Tag: free speech

Journalism & Democracy in a Time of Genocide

Last month in New York at separate forums, two senior Democrat figures – John Kerry and Hillary Clinton – pointed to what they saw as major problems: the First Amendment was “an obstacle to building consensus,” and the “narrative” in the press needs to be (even more) “consistent.”

The challenge presented by the free flow of ideas and information in the digital world, to those accustomed to maintaining control of the narrative, defines our moment in history and the fragility of democratic freedoms.

Those calls for less freedom of speech and for more consistency in messaging to the public by the Fourth Estate, come at a time when large sections of the public have lost trust in a legacy media too consistent in its messaging, and incapable of providing the information and analysis that will enable them to know and fully understand what’s happening.

Many have turned to social media where they are alerted to the work of independent journalists and experts whose commentary is not welcome in the Western mainstream press but which provides a multitude of perspectives that are more useful in navigating our world, in understanding our place in it, and indeed how we might be responsible for some of its very significant problems – perhaps that we may be on the wrong side of history.

With respect to foreign policy the legacy media have an unacknowledged partisan perspective, the rectitude of which is reinforced through the validation of all singing from the same song book.

We have learnt to pay attention to messaging emanating from the U.S. political class, because its allies will be expected to concurrently tackle the same issues, in this case, to reign in the problem presented by free speech (the freedom both to speak and to hear) common to Western democracies, rendering the population less manageable in its thinking, importantly in the level of its support for war, and at the ballot box.

In Australia, where there is no constitutional or legislated protection for free speech, the 18c “hate speech” provision of the Racial Discrimination Act which made “insult” and “offence” a test for breach of the law, was introduced by a Labor government.

The criteria for breach make this law rife for weaponisation and efforts led by George Brandis under a Liberal government to amend the provision failed, with significant opposition coming from Pro-Israel Lobby groups.

Keep reading

The Democracy Fund: Trudeau’s Online Harms Act could weaponize courts and stifle free speech

The Democracy Fund (TDF) has warned the public that the proposed Online Harms Act of the Canadian government could “weaponize” the courts and instill fear while doing little to curb social conflict and promote safety online.

In February, Minister of Justice and Attorney General Arif Virani proposed the Online Harms Act, also known as Bill C-63. The bill, which includes amendments to the Criminal Code and the Canadian Human Rights Act, claims to protect children from online sexual abuse, cyberbullying and self-harm.

Bill C-63 seeks to reinstate Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, a “hate speech” provision abolished in 2013 by former Prime Minister Stephen Harper. The bill would enable the government to target and remove specific online content.

The bill aims to create a Digital Safety Commission, a digital safety ombudsperson and the Digital Safety Office, all tasked with monitoring and regulating internet content.

Additionally, a five-person government-appointed panel would monitor internet platforms and hold “secret commission hearings” against rule-breakers. Under the bill, those who commit hate speech online could face severe penalties, including life imprisonment or fines of up to CA$50,000 ($36,150).

However, in a 26-page legal brief, TDF argued that the proposed bill would grant excessive government power to clamp down on online speech.

“Historically, the power to censor has been a weapon of authoritarian regimes. This power inevitably expands and eventually eliminates the civic process by which society adapts and progresses,” the TDF wrote in the legal brief. “It will not reduce social conflict. On the contrary, it is likely to exacerbate the problem of social conflict, weaponize the courts and the human rights tribunal for political purposes, and introduce fear into the online social environment.”

Moreover, TDF stated that “open dialogue and education” are better alternative solutions to address harmful attitudes rather than censorship.

Keep reading

RFK Jr.’s Vice Presidential Candidate Nicole Shanahan Releases Another Jaw-Dropping Ad on Election Fraud: “THE BIG CHEAT”

RFK Jr.’s Vice Presidential candidate Nicole Shanahan (I) has released her latest ad, “The Big Cheat,” a hard-hitting exposé on election fraud and decade-long deception that rigged the very foundations of democracy.

The ad opens with a reminder of the Democrat Party’s high popularity during Obama’s presidency. With Hillary Clinton primed to continue the legacy, the Democrat elite appeared ready to cement their hold on power.

However, the ad accuses the DNC of orchestrating a coup to sideline Senator Bernie Sanders— whose momentum, Shanahan’s campaign claims, threatened Clinton’s ascent.

The ad exposes how the Clinton campaign pulled the DNC’s strings, buying out its massive debt in an unprecedented power play that ultimately gave her near-total control over the party’s operations and finances.

By the end, the Sanders campaign reportedly received only a sliver of the funding intended for all Democrat nominees, turning the “Victory Fund” into a Clinton-only campaign bank.

But the allegations don’t stop with 2016. The ad claims the “big cheat” has only intensified, implicating social media giants, federal agencies, and political insiders who allegedly worked to censor voices and manipulate narratives in the 2020 and 2024 elections.

The ad even calls out the suppression of Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s campaign and the controversial judgment that keeps him off ballots in certain states. The ad paints the DNC’s actions as systematic disenfranchisement under the guise of “saving democracy.”

The ad goes on to highlight that free speech is under unprecedented threat. It shows the Biden regime’s use of government authority to stifle dissent, going so far as to label certain domestic critics as “potential domestic terrorists.”

Keep reading

EU President Likens Free Speech To Infectious Disease

Ursula von der Leyen advocates “pre-bunking” in the public forum to “vaccinate” people against “disinformation”…

EU President Ursula von der Leyen just joined the ranks of former Senator John Kerry and other globalist ghouls in declaring war on free speech by perversely proclaiming that the EU citizenry needs to be “vaccinated against disinformation.”

Like every censor in history, she characterizes her censorship program as a means of expunging erroneous information and ideas from public discourse. By using the word “disinformation,” she implies that she and her clique are already the sole possessors of the truth about everything, and that everyone who has and shares heterodox ideas is necessarily in error.

Her entire premise is FALSE for the following reasons:

1). Knowledge about the world is constantly evolving through constant inquiry, discussion, and dissemination. Knowledge is NOT a static thing. This is why countries with stifling censorship regimes have experienced intellectual, scientific, and artistic stagnation. Their rulers try to freeze the human mind in its state at their moment in history.

2). NO state, university, or ecclesiastical committee has ever been in possession of the full truth of any matter. Official orthodoxies have always been challenged by heterodox thinkers. Indeed, virtually every major advance in human insight has been performed by heterodox thinkers.

3). As John Milton observed in his 1644 pamphlet, Areopagitica, contending with error is an intrinsic part of learning and discovery. We literally learn by making mistakes and correcting them. If free speech is suppressed for the objective of preventing the propagation of erroneous thought—or “vaccinating against it”—it will become extremely difficult if not impossible for people to learn and discover.

4). Without a single exception in history, the people who hold power always advocate the orthodoxy that sustains and extends their power and that of their friends and supporters.

Ursula von der Leyen is the quintessence of this principle.

Keep reading

WHO Chief Doubles Down on Free Speech Crackdown

World Health Organization (WHO) Director-General Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus used the UN agency’s Summit 2024 to launch into yet another tirade against online “misinformation/disinformation.”

The WHO’s contribution against that threat, Tedros said, was countering it by “working” with a number of companies and other partners.

In his speech, the WHO chief repeated the many-times heard accusations against social media as “turbo-charging” the spread of misinformation which then added to people’s skepticism toward vaccines and some other medical treatments.

Tedros added to this the “stigma, discrimination, and even violence” toward health workers, but also “marginalized groups,” allegedly all a result of said disinformation.

This one has also been heard many times from various politicians and affiliated media: that disinformation was “almost as deadly” as the virus (we’re talking coronavirus, not smallpox here).

But still, Tedros states that disinformation regarding the pandemic, lockdowns, masks, etc. – or what he considers to be misinformation, was indeed “deadly.”

Now that the problem has been presented in such a dramatic way, the “solution,” however drastic, should be an easier pill to swallow. And the solution is, basically, Big Tech and government(s) censoring free speech.

Keep reading

These Texas Inmates Wrote a Book. Then the Prison System Banned It.

The Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ) has banned yet another book in its prisons. Except this time, it was written by inmates themselves.

TEXAS LETTERS, an ongoing anthology of letters written by inmates detailing their experiences with solitary confinement, will no longer be accessible to those in custody. The publisher and editor, Damascus James, says he received a letter from the TDCJ in July apprising him of the decision.

James describes the project on his website as a work that “explores the loss of sanity, humanness, and, oftentimes, hope through the personal writings” of inmates who have spent months, years, and sometimes even decades in solitary confinement. Much of the collection features portrayals of violence from correction officers and grueling accounts of the living conditions within solitary confinement cells. 

Studies on the long-term effects of solitary confinement attest to the brutal nature described in many of the letters. Half of all suicides in prisons and jails occur in solitary confinement, according to a study published in JAMA Network Open, a medical journal. Even just experiencing solitary confinement at any time during incarceration increased the chances of dying within the first year of release by 24 percent.

The banning of TEXAS LETTERS was not a surprise for James. Not only does the Texas prison authority have a reputation for book banning but also for trying to evade the term solitary confinement altogether by instead using alternative phrases.

“They’ve euphemized torture, calling it ‘administrative segregation’ and ‘restrictive housing’ for years in an effort to conceal the harsh realities of torturous isolation for thousands of people,” James tells Reason. The ban “was clearly an attempt to silence the voices of those who have suffered the torture of solitary confinement.” 

More than 10,000 books are currently banned from Texas prisons. TEXAS LETTERS vol. 1 and vol. 2 join a long list of prohibited material, which includes the Pulitzer Prize–winning The Color Purple, Freakonomics, and even Where’s Waldo? Santa Spectacular. Notable omissions include books such as Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf, as well as two books by former Ku Klux Klan Grand Wizard David Duke. 

Keep reading

Gina Carano Scores Legal Victory as Judge Blocks Disney’s Appeal in Free Speech Battle

A California judge has ruled against Disney, denying its request to appeal a July decision that allows Gina Carano’s wrongful termination lawsuit to proceed. Additionally, the request to pause discovery during the appeal was also denied.

Gina Carano took to her social media platform, X, to announce the decision: “After the Judge DENIED Disney’s request to DISMISS my case, Disney requested permission to immediately appeal that decision to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and delay all discovery while that appeal takes place,” Carano posted. “Yesterday, October 16th, 2024, we learned that the Judge DENIED Disney’s unusual request.”

We obtained a copy of the order for you here.

Keep reading

The International Censorship Regime Goes on the Offensive Ahead of 2024 U.S. Election

Online censorship, which tends to rank among my three main beats, is a subject I haven’t touched on in a while but has predictably become more relevant as we draw closer to November 5th. The focus of late has naturally been on an election year brimming with many whimsical happenings, from Trump narrowly avoiding the mass trauma of having his brains blown out in front of thousands of onlookers in Butler Pa., to the anointing of Kamala Harris as the democrat party’s heir apparent, to the escalations in both the Middle East and the ongoing U.S./Russia proxy war in Ukraine.

Despite the obvious importance of these issues, I truly believe the most pressing concern facing the Western world is the multifaceted attack on free expression, particularly in the digital realm.

We’ve all probably heard the idiom that “Freedom of Speech is the First Amendment because it’s the most important”. I never fully appreciated this sentiment, but in the past eight years—after being de-platformed and demonetized on several occasions—I’ve learned the hard way how truly accurate that statement is.

Keep reading

SCOTUS Revives Lawsuit Against Missouri Cop Who Jailed a Man ‘for Being an Asshole’

On a Saturday night in May 2021, Mason Murphy was walking on the shoulder of a rural road in Sunrise Beach, a small Missouri town, when he was accosted by a local police officer, Michael Schmitt, who asked him to identify himself. Since Murphy was minding his own business and was not, as far as he knew, doing anything illegal, he did not think he should have to comply with that request. Murphy’s objection resulted in a nine-minute argument with Schmitt, who ultimately handcuffed Murphy and took him to jail, where he was detained for two hours.

Why? Schmitt had trouble answering that question. “I didn’t want him walking down my highway,” he told another officer at the jail. Schmitt also suggested that Murphy was being held “for being an asshole” and that he would stay in jail “until he decides to play nice.” Even after consulting with a senior officer and a local prosecutor, Schmitt could not come up with a valid reason to arrest Murphy, who was released without being charged.

Five months later, Murphy sued Schmitt for violating his First Amendment rights by arresting him in retaliation for constitutionally protected speech. A federal judge dismissed Murphy’s claim, and last year the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit upheld that decision. But this week the U.S. Supreme Court revived Murphy’s lawsuit, remanding the case for further consideration in light of Gonzalez v. Trevino, a June 2024 decision that made it easier for victims of retaliatory arrests to make a case for compensation.

“This decision is a huge step forward, not just for Mason Murphy, but for all Americans who have been retaliated against by government officials for their speech,” said Marie Miller, an attorney at the Institute for Justice, which filed Murphy’s Supreme Court petition. “Our work is building lasting precedent, making it easier for people to hold officials accountable when their rights are violated. We will continue fighting until all Americans are protected against government retaliation.”

Although Schmitt evidently did not realize it at the time, Murphy had broken the law: He had violated Section 300.405.2 of Missouri’s statutes, which says: “Where sidewalks are not provided any pedestrian walking along and upon a highway shall when practicable walk only on the left side of the roadway or its shoulder facing traffic which may approach from the opposite direction.” Murphy was walking on the right side of the road when Schmitt approached him—a fact to which the officer alluded during the initial encounter, most of which was recorded by Schmitt’s body camera.

Keep reading

The Biden Regime Has Just Issued a Very Suspicious Directive Permitting Military Intervention in US Domestic Affairs

The Department of Homeland Security has flagged individuals questioning COVID-19 origins, vaccine efficacy, and election integrity as potential domestic terrorism threats.

Is a coup being set in place?

A new Department of Defense directive 5240.01 issued September 27, 2024, just prior to the November presidential election allows the US military to use lethal force against American citizens in assisting police authorities in domestic disturbances.

A report on this development lists these civil liberties concerns:

Right to protest: There are fears that expanded authority could suppress legitimate protests.

Privacy rights: Increased military involvement in domestic intelligence gathering could infringe on privacy.

Due process: The military’s role in law enforcement could bypass standard due process protections.

Freedom of speech: The broad definition of “national security threats” could target individuals for their political beliefs.

Civilian control: The expanded military role could erode civilian oversight of the military.

Here are some Constitutional concerns:

Challenging the Posse Comitatus Act: This Act traditionally limits the powers of the federal government in using military personnel for domestic law enforcement. The new DoD directive, by permitting the use of lethal force through military assistance in civilian law enforcement, may push the boundaries of these limitations.

Potential First Amendment Concerns: Natural health advocates and others exercising their First Amendment rights, such as questioning the government’s response to COVID-19 or the integrity of elections, have been labeled as potential domestic extremists and/or terrorists by some agencies. This directive could expand those classifications into scenarios involving lethal force interventions, potentially chilling free speech under the guise of national security.

Fourth Amendment Considerations: This directive also allows intelligence sharing between military and law enforcement under emergency conditions, raising questions about the right to privacy and the potential for expanded surveillance.

Due Process Implications (Fifth Amendment): The possibility of military use of lethal force in domestic scenarios introduces concerns about how due process protections might be maintained before potentially life-altering decisions are made.

Why these ominous changes one month before the election? Is something in the works? Why is there no reporting and no debate on this change in policy?

Here is the Directive: https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/DD/issuances/dodd/524001p.PDF?ver=UpTwJ66AyyBgvy7wFyTGbA%3d%3d

Here is the report: https://stateofthenation.co/?p=256688

Ever since the CIA used the Washington Post and the media to cover up the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, the term, “conspiracy theory,” introduced by the CIA, has been used by the presstitutes and government to demonize truth and those who speak truth, and to protect official narratives, such as “Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction.”

Unless Trump cuts a deal with Democrats not to hold them accountable and also a deal with the Ruling Elite not to interfere with their control, I can see no way that either will permit Trump to be President.

Keep reading