Tag: wrongthink

Big Advertisers Settle Case with FTC over Leftist Censorship in Advertising and Suspected Collusion Against Breitbart, Other Conservatives

Three of the world’s largest advertising companies settled Wednesday with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) over claims that they colluded on policies to combat alleged misinformation that denied advertising revenue to conservative publishers such as Breitbart News.

The FTC said in a complaint filed on Wednesday in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas that WPP, Dentsu, and Publicis coordinated on policies that limited the number of ads that ran on sites with content that the industry had identified as misinformation. The policy resulted in fewer ads running on media outlets such as Breitbart News, punishing outlets that ran content that was “lawful but disfavored.” The filing explained that these advertisers sought to impose common “brand safety” standards across the digital advertising industry. The FTC stated that the ad agencies, with their primary competitors, Omnicom and IPG, operated through their trade associations to establish a “Brand Safety Floor” to combat “misinformation.”

“The ad agencies’ brand-safety conspiracy turned competition in the market for ad-buying services on its head,” FTC Chairman Andrew Ferguson said in a written statement. “The antitrust laws guarantee participation in a market free from conduct, such as economic boycotts, that distort the fundamental competitive pressures that promote lower prices, higher quality products and increased innovation.”

“As we explain in our complaint, the brand-safety agreement limited competition in the market for ad-buying services and deprived advertisers of the benefits of differentiated brand-safety standards that could be tailored to their unique advertising inventory,” the FTC chairman said.

Ferguson continued:

This unlawful collusion not only damaged our marketplace, but also distorted the marketplace of ideas by discriminating against speech and ideas that fell below the unlawfully agreed-upon floor. The proposed order remedies the dangers inherent to collusive practices and restores competition to the digital news ecosystem.

A spokesman for WPP said in a statement that the agreement “reflects our existing and ongoing commitment to provide our clients with unbiased advice as they decide where to place their media.” A spokesman for Dentsu said the company was “fully committed to operating transparently, with integrity, and in strict compliance with all applicable laws.” Publicis had not responded to a request for comment from the New York Times.

The FTC said in its filing that the ad agencies “coordinated” through the Global Alliance for Responsible Media (GARM), an entity created by the World Federation of Advertisers, of which the three advertisers are members.

Keep reading

Explosive Report: As Dobbs Majority Faced Death Threats, Liberal Justices Slow-Walked Release

When the draft of the Supreme Court ruling that would overturn Roe v. Wade leaked to the press, the conservative justices who signed on to the majority opinion suddenly wore bigger targets on their backs. The very real threat of assassination hung over them like a coming thunderstorm. 

And still their pro-abortion colleagues stalled the release of the official ruling for weeks, putting the justices’ lives at increased risk, as detailed in Mollie Hemingway’s new book on Justice Samuel Alito and reported Saturday by Fox News.

Alito is the justice who wrote Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the ruling ending nationalized abortion.

“Alito asked the dissenters to make the completion of their dissents their priority because delay of the decision was a security threat,” Hemingway, The Federalist’s editor-in-chief writes in Alito: The Justice Who Reshaped the Supreme Court and Restored the Constitution.“Abortion supporters had an incentive to kill one or more of the justices in the majority to change the outcome.” 

The dissenters — Justices Stephen Breyer (counting down the days until his retirement at the end of the 2021-22 term ), Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayor — “demurred,” Hemingway reports. Justice Neil Gorsuch asked the liberals when they expected to be wrapped up. They refused to provide a date. 

The tension and the threats escalated. 

‘Serious Security Risk’

On May 2, 2022, accomplice media outlet Politico published the 98-page draft of Dobbs. The unprecedented leak set off a wave of leftist protests and a literal firestorm of pro-abortion-led violence. Six days later — on Mother’s Day — a radical who was eventually arrested thanks to a half-eaten burrito firebombed the Madison headquarters of Wisconsin Family Action, a Christian pro-life, pro-family organization. 

“In the ensuing weeks, hundreds of pregnancy centers, churches, and pro-life organizations would be vandalized, some even set ablaze,” Hemingway wrote. Protesters also lined the streets and sidewalks outside the conservative justices’ homes.

More than a month after the leak, Nicholas Roske, 26 at the time, arrived at Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s home with murder on his mind. In his possession were a Glock pistol, ammunition, zip ties, a tactical knife, pepper spray, a hammer, duct tape, and more accoutrements, according to the criminal complaint. Roske said he was going to stop Roe v. Wade from being overturned by getting rid of a judge — or three — that voted to stop the deeply flawed 1973 ruling legalizing abortion nationwide. 

“Everyone knew that the leak posed a serious security risk for justices. Since decisions do not take effect until issued officially from the bench, the death of a justice before then could alter the result. The threat of assassination increased dramatically,” Hemingway writes. 

It took 53 days to finally release the Dobbs decision. Despite the growing threat to their colleagues, the liberals on the court refused to listen to urgent pleas to complete their work, Hemingway reports.

Keep reading

Letitia James’ Crusade Against Abortion Pill Reversal Is Also Killing Free Speech

State attorneys general are duty-bound to seek justice for the weak and powerless, not to use their immense power to harass them. But New York Attorney General Letitia James’ policing of private conversations about the abortion pill reversal (APR) protocol amounts to a cynical abuse of state power.

Two years ago, James launched a legal assault on Heartbeat International and 11 affiliated pregnancy centers in New York. She claimed the centers and Heartbeat — the largest network of pregnancy help organizations in the world — had engaged in false advertising, supposedly deceiving women by sharing scientific findings supporting the safety and effectiveness of APR.

APR is a safe and effective way for a woman to improve her odds of continuing her pregnancy to term after she has ingested mifepristone — the first pill in an abortion drug regimen designed to block progesterone from the growing baby. A worldwide network of more than 1,500 health care professionals is available to prescribe bioidentical progesterone to counteract the mifepristone in order to reverse its effects. Most notably, statistics suggest that more than 8,000 babies have been saved through the abortion pill reversal protocol.

Thousands of smiling — living — babies and emotional testimonies of grateful moms illustrate the success of a chosen medical treatment. And James “has no business butting into the intimate medical decision of [a] … mother.” It’s why Heartbeat and its New York affiliates filed their own lawsuit, arguing that defendant James has provided “no evidence of fraud, misrepresentation, material omission, or harm to anyone” in providing free services or speaking about the safety and efficacy of APR.

This week, Heartbeat and its affiliates have their day in court. On Wednesday, April 15, their attorneys argued that James’ hostile lawsuit should be dismissed because it targets free speech and participation in public debate. James’ lawsuit is a classic Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP). Or, more bluntly, James’ efforts amount to a bully’s legal slap in the face to keep small pro-life nonprofits from sharing a life-saving message she doesn’t like.

Her friends have called her a “voice for the voiceless.” She claims to “speak truth to power, and challenge the status quo.” And she frequently talks of “using [her] position to address the needs of those who are locked out of the sunshine of opportunity.”

But the attorney general ought not ignore the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent defense of free speech rights, even when offering medical services. At the end of March, the court delivered an 8-1 decision in Chiles v. Salazar, noting that counseling conversations are speech and Colorado cannot silence viewpoints in the counseling room. The majority warned that “[t]oday, tomorrow, and forever, too, any professional speech that deviates from ‘current beliefs about the safety and efficacy of various medical treatments’ could be silenced with relative ease.”

Sensitive to the danger of stifling innovation in medicine, they continued, “Medical consensus, too, is not static; it evolves and always has. A prevailing standard of care may reflect what most practitioners believe today, but it cannot mark the outer boundary of what they may say tomorrow.”

Keep reading

New Docs Reinforce The Newest DC District Judge Is A Legal Hack Skilled In Abusing Power

New federal documents released Monday shed more light on the wildly partisan history of power abuses by the troubled D.C. District Court’s newest judge, Sparkle Sooknanan.

An approximately 900-page Department of Justice report released Monday details systematic abuses of power and constitutional violations by Biden administration efforts to prosecute Americans for pro-life speech. Public records inside the report show the amazingly named Sooknanan was deeply involved in these systemic abuses of law and power. And she was rewarded with judicial robes for helping violate the law and Constitution.

During the Biden administration, Sooknanan was first a DOJ deputy associate attorney general, and then principal deputy assistant attorney general in the DOJ’s notoriously corrupt, anti-American Civil Rights Division. While a federal prosecutor, documents show, Sooknanan used her taxpayer-funded government position to collude with privately funded leftist activists to suppress Americans’ constitutional rights to free speech, freedom of association, and free assembly.

The Monday DOJ report discloses several emails from Sooknanan, showing her participation in Biden administration efforts to use an unconstitutional law called the FACE Act to prosecute prolifers for protected public speech.

An email dated May 12, 2023 shows Sooknanan discussing DOJ colleague Sanjay Patel’s appearance at a National Abortion Federation conference to show abortion businesses how to sic federal prosecutors on American citizens who speak against mass unborn murder. Sooknanan asked for a copy of Patel’s presentation that advertised federal assistance prosecuting Americans for prolife speech.

Sooknanan included a link to an Axios article claiming repealing Roe v. Wade increased violence against abortuaries. In fact, violence against prolife women’s health centers also increased at the time, including firebombings and arson against dozens of health charities dedicated to helping poor women sustain at-risk pregnancies.

Keep reading

Pro-Life Father Targeted By Biden’s FBI Wins $1M Settlement

During the Biden administration, pro-lifers were routinely targeted by the Department of Justice.

In 2022, under the leadership of then Attorney General Merrick Garland, father of seven and pro-life warrior Mark Houck was arrested in Pennsylvania as dozens of fully-armed FBI agents raided his home and terrified his family.

The arrest stemmed from an incident outside an abortion clinic in 2021.

A 72-year-old abortion escort allegedly insisted on harassing Houck’s 12 -year old son, who was accompanying him during sidewalk counseling in front of the clinic. After weeks of agitation, Houck ultimately shoved the abortion escort. No injuries were reported.

Although local prosecutors declined to pursue the case and a judge dismissed a civil lawsuit filed by the escort, Federal authorities charged Houck with violating the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act.

Houck was found not guilty.

Keep reading

Young woman says Canadian university banned her for listening to a conversation about Iran war

A Canadian woman says she has been banned for life from the University of Guelph in a violation of her Charter rights because she overheard a private conversation that her father had about the Iran war with some Muslims.

Sarah Dotzert, a young conservative activist, posted a YouTube video about her ordeal through her organization, Unify Action. She explains just how far the university went in political correctness by banning both her and her father.

“I’m about to expose the reality of what it’s like to work on university campuses in Canada. I just banned from ever setting foot on the University of Guelph ever again. No joke, this is not a lie. That thumbnail was real – I actually got banned,” she said.

According to Dotzert, she received a letter in the mail from the university titled “notice of trespass.”

The letter reads, as noted by Dotzert:

Dear Sarah,

As a result of your actions on March 6, 2026, this letter serves as a notice of trespass. The University of Guelph and all associated properties are private property. Presently, you are not a registered student, staff, or faculty member at the University of Guelph and are therefore prohibited from entering all University of Guelph properties. Should you be found in violation of this order, you will be charged under the Trespass to Property Act by the Campus Safety Office. This prohibition is in effect for an indefinite period from the date of this letter. A copy of this notice will be forwarded to the Guelph Police Service for their records. If you have any questions, please contact me directly.

— Director of Campus Security

According to Dotzert, she did nothing that would have warranted her being banned from campus. She says that on March 6 at around 7 p.m. she was attending a “private religious function” at the university. She noted that the event was open to the public as well as “non-students,” so she was “free to attend.”

Dotzert said that as her father was dropping her off in the parking lot, he started a conversation with some other girls next to them. Dotzert said that for context the girls “were Muslim.”

“His opening question was, ‘What do you guys think of the war in Iran?” to the girls.

“Immediately, they take it hostile. On his part, he was not hateful, judgmental, or offensive in any way. He makes conversation with everyone … He was simply trying to talk … But they were offended. The conversation lasted minute, maybe two minutes,” Dotzert recounted.

According to Dotzert, she “took no part in it” and was already out of the car and “walking away.”

Keep reading

My coworkers asked about my Christian beliefs. Then I lost my job

I am a sophomore at Boyce College, a Christian university in Louisville, Kentucky. In November 2024, I took a job as a barista at Heine Brothers Coffee to support myself financially and help cover the financial strains that college can bring. It was a great job that fit well with my busy class schedule and assignments. Whether I was putting smiles on customers’ faces or having fun with coworkers, my shifts went by quickly, and I enjoyed the work. I would have never guessed how it would end.

My Christian faith is a core part of who I am. My faith in Christ defines who I am and how I view the world. I am a sinner saved by grace and God has changed my heart. Ever since Christ saved me, I now seek to love others as Christ first loved us. That is my joy in life.

During a shift last October, two coworkers discovered I attend a Christian college and immediately sparked a conversation about my religious beliefs on marriage, sexuality and other sensitive topics. I’ve always been open to answering questions about my faith, so when given this opportunity to share my Christian views, I responded truthfully, respectfully, and only when invited to share.

I believe that everyone is on their own faith journey and I respect people’s right to reach their own conclusions and have their own beliefs. I am always willing to listen to what others believe and share my faith while respecting others’ decisions. I’m always intrigued to learn more about others and get to know people on a deeper level.

Keep reading

‘Major legal victory’: Pro-lifer arrested by Biden SWAT team wins huge settlement

A Catholic father who was targeted by Joe Biden’s abortion-pushing ideologues in government has won a huge settlement for his arrest by SWAT team agents.

Of course the American taxpayer is the one who ultimately must pay as the lawsuit by Mark Houck against the Biden administration actions actually named the Department of Justice as defendant.

Houck’s home and family were “assaulted” by armed federal agents who raided him after he intervened during a pro-life protest to protect his young son from an aggressive and violent abortion escort outside a Planned Parenthood facility.

He later was acquitted of all charges.

According to a report at Lifenews, it is a “major legal victory against blatant targeting and discrimination from former President Joe Biden’s administration.”

The result is a “seven-figure settlement,” although the exact specifications of the deal weren’t released.

Houck’s arrest was made under the federal Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances law, threatening him with up to 11 years in prison, even though the incident triggering the federal assault was unrelated.

The report explained his ordeal began when he stepped in to shield his son from harassment by an abortion escort.

Local police said there was no crime, but for Biden’s abortion-pushing bureaucrats, that wasn’t good enough.

Prosecutors then pursued the high-profile federal counts.

The Biden agenda was blocked when in 2023 a federal jury acquitted him of all counts.

He then sued the DOJ for wrongful prosecution, excessive forces and violation of constitutional rights.

Keep reading

Leaked DOJ report finds Biden admin colluded with abortionists to target pro-lifers

A nearly 60-page report form the Trump Department of Justice (DOJ) containing “damning evidence of collusion and unethical behavior” between the Biden-era DOJ and pro-abortion entities, including the National Abortion Federation (NAF), has been leaked the leftist news outlet MS Now.

“Upon assuming office, the Biden DOJ shattered the public’s trust by weaponizing the FACE Act to advance a pro-abortion agenda, and DOJ’s Civil Rights Division was at the forefront of this weaponization,” says the draft, according to MS Now.

Randall Terry, founder of Operation Rescue who has seen the evidence on which the report was based, spoke to LifeSiteNews after the leak of the document. According to MS Now, the document is likely to be publicly released as early as next week. Terry told LifeSiteNews that he and Terrisa Bukovinac, founder of Progressive Anti-Abortion Uprising (PAAU), were granted access to the unredacted records on March 4, 2026. Bukovinac and Terry met with DOJ officials in Washington, D.C., because the documents reference Terry by name and Bukovinac’s organization.

Terry said the report contains clear evidence of unethical coordination between Biden lead prosecutor Sanjay Patel and pro-abortion groups, including the NAF, while more than 70 attacks on pro-life pregnancy centers in the months after Roe v. Wade was overturned went largely uninvestigated and unprosecuted.

Keep reading

Democrat GA House Candidate Floats Idea to ‘Punish’ MAGA for Voting for President Trump

Democrat Suzanna Karatassos, who is running for the Georgia House of Representatives, has floated an idea to ‘punish’ MAGA.

Karatassos shared a video suggesting banning internet access for those who voted for Donald Trump.

“When this is all over, and Trump’s gone and Democrats are back in charge, and we’re rebuilding everything,” she said in the now-deleted TikTok video posted in January.

“The punishment for MAGA for voting for Trump three times needs to be that they remove their internet access for four years.”

“That they cannot post videos or comments on social media for four straight years, so that none of us are subjected to their lies and misinformation while we are rebuilding the chaos that they caused the whole world and America gets to be without their B.S. online for 4 straight years.”

“Can we all agree to this?”

Keep reading