guide those decisions.

The Judiciary Committee chairman mentioned the Censorship Accountability Act – a bill that would let citizens launch legal action against federal employees suspected of colluding to suppress free speech.

Regardless of the SCOTUS decision, Jordan pledged that the Committee’s “important work will continue” – stating that the Subcommittee’s thus far “uncovered how and the extent to which the Biden Administration engaged in a censorship campaign in violation of the First Amendment.”

Keep reading

Jim Jordan Investigates Stanford Internet Observatory Monitoring Election Speech for 2024

Recently the news arrived that what opponents see as a key linchpin in the government-Big Tech censorship collusion, the Stanford Internet Observatory (SIO), was winding back its operations.

But before it does, the House Judiciary Committee and the Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government want to gain access to information requested through a previous subpoena.

On Monday, Chairman Jim Jordan sent a letter to SIO’s legal representative, the main point being the Committee’s desire to make sure that neither SIO, other groups operating as part of the university, nor any group that might succeed SIO will continue with their “disinformation studies” ahead of the 2024 presidential election.

We obtained a copy of the letter for you here.

Keep reading

Fact-Checking Network Says Online Fact Checks Aren’t Censorship

We now live in a world where “fact-checkers” organize “annual meetings” – one is happening just this week in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

These censorship-overseers for other companies (most notably massive social platforms like Facebook, etc.) have not only converged onto Sarajevo but have issued a “statement” that includes the town’s name.

The Poynter Institute is a major player in this space, and its International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN) serves to coordinate censorship for Meta, among others.

It was up to IFCN now to issue the “Sarajevo statement” on behalf of 130 groups in the “fact-checking” business, a burgeoning industry at this point spreading its tentacles to at least 80 countries – that is how many are behind the said statement.

No surprise, these “fact-checkers” like themselves, and see nothing wrong with what they do; the self-affirming statement refers to the (Poynter-led) brand of “fact-checking” as essential to free speech (will someone fact-check that statement, though?)

The reason the focus is on free speech is clear – “fact-checkers” have over and over again proven themselves to be either inept, biased, serving as tools of censorship, all three, or some combination of those.

That is why their “annual meeting” now declares, with a seemingly straight face, that “fact-checking” is not only a free-speech advocate but “should never be considered a form of censorship.”

But who’s going to tell Meta? In the wake of the 2016 US presidential elections, Facebook basically became the fall guy picked by those who didn’t like the outcome of the vote, accusing the platform of being the place where a (since debunked) massive “misinformation meddling campaign” happened.

Aware of the consequences its business might suffer if such a perceived image continued, Facebook by 2019, just ahead of another election, had as many as 50 “fact-checking” partners, “reviewing and rating” content.

Keep reading

Bipartisan Vote Blocks CISA Budget Cut Despite Speech Censorship Concerns

104 Republicans and 198 Democrats voted to uphold a proposed budget increase for the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) in the defense appropriations bill. Representative Andrew Clyde from Georgia proposed an amendment to freeze CISA’s funding at its 2024 level, which would reduce the budget by just over 2% to $2,379,485,00. During a forceful speech on the House floor, Clyde criticized the agency for misusing its resources to suppress dissenting opinions.

The vote came just following the Supreme Court siding with the Biden administration’s partnership with tech giants to encourage the suppression of social media content, overturning the injunction by alleging that the case lacked standing.

Keep reading

The Court Green-Lights Censorship

In 1919, the Supreme Court used the pretext of crisis to overhaul the First Amendment as it jailed critics of the Great War. Over a century later, the Court has again fallen victim to the Beltway’s prevailing zeitgeist in today’s regrettable decision in Murthy v. Missouri. 

The Court’s opinion, written by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, rejects the lower court’s injunction against many government agencies to stop leaning on social media companies to curate content, and does so on grounds that the plaintiffs lack standing. 

The opinion rests on omitted facts, skewed perceptions, and absurd conclusory statements. The dissent, issued by Justice Samuel Alito and joined by Justices Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas, masterfully recounts the facts of the case and the inconsistency of the majority. 

Justice Barrett’s opinion completely ignored the Court’s decision last week in National Rifle Association v. Vullo. In that case, the Court held that New York officials violated the NRA’s First Amendment rights by launching a campaign to coerce private actors to “punish or suppress the NRA’s gun-promotion activities.” 

Justice Sotomayor issued the opinion for a unanimous Court, writing, “Government officials cannot attempt to coerce private parties in order to punish or suppress views that the government disfavors.” 

In Murthy, the majority did not even attempt to differentiate the case from its clear precedent in Vullo. Justice Alito, however, explained the ominous message the Court sent through the two opinions.

What the officials did in this case was more subtle than the ham-handed censorship found to be unconstitutional in Vullo, but it was no less coercive. And because of the perpetrators’ high positions, it was even more dangerous. It was blatantly unconstitutional, and the country may come to regret the Court’s failure to say so. Officials who read today’s decision together with Vullo will get the message. If a coercive campaign is carried out with enough sophistication, it may get by.

Further, the majority opinion is bereft of references to the perpetrators, their “high positions,” or their statements of coercion. Justice Barrett does not mention Rob Flaherty or Andy Slavitt – the two main henchmen behind the Biden Administration’s censorship efforts – a single time in her holding. The dissent, however, devotes pages to recounting the White House’s ongoing censorship campaign.

Keep reading