Tag: wrongthink

PayPal to expand its speech restriction rules in November

On the heels of its censorship spree in the UK – that received backlash so great it got the attention of lawmakers – PayPal is rolling out a new agreement that gives itself more censorship powers and the ability to strip income from those who don’t abide to its speech rules.

Violation of the “Acceptable Use Policy constitutes a violation of the PayPal User Agreement and may subject you to damages, including liquidated damages of $2,500.00 U.S. dollars per violation,” PayPal writes.

PayPal’s clause about taking users’ funds for a violation of its rules has long been established. But, as published on September 26th and to be effective on November 3rd, 2022, PayPal will add restrictions to its acceptable use policy that go beyond illegal activities and fraud and into the realm of policing speech.

The updated policy prohibits users from using PayPal for activities that:

“Involve the sending, posting, or publication of any messages, content, or materials that, in PayPal’s sole discretion, (a) are harmful, obscene, harassing, or objectionable … (e) depict, promote, or incite hatred or discrimination of protected groups or of individuals or groups based on protected characteristics (e.g. race, religion, gender or gender identity, sexual orientation, etc.) … (g) are fraudulent, promote misinformation … or (i) are otherwise unfit for publication.”

Big Tech platforms are increasingly finding ways to punish people’s speech under the guise of banning  “misinformation,” and making themselves as the arbiters of truth in deciding what is and isn’t true.

Keep reading

‘Stochastic Terrorism’ Is The Newest Way The Left Plans To Censor Dissent

Far left activists have recently deployed a “sophisticated, academic-sounding” crowbar to batter tech companies and ideological dissenters alike, but the strategy is getting mixed reviews from free speech and extremism experts interviewed by the Daily Caller.

Instances of the phrase “stochastic terrorism” have seen a massive spike online since 2016 and more recently in the last few months, as activists seek to de-platform and censor personalities and brands that refuse to hew to their particular worldview.

“I believe concept creep helps explain the sudden and relatively recent uptick in the phrase ‘stochastic terrorism,’” Komi Frey, a research fellow at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) told the Caller. “The term ‘terrorism’ understandably evokes fear, so it captures people’s attention. Furthermore, the government can take very extreme measures to combat and punish terrorism.”

Keep reading

The University of Massachusetts Lowell Bans Students From Sending or Viewing “offensive” Material Online

Most of the internet is apparently off-limits for students at the University of Massachusetts Lowell.

The school’s Acceptable Use Policy, which governs the use of computing and networking resources, prohibits students from intentionally transmitting, communicating or accessing “offensive” material. Every month, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression highlights a university policy that hinders students’ free expression. Since most online content could be called offensive by someone, the policy has earned the dubious honor of FIRE’s August Speech Code of the Month.

The Supreme Court has explicitly held, time and time again, that speech cannot be restricted by the government merely because it offends others. In Texas v. Johnson (1989), the Court held that burning the American flag was protected speech, explaining: “If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.”

In spite of such clear precedent, colleges and universities routinely ban offensive speech in campus speech codes, especially in IT policies. Whether a person is burning a flag at a protest or advocating for (or against) flag burning on Twitter, a ban on “offensive” speech calls for impermissible viewpoint discrimination.

UMass Lowell couldn’t possibly take action every time someone views or retweets something subjectively offensive over university wifi — every single student, and probably every professor, would be on trial. But a policy like this makes it all too easy for the university to crack down on select, disfavored speech.

Keep reading

The New Thought Police: How the Illiberal Left Use Critical Theory to Usher in Authoritarianism

When Dave Chappelle’s sold-out comedy show was recently canceled by First Avenue theater, we saw some strange rhetoric from the online mob that orchestrated the cancellation. The petition by these 128 activists stated that Chappelle has “a record of being dangerous to trans people” and his “actions uphold a violent heteronormative culture.”

This curious newspeak is borrowed from the language of Critical Theory, a supposed scholarly field that has matured over the past decade. While you may be familiar with Critical Race Theory, another main category is Queer Theory. This is where the First Avenue activists got their inspiration and rationalization for their actions.

Critical Theory, rooted in postmodernism, has produced a radical political sect that can be called the Illiberal Left. Highly visible on some college campuses (famously at Evergreen College in 2017), they seek to stamp out speech that counters their idea of absolute truth. They are modern-day thought police with the power of social media.

A profound examination of Critical Theory is found in the book Cynical Theories: How Activist Scholarship Made Everything about Race, Gender, and Identity―and Why This Harms Everybody. It dismantles the flimsy assumptions of Theory and separates the noble idea of social justice from the quasi-religious zealotry of Social Justice.

Wokeness is a more familiar term alluding to the new speech police and victimization movement. To resist this ideology, it helps to understand the Critical Theory underpinnings which explicitly reject reason and science to push the idea that truth comes from identity or “lived experience.”

Indeed, the Illiberal Left denies classic liberal tenets such as individuality and universal truth developed by Enlightenment thought. Ironically, our modern systems of reason and science stemming from Enlightenment rationalism give them the equal rights enshrined in law which permit their vociferousness.

Keep reading

WEF pushes for restricting “certain types of actors and transactions” from using decentralized finance

Like the response to trucker protests in Canada demonstrated earlier in the year, a centralized and tightly controlled financial system makes it very easy to punish those participating.

On a much bigger scale, the same is true of entire countries – if they are dependent solely on centralized international systems, they can be cut off at any point, and those in control of the systems can use them as very effective weapons.

But the rise of decentralized finance (DeFi) is throwing a wrench into all this, the World Economic Forum (WEF) has noted in an article posted on its site. The WEF is calling the technology behind DeFi “something of a double-edged sword.” The case of Russia is being used as an example and perhaps a smokescreen, from which emerges the old push to regulate decentralized finances as such.

From the point of view of those developing and using DeFi, things are much more simple: the goal is to remove third parties and ensure financial sovereignty.

However, that also means the decentralized system can be used as protection against various forms of punishment – at the level of a single individual, all the way to the highest-stakes geopolitics. And the decentralized system seems to scale well across this huge playing field.

This is what the WEF is worried about: how to make sanctions designed to cripple economies of adversaries effective again, in the era of DeFi?

Keep reading

Woke California AG Tells Gun-Permitting Officials to Deny Applicants Based on Politics

After the Supreme Court’s landmark Second Amendment ruling in June, California’s attorney general encouraged law enforcement officials in the state to deny firearm carry permits to individuals with a history of “hatred and racism”—whether expressed in social media posts or elsewhere.

The problem is that in these politically polarized times, defining hatred and racism is problematic, leading to definitions that disfavor the beliefs of conservatives and others who don’t toe the “woke” or politically correct line, critics say. Allowing these concepts to be used in the gun-permitting process is a recipe for abuse and could lead to violations of gun-permit applicants’ Second and First Amendment rights, they say.

On June 23, the Supreme Court ruled in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen, that New York state’s tough concealed carry gun permitting system was unconstitutional because it only granted public-carry licenses “when an applicant demonstrates a special need for self-defense.”

The day after the Bruen ruling, California Attorney General Rob Bonta, a Democrat, sent a “legal alert” (pdf) to law enforcement officials, advising them that the state was dropping the requirement for gun license applicants to provide a “good cause” because the requirement is now “unconstitutional and unenforceable.”

But “the requirement that a public-carry license applicant provide proof of ‘good moral character’ remains constitutional” and should continue to be enforced.

A “good moral character” investigation “requires an independent determination,” Bonta wrote.

Keep reading

California working on denying gun permits based on “ideological viewpoints”

The Supreme Court’s decision in Bruen on Thursday didn’t simply shoot down New York’s onerous “good-cause requirement” in the gun permit application process. It set up similar laws in other states for likely revocation. One of those states is California, where they have their own requirement that applicants must show a “good cause” or “special need” before a carry permit is issued. State Attorney General Rob Bonta sent out a letter on Friday to law enforcement and government attorneys noting the change and saying that the state’s current “may issue” regime should be able to be converted to a “shall issue” regime with few modifications. So that’s good news, right?

Not so fast. As Eugene Volokh points out at Reason, Bonta pivoted from signaling compliance with the new SCOTUS ruling to identifying another way to deny permits to people with no criminal record. He claims that the ruling will not impact the existing requirement for applicants to be able to demonstrate that they are “of good moral character.” On that basis, the state can start snooping around to see if you hold any unauthorized opinions or are prone to demonstrate “hatred and racism.” And how would they know that? Well, by going through your social media accounts, of course.

Keep reading

UK takes next step towards jailing people for thought crime

The excuse that “it was only a joke” will no longer fly in British courtrooms. On Tuesday, a former member of West Mercia Police was sentenced to 20 weeks in prison for sharing memes mocking the death of George Floyd.

The memes, which were shared in a private WhatsApp group with his friends, included pictures depicting George Floyd’s death, such as one featuring him as George of the Jungle, and another with a Muslim kneeling on him where a prayer mat ought to be, according to Sky News.

Former constable James Watts, who pleaded guilty to 10 counts of sending a grossly offensive or menacing message by public communication network, was initially ordered to pay measly compensation of £75 to the complainant, alongside a victim surcharge and a small court fee. However, the presiding judge, Tanveer Ikram, took it upon himself to make an example of Watts.

In delivering the 20-week prison sentence, Ikram declared that the former police officer “undermined confidence the public has in the police,” and that his behavior brought the organization into disrepute.

Keep reading

Norwegian Feminist Faces Three Years in Prison For Saying Biological Men Can’t Be Lesbians

A Norwegian feminist faces up to three years in prison for saying that biological men can’t be lesbians.

Yes, really.

Christina Ellingsen, of the global feminist organization Women’s Declaration International (WDI), is under police investigation for making the claim in a tweet in which she criticized the trans activism group FRI.

“Why [does] FRI teach young people that males can be lesbians? Isn’t that conversion therapy?” Ellingsen allegedly tweeted.

She also questioned the legitimacy of FRI’s advisor Christine Jentoft identifying as a lesbian despite being born a biological male.

“Jentoft, who is male and an advisor in FRI, presents himself as a lesbian – that’s how bonkers the organization which supposedly works to protect young lesbians’ interests is. How does it help young lesbians when males claim to be lesbian, too?” Ellingsen reportedly said.

“You are a man. You cannot be a mother,” Ellingsen allegedly told Jentoft. “To normalize the idea that men can be mothers is a defined form of discrimination against women.”

“Amnesty International is also accusing Ellingsen of harassment for saying that Jentoft is a man on national television,” reports Reclaim the Net.

Norway’s hate crime laws were made more draconian last year to make criticizing gender ideology a crime and Ellingsen faces up to three years in prison if she is convicted.

Keep reading

House passes “Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act” targeting Americans’ thought, speech

The U.S. House of Representatives recently passed a new bill that would greatly enhance the federal government’s ability to spy on Americans in an alleged effort to combat “domestic” terrorism.

H.R. 350, or the “Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act,” passed by a margin of 222-203. The vote was almost entirely along party lines, with every single House Democrat and a lone House Republican– the reprehensible RINO Rep. Adam Kinzinger of Illinois– voting to approve the measure.

The proposal would reportedly create “domestic terrorism offices” within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Department of Justice (DOJ), and Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), according to The Hill. The offices would be tasked with “monitoring and scrutinizing potential terror activity,” with a heavy emphasis on terror activity deemed motivated by “white supremacist” or “neo-Nazi” sentiments.

Democrats have predictably framed the bill as a necessary response to the mass shooting perpetrated by an avowed white supremacist at a Buffalo, New York, grocery store last week. The perpetrator, however, characterized himself online as being in the “mild-moderate-authoritarian Left category.”

Many Republicans have slammed the bill as a frightening example of government overreach. Texas Republican Rep. Chip Roy, for example, said the bill constitutes the “empowerment of the federal bureaucracy to target Americans.” He added, “This is nothing more than empowering the federal government to police thought and speech in the United States of America, and we should oppose it roundly.”

Keep reading