Tag: wrongthink

If Big Tech Doesn’t Treat Leftist Terrorists Like It Did Donald Trump, Government Should Make Them

The tragic murder of Charlie Kirk has exposed the dark underbelly of left-wing discourse on the Internet as users on BlueSky, Reddit, and Discord celebrate the vicious assassination of a young husband and father because of his politics and faith. Moreover, FBI Director Kash Patel has confirmed evidence that some media users may have previewed Kirk’s killing days beforehand (the FBI is investigating at least twenty Discord users for their communications with the killer).

This entire episode highlights the dangerous radicalization that has happened over years as extreme rhetoric online pushes young people toward desperate and awful acts. Social media companies need to take responsibility for their role in radicalization, and their failure to address irresponsible liberal discourse after their aggressive censorship of conservative viewpoints exposes a dangerous double standard.

A template for how private actors can self-police was on display Tuesday when local television affiliates, Nexstar and Sinclair, forced Disney/ABC’s hand to cancel indefinitely Jimmy Kimmel Live! They recognized that the callousness and blatant misinformation on that show did not serve the public interest. By contrast, social media titans have enabled irresponsible leftist rhetoric to proliferate and pollute civil discourse.

For the last decade, the Left has sought to drive conservatives from the public square through tools like deplatforming and debanking. Working hand-in-glove with the Biden administration, for instance, the Big Tech companies canceled thousands of conservative voices who dared to challenge the then-conventional wisdom during the Covid-19 pandemic. And they did so again after the 2020 election, targeting “election deniers” and “J-6ers” for cancellation, even going so far as to ban President Trump. Not only everyday citizens, but a half-dozen senators and congressmen (all Republicans) had their accounts suspended for violating these “community standards.” Even Stripe stopped processing campaign contributions to Donald Trump because the financial services company believed he violated their arbitrary standards.

When the Big Tech companies defended those decisions in the media and the courts, they turned again and again to their “terms and conditions,” the contracts users sign that permitted the companies to remove content that violated their “community standards.” The popular conversation site Reddit, for instance, has a set of “Reddit Rules” that include principles like “[e]veryone has a right to use Reddit free of harassment, bullying, and threats of violence. Communities and users that incite violence or that promote hate based on identity or vulnerability will be banned.”

On January 8, 2021, two days after the protests taking over the Capitol, the news magazine Variety reported that “Reddit on Friday said it banned r/donaldtrump — one of the biggest pro-Trump subreddits on the platform — after ‘repeated’ violations of the site’s policy against inciting violence.”

Many of these decisions occur down the Internet stacks and not just at the platform level, such as a cloud services company that manages the site’s traffic or even the app store. This was on full demonstration in 2018 when Cloudflare CEO Matthew Prince unilaterally decided to stop servicing the alt-right website Daily Stormer after they were instrumental in planning the infamous neo-Nazi demonstration in Charlottesville, Virginia. As Prince explained in a Wall Street Journal column, he decided it was no longer in Cloudflare’s interests to service this client, so he pulled the plug. Prince simply found that the Daily Stormer was in breach of his company’s Terms of Service and decided to act accordingly.

Keep reading

Charlie Kirk’s Allegedly “Racist” Comments Are Just Uncomfortable Truths

The left keeps portraying Charlie Kirk as a racist. Anyone who has actually watched his debates or listened to his podcasts knows that he is not.

After scouring articles and social media posts for the evidence used to label him a racist, it seems to center on a handful of statements taken out of context which, do not represent racism but rather uncomfortable truths that run against the liberal narrative.

Alleged or documented remarks attributed to Charlie Kirk include the “brain processing power” comment regarding specific Black women, the statement that “prowling Blacks go around for fun to target white people in urban America,” and the accusation that he is antisemitic despite his frequent and explicit support for Israel.

This last charge is especially ironic, since liberals now hate Israel and are openly antisemitic.

On July 13, 2023, Charlie Kirk said one could, “without being called racist,” say that four prominent Black women, Sheila Jackson Lee, Joy Reid, Michelle Obama, and Ketanji Brown Jackson, were affirmative-action picks. He then showed a clip of Jackson Lee stating before Congress that she was an affirmative-action hire.

He added that they did not have “the brain processing power to be taken seriously” and should yield opportunities to someone “more deserving.”

The statement was attacked as racist, but Kirk was not making a claim about all Black people.

He was criticizing these four individuals, at least one of whom explicitly said she was an affirmative-action hire.

This is yet another example of how conservatives want to judge people as individuals and liberals demand that every interaction be based on skin color, where even arguing with a single person is characterized as a global attack on an entire demographic.

This criticism connects to Kirk’s broader statements on affirmative action.

He previously stated that because of affirmative action, when he sees a Black pilot, he has to consider if the person was hired based on diversity rather than merit.

He made the same observation about an incompetent customer service representative. In both instances, his statement is accurate and consistent with the definition of affirmative action.

Kirk did not say Blacks cannot be good pilots or good customer service representatives.

Keep reading

Why did the BBC call Charlie Kirk ‘far right’?

‘Mr Kirk built a huge and devoted following for his far-right views’, said the BBC’s North America editor Sarah Smith on Sunday. The statement came during the BBC’s coverage of Charlie Kirk’s memorial in Arizona, which was attended by tens of thousands of mourners and was addressed by US president Donald Trump.

Smith’s statement is nothing short of astonishing. It would be one thing for blue-haired keyboard warriors on Bluesky to be referring to dead conservatives as fascists. But it is quite another for the UK’s state broadcaster to toe that same line. The BBC pays Smith more than £200,000 a year to report impartially on American affairs. We would hope someone in her esteemed position might pause for thought before smearing a man who was killed for his beliefs.

The BBC isn’t alone in painting Kirk as ‘far right’. In the days following his murder, mainstream media rushed to portray him and his views as beyond the pale. The Guardian, like the BBC, described Kirk as ‘far right’, as well as a man who ‘stood for the darker themes of… US nativism’. The New York Times accused Kirk of leading a ‘hard-right youth movement’. It was also forced to make a correction after falsely attributing an anti-Semitic quote to him.

Needless to say, this is all pretty grotesque. Kirk has just been murdered – seemingly by a genuine extremist. Wittingly or not, smearing him as a fascist, dehumanising him in death, comes dangerously close to justifying or at least sanitising his killing.

In truth, none of Kirk’s political stances could be seen as ‘far right’ in any other time except the strange epoch we live in. Defending the US First Amendment, opposing abortion, being in favour of meritocracy and insisting that men cannot become women are not unusual stances for Christian conservatives or US Republicans. You do not have to agree with these positions to recognise they do not make someone far right.

Keep reading

Katie Hopkins Interviewed “Under Caution” By UK Police After Comedy Night for ‘Online Communications, Crime of Speech’

Conservative U.K. media personality Katie Hopkins has been interviewed by British police and may face prison for ‘thought crimes’ following an online comedy night.

According to reports, Devon and Cornwall Police conducted a voluntary interview ‘under caution’ with Hopkins in August at Exeter Police Station. The interview was initiated following comments during her Instagram live show, ‘Katie’s Arms.’

To date, no official charges have been filed.

Media Commentator Steve Miller shared on X, “BREAKING: Katie Hopkins arrested and may face prison. Katie Hopkins has been interviewed under caution in relation to her Live Broadcast of ‘Katie’s Arms’. She explains she was arrested for ‘online communications, crime of speech’ and is ‘waiting to be charged’.”

Keep reading

Jillian Michaels: “Kids At My Daughter’s High School Were Celebrating” Assassination Of Charlie Kirk

In the wake of the assassination of Charlie Kirk, Jillian Michaels told NewsNation about a very disturbing text message received from her daughter.

“Kids at my daughter’s high school were celebrating” the assassination, said Michaels. It’s unclear in what area this took place.

Michaels, a lesbian, had worked a bit with Charlie Kirk. She said the celebrations were “disgusting”. “Something is WRONG in this country,” she added.

Michaels is a fitness trainer, podcaster, and media personality.

Keep reading

We Are Not Going To Have A Debate About Free Speech

he national conversation we need to have right now is not about free speech.

The conversation we need to have is about the normalization of political violence on the left. We need to be talking about left-wing Antifa/trans terrorists gunning down Christians in broad daylight while Democrats and the corporate press justify it and the online left celebrates it.

That’s the only conversation that matters right now. The manufactured outrage over ABC canceling Jimmy Kimmel’s show is an attempt to change the conversation, to flip the script so that instead of talking about the first major political assassination in America in sixty years, instead of talking about the mainstream left’s embrace of political violence and the institutional ecosystem that foments and funds that violence, we can talk about whether President Trump is using Kirk’s murder as a pretext to crack down on free speech and silence his enemies.

What nonsense — and what a tell. It speaks volumes that Democrats, liberal media, and online leftists are so desperate to pivot away from talking about Kirk’s assassination that they have chosen to take up the transparently stupid cause of Kimmel’s free speech rights. Remember, these are people who don’t care at all about free speech. Some of those rending their garments this week over Kimmel’s cancellation were the same people who cheered on government censorship during Covid. They love censorship, so long as it’s their side doing the censoring.

And it hardly needs to be said that nothing about the Kimmel story implicates free speech in any way. Kimmel didn’t just mock MAGA or criticize Kirk, he patently lied about the ideology of Kirk’s alleged assassin, and by allowing his comments to air, ABC arguably violated the terms of its FCC license.

During his Monday show, Kimmel said this: “The MAGA gang is desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them.”

Anyone with an internet connection and half a brain cell knows that Kirk’s alleged killer was deeply into Antifa and transgender ideologies, and that he specifically targeted Kirk for speaking out against these things. He was a creature wholly of the left, and to declare otherwise, as Kimmel did, is a deliberate falsification of the facts surrounding the most high-profile political assassination of our time.

That means Kimmel blatantly violated FCC regulations. Public broadcasters like ABC are prohibited from spreading false information about a crime or catastrophe, and they can lose their licensure if they don’t adhere to the relevant federal regulations.

Keep reading

Louisiana law professor suspended over Charlie Kirk post: ‘I will 1000% wish death on people like him’

Southern University has suspended and is investigating law Professor Kelly Carmena over her celebration of political activist Charlie Kirk’s murder.

Shortly after Kirk’s death, Carmena made a Facebook post stating: “I will 1000% wish death on people like him. He is the epitome of evil, and I have no compassion, not even a minute ounce of it for people like him who go around spewing hate the way he does.”

Her Facebook profile says “protect trans kids” and “show love.”

Carmena did not respond to requests for comment from The Fix.

University Board Chairman Tony Clayton told news outlets that Carmena spread speech that “is tantamount to participating and inciting violence.”

“Distasteful statements should not be tolerated particularly as it relates to death,” Clayton said. “That is tantamount to participating and inciting violence and spewing hate.”

Southern University is located in Baton Rouge. Its director of communications, I’Tyonnie Jackson, sent The Fix a statement saying the “Law Center is aware of a recent social media post involving one of our employees that has raised concern.”

“The views expressed in that post are the individual’s own and do not reflect the values or positions of the Law Center. We are reviewing this matter in accordance with the institution’s personnel policies and procedures. The Law Center is committed to fostering an environment of respect, inclusivity, and professionalism both online and offline.”

Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill told reporters the “comments posted by this individual were abhorrent.”

“Whatever your opinion is of Charlie, his assassination marked a dark day for all Americans and should be resoundingly condemned,” she said. “This individual has a constitutional right to have opinions and social media amplifies them. But she does not have a right to teach at a public law school.”

Murill also condemned similar celebrations of Kirk’s murder, calling for “consequences.”

Keep reading

Teacher LIES About High School Student Who Was Suspended After Being Assaulted For Wearing MAGA Hat in Honor of Charlie Kirk

A high school boy in Laguna Beach, California, was suspended after being accosted for wearing a MAGA hat in honor of Charlie Kirk.

Laguna Beach is a liberal enclave in mostly conservative Orange County, California.

Zach Hornstein wore a MAGA hat on campus at Laguna Beach High School last Thursday to honor Charlie Kirk, just one day after the TPUSA founder was assassinated at an event at Utah Valley University.

Hornstein said a girl grabbed his MAGA hat and threw it into the trash in the girls’ restroom. The girl used profanities to attack Trump.

He then jokingly told a group of girls to leave the country if they didn’t like the US.

“I made a joke towards them and said, ‘If you don’t like it here, Canada’s open borders, feel free to go,’” Zach Hornstein told Fox 11.

This is when a teacher lied about what Zach Hornstein said to the group of girls.

“They’re saying I told a group of girls to go back to where they came from, which I never said that,” Hornstein told Fox 11. “When they called in the girl that was involved, she literally told them that I never said that.”

Hornstein’s mother blasted the school and said her son was targeted for his conservative political beliefs.

“I think it’s a double standard,” Hornstein’s mother, Janet Semenova, said. “I think kids who have certain political beliefs are held to a different standard than kids who have other political beliefs.”

Keep reading

UK Police Show Up at Cancer Patient’s Door Demanding an Apology For Social Media Post

Just when you thought British speech policing had reached the bottom of the absurdity barrel, they bring a jackhammer.

In June, Thames Valley Police managed to dispatch one of their elite to investigate a grave national threat: an American cancer patient who may have written something a bit spicy on social media.

Yes. That’s not a joke. That is, in fact, the plot of a low-budget dystopian sitcom that the real world seems hell-bent on adapting in full.

Deborah Anderson, a mother of two, a member of the Free Speech Union, a cancer patient, and, as she put it herself, “an elderly woman,” was enjoying the blissful serenity of not being in prison when a Thames Valley Police officer showed up at her front door.

Why? Because “something that we believe you’ve written on Facebook has upset someone.”

Let’s pause here.

We are no longer talking about crime. We are no longer talking about justice. We are now fully submerged in the soggy underworld of “upset someone.”

This is what policing has become in Britain; knocking on doors to gently scold the sick and the elderly because someone got their feelings hurt.

“I’m a member of the Free Speech Union, and I’m an American citizen. I’ll have Elon Musk on you so quick your feet won’t touch,” Anderson told the officer, who probably realized at that exact moment that his day’s mission had veered into Monty Python territory.

The officer, in all his taxpayer-funded wisdom, suggested that Deborah Anderson could simply apologize and make the whole thing go away, as if groveling before the offended masses had suddenly become a formal step in police procedure.

It was less “serve and protect” and more “say sorry and maybe we won’t waste more of your time.”

Keep reading

Now British ‘thought police’ order Trump-supporting pensioner to apologise for ‘upsetting’ Facebook post or face investigation

British police have been accused of a ‘dystopian’ attack on free speech after an American woman was threatened with investigation – over her posts online. 

Footage of the encounter has been seen more 1.3million times since it was posted last night and has sparked a furious response from campaigners. 

It shows a woman, named as American cancer patient and Donald Trump supporter Deborah Anderson, being confronted in her home in Slough, Berkshire, by Thames Valley Police.

The MAGA-backing mother-of-two was accused of ‘upsetting’ a person following an alleged ‘threatening’ post she made on Facebook, which was reported to police. 

The officer declined to say which of the alleged posts had been complained about.   

In the video, ‘elderly’ Ms Anderson then flatly refuses to apologise for her comments online before she is threatened with the potential of a formal interview at a police station. 

The incident, filmed in June, prompted an intervention by the Free Speech Union (FSU), who last night claimed Thames Valley Police had since dropped the case. The force today confirmed no further action was taken over the allegations.

It comes as Britain faces fierce criticism over a recent clampdown on free speech, which has seen people being arrested, convicted or jailed over posts made online. 

The issue has prompted concern from US President Donald Trump – who is in the UK on his state visit – and warned earlier this month ‘strange things are happening over there, they are cracking down… I’m very surprised to see what’s happening’.

Keep reading