Tag: wrongthink

UK Man Arrested For Social Media Posts Containing “Anti-Establishment Rhetoric”

The BBC reports that a 40-year-old man has been arrested and criminally charged for social media posts that contained “anti-establishment rhetoric.”

Yes, really.

Wayne O’Rourke becomes the latest example of the wave of authoritarian hysteria to impact free speech in the UK following the recent anti-mass migration riots.

O’Rourke was arrested on Sunday in connection with “posts made from a social media account,” according to Lincolnshire Police.

“Nottingham Magistrates’ Court heard the posts were alleged to contain anti-Muslim and anti-establishment rhetoric,” reports the BBC.

O’Rourke had nearly 100,000 followers on X and predicted his own arrest days beforehand.

So now apparently posting “anti-establishment rhetoric” in the United Kingdom is enough to get you locked up.

The report does not give any specifics of what the thought criminal actually posted, but he had “allegedly expressed support for the recent riots and offered advice on how to remain anonymous to his 90,000 followers.”

Keep reading

US Court Reimposes “Disinformation” Device Monitoring on January 6 Defendant

The US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia has issued an order in the United States v. Daniel Goodwyn case reimposing the computer monitoring measure against Goodwyn, a January 6 defendant.

We obtained a copy of the order for you here.

Goodwyn was charged and convicted for briefly entering the US Capitol during the January 6 events, and although he stayed inside the building for just over half a minute, left when he was asked to, was not involved in violence nor did he cause any damage – it was his social media posts (among others, screenshot of public documents that show names of government employees) that were seen as a threat.

In initial proceedings in 2023, Goodwyn pleaded guilty to one misdemeanor count of trespassing. As legal experts noted, normally a first-time offender isn’t sent to jail for this, but the US District Court for the District of Columbia Judge Reggie Walton sentenced him to two months in prison.

This was accompanied by probation conditions that included unusually harsh and ongoing restrictions on Goodwyn’s online speech and access to information. Walton – a vocal critic of Donald Trump decided that Goodwyn’s computer must be “monitored and inspected” to make sure he was not “spreading disinformation.”

The appellate court then found that the district court “plainly erred” by imposing these surveillance measures. Judge Walton next decided that now, “on the heels of [sic] another election,” he was worried Goodwyn was spreading “false narratives” and therefore affirmed his original sentencing.

Keep reading

FBI Raids Home of Former UN Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter

On Wednesday, the FBI raided the home of Scott Ritter, a former UN weapons inspector and outspoken critic of the NATO proxy war in Ukraine and Israel’s genocidal campaign in Gaza.

Ritter told reporters outside of his New York home that the raid was related to a suspected violation of the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA), a law that requires individuals or entities engaging in lobbying or other activity on behalf of a foreign country to register as foreign agents with the US Department of Justice.

“The search warrant is related to concerns apparently the US government has about violations of the Foreign Agents Registration Act. I will tell you right now I am not in violation of the Foreign Agents Registration Act … and hopefully, by executing the search warrant and taking the information that they did, they will rapidly reach that conclusion,” Ritter said.

Keep reading

UK’s Met Police Chief Threatens “Keyboard Warriors” With Terrorism Charges

Head of the Met Police Sir Mark Rowley has warned that “keyboard warriors” could be hit with terrorism charges for inciting riots online, even if they are living abroad.

Rowley made the comments in response to waves of rioting that unfolded across the UK following the murder of three young girls at a Taylor Swift dance class in Southport by a 17-year-old of Rwandan migrant origin via his parents.

Asserting that the “full force of the law” would be used against offenders, Rowley made it clear that this included not just people physically involved in the riots, but those who make inflammatory comments about them on social media.

“And whether you’re in this country committing crimes on the streets or committing crimes from further afield online, we will come after you,” Rowley threatened.

A Sky News reporter than mentioned Elon Musk as a ‘high profile figure’ who was “whipping up hatred,” when in fact Musk merely asked Prime Minister Keir Starmer, “Why aren’t all communities protected in Britain?”.

“What are you considering when it comes to dealing with people who are whipping up from behind a keyboard and maybe is in a different country,” the reporter asked Rowley.

“Being a keyboard warrior does not make you safe from the law, you can be guilty of offences of incitement, of stirring up racial hatred, there are numerous terrorist offences regarding the publishing of material, all of those offences are in play if people are provoking hatred and violence on the streets and we will come after those individuals just as we will physically confront on the streets the thugs and the yobs who are causing the problems for communities,” said Rowley.

As we highlighted yesterday, authorities have warned Brits that merely retweeting information about the riots could lead to criminal charges.

Stephen Parkinson, the Director of Public Prosecutions, told Sky News that people do not even need to personally post the content themselves to be deemed to be committing an offence.

Parkinson said social media users could be guilty of “incitement to racial hatred” if they post “insulting or abusive” content that is “likely to stir up racial hatred.”

Keep reading

Dunkin’ Donuts and Diageo Booze Company Threaten to Remove Ads from Rumble if the Platform Does Not Remove Videos by Conservative Personalities

On Tuesday, Elon Musk’s X filed an antitrust lawsuit, which was filed in Texas federal court, seeking trebled compensatory damages and injunctive relief, against a left-leaning advertising cartel and several member companies.

The suit alleges X was targeted with an illegal ad boycott.

The lawsuit was filed against the Global Alliance for Responsible Media, its parent firm, World Federation of Advertisers (WFA), and GARM members CVS Health, Mars, Orsted, and Unilever, who reportedly controls a staggering 90% of marketing efforts worldwide.

Soon after Elon Musk’s announcement, Rumble CEO Chris Pavlovski announced he was joining the lawsuit with Elon Musk against the GARM cartel.

Rumble CEO Pavlovski explains how organizations like GARM and the World Federation of Advertisers have monopolized control over the major advertising budgets.

Keep reading

Crazed Authoritarians Demand X Be Shut Down in UK

Mimicking a policy that the west once condemned Communist China for pursuing, authoritarians are now calling for X to be shut down completely in the UK to stop civil unrest.

After the country was rocked by a series of riots over the past week in response to a 17-year-old son of Rwandan immigrants killing three little girls in Southport, the media and the political class blamed the anger on “misinformation” shared on X.

In reality, the UK has been a boiling pot of resentment and rage over mass migration for years, with huge numbers continuing to arrive, putting massive strain on the country and making some parts of major towns and cities unrecognizable, despite nobody having ever voted for it.

However, the disorder is being exploited to grease the skids for mass censorship.

Cambridge professor Sander van der Linden said the government could “geo-restrict access to a platform if the situation got so bad” and Twitter could also be “banned from the app store for violating policies.”

Keep reading

UK Police Arrest Man For ‘Offensive’ Facebook Posts

A British man filmed as a pair of police officers entered his home and arrested him for “improper use of the electronic communications network” under the Communications Act.

A female cop stood in the man’s living room and explained he was being hauled into the police station over “some comments” he made “on a Facebook page.”

“Oh, a Facebook crime is it?” the man asked.

“We have reports that you made some comments that are offensive, obscene and people have made complaints about that and they’ve come from a Facebook account with your names,” the female officer said.

When the man asked if he was going to be “locked up for the night,” the cops said, “Hopefully not,” with the policewoman adding, “unless you film us.”

The video ended with the “suspect” standing up for the officers to place him in handcuffs.

There are no details regarding what the man posted online, but it could be related to recent unrest in the nation with violent protests erupting across the country.

Keep reading

UK Sports Commentator Faces Court for “Malicious Communications” Charges Over Social Media Posts

Free speech supporters are alarmed after former Premier League player Joey Barton has been slapped with charges of alleged “malicious communications” directed towards sports commentator and past England Women’s team star Eni Aluko.

Responding to the accusations, Barton labeled the judiciary as a “banana republic.” A court date has been set for July 30 following a probe by Cheshire Police in England.

Earlier this year, Barton likened Aluko and fellow commentator Lucy Ward to Fred and Rose West.

Fred and Rose West were a British married couple who committed a series of murders, sexual assaults, and acts of torture against young women and girls, including some of their own children, between the 1960s and 1980s in Gloucestershire, England.

After a police investigation into Barton’s contentious actions, charges were brought by the Crown Prosecution Service. The 41-year-old ex-footballer is set to face these charges at Warrington Magistrates’ Court.

Keep reading

Whistleblower says FBI abuses security clearance process to ‘purge’ conservative agents

The Security Division of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) is abusing security clearance approval to oust agents believed to be politically conservative, according to a whistleblower complaint reviewed by the New York Post.

(Article by Calvin Freiburger republished from LifeSiteNews.com)

The Post reported that the unidentified whistleblower alleges that the nation’s top law enforcement agency suspends or revokes clearances of agents on the basis of their political affiliations or lack of COVID-19 vaccination, because “if an FBI employee fit a certain profile as a political conservative, they were viewed as security concerns and unworthy to work at the FBI.”

The allegations directly contradict sworn testimony denying the practice to Congress last year by Jennifer Leigh Moore, the Security Division’s assistant director.

A nonprofit called Empower Oversight is representing the whistleblower and submitted his claims to the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) Office of the Inspector General (OIG) and Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) on June 28. Empower president Tristan Leavitt also told Congress in a letter that the FBI is also retaliating against the agent for what he is trying to expose.

“The outcomes of clearance investigations and adjudications were often pre-determined by the Division’s acting Deputy Assistant Director and the acting Section Chief responsible for security clearance investigations and adjudications, who often overruled line staff and even dictated the wording of documents in the clearance process,” Leavitt wrote. “Over the last few years, the FBI has used the clearance process as a means to force employees out of the FBI by inflicting severe financial distress: suspending their clearance, suspending them from duty without pay, requiring them to obtain permission to take any other job while stuck in this unpaid limbo, and delaying their final clearance adjudication indefinitely – even years.”

One victim of such practices was former FBI staff operations specialist Marcus Allen, who last year was revealed to have lost his security clearance for circulating news articles and opinion videos related to the January 6, 2021, U.S. Capitol riot for “situational awareness,” according to an interim report by the House Judiciary Committee and Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government. “Because these open-source articles questioned the FBI’s handling of the violence at the Capitol, the FBI suspended Allen for ‘conspiratorial views in regard to the events of January 6th.’”

Keep reading

Outrageous: Biden’s Defense Department Labels Pro-Life Organizations as “Terrorist Organizations” During Anti-Terrorism Briefing

The Biden regime’s Defense Department has taken an unprecedented step by categorizing pro-life organizations as “terrorist organizations” during an anti-terrorism briefing held at Fort Liberty’s Directorate of Emergency Services, formerly known as Fort Bragg, on Wednesday.

This deeply concerning slide from an anti-terrorism brief was first exposed by citizen journalist Sam Shoemate, or @samour, on X.

“An anti-terrorism brief was held on Fort Liberty (Bragg) today where they listed several Pro-Life organizations as “terrorist organizations.” The slide you see here followed right after a slide about ISIS, a terror group in the Middle East,” Shoemate wrote on X.

The presentation slide, which has since circulated widely on social media, lists these pro-life organizations that oppose “Roe[sic] v. Wade” under a headline reading “TERRORIST GROUPS.”

The presentation specifically targets groups like National Right to Life and Operation Rescue, which have long been pillars of the pro-life community.

These organizations are dedicated to peaceful advocacy against abortion, grounded in the belief that every life is valuable and worth protecting.

The slide shockingly equates their activities, such as demonstrations, protests, mass demonstrations, Life Chain, The Rescue, The Truth Display, and picketing, along with counseling efforts at sidewalks and crisis centers, with terrorism.

It lists these legitimate forms of protest and counseling alongside heinous crimes like bombings and attempted murders.

Demonstrations, mass gatherings, and sidewalk counseling are all constitutionally protected activities under the First Amendment. Yet, this presentation portrays them in the same light as violent acts.

The pro-life movement has a rich history of non-violent advocacy, including iconic events like the March for Life, which draws hundreds of thousands of peaceful demonstrators to Washington, D.C., each year. Yet, the presentation disregards this legacy, instead painting a skewed picture that associates pro-life advocacy with violence and extremism.

The slide also displayed a New York license plate bearing the text “IM4IT” and a design promoting the “Choose Life” message.

Keep reading