Tag: free speech

“Something Very Dramatic Has Changed”: Matt Taibbi Says Democrats Ditched Free Speech

Independent journalist Matt Taibbi – of recent “Twitter Files” fame – has exposed the fact that civil liberties are no longer popular among Democrats. Taibbi appeared on Fox News’ “Sunday Morning Futures with Maria Bartiromo” to reiterate his perspective that the modern Democratic Party no longer represents the values of the everyday American. 

“About all of this — Matt, how do you feel about all of this? I know before you started discovering this bad behavior, you identified as a Democrat, and now you’ve got all of your friends, quote-unquote, in the media attacking you for exposing this,” Bartiromo asked.

“Yeah, it’s funny, I mean, I was raised in a traditional ACLU liberal, I believed in free speech all my life. That was one of the things, frankly, that attracted me to the Democratic Party when I was a kid, the idea that we were the party that believed in letting everybody have a say, and we’ll just make a better argument, and that’s how the system works,” Taibbi said.

He continued, “Apparently, something very dramatic has changed in politics in America, and there’s been a shift. There’s no question about it anymore, that now the parties have had a complete reversal on how they read these issues.”

Taibbi leads a team of journalists, including Michael Shellenberger, who have been given access to Twitter Files, revealing a startling network of government agencies, think tanks, and Twitter personnel coordinating efforts to attack the First Amendment. 

What we’ve learned from the Twitter Files is the ever-expanding coalition of groups working with the government and social media to target and censor Americans, including government-funded organizations.

Keep reading

Pennsylvania Dem Threatens To Withhold Funding From University of Pittsburgh Over Conservative Speakers

A Pennsylvania lawmaker on Tuesday issued what free speech advocates are calling a veiled threat to withhold funding from the University of Pittsburgh over the school’s decision to allow several conservative speakers on campus.

During an appropriations hearing on university funding, Pennsylvania state representative La’Tasha Mayes (D.) demanded that Pitt disinvite Cabot Phillips, Riley Gaines, and Michael Knowles from upcoming campus events. All three speakers have a history of “targeting transgender students,” Mayes claimed—especially Knowles, whom she accused of saying that “transgender people should be eradicated.”

Mayes called on university chancellor Patrick Gallagher, who was at the hearing to request additional funding from the state, to “cancel the speakers who are coming to campus”—implying that she might vote against his request if he did not. Mayes did not respond to a request for comment.

The exchange alarmed Speech First, a legal nonprofit focused on First Amendment issues, which called Mayes’s remarks an “abuse of power.”

“The state is saying that if the university doesn’t violate its students’ First Amendment rights, then their funding could be at risk,” Cherise Trump, Speech First’s executive director, said in a statement on Wednesday. “Lawmakers shouldn’t be using veiled threats to hold funding over universities simply because they don’t like a person who was invited to speak.”

The shakedown highlights the growing willingness of progressive lawmakers to target offensive speech, in part by putting pressure on universities that permit it. In January 2022, for example, Democrats in both the Philadelphia City Council and the Pennsylvania State Senate urged the University of Pennsylvania to fire Amy Wax, the tenured law professor who has drawn fire for her views on race and immigration. Other Democrats, including Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Maryland senator Ben Cardin, have falsely claimed that “hate speech” is not protected by the First Amendment.

Keep reading

Grants Reveal Federal Government’s Horrific Plans To Censor All Americans’ Speech

Our government is preparing to monitor every word Americans say on the internet—the speech of journalists, politicians, religious organizations, advocacy groups, and even private citizens. Should those conversations conflict with the government’s viewpoint about what is in the best interests of our country and her citizens, that speech will be silenced.

While the “Twitter Files” offer a glimpse into the government’s efforts to censor disfavored viewpoints, what we have seen is nothing compared to what is planned, as the details of hundreds of federal awards lay bare. Research by The Federalist reveals our tax dollars are funding the development of artificial intelligence (AI) and machine-learning (ML) technology that will allow the government to easily discover “problematic” speech and track Americans reading or partaking in such conversations.

Then, in partnership with Big Tech, Big Business, and media outlets, the government will ensure the speech is censored, under the guise of combatting “misinformation” and “disinformation.”

Keep reading

AG pushes state level ‘Ministry of Truth’ critics say could jail conservatives who express mainstream views

A state attorney general is advocating for a bill some critics argue could punish outspoken conservatives as domestic extremists, KTTH‘s Jason Rantz reported Wednesday.

“Some conservative views, or anything [Washington state Attorney General Bob Ferguson] deems as ‘misinformation,’ are examples of ‘domestic extremism,'” Rantz said.

It’s the “most dangerous bill in legislative history,” the Seattle radio host added.

Washington is creating a state version of the ill-fated “Ministry of Truth,” according to Rantz and others who have analyzed the bill.

The controversial bill proposes the establishment of a commission on domestic violence extremism. Rep. Bill Ramos, a Democrat, sponsored the bill which would create the 13-member commission.

HB 1333 describes the duties of the proposed commission as involving efforts to “combat disinformation and misinformation” and collecting data on incidents of “domestic violent extremism,” the Center Square explains.

Though DVE is not explicitly defined in the bill, Ferguson has described the term as including noncriminal activities or speech, the outlet also says.

Keep reading

Is The Left Harnessing Fake Antisemitic Attacks To Silence Americans’ Speech?

“Speech, expression and assembly” represent the triumvirate for truth.  Short of breaking existing laws around physical violence and incitement to physical violence, the more we have of all three, the closer we come to that more perfect union, offering the most freedom for the most people with the least government interference.  But in an age of internet technology with deep fakes, bots, hacks, and myriad pathways to craft and deliver mis- and dis-information, radical left-wingers can abuse and use those liberties to tarnish conservatives, desensitize our communities to certain phenomena, and squelch our freedoms.  It behooves individuals, our government, and even watchdog organizations to pause before reacting to information from somewhere on the internet.  

As an example, did you know that, on February 25, America’s neo-Nazi and White Supremacist groups sponsored a national “Day of Hate”? You probably didn’t hear anything about it unless you are Jewish and your inbox was inundated with emails from various Jewish organizations, synagogues, and even local condo boards, warning of “an online campaign by domestic violence extremists, calling for an anti-Semitic “Day of Hate.”

As it turned out, despite the terror this announcement caused in Jewish households and houses of worship across the country and as far away as Israel, the “Day of Hate” passed without incident, as reported in The Forward, a progressive Jewish publication.

It’s good that nothing happened. The last thing anyone wants, including this skeptic, is more violence. But anti-Semitism is on the march, and we must monitor and be aware of it no matter the source—white supremacists, non-white supremacists, Antifa, or Islamic extremists. The problem for Jews and non-Jews alike, as evidenced by the “Day of Hate” that never happened, is that America’s politicians, journalists, and activists are only concerned with anti-Semitism coming from white people.

Keep reading

6 Ways The Censorship Complex Silences Speech It Doesn’t Want You To Say Or Hear

Since Trump entered the political arena and proved the efficacy of sidestepping the legacy media and speaking directly to the people, a cabal of government agencies, politicians, academia, nonprofits, the corrupt press, and Big Tech have joined forces to erect a Censorship Complex. Collaboration, funding, and groupthink connect these players, and an analysis of their functioning reveals six ways they operate to censor speech in America.

Keep reading

Is Religious Freedom And Freedom Of Speech And Worship Dead In Biden’s America?

On February 10, 2023, Jason S. Miyares, Attorney General of Virginia, along with 19 other Attorneys General, issued their own response. 

The attorneys general seven-page letter was addressed to Attorney General Merrick Garland and FBI Director Christopher Wray. 

“This country was founded on the right of all people to worship in the church, mosque, or synagogue of their choice, free from government. Countless millions were drawn to our country because of that very right. Indeed, some of our first States were founded as safe havens for religious dissenters. There is no right more sacred to American democracy than the right to worship freely,” reads the letter. 

In further response, Bishop Knestouts of the Richmond, Virginia  Catholic diocese issued a statement on Feb. 13, 2023. 

“I was alarmed to read the reports written late last week about the contents of the internal memo created by the Richmond Field Office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. I was also surprised to learn of the mention of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter (FSSP), a religious order, which celebrates the traditional form of the Catholic Mass. FSSP has served with devotion for many years the parishes within our Catholic community and to the faithful of our diocese who appreciate this form of the Catholic Mass in our diocese,” wrote Bishop Knestouts. 

“The leaked document should be troubling and offensive to all communities of faith, as well as all Americans. I am grateful for the Virginia Attorney General and 19 attorneys general who have called upon the government to publicly release all materials related to the production of this memo. If evidence of extremism exists, it should be rooted out, but not at the expense of religious freedom. A preference for traditional forms of worship and holding closely to the Church’s teachings on marriage, family, human sexuality, and the dignity of the human person does not equate with extremism, the Bishop added. 

Keep reading

UN says that censoring “disinformation” and “hate speech” will protect “free speech”

The UN is openly embracing the agenda of mobilizing to fight against perceived online hate speech and disinformation. The latest was to organize an event called, Internet for Trust.

The unelected and well-funded organization whose purpose primarily is to facilitate conflict resolution in the real world and provide peacekeeping and humanitarian assistance in war-torn areas, is now increasingly following in the footsteps of other unelected, though less formal elite groups, like the WEF.

Now, we have announcements from one of its agencies, UNESCO – that is supposed to promote world peace and security through international education, arts and sciences cooperation, and protection of world heritage in forms of monuments, etc. – crafting its very own “guidelines” to regulate “hate speech” and “misinformation.”

According to an announcement, UNESCO has found a way to explain how (but not when or why) it started to believe it should have this power to regulate online communications by citing its mandate to promote free circulation of ideas through words and images.

Keep reading

“Free Speech For Whom?”: Former Twitter Exec Makes Chilling Admission On The “Nuanced” Standard Used For Censorship

Yesterday’s hearing of the House Oversight Committee featured three former Twitter executives who are at the center of the growing censorship scandal involving the company: Twitter’s former chief legal officer Vijaya Gadde, former deputy general counsel James Baker and former head of trust and safety Yoel Roth.

However, it was the testimony of the only witness called by the Democrats that proved the most enlightening and chilling.

Former executive Twitter Anika Collier Navaroli testified on what she repeatedly called the “nuanced” standard used by her and her staff on censorship.

Toward the end of the hearing, she was asked about that standard by Rep. Melanie Ann Stansbury (D., NM). Her answer captured precisely why Twitter’s censorship system proved a nightmare for free expression. Stansbury’s agreement with her take on censorship only magnified the concerns over the protection of free speech on social media.

Even before Stansbury’s question, the hearing had troubling moments. Ranking Member Rep. Jamie Raskin (D., Md) opened up the hearing that insisting that Twitter has not censored enough and suggested that it was still fueling violence by allowing disinformation to be posted on the platform.

Navaroli then testified how she felt that there should have been much more censorship and how she fought with the company to remove more material that she and her staff considered “dog whistles” and “coded” messaging.

Rep. Stansbury asked what Twitter has done and is doing to combat hate speech on its platform. Navaroli correctly declined to address current policies since she has not been at the company for some time. However, she then said that they balanced free speech against safety and explained that they sought a different approach:

“Instead of asking just free speech versus safety to say free speech for whom and public safety for whom. So whose free expression are we protecting at the expense of whose safety and whose safety are we willing to allow to go the winds so that people can speak freely.”

Rep. Stansbury responded by saying  “Exactly.”

Keep reading

The UN calls for a “code of conduct” on social media

The United Nations is becoming heavily involved in several initiatives to regulate the digital space and online speech, and judging by the priorities the organization has for 2023, outlined on Monday in New York City, this trend is only picking up steam.

UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres spoke about those priorities and suppressing the spread of online “hate” speech via what he called misinformation and disinformation made it to the list, among issues like rights-based approach, renewable energy, and a dire warning about the world being closer than ever to total catastrophe – all mentioned in his speech.

Guterres spoke about the subject of “mis- and disinformation” on the internet as a call for action to deal with these threats.

And Guterres had “everyone with influence” in mind – governments, regulators, policymakers, technology companies, the media, civil society. It’s notable that he “squeezed in” this warning about the need to “stop the hate” on the internet in the same paragraph he spoke about UN outreach programs that concern the Holocaust and the Rwanda genocide.

He then moved on to the UN Strategy and Plan of Action on Hate Speech, which included the “call for action.”

“Stop the hate. Set up strong guardrails. Be accountable for language that causes harm,” the UN secretary-general said and explaining the plan on how to do that: by creating a code of conduct for information integrity on digital platforms.

This, Guterres noted, is part of his 2021 report titled, “Our Common Agenda.” In May 2022, a meeting was held at the UN by delegates who gathered to discuss what was dramatically dubbed as “the epidemic of misinformation and disinformation.”

Keep reading