Tag: wrongthink

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

“GAY FURRY HACKERS” CLAIM CREDIT FOR HACKING HERITAGE FOUNDATION FILES OVER PROJECT 2025

SIEGEDSEC, A COLLECTIVE of self-proclaimed “gay furry hackers,” has claimed credit for breaching online databases of the Heritage Foundation, the conservative think tank that spearheaded the right-wing Project 2025 playbook. SiegedSec released a cache of Heritage Foundation material as part of a string of hacks aimed at organizations that oppose transgender rights, although Heritage disputed that its own systems were breached.

In a post to Telegram announcing the hack, SiegedSec called Project 2025 “an authoritarian Christian nationalist plan to reform the United States government.” The attack was part of the group’s #OpTransRights campaign, which recently targeted right-wing media outlet Real America’s Voice, the Hillsong megachurch, and a Minnesota pastor.

In his foreword to the Project 2025 manifesto, the Heritage Foundation’s president, Kevin Roberts, rails against “the toxic normalization of transgenderism” and “the omnipresent propagation of transgender ideology.” The playbook’s other contributors call on “the next conservative administration” to roll back certain policies, including allowing trans people to serve in the military.

“We’re strongly against Project 2025 and everything the Heritage Foundation stands for,” one of SiegedSec’s leaders, who goes by the handle “vio,” told The Intercept.

In its Telegram post, SiegedSec said it obtained passwords and other user information for “every user” of a Heritage Foundation database, including Roberts and some U.S. government employees. Heritage Foundation said in statement Wednesday that SiegedSec only obtained incomplete password information.

The remainder of more than 200GB of files the hackers obtained were “mostly useless,” SiegedSec said.

Keep reading

Three Columbia deans permanently removed over disparaging texts containing ‘antisemitic tropes’

Three Columbia University deans have been “permanently removed” from their posts for sharing “very troubling” texts that “disturbingly touched on ancient antisemitic tropes,” school officials said Monday.

The three administrators — Susan Chang-Kim, Matthew Patashnick and Cristen Kromm — have been on leave since last month since it emerged they’d been involved in the disparaging text exchange that unfolded during a panel discussion about antisemitism on campus.

“This incident revealed behavior and sentiments that were not only unprofessional, but also, disturbingly touched on ancient antisemitic tropes,” Columbia president Minouche Shafik said in a statement.

“Whether intended as such or not, these sentiments are unacceptable and deeply upsetting, conveying a lack of seriousness about the concerns and the experiences of members of our Jewish community that is antithetical to our university’s values and the standards we must uphold in our community.”

Provost Angela Olinto said that “the three staff members involved have been permanently removed from their positions at Columbia College and remain on leave at this time.” It was not immediately clear what their current status was on staff.

Keep reading

A Law Professor’s Beef With a First Amendment ‘Spinning Out of Control’: Too Much Speech of the Wrong Sort

“The First Amendment is spinning out of control,” Columbia law professor Tim Wu warns in a New York Times essay. While Wu ostensibly objects to Supreme Court decisions that he thinks have interpreted freedom of speech too broadly, his complaint amounts to a rejection of the premise that the principle should be applied consistently, especially when it benefits speakers and messages he does not like.

The immediate provocation for Wu’s diatribe is yesterday’s Supreme Court decisions in two cases challenging Florida and Texas laws that aimed to restrict content moderation on social media. Although the justices remanded both cases for further consideration by the lower courts, Justice Elena Kagan’s majority opinion in Moody v. NetChoice made it clear that the “editorial discretion” protected by the First Amendment extends to the choices that social media platforms make in deciding which content to host and how to present it, even when those decisions are inconsistent, biased, or arguably unfair. And that discretion, she said, includes the use of algorithms that reflect such value judgments.

Although Wu has reservations about “the wisdom and questionable constitutionality of the Florida and Texas laws,” he thinks “the breadth of the court’s reasoning should serve as a wake-up call.” He faults the justices for “blithely assuming” that “algorithmic decisions are equivalent to the expressive decisions made by human editors at newspapers.” The ruling, Wu says, reflects a broader trend in which “liberal as well as conservative judges and justices have extended the First Amendment to protect nearly anything that can be called ‘speech,’ regardless of its value or whether the speaker is a human or a corporation.”

As Wu sees it, freedom of speech should hinge on the “value” of the ideas that people express. It is hard to imagine a broader license for government censorship.

Keep reading

Boy, 12, is referred to counter-extremist Prevent officers by his own school after declaring there ‘are only two genders’ and ‘I’m gay not queer’

A 12-year-old schoolboy has been investigated by counter-extremism officers after he declared there ‘are only two genders’.

The child made a video, posted online, in which he also stated: ‘There’s no such thing as non-binary’.

And in response to school bullies who mistakenly believed he supported transgender ideology, he said: ‘[I’m] gay not queer.’

Originally a homophobic slur, trans activists claim the word ‘queer’ now describes people who don’t adhere to ideas of sex or gender.

But the school told the boy’s mother they would refer him to Prevent, the Home Office programme that attempts to stop people becoming terrorists, amid fears he could be at risk of being radicalised by the far-right.

The Mail is aware of the boy’s identity but has agreed not to disclose it, and has also viewed the social media posts.

The boy’s mother was visited by Prevent and Northumbria Police officers this week, in a meeting she described as ‘an interrogation’.

Officers listed a string of allegations to illustrate the boy was at risk of radicalisation.

The boy’s mother said: ‘We think that he was targeted as the children believe gay people agree with trans ideology.

‘He made a video which I uploaded to YouTube where he said there ‘are only two genders’ and ‘I’m gay not queer’.

‘The school phoned up and were incensed by it. They said that they would refer him to Prevent for that video.

‘They said that he was at risk of radicalisation – not that he had been, but was a risk when he gets to 13 and is entitled to his own social media accounts.

Keep reading

German Politician Hit With Hate Crime Investigation For Demanding Migrant Criminals Be Deported

A CDU politician in Germany is under investigation for hate crimes after he reacted to a knife attack by an Afghan migrant by calling for the expulsion of foreign criminals from the country.

On the opening day of the Euro 2024 football tournament, a knife-wielding Afghan migrant went on a stabbing spree in Wolmirstedt which left one person dead and multiple others injured.

Detlef Gürth, a state lawmaker for the Christian Democratic Union (CDU) in Saxony-Anhalt, reacted by posting on X, “This pack has to get out of Germany.”

And that was literally it.

That’s all he said before subsequently deleting the tweet.

However, it was enough for left-wing state politician Henriette Quade to file a criminal complaint against Gürth for allegedly committing a hate crime, which is now being investigated by the Halle public prosecutor’s office

“The description of Afghans as a ‘pack’ who are denied the right to live in Germany is an insult to parts of the population,” Quade ludicrously claimed.

“Those designated in this way are denied their basic right to life as equal individuals in the community and their human dignity is thus attacked. Furthermore, the post cannot be interpreted with any understanding other than that all Afghans living in the country are (potential) murderers. The post also incites hatred against parts of the population,” she added.

Gürth was clearly referring to migrants who engage in violence, not all Afghans, but his relatively tame comment was reported to authorities anyway in another stunning example of how many in the German political establishment are more concerned about not hurting the feelings of migrants than they are stopping the wave of migrant-driven violence that has plagued the country for years.

Keep reading

US Army Revises Standards On Prohibited Extremist Activity

The U.S. Army issued new, more specific guidance on Wednesday to address extremism within its ranks and ensure disciplinary action against those who engage with or promote extremist views.

Secretary of the Army Christine Wormuth signed off on a pair of memos, published on June 26, that refine how the service will handle protests and extremist or gang activity within the ranks, and report suspected prohibited behavior. One memo a directive for “Handling Protest, Extremist, and Criminal Gang Activities“ and the other is a directive for ”Reporting Prohibited Activities.”

The memo on Handling Protest, Extremist, and Criminal Gang Activities states that prohibited activity within the Army can include distributing extremist materials online. This new Army memo reinforces a policy approach articulated by the U.S. Department of Defense in a November 2021 memo, which states that “an action taken to replicate content from one online location to another” can qualify as distributing extremist content online. The new Army memo now states the prohibited online distribution of extremist activity can include liking, sharing, and “re-tweeting” said content.

“Military personnel are responsible for the content they publish on all personal and public internet domains, including social media platforms, blogs, websites, and applications,” the memo states.

The Army’s existing policy, updated in July of 2020, had previously said prohibited online conduct could include “hazing, bullying, harassment, discriminatory harassment, stalking, retaliation, or any other types of misconduct that undermines dignity and respect” but was less specific about online extremist activity, stating only that “military personnel must reject participation in extremist organizations and associated cyber activities.”

The new memo on Handling Protest, Extremist, and Criminal Gang Activities also states soldiers who “knowingly” display paraphernalia, words, or symbols in support of extremist activity, including on flags, clothing, tattoos, and bumper stickers—whether on or off a military installation—can run afoul of the Army’s prohibitions on extremist behavior.

Keep reading