Michael Brown: Will Amazon Ban the Bible Next? – Christian Psychologist’s Books Banned— “When political leanings influence censorship decisions we move a step closer to burning books in the streets”

Ironically, 155 books (mostly scholarly) that completely refute the claims made by Michael Brown about WWII history in his July 5 video (minute-3) were banned by Amazon in 2017. Brown was silent. Now it’s too late.

(vid) The Day Amazon Murdered History – On March 6, 2017, Amazon banned 155 ‘Holocaust’ truth books, mostly scholarly

– –

From: WND

WILL AMAZON BAN THE BIBLE NEXT?

Michael Brown: Site crossed a very dangerous line removing psychologist’s books

July 6, 2019

In a very disturbing move, Amazon has removed the books of Dr. Joseph Nicolosi, the psychologist whom critics have dubbed “the father of conversion therapy.” In other words, for claiming that sexual orientation is not innate and immutable, and for claiming that change is possible, Dr. Nicolosi’s books must be banned.

This leads to the logical question: Will Amazon ban the Bible next?Continue reading “Michael Brown: Will Amazon Ban the Bible Next? – Christian Psychologist’s Books Banned— “When political leanings influence censorship decisions we move a step closer to burning books in the streets””

Trump administration preparing charges against media companies that discriminate against conservatives

Justice to convene meeting on whether social media companies are ‘intentionally stifling’ free speech

09/05/18

Attorney General Jeff Sessions has scheduled a meeting with state attorneys general in September to discuss a “growing concern” that tech companies may be “intentionally stifling” the free flow of ideas on their platforms.

In a statement issued right after executives from Facebook and Twitter finished testifying before the Senate Intelligence Committee, the Department of Justice (DOJ) also suggested that the platforms were running afoul of antitrust laws.

“The Attorney General has convened a meeting with a number of state attorneys general this month to discuss a growing concern that these companies may be hurting competition and intentionally stifling the free exchange of ideas on their platforms,” DOJ spokesman Devin O’Malley said in a statement issued near the end of the congressional hearing.

President Trump and conservative House Republicans have repeatedly aired complaints about bias against conservatives on Facebook, Twitter, Google and other social media platforms.

Entire Article

Skousen: Is It Illegal to Censor Alex Jones?

World Affairs Brief, August 10, 2018 Commentary and Insights on a Troubled World.

Copyright Joel Skousen. Partial quotations with attribution permitted. Cite source as Joel Skousen’s World Affairs Brief (http://www.worldaffairsbrief.com).

[…]

THE PUBLIC/PRIVATE WAR AGAINST FREE SPEECH

Alex Jones is the most prominent conservative fighting a battle against censorship and financial revenue as the major internet media platforms ban his content and refuse to pay him for his popular content. The Powers That Be (PTB) are working every angle to bankrupt Alex. It started months ago when YouTube denied him his advertizing revenue from the millions of viewers who watched his video commentaries. Then an establishment legal firm conjured up a lawsuit against Jones on behalf of several Sandy Hook families complaining they have been threatened and harassed by Jones supporters. This week it mushroomed to an outright censorship ban on Facebook, Youtube, the Apple Store, Spotify and others after CNN orchestrated a pressure campaign against him and targeted all the major social media tech giants. Supposedly, Alex is guilty of “hate speech,” one of those nebulous and political correct epithets that can be skewed to cover almost any criticism of anyone else. The claim of hate speech itself, if left to stand, is a major attack on the principle of free speech. This week I’ll discuss the backlash in support of Jones, and the issue of whether these are strictly private companies are, in fact, really public/private partnerships akin to public utilities that should not be able to suppress free speech.

[…]

Is It Illegal to Censor Jones? This is bound to become more of an issue as this attack on free speech continues and expands against other conservative, conspiratorial voices. The first question is “Are these companies truly private?” If yes, then they can do whatever they want on their social media platform. Or can they?

According to the reigning legal argument in civil rights and anti-discrimination circles, once you (as a private person or private company) open your business to the public, you are no longer private as to your ability to discriminate. I oppose this expansive view against the privacy of property, but as long as it is accepted by the Left, it can and should be used against them.

These social media companies are clearly inviting all the public to participate and thus are not free to discriminate. That is perhaps why they are justifying this in the name of “hate speech,” as if that gives them a legitimate test of criminality that allows for discrimination. As I and others have pointed out, you can’t make hatred illegal any more than you can any form of negative opinion against another is illegal. In fact, if there was ever was an outpouring of hatred here, it is against Alex Jones and his points of view.

You can outlaw incitement to violence, and it appears they are trying to equate hate speech to violence, as if they are always synonymous, but they are not. Only when someone is yelling hateful speech and directly inciting violence is this true, but the Left is trying to expand the view of hate speech backward to any negative criticism of someone. Point of fact: there is no way to draw the line except at the most violent prone end of the incitement spectrum. Everything less than that has to be protected speech or Free Speech is gone. Continue reading “Skousen: Is It Illegal to Censor Alex Jones?”

Almost half of Republicans say Trump should be allowed to close media outlets – Willing to trash 1st Amendment

It’s good many are waking up to the Talmudic media’s bias; though, desiring the president to violate the 1st Amendment is foolhardy.
Amazingly, many ‘Christians’ still actually believe that also-Talmudic Fox News is ‘fair and balanced’.
– –

‘Enemy of the people’: Almost half of Republicans say Trump should be allowed to close media outlets

President Trump’s attacks on the media, whom he dubbed “enemies of the people,” have struck a chord with supporters. A new poll found that 43 percent of Republicans want to give him the power to shut down certain news outlets.

Public trust in the press has diminished since the days of Woodward and Bernstein, falling by 30 percentage points since the late 1970s. While an overwhelming majority of Americans surveyed by Ipsos agreed that the concept of a free press is essential for democracy, many are unhappy with how the press behaves in reality.

Less than half of Americans surveyed believe that news outlets strive for honest reporting. Only 29 percent of Republicans believe in the honesty of the media, and 80 percent believe the press treats President Trump unfairly.

Their concerns are shared by Trump, who regularly bashes the “fake news” media for dishonest reporting. …

According to the Ipsos poll, one third of all Americans agree that the “news media is the enemy of the American people.” Among Republicans, this number rises to 48 percent.

While 68 percent of Democrats believe that the media is honest, and only 23 percent think that most outlets have a liberal bias, a Harvard study found that the media portrays Trump’s presidency in an overwhelmingly-negative light.

In covering Trump’s first 100 days in office, 80 percent of articles and reports from CNN, NBC, CBS, the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, and Fox News were negative. 93 percent of CNN’s reports were negative, while Fox went easiest on Trump, with a relatively even split of positive and negative coverage. Continue reading “Almost half of Republicans say Trump should be allowed to close media outlets – Willing to trash 1st Amendment”

(3 min vid) Deep State Eyes Alex Jones Courtroom Showdown to Justify Ending Free Speech Online — What may seem like a simple trial over libel, actually poses damaging consequences for the future of free speech in America. In an excerpt from the Tuesday, July 31st edition of TruNews, the team discusses the significance of InfoWars founder Alex Jones' looming courtroom showdown over statements made on his program, and how a ruling against him could be used to create a national precedence on where the 1st Amendment ends, and Fake News begins


Continue reading “(3 min vid) Deep State Eyes Alex Jones Courtroom Showdown to Justify Ending Free Speech Online — What may seem like a simple trial over libel, actually poses damaging consequences for the future of free speech in America. In an excerpt from the Tuesday, July 31st edition of TruNews, the team discusses the significance of InfoWars founder Alex Jones' looming courtroom showdown over statements made on his program, and how a ruling against him could be used to create a national precedence on where the 1st Amendment ends, and Fake News begins”

(VID) Nick Begich: Freedom Of Speech Under Attack – "Once you start deciding what the level of acceptability is the whole thing collapses"

My Notes:
9:40 “Once you start deciding what the level of acceptability is the whole thing collapses.”
GREAT point at 19:00!
20:05 “The beginning of the mark [of the Beast]”
25:50 Do NOT support DISINFOWARS. I must disagree with Nick here. Alex is doing more harm than good, sadly.
It also sounds like Nick thinks the one-world government is a good thing, but won’t happen for a couple of hundred years from now? I’ve never heard him say this before.
Russia and China are getting ready to take US out, and may actually do it in the next decade.

• • •

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGu57r1JK24
Continue reading “(VID) Nick Begich: Freedom Of Speech Under Attack – "Once you start deciding what the level of acceptability is the whole thing collapses"”