Study: Women Support Censorship More Than Men

Cory Clark tweeted on 10/3/19:

Across multiple topics and conditions, women were consistently more supportive of censorship than men. The one exception was for text that argued that women evolved to be better leaders than men. For this passage, women were equally as (non)supportive of censorship as men.

The study that Cory Clark co-researched: The Ideology of Censorship, June 2019

Continue reading “Study: Women Support Censorship More Than Men”

Ted Pike: Congress to Debate Talmudic Bill Attacking Free Speech – “Anti-Semitism Awareness” Bill Worse Than “Equality” Bill!

Ted Pike on Israeli News Live with Steven Ben-Nun!

Continue reading “Ted Pike: Congress to Debate Talmudic Bill Attacking Free Speech – “Anti-Semitism Awareness” Bill Worse Than “Equality” Bill!”

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"”

E. Michael Jones: "Three Rich Jews Control U.S. Foreign Policy, and we're in a situation where we can't even say the word 'Jew'" | Sheldon Adelson, Paul Singer and Brendon Marcus

“..Sheldon Adelson, Paul Singer and Brendon Marcus — it’s three rich Jews control the foreign policy of the United States of America, and we’re in a situation where we can’t even say the word ‘Jew.’ … We’re hoping to achieve something here when we can’t even name the people who are doing what we are objecting to” [without being labelled ‘anti-Semitic’].
– E. Michael Jones, transcribed by me from this interview
 

Angelo John Gage on Free Speech & Israel: "These people want to pass a law that says we can't criticize a country that we give billions of dollars to. If we let this go, we will become like Europe"

“So here’s a country we give billions of dollars to [Israel], and these people want to pass a law that says we can’t criticize a country that we give billions of dollars to. … If we let this go, we will become like Europe….”

– Angelo John Gage

From USMC Veteran Angelo John Gage Drops Truth Bombs! at 5:45, transcribed by me

Jared Taylor Wins a Round for Free Speech to Fight Twitter in Court! — Judge Kahn seemed sympathetic to the idea that Twitter had misled the public by saying its platform was open to everyone

Jared Taylor Wins a Round for Free Speech
Published: 2018-06-18

Last December, Twitter purged numerous far-right, white-nationalist, and Holocaust-revisionist accounts as part of its updated “terms of service.” In February Jared Taylor, founder of the publication American Renaissance,sued Twitter for banning his account, claiming the censorship “violated civil rights and contract law.” Rather than discuss the matter, Twitter came out nasty, claiming Taylor’s suit violated its rights to free speech and was trying to intimidate the internet giant: this under California’s anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) law. Fortunately, California Judge Harold Kahn rejected Twitter’s claim of being frightened by Mr. Taylor and found that Taylor was fighting “a classic public-interest lawsuit.” Taylor’s suit will proceed.

Jared Taylor

A very important case.
We have been taught from childhood that the First Amendment has made America the “Land of Free Speech,” but  the First Amendment protects Americans only from governmental censorship, not purges by the huge corporations. The dream of greater freedom for discussion and debate is evaporating  as internet access has been concentrated in the hands of a few huge corporations; Facebook, Twitter, Youtube, Amazon, E-Bay. No more do these giants talk of free speech; now the buzzword is “community standards” and the goal is to ban anything “controversial,” starting with unpopular political or historical beliefs.
Taylor sued Twitter based on its earlier free speech promises and Judge Kahn seemed sympathetic to the idea that Twitter had misled the public by saying its platform was open to everyone.  Twitter at one point in the past described itself as the “free-speech wing of the free-speech party.” But breach of contract aside, our rights to internet access hang by a very thin thread. In this case it is a clause of the California Constitution, Article I, Section 2, which reads: “Every person may freely speak, write and publish his or her sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of this right. A law may not restrain or abridge liberty of speech or press.”
In the case Robins v. Pruneyard Shopping Center, the Court held that public sidewalks at a shopping center were a valid locus for free speech, ranging from union pickets to voter-registration drives. Taylor v. Twitter would extend that theory to the Internet.
(source)

(vid) Trump Loses Lawsuit, Is Twitter Now a Public Forum? – Lawyer Will Chamberlain with Tim Pool

28:45 Twitter “should lose their safe harbor protections.”

Safe Harbor Protection – Website Liability

A “safe harbor” is defined as a harbor considered safe for a ship during a storm at sea, or any place or situation that offers refuge or protection. A safe harbor is also a provision of a statute or a regulation that specifies that certain conduct will be deemed not to violate a given rule. Websites that host content are always at risk of someone posting an image they don’t own, or music they haven’t licensed, or content they haven’t created. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 (DMCA) provides websites with protection from liability for material posted by their users. This protection is legally referred to as a safe harbor. (source)

• • •


Continue reading “(vid) Trump Loses Lawsuit, Is Twitter Now a Public Forum? – Lawyer Will Chamberlain with Tim Pool”

YouTube Bans Firearms Demo Videos, Entering the Gun Control Debate

From: Bloomberg

YouTube Bans Firearms Demo Videos, Entering the Gun Control Debate

YouTube, a popular media site for firearms enthusiasts, this week quietly introduced tighter restrictions on videos involving weapons, becoming the latest battleground in the U.S. gun-control debate.

YouTube will ban videos that promote or link to websites selling firearms and accessories, including bump stocks, which allow a semi-automatic rifle to fire faster. Additionally, YouTube said it will prohibit videos with instructions on how to assemble firearms. The video site, owned by Alphabet Inc.’s Google, has faced intense criticism for hosting videos about guns, bombs and other deadly weapons. …

The National Shooting Sports Foundation, a gun industry lobbying group, called YouTube’s new policy “worrisome.”

“We suspect it will be interpreted to block much more content than the stated goal of firearms and certain accessory sales,” the foundation said in a statement. “We see the real potential for the blocking of educational content that serves instructional, skill-building and even safety purposes. Much like Facebook, YouTube now acts as a virtual public square. The exercise of what amounts to censorship, then, can legitimately be viewed as the stifling of commercial free speech.”

Entire Article

(vid) Stossel: China's Freedom-Crushing 'Social Credit Score' — Coming to America?

China is starting a “social credit system.” The state will monitor social media and web use to make it “hard for the discredited to take a single step.” Will it come to America? Has it, already?

China's Freedom-Crushing 'Social Credit Score'

China is starting a "social credit system.” The state will monitor social media and web use to make it "hard for the discredited to take a single step." Will it come to America? Has it, already?

Posted by John Stossel on Tuesday, March 20, 2018

'Free Speech' Suit Aims to End Twitter's Political Censorship | Breitbart

If Taylor prevails in the California court system and successfully expands the Pruneyard Doctrine to Silicon Valley’s social media companies, it could entirely upend the meaning of free speech on the internet and give the — mostly conservative — voices that feel they are being silenced a cause of action against the overwhelmingly leftist and increasingly intolerant big tech.

STORY

Facebook Says It Is Deleting Accounts at the Direction of the U.S. and Israeli Governments – While Israelis have virtually free rein to post whatever they want about Palestinians. Calls by Israelis for the killing of Palestinians are commonplace on Facebook

From: The Intercept

Facebook Says It Is Deleting Accounts at the Direction of the U.S. and Israeli Governments

Glenn Greenwald
December 30 2017

IN SEPTEMBER OF last year, we noted that Facebook representatives were meeting with the Israeli government to determine which Facebook accounts of Palestinians should be deleted on the ground that they constituted “incitement.” The meetings — called for and presided over by one of the most extremist and authoritarian Israeli officials, pro-settlement Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked — came after Israel threatened Facebook that its failure to voluntarily comply with Israeli deletion orders would result in the enactment of laws requiring Facebook to do so, upon pain of being severely fined or even blocked in the country.

The predictable results of those meetings are now clear and well-documented. Ever since, Facebook has been on a censorship rampage against Palestinian activists who protest the decades-long, illegal Israeli occupation, all directed and determined by Israeli officials. Indeed, Israeli officials have been publicly boasting about how obedient Facebook is when it comes to Israeli censorship orders:

Shortly after news broke earlier this month of the agreement between the Israeli government and Facebook, Israeli Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked said Tel Aviv had submitted 158 requests to the social media giant over the previous four months asking it to remove content it deemed “incitement.” She said Facebook had granted 95 percent of the requests.

… What makes this censorship particularly consequential is that96 percent of Palestinians said their primary use of Facebook was for following news.” That means that Israeli officials have virtually unfettered control over a key communications forum of Palestinians. …

A 2016 report from the Palestinian Center for Development and Media Freedoms detailed how extensive the Facebook censorship was….

Needless to say, Israelis have virtually free rein to post whatever they want about Palestinians. Calls by Israelis for the killing of Palestinians are commonplace on Facebook, and largely remain undisturbed.

Entire Article

U.S. Senate has passed the "Anti-Semitism Awareness Act” – Gradual erosion of the First Amendment

Meanwhile:

Zionist students on American campuses are free to denigrate, insult and mock every nationality, government and religion on earth. On the glass toilet known as television, Zionist Larry David urinated on a portrait of Jesus Christ in October of 2009, on the HBO TV show, “Curb Your Enthusiasm.” There’s no “Anti-Christian Awareness Act”….

Continue reading “U.S. Senate has passed the "Anti-Semitism Awareness Act” – Gradual erosion of the First Amendment”