Tag: wrongthink

Muslim Texas Nurse Fired After Posting TikTok Video Suggesting She Would Not Treat Patients if They Watch Fox News

A Muslim Texas nurse named “Ahlam” was fired after posting a TikTok video suggesting she would not treat patients if they watch Fox News.

Libs of TikTok exposed the nurse, posted her TikTok to X and tagged her employer, UTMB Health in Houston, Texas.

The nurse posted a video of herself ‘peacing out’ and refusing to treat a patient based on their political views.

“When I walk into my patient’s room and Fox News is blasting,” the nurse said in the caption of video showing her backing away and leaving the room.

According to Libs of TikTok, Ahlam’s social media account has been scrubbed and made private.

On Thursday, UTMB responded to Libs of TikTok and said the nurse was suspended pending an investigation into her behavior.

Keep reading

Turkish comedian Deniz Göktaş detained at Istanbul airport over political satire

Turkish stand-up comedian Deniz Göktaş was detained at passport control at an Istanbul airport on Thursday while returning to Türkiye from abroad. Since June 24, Göktaş had been targeted by pro-government media and right-wing circles, with open calls for his arrest over his widely acclaimed political comedy special “Ölü Deniz” (Dead Sea). His detention marks a dangerous escalation of attacks on art and freedom of expression in Türkiye.

The World Socialist Web Site and the Sosyalist Eşitlik Partisi – Dördüncü Enternasyonal (Socialist Equality Party – Fourth International) demand the immediate release of Deniz Göktaş, the dropping of the investigation against him and a halt to all attacks on art and freedom of expression.

The Istanbul Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office had launched an investigation into Göktaş on the baseless charge of “publicly denigrating the religious values embraced by a section of the population” over jokes in the show, which was staged on June 1 at the Harbiye Cemil Topuzlu Open-Air Theatre and released on YouTube on June 24. The prosecutor’s office publicly announced the investigation, describing Göktaş as a “suspect” in whose social media content “elements of a crime” had been identified. Earlier, posts on X containing excerpts from the show had been blocked by court order on the grounds of “protecting national security and public order.” In a statement before his detention, Göktaş said that “no official information” had reached him and that he had no plans to live outside Türkiye.

The roughly 90-minute show was viewed more than 1 million times within 24 hours of its release and had surpassed 8.5 million views as of July 2. Notably, Göktaş made the show freely available to everyone on YouTube rather than on a paid digital platform, with monetization turned off and no ads. Reaching millions of workers and young people, the show became “dangerous” in the eyes of the ruling elite. At the same time, this immense public interest was itself a mass response to the attempt to suppress Göktaş.

“Ölü Deniz” is a satire directed not at individuals but at the political and media establishment as a whole. Göktaş’s subjects included the 32-year political career of President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan; the revocation of the university diploma of Ekrem İmamoğlu, the jailed Istanbul metropolitan mayor from the Kemalist Republican People’s Party (CHP); the police raid on the CHP’s headquarters following a court’s “absolute nullity” ruling against the party; the mass protests that erupted against İmamoğlu;s arrest; the ensuing widespread arrests; and mainstream media figures. While directing his sharpest political barbs at Erdoğan’s Justice and Development Party (AKP), in power since 2002, he did not spare the CHP, and he also satirized Turkish nationalism and its contradictions on the Kurdish question.

One of the most striking features of the show was that censorship is itself its subject. Göktaş recounts that the legal opinion he received from lawyers on “Selam Selam,” his first show, was: “Never release it.” On stage, he satirizes a nightmare in which he sees himself on the gallows, and the ranks of the “intellectuals” in his family—the intellectual in exile, the intellectual in prison, the dead intellectual. He is fully aware of the historical price of being a dissident artist in Turkey.

Keep reading

Tennessee Taxpayers to Pay $1.9 Million Settlement to Fired Professor Who Celebrated Charlie Kirk’s Assassination

The University of Tennessee has agreed to pay former assistant professor Tamar Shirinian $1.9 million to settle a lawsuit after she was fired over a social media post celebrating the death of Turning Point CEO and conservative activist Charlie Kirk.

Under the settlement, approved by the University of Tennessee System Board of Trustees, Shirinian will not return to her teaching position.

The agreement still requires approval from Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti and Gov. Bill Lee.

“My client is pleased that the parties reached a resolution,” Shirinian’s attorney, Robb Bigelow, said.

“We believe the resolution reflects the seriousness of the issues while allowing everyone to move forward.”

Keep reading

Larry Sanger Said Wikipedia Punishes Dissent. Then It Banned Him.

Larry Sanger spent the spring suggesting that Wikipedia could stand to host a wider range of opinions. The community took the suggestion under advisement, deliberated in the open spirit the site loves to advertise, and then banned him for life.

They took his point, apparently. He had argued the place was an ideological monoculture that punishes dissent and a panel of volunteers settled the question by punishing the dissenter.

Sanger cofounded Wikipedia in 2001 and wrote a good chunk of the neutrality rules still bolted to the wall. This week he collected the harshest sanction the project hands out, an indefinite block, upgraded to a permanent ban after he had the nerve to mention the block on X.

There was no appeal and his founder status bought him nothing.

When the editors closed the discussion that ended his run it wasn’t that they concluded that he broke an explicit rule. They certified that Sanger is “not here to constructively build the encyclopedia.”

That is a ruling about the man, pretending to be a ruling about an act. You can fight a specific charge against you with evidence but you can’t fight a reading of your heart because no evidence on earth disproves a feeling.

The committee decided what was rattling around inside Sanger’s head and what was rattling around inside Sanger’s skull turned out to be bannable.

Anyone with real pull on Wikipedia has an agenda, the admins and the power editors included. Sainthood has never been a documented feature of the volunteer base.

If “not really here to build” becomes grounds for exile, the rule stops catching people who have motives and starts catching people whose motives the room has voted to dislike.

The selective eyesight is sitting right out in the open for all to see. One of the accounts that helped run Sanger off, an editor going by TarnishedPath, had already been barred by Wikipedia’s own administrators from the Israel-Palestine topic area over conduct and still got a say in whether the cofounder was pure of heart.

The watchmen, it turns out, are lightly watched. The same community keeps neat little lists ranking which outlets a citation is permitted to come from.

CNN, The New York Times, and the BBC ride up front in the trusted carriage. Fox News, Newsmax, and The Federalist get seated in the marked-down section. Deciding in advance whose journalism is allowed to count, rather than the accuracy of the report and information itself, is the same reflex as deciding in advance whose intentions are allowed to be good. The site does both and files the whole operation under neutrality.

Sanger, for his part, is not charmed by the courtroom. “There is no due process,” he said to the New York Post.

“People are being blocked—in other words, disciplined—and yet there is no respect for certain expectations that any other serious disciplinary procedure would be held to.”

He compared it to a trial by “faceless mob.”

Ban discussions are meant to stay open at least 72 hours. An administrator blocked him before the clock ran out, thought better of it, reversed, then reinstated the ban as permanent the instant the window closed.

Wikipedia is also not a court and its defenders will tell you, correctly, that it never signed up to be one. The bar here is lower than a courtroom.

Anybody with the power to erase a person from a project he founded owes him more than a snap show of hands on whether he seems like their sort and owes a great deal more than that when the accusation boils down to his heart being in the wrong place.

Keep reading

DOJ Probes JPMorgan, Bank of America, Over Political Account Closures

Federal subpoenas hit JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, and Wells Fargo this week, ordering the banks to name every customer they cut off and to say why.

The legal fight is about fraud statutes and prosecutorial reach. A blunter question sits underneath it. When a bank shuts your account over your politics, where are you supposed to go?

The demands came from the US Attorney’s Office in Washington, D.C., run by Jeanine Pirro.

Her prosecutors asked the banks for lists of people who were “debanked” and for the reasons behind shutting them out. Some of the subpoenas reach back more than a year.

The investigation tests whether the account closures violated the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act of 1989, a law built to chase bank fraud.

Debanking amounts to financial exile. A private institution decides your views, or your line of work, make you a liability, and your access to checking accounts, payroll, and credit can vanish.

There’s no hearing, no judge, and often no warning beyond a card that stops working. The power to do this sits with the bank, and the person on the other end rarely gets to argue back.

Last August, President Trump signed an executive order telling banking regulators to root out “politicized or unlawful debanking” and to penalize it. The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency later reviewed the nine largest banks and reported it had found early signs of the practice. Pirro’s office went further on its own, opening the criminal probe without waiting for a referral from those regulators.

The banks’ defense is the one you’d expect. They say they shut accounts only over legal, regulatory, or financial risk, never over belief. That explanation is convenient and hard to check because the standards live inside the banks and the people affected almost never see them. When the threshold for losing your account is “risk” defined by the institution that benefits from defining it loosely, almost any disfavored customer can be folded in.

For the crypto industry, the probe puts a name to a years-old grievance. Digital-asset firms watched their accounts close across 2022 and 2023 and called it “Operation Chokepoint 2.0,” a nod to a 2013 Obama-era program that pushed banks to drop industries the government disliked. The pattern repeats because the method works. You don’t have to outlaw an activity if you can cut off the money that keeps it alive.

That is the chilling effect in its purest form. People and businesses learn that the wrong affiliation can cost them a bank account, so they grow careful about what they say, fund, or build. The punishment never needs a courtroom to land, and it teaches everyone watching to keep their heads down.

JPMorgan, Bank of America, and Wells Fargo have mostly declined to comment on the subpoenas. JPMorgan has disclosed that it faces “reviews, investigations and legal proceedings” tied to the executive order.

The records Pirro wants would show, customer by customer, who the banks decided to drop and why. People shut out of the financial system for their views have spent years being told it never happened.

Keep reading

UK’s Renewed Ban on Palestine Action Confirms Legal Overreach in the Designation of Terrorism

In a dispiriting ruling yesterday, the Court of Appeal in London overturned a ruling in February, by the High Court, that the government’s proscription of the direct action group Palestine Action as a terrorist organization, which was passed by Parliament last July, was unlawful.

The High Court’s ruling, in response to a judicial review submitted by Huda Ammori, one of Palestine Action’s two co-founders, repudiated the two counts on which the High Court had ruled the proscription unlawful.

Garden Court Chambers, whose barristers represented Huda Ammori at the judicial review in February, explained that these two counts were, firstly, that the Court “upheld the Claimant’s challenge that the Home Secretary failed to comply with her own policy when making the decision to proscribe Palestine Action”, and, secondly, that “proscription breached the rights of Freedom of Expression and Assembly as protected under Articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights.”

The Court of Appeal shamefully reinstates the terrorism proscription

Yesterday, the Court of Appeal overturned both. The repudiation of the first was a long and detailed analysis of the home secretary’s powers regarding proscription, in which it was noticeable that, in dismissing it, the Court of Appeal not only poured scorn on the High Court, declaring that they had “adopted an excessively analytical approach to the interpretation of the Proscription Policy”, but also showed repeated and obsequious deference to Yvette Cooper, the home secretary at the time of the proscription, and her “expert” advisers from the police and the intelligence services.

At one point, for instance, the judges described how they were “required to attach special weight to the judgments and assessments of a primary decision-maker with special institutional competence” — yes, that really is a fawning description of Yvette Cooper! — and elsewhere, in deference to the executive branch of government, they noted that “The Proscription Decision lies in the area of national security which, before the Human Rights Act 1998, would have been regarded as unsuitable for judicial scrutiny at all.”

On the ECHR issues, described by the Court of Appeal as “questions of proportionality and the fair balance between the rights of individuals (free speech and freedom of assembly) and the rights of the community (national security and the rights of others)”, the Court acknowledged difficulties involving “the rights of the many law-abiding citizens wishing peacefully to protest, hold placards and otherwise support Palestine Action”, over 3,500 of whom have now been arrested — although they did also note that all of them ought to have been aware that doing so had become a “criminal act.” They also acknowledged “the ‘chilling effect’ that proscription may have upon those wishing to support the Palestinian cause, but who may be dissuaded from doing so by fear of committing offenses under the 2000 Act.”

Keep reading

Communist French Mayor Accuses Fellow Politician of ‘Political Crime’ for Holding Up Cross and Reciting the Hail Mary During Meeting

Mayor of Ivry-sur-Seine, Philippe Bouyssou, a member of the Communist Party, accused Kevin Nader, a municipal councilor in the town in the Val-de-Marne department near Paris, of a ‘political crime’ for holding up a cross and reciting the Hail Mary during a recent town meeting.

Nader, a member of Rassemblement National (National Rally) is political party, formerly known as the Front National (FN), led by Marine Le Pen, proposed a rule change during a June 11 meeting.

French outlet JDD reports the rule change would ban the “wearing of a sign or outfit ostensibly manifesting religious affiliation.

The change would have affected some council members who wear hijabs, including Fenda Diarram, the town’s Deputy Mayor.

Bouyssou, however, refused to put it to a vote, prompting Nader’s protest.

According to a transcript via LifeSite News, Nadler responded by holding up a wooden cross and noting, “Very well, since you refuse to be under the sign of secularism in this city council, you refuse secularism.”

“That’s right — indeed, you refuse secularism in this city council. But, from now on, we will be under the sign of the cross at every city council meeting.”

He continued, “And may the cross bless you all. And may God bless you. And I’ll say a Hail Mary.”

Mayor Bouyssou immediately lashed out.

Mayor Bouyssou immediately condemned his religious display. “So, what you have just done, Mr. Nader, clearly marks your political crime,” the French Communist said.

“And I remind you, anyway, that you are indeed being filmed. And I, who have a deep and unwavering respect for all religions, even if I practice none, firmly believe that Ivry’s Christian and Catholic community will deeply and clearly appreciate the manner in which you have just dragged them through the mud with this attitude,” Bouyssou fumed, with hostility in his eyes, to the applause of council officials.

“This is a disgrace indeed. This is a true and genuine scandal. In just a few hours of consultation, you have climbed to every summit imaginable, truly and utterly crossed every single red line,” Bouyssou continued.

Keep reading

Spencer Pratt Says He Was Victim of Arson Attack at His Crystals Company Office: ‘This Was No Accident’

Reality TV personality and former Los Angeles mayoral candidate Spencer Pratt is claiming that a fire at his Pacific Palisades crystal company office was no accident and may have been politically motivated.

The fire broke out on Thursday at the Highlands Circle business complex, where Pratt Daddy Crystals is located.

The building, which previously housed the Casa Nostra restaurant, was undergoing renovations at the time.

Multiple fire crews responded to the scene, and the Los Angeles Fire Department’s Arson Unit was later called in to investigate.

No injuries were reported.

Pratt told The New York Post that he believes the fire was deliberate.

“I want to be careful to not compromise an arson investigation, but this incident is very suspicious,” Pratt said.

“I will wait for the investigators to make public the details, but this was no accident, and the timing of this…on the heels of all of the contentious election tomfoolery of the last two weeks, it is very suspect, indeed.”

He went further, suggesting the fire could be retaliation for his criticism of Democrat politicians.

“There are many unscrupulous people in this city who will stop at nothing to silence people who expose the corruption that has overrun our city,” Pratt said.

“This fire was not an accident, and it would not surprise me in the least if this were a reprisal for my work in opposing Karen Bass and Nithya Raman, and having the audacity as a civilian to try and do my civic duty and improve our broken city.”

The fire came just days after Pratt placed third in the June 2 Los Angeles mayoral primary with 26% of the vote. Many have questioned the validity of his seeming to have secured second place, only to be pushed out by a sudden influx of ballots for his opponent.

Pratt recently posted a defiant video promising to release damaging evidence related to the campaign and city leadership.

Keep reading

German State Media Accuses Elon Musk, Tommy Robinson of Inciting Belfast Rioters to ‘Hunt’ Migrants

German state media has accused Tesla trillionaire Elon Musk and anti-grooming gang activist Tommy Robinson of calling for the “hunting” of migrants in the wake of an alleged asylum seeker beheading attempt in Belfast.

Tuesday’s edition of German public broadcaster ZDF flagship programme ‘Today Live’ argued that the backlash to footage of a Sudanese asylum seeker allegedly attempting to cut a man’s head off in Northern Ireland earlier this month was a result of malign actors from abroad on social media, signalling out Elon Musk and Tommy Robinson in particular.

Introducing the segment, presenter Christina v. Ungern-Sternberg said: “A brutal attempted murder on a public street in Belfast. Someone films it; the video goes viral. A racist mob subsequently hunts down migrants. Calls for this had come from a British right-wing extremist and tech billionaire Elon Musk. The pattern isn’t new.”

Not only did the German public broadcaster fail to provide any evidence that either Musk or Robinson had called for the violent targeting of migrants, as was seen in some cases during the Belfast riots, ZDF also appeared to undermine their entire argument with the posts they cited as evidence of incietment.

Indeed, in one of the only posts highlighted by the broadcaster, veteran street organiser Tommy Robinson said: “The whole of the United Kingdom is hitting the streets tonight at 7pm following yet another invader attack on our people.”

This post was accompanied with a list of various protests, which featured the call for people to remain: “Peaceful. Respectful. Together.”

The post was shared by Musk, who added: “Only by protesting REPEATEDLY and LOUDLY will there be any change!!”

Keep reading

US Investigating Iran War Critic Trita Parsi, Co-Founder Of Non-Interventionist Think Tank

The Trump administration has launched an investigation into prominent Iran war critic Trita Parsi, according to a report in the Free Press.

According to US officials and documents reviewed by the pro-Trump outlet, officials are looking into the possibility of deporting Parsi, who holds both Iranian and Swedish citizenship.

Parsi, who is co-founder and executive vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft and co-founded the National Iranian-American Council (NIAC), has been a vocal opponent of the ongoing US attacks on Iran.

A Trump official told the Free Press that US Secretary of State Marco Rubio had been “very clear” in his intentions to tackle “people who support adversaries of ours and whose work furthers their agenda and undermines our security.

“Anyone who seeks to undermine the US, we’re taking a hard look at,” the official said.

Since the beginning of the US-Israeli attack on Iran in February, the Trump administration has increasingly targeted figures of Iranian descent in the US.

In April, Hamideh Soleimani Afshar and her daughter Sarina were detained and had their residency permits rescinded after they were – incorrectly – identified as relatives of former Iranian military commander Qassem Soleimani by far-right influencer Laura Loomer.

Despite denying their links to Soleimani, the pair remain in custody in Texas.

The US also detained and revoked the green cards of relatives of former Iranian minister Masoumeh Ebtekar in April.

Parsi is a critic of the Islamic Republic whose family fled to Sweden to escape persecution in Iran. He has faced attacks from Iranian monarchists and pro-Trump figures over his opposition to the conflict.

He has also been highly critical of US backing for what many call Israel’s genocide in Gaza and its attacks on Lebanon.

Speaking to Middle East Eye in May, Parsi warned that the US’s ability to secure a deal with Iran would ultimately come down to its ability to restrain Israeli attacks in the region.

“If Trump either cannot or will not do so, then the value of any agreement with Washington comes sharply into question,” he said.

Keep reading