The Internet up until the 21st century consisted of mainly blogs, forums, and random information found via Yahoo and other search engines. Myspace had become the leader in social networking yet the landscape was open for others to fill the void for all age groups to connect.
In February 2004, in Cambridge, MA, an awkward Harvard college student, Mark Zuckerburg, launched The Facebook to connect students on multiple universities.
On March 21st, 2006 in San Francisco, CA, Twitter launched a micro-blog to connect those who wanted to see others’ limited posts, in order to generate community discussions.
With their technical knowledge, these two companies morphed into almost fixtures of the web attracting billions of users globally.
As anomalies in the fast-changing Internet landscape, the liabilities that Facebook and Twitter were liable for under current laws were enormous and quickly found protections through the US Congress.
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act
47 U.S.C. § 230, a Provision of the Communication Decency Act
Tucked inside the Communications Decency Act (CDA) of 1996 is one of the most valuable tools for protecting freedom of expression and innovation on the Internet: Section 230.
Section 230 says that “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider” (47 U.S.C. § 230). In other words, online intermediaries that host or republish speech are protected against a range of laws that might otherwise be used to hold them legally responsible for what others say and do.
In effect Free Speech was protected by preventing these social networking platforms was being liable for the speech posted on their platforms.
Fast forward to 2020, and things are changing rapidly again.
The friction is, the left in the USA wants to modify the Constitution to accommodate their worldview.
Our founders valued individual rights so they passed the 1st Amendment to the Constitution.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
This year, we just watched Facebook and Twitter suppress, delete, define, and hide information they deemed to not be appropriate on their platforms. Not a violation of the 1A, but definitely a violation of protections included in section 230. The US Senate has been preparing the groundwork to remove this protection as both companies are now acting as publishers.
What is scary for a majority of Americans, is that a Biden administration would not only keep 203 in place but would also attempt to do to the general public what FB & Twitter are doing online.
Now Twitter is ratcheting up their censorship and placing far-left activists in rolls to silence speech they deem “hateful” and/ or untrue.
Tech news site Protocol published a profile recently of Christine Su, the senior product manager for conversational safety at Twitter. Su’s approach to the platform’s censorship will focus on “transformative and procedural justice.”
Tech news site Protocol recently published an article titled “How a Young, Queer Asian-American Businesswoman is Rethinking User Safety at Twitter,” which profiles Christine Su, Twitter’s senior product manager for conversational safety. Su describes herself as an “activist-entrepreneur” who spent six-year running a startup called PastureMap that aimed to help ranchers plan climate-friendly grazing practices.
Protocol outlined Su’s aims at Twitter, writing:
A woman with an MBA and a master’s in land use and agriculture might seem like an odd choice, but she’s been interested in mission-driven tech work for years. It’s what drove her commitment to PastureMap and then her decision to join Twitter. “As a queer women of color who is an Asian American in tech in rural America, that experience is a very intersectional one. I’ve had plenty of experiences moving through spaces where I wanted more safety,” she said. After years of worrying for her sister’s safety (she’s a journalist covering sensitive topics in the Middle East and now China) as well as her own, Su knew she wanted to focus on building safety and inclusion for people who are the most vulnerable.
Su’s goals sit at the heart of what could become a very different Twitter one day, if — and it remains a very big conditional — the company is serious about the changes it’s been signaling over the last year. Women and people from marginalized groups have documented disproportionate levels of abuse and harassment on the platform for years, and, until recently, Twitter did little to change that. Its content rules stayed stagnant, and time and again, people reported incidences when abuse went ignored and harassment continued unabated. But Twitter has bowed to recent political pressure, expressing clear interest in stricter rules for what people are allowed to do and say.
Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) took Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey to task over his company’s censorship policies and labeling election fraud news as disinformation.
During the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday, Cruz pressed Dorsey over whether he considered Twitter a publisher, which therefore wouldn’t fall under Section 230 protection.
The Western Journal reported:
“The Twitter CEO’s testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday included a welter of evasions and half-truths over his company’s role as an information censor that would have made a Democrat blush.
But the Texas Republican wasn’t letting it go by.
In a statement before questioning Dorsey, Cruz noted that Twitter and fellow Big Tech giants Facebook and Google have “massive power” over the information Americans receive, and he pointed out the infamous role of Twitter in particular in squelching distribution of the story of Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden’s son and his crooked, money-grifting ways.
Dorsey admitted the company was “wrong” to block the story — an admission that came two weeks to the day after voters who were largely ignorant of the story (thanks to the mainstream media) had already gone to the polls.”
RightScoop reported on the Senate hearing:
Dorsey tells Cruz that Twitter is not a publisher, but rather a distributor of information. But Ted Cruz makes the case that via Twitter’s actions in some cases, they are indeed acting as a publisher.
For example, Cruz highlights how Twitter completely blocked the NY Post article on Hunter Biden’s laptop. But when it came to the NY Times article on Trump’s taxes, they didn’t take any action. Dorsey claimed that the NY Times article was just ‘reporting’ on hacked materials and that’s why they didn’t block it.
Cruz then notes how Twitter forced a Politico reporter, Jake Sherman, to take down his tweets after locking his account for simply ‘reporting’ on the NY Post story and asking Team Biden for a response. While Dorsey claimed that action was later determined to be a mistake, Cruz reiterated his point that Twitter was using their star chamber power as a publisher, determining which stories a reporter could write and publish.
Cruz then went after both Dorsey and Zuckerberg over their purported claim to transparency by putting them both on the spot and asking for a list of Republicans and Democrats they have hit with censorship enforcements, saying he’s asked for it in the past but has not received it. Dorsey was hesitant to commit to generating such a list, even though he admitted they had the data in a database somewhere. Zuckerberg said he wasn’t aware of such a list, but seemed more open to trying to get the data to Cruz.
Cruz also posted three articles about voter fraud, while at the the hearing, to test Twitter for censorship. The posts remain up.
Kaleigh McEnany, the White House Press Secretary, and Senior Advisor to the committee to re-elect President Donald J. Trump, was on Fox News Tuesday morning to both discuss Trump’s reaction to a Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) ruling about ballots in PA, and to give the campaign’s reaction to the ballot ruling and how it will impact the election final.
Trump tweeted Monday night in between his 5 “barnstorm” campaign rallies, about the SCOTUS remarks on PA Ballots.
Twitter has censored the tweet, has placed a “fact check”on the tweet and it has been disabled from being shared on Twitter, but the content is available:
“The Supreme Court decision on voting in Pennsylvania is a VERY dangerous one. It will allow rampant and unchecked cheating and will undermine our entire systems of laws. It will also induce violence in the streets. Something must be done!,” Trump posted.
McEnany said in the end that the campaign is confident that there will be such a landslide that in the end, the legislation will be meaningless, but that they are not ready to give up on it.
McEnany talked about Joe Biden refusing to concede, and talked about the Trafalgar poll, “we believe this will be a landslide, and that they are doubling down on Hillary Clintons statement,” she said.
“We believe Ohio is a lock and it is a Republican, President Trump lock. We won 3 days in Miami in early voting, so we thin we have Florida,” she said.
“Talking about PA and the locked tweet, McEnany said, “What is happening is the PA legislature says that ballots must be counted as they arrive and what the Democrats did is say that they can count backward, and up to three days after election day, and that is not how it works. The United States Constitution says that State legislatures decide the time, manner and place that elections are conducted, and the Pennsylvania legislature has spoken and they believe the court is wrong and the Supreme court has not fully ruled on this and we will take our case to the Supreme Court as needed but we don’t thin it will come down to that because we are pretty sure, and I am predicting now that we win Nevada, we win Minnesota, and I do believe that President Trump has a landslide and this talk of litigation is nothing,” she said.
“We believe we will win in Des Moines poll that shows Trump ahead by 7 points, and the story of this election is this: Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan victory ending in Nevada. That is because Hispanic and Black voters came to President and that is because he has been out there fighting for every vote. The story is that the President fought for the people, and they are fighting for him,” she said.
We will be at the White House watching the returns, the people are going to fight for us today.
Danielle Reiss attended President Trump’s campaign rally in Henderson, Nevada. She never thought for a moment that she would lose her job over her choice for president. But, that is the way things work with today’s cancel culture. If you don’t toe their line, they will try to destroy you. She committed the heinous act of holding up a Trump poster.
The next thing she knew, she received a letter from her employer, Pop Off. That letter said that her support of Trump went against all the company stands for. The cancel culture should work both ways.
If you do business with Pop Off, you should drop them like a bad habit. Pop Off brings together publicists with artists and in return, the publicists pay them a fee.
The letter read:
Reiss’s problem is that she is a contract worker and not a regular employee, so what her company is doing is legal. They didn’t fire her, they are just not going to renew their contract when this one is over. However, they have not sent her a single referral since they sent her the letter. So, in reality, they have already fired her.
From The Federalist
“We saw your latest Instagram post in which you held a ‘Make America Great Again’ poster,” the email said. “From this, we infer that you support the policies and ideologies of Donald Trump’s administration, which blatantly undermine the values we uphold at Pop Off.”
The email, which appears to be from Pop Off President and Chief Financial Officer Ben Silvers, adds that the agency will continue working with Reiss until February 2021, but after that “we will be terminating our professional relationship with you and will cease all partnership activities.”
The email Reiss received cited the agency’s commitment to “stand for equality, inclusion, and kindness in everything we do,” before expressing the agency’s decision to terminate any future partnership with Reiss.
“There’s nothing less diverse or less inclusive than a company who terminates someone because they have different beliefs. Diversity also includes diversity of thought and diversity of opinions.”
We need to cut out companies from our lives that discriminate against conservatives. Once they feel the heat, they will be able to see the light.
Fifteen popular YouTube content creators filed a federal lawsuit today against Google and YouTube, alleging that Google and YouTube have breached the Terms of Service those creators had agreed to when they signed on and violated their First Amendment rights.
What started as a rumor of a ‘coming widespread purge” of conservative content producers right before midterm elections in 2018, quickly turned into reality as just weeks before votes were to be cast Facebook disabled 559 pages and 251 accounts. YouTube and Twitter were matching Facebook’s attacks during that time with the beginning of what we have seen come to pass in the last few weeks. Facebook claims they were not censoring anyone when they deleted these profiles and pages.
According to the press release the Plaintiffs are these popular creators of YouTube channels, with collectively lay claim to over 800 million views: JustInformed Talk, SGT Report, X22 Report, SpaceShot 76, TruReporting, RedPill78, Edge of Wonder, Praying Medic, Amazing Polly, Woke Societies, Daniel Lee, Deception Byes, InTheMatrixxx, Destroying the Illusion, and Sarah Westall.
The Plaintiffs are represented by attorneys M. Cris Armenta and Credence Sol. Both are former federal law clerks; Ms. Armenta in the Central District of California, and Ms. Sol in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Ms. Armenta has been named one of the top 100 female attorneys in California and is on the peer‐reviewed SuperLawyers list for civil litigation who fully expect YouTube and Google defend the case and claim that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act provides them immunity for the actions taken against conservative YouTube commentators and content creators.
The lawsuit also alleges that YouTube acted at the behest, was encouraged by and coerced by Congress, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, and Representative Adam Schiff who published a complaint on Congressional letterhead that urged content be removed and replaced.
The press release goes further to explain: The Plaintiffs allege that under Supreme Court precedent, if a private party acts when it is encouraged or coerced by the government or its agents, then the state action theory applies and the First Amendment rights should be protected, particularly from viewpoint discrimination.
Since Adam Schiff, a sitting representative, personally and publicly in his official capacity asked for social media platforms to begin censoring conservative content providers and YouTube thereafter responded and complied to that request, the door was opened for this lawsuit.
The Plaintiffs expect that they will either receive or be denied an emergency injunction, or a restraining order upon Youtube, requiring that their accounts be reinstated. If the lawsuit proceeds as expected, it is anticipated that the legal issues raised in the complaint may finally settle the issues relating to Big Tech’s immunity from lawsuits under the protection of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.
The implications are immense, and the public deserves to be well informed on the progress of this landmark case.
We will continue to provide updates as litigation proceeds.
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA – On October 26, 2020, fifteen YouTube content creators filed a federal lawsuit against Google and YouTube, alleging in seventeen claims for relief, that Google and YouTube breached the Terms of Service and violated their First Amendment rights, when they summarily deplatformed the Plaintiffs’ channels and removed their content from YouTube without advance notice.
The Plaintiffs are the creators of YouTube channels, including: JustInformed Talk, SGT Report, X22 Report, SpaceShot 76, TruReporting, RedPill78, Edge of Wonder, Praying Medic, Amazing Polly, Woke Societies, Daniel Lee, Deception Byes, InTheMatrixxx, Destroying the Illusion and Sarah Westall. Together, their news and social commentary channels have reached more than 800 million views and together they had more YouTube subscribers than many legacy news channels, such as C‐SPAN, The New York Times, and NBC News. Plaintiffs cite a recent study by the Pew Research Center that concludes that many Americans get their news from independent YouTube channels along the same metrics as legacy or traditional news sources.
YouTube and Google are expected to defend the case and claim that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act provides them immunity for the actions they took against conservative commentators, just 19 days before the November 3 Presidential Election. However, the Ninth Circuit has recently issued an opinion, retreating from the broad interpretation of the immunity that social media has used for years to defend lawsuits from its contract partners and users. The Section 230 immunities were provided by Congress as a means to give internet providers an ability to remove content that was considered “obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable.” Enigma Software Group USA LLC. V. Malwarebytes, Inc., No. 17‐17351 (Opinion filed September 12, 2019). The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals found persuasive the notion that the “unbounded reading” of Section 230 previously employed by social media giants such as YouTube would allow a content provider to “block content for anticompetitive purposes or merely at its malicious whim.”
The Plaintiffs allege that YouTube removed their channels without giving them notice or without cause under the Terms of Service that YouTube itself drafted and imposed on the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs allege that YouTube also violated the First Amendment rights of the Plaintiffs, and the public they serve through their social commentary, news and information channels. Although many courts have rejected the notion that YouTube is subject to the First Amendment, concluding that YouTube is a private party, the Complaint alleges that YouTube acted at the behest, was encouraged by and coerced by Congress, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and Representative Adam Schiff. The Plaintiffs attach to the Complaint letters that Representative Schiff published on Congressional letterhead that urged that content be removed and replaced. The Plaintiffs also reference the House’s recent action by the House, in passing House Resolution 1154, which condemned certain content and specifically mentioned social media. In direct response to Representative Schiff’s published letter demanding censorship, YouTube Chief Executive Officer Susan Wojcicki responded by Tweet: “Thanks for reaching out, we’re working every day to protect people from misinformation and help them find authoritative information. We appreciate your partnership and will continue to consult with Members of Congress as we address ARMENTA & SOL PC, 114400 WEST BERNARDO COURT, SUITE 300, SAN DIEGO, CA 92127 the evolving issues around #COVID19.” The Plaintiffs allege that under Supreme Court precedent, if a private party acts when it is encouraged or coerced by the government or its agents, then the state action theory applies and the First Amendment rights should be protected, particularly from viewpoint discrimination.
This lawsuit follows the filing of a massive antitrust action against Google by the Department of Justice and eleven states.
The “state action” theory was previously raised in by Armenta & Sol, on behalf of an African‐ American conservative commentator, Young Pharaoh, in July 2020 also against Google and YouTube. Although the Defendants in that case filed a Motion to Dismiss and oral argument was held, Magistrate Judge Virginia DeMarchi has not yet issued a decision.
The lawsuit will be served on Google and YouTube today. * * * The Plaintiffs are represented by attorneys M. Cris Armenta and Credence Sol. Both were previously affiliated with Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom LLP. Both are former federal law clerks; Ms. Armenta in the Central District of California, and Ms. Sol in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Ms. Armenta has been named one of the top 100 female attorneys in California and is on the peer‐reviewed SuperLawyers list for civil litigation. Ms. Armenta is a former member of the Board of Directors of the American Civil Liberties Union in Los Angeles. Ms. Armenta’s law practice focuses on civil litigation, entertainment, real estate, and the recovery of abducted children. Ms. Sol’s practice focuses on civil litigation and intellectual property, in which she has a Ph.D; she has published several articles on Internet law and international freedom of speech issues. Both Ms. Armenta and Ms. Sol have previously litigated against Google.
Hi, my name is Zach Vorhies and I’m known as the Google Whistleblower. I’m working with Ryan Hartwig, Facebook Whistleblower on this campaign.
I worked at Google for 8.5 years as a senior software engineer. The last three years of which was spent at Google-owned YouTube.
With much regret, my former employer YouTube has now become a direct threat to the United States of America and the Republic for which it stands. YouTube is engaging in reckless censorship by doing a mass purge of content creators it deems “brand unsafe.”
Why would Google take actions that seemingly squash the clear exchange of ideas and differing points of view? Doesn’t that seem to interfere with free speech? The election? In fact, this is EXACTLY the case. Google is deliberately attempting to influence the election by preventing certain opinions from being shared.
Here are just a few of the Youtube channels that were deleted last week by Google/Youtube:
This behavior is nothing short of an election coup!
People may think that the phrase “election coup” is too strong, maybe even hyperbole. Google wouldn’t ACTUALLY want to do a coup… would they?
As someone who saw the inside of Google, my answer to this is: “Yes, without ANY doubt”.
I know because I saw it with my own eyes. It took me several years of watching Google build this election-rigging machine before I came to the conclusion that Google would certainly try to steal the 2020 election. This was not something they tried to hide. Instead, they carefully documented as a huge project named “Machine Learning Fairness” – which I downloaded and disclosed to the public in August of 2019. The disclosure is 950 pages and can be seen here.
Don’t just take my word for it, Jen Gennai, a current high level Google director, admitted last year to an undercover journalist that only something the size of Google could “prevent the next Trump situation”.
As a former employee, I understand the scale of Google. I am terrified about what could happen to me for fighting the biggest election rigging machine the world has ever known.
What is one small individual like myself compared to this GIANT? If I were Google I would have this company whistleblower killed. Does this sound outlandish? Here is what Google did to me when I sent that 950 pages to the DOJ in August of 2019:
What you see here is a wellness check that included the San Francisco Police department, the FBI and the Bomb squad. I wish I was making this up but it actually happened.
This is a David VS Goliath moment
The only thing that terrifies me more than dying and my family being targeted is the world that Google is building for all of us. This is really our last stand. This is more than a coup on the US election, if Google wins it will be a coup on humanity. Why? Because Google see’s YOU as a programmable unit; programmable via its control of the information they return to you when you use Google search, Google news and YouTube. For example, this Google slide details how the company manipulates you.
This intention to program YOU (the American Public) is also found in other documents from the company:
This is not a “Left vs Right” or “Conservative vs Liberal” issue
This fight has nothing to do with politics. It is a fight for the future of humanity. I do this not just for you, but also for your children, your children’s children and for generations to come. They deserve the free world that we inherited. The torch of freedom must be passed on.
This is a once in a lifetime opportunity to stand together and fight against Google. As a single person I mean nothing. It has always been YOU, the American people that has made this fight possible. Together Google CAN and WILL be stopped!
Stand with me and FIGHT NOW! I am putting $5k of my own money into this to say “no more”. Others have done the same. Stand with us with a donation of $5, $10 or $15 dollars which together will fund this emergency injunction.
Amplify, share and like this story as much as Big Tech will allow. Time is of the essence. We are being censored. Go NOW to all social media platforms and SHARE punchgoogle.com. Share it with your friends, your family and your co-workers.
Regardless of your political affiliation, together we can TOPPLE Google and restore freedom of speech to our land. Pledge now. And make sure you tell your friends about this campaign found at punchgoogle DOT com (which will redirect to this gofundme).
About the Attorney Cris Armenta
I want to mention that I (Zach Vorhies) did an extensive vetting of many attorneys across the country. Cris Armenta was the one with the strongest knowledge about how to defeat Google.
The necessary criteria for selection includes:
1. The attorney practices in California. 2. The attorney has specific knowledge and strategy on how to attack YouTube/Google. 3. The attorney are prepared to file the suit immediately.
It turns out the Google/YouTube terms of service requires that the person sue Google in California. Although the venue could possibly be challenged in court, doing so adds additional risk.
What sealed the deal beyond the conversation about legal strategy was also the coincidence that Cris Armenta was also selected by my friend and YouTube content creator “Young Pharaoh” (500k subs on YouTube) to represent him in his case against YouTube. Cris Armenta’s case history against Google means she has a well thought out strategy. After going in depth and playing a bunch of angles with Cris Armenta during the vetting process it was clear why “Young Pharaoh” chose Cris Armenta to represent him.
This is essentially a breach of contract lawsuit against Google.
Here’s the brief summary of our strategy:
1. Case to be filed by the top conservative accounts that were purged on October 15, 2020.
2. Google/YouTube violated its own Terms of Service by shutting down the accounts because they can only do so when 3 conditions existed by their own TOS.
3. They claim they were shut down for repeated violations and harassment.
4. But, the channels were not repeaters nor did they harass, and the new harassment policy was enacted in a way to complete decimate these channels specifically.
5. The Plaintiffs will be seeking a TRO or emergency injunction to put the channels back up.
6. The Plaintiffs have a First Amendment right to speak, large reach, and there is “state action” in so far as Representative Schiff demanded that “conspiracy” channels come down and HR 1154 condemned the type of speech up on these channels.
7. This is a First Amendment case, but it will be simplified by holding YouTube accountable to the very TOS it itself imposed.
8. The attorneys involved have extensive experience in litigating with Google and are shaping up the case to either win at the Ninth Circuit (President flipped the circuit) or to create clear path for the amendment of Section 230.
9. Last week, SCOTUS declined to hear the case where the Ninth Circuit said that 230 immunity is NOT “boundless.”
10. We have a good chance of success and paring back the Section 230 immunity and getting the conservative pro-Trump content back up before the election, just in time, if we are funded adequately.
An in-depth discussion about the legal strategy can be viewed in the following video (around 45 minutes).https://www.youtube.com/embed/BLrzP2rBgDw/?rel=0&enablejsapi=1&origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.gofundme.com
Q: When will the injunction be filed?
A: Assuming this crowdfunding reaches the funding goal, the injunction will be filed by the end of the week. Around the 26th or sooner.
Q: Can I be a party to the suit?
A: Yes, we have an open call for those that have been wrongly terminated by YouTube for political reasons. If this sounds like you, please fill out this form.
Q: Who is Ryan Hartwig and why is he connected to this campaign?
A: Ryan Hartwig is a Facebook whistleblower that I have been working with for a number of months. Ryan has an Arizona non-profit. All funds will be donated to legal fees and costs.
The donations will be used to fund a lawsuit against Google, YouTube and Alphabet directed to speech that is protected by the First Amendment and that was purged from YouTube through demonetizations, terminations or suspensions in violation of the YouTube Terms of Service. The donations will be used to fund attorneys’ fees and costs on behalf of the named Plaintiffs in the lawsuit, and any Plaintiffs thereafter added. All donations of any amount are welcome, but only funds from U.S. citizens and permanent residents will be accepted. All donated funds will be used solely to defray attorneys’ fees and other costs related to this legal representation. By donating, the donors agree that they understand that they have no authority to direct the representation or have access to confidential client or privileged communications. Any unused funds at the conclusion of the representation will be returned to The Hartwig Foundation for Free Speech.about:blankEmbed URLPaste a link to the content you want to display on your site.EmbedLearn more about embeds(opens in a new tab)Sorry, this content could not be embedded.Try again Convert to link
Wow, how things have changes after a few decades of the Internet under our belts.
People who would have previously been shunned for their violent actions or bigotry are now given equal opportunities to get out their twisted world views while established media sources are now being forced to restrict their stories or lose their voice on the same platforms.
Look at the following list, Louis Farrakhan, Richard Spencer, Nicolas Maduro, O.J. Simpson. Shouldn’t the New York Post have the same freedoms as this group of five?
Well Alexander Hamilton, it’s time to roll over in your grave.
The New York Post, one of America’s oldest newspapers, founded by America’s first monetary expert-turned pop culture icon, has been muzzled on Twitter for reporting a bombshell that could affect the presidential election.
Twitter has refused to unlock the New York Post’s account since last Wednesday unless the outlet deletes multiple tweets about its reporting on 2020 Democratic nominee Joe Biden’s son, Hunter Biden, the Post reported.
Both Twitter, the San Francisco-based social media platform and Menlo Park’s Facebook came under fire this week after the two blocked or suppressed their users from sharing a Post article showing purported communication between 2020 Democratic nominee Joe Biden’s son, Hunter Biden, and an adviser to a Ukrainian energy company.
But while the NYC tabloid’S “VOICE” has been silenced online, Twitter allows the likes of hundreds of controversial characters such as Louis Farrakhan, Richard Spencer, Ali Khamenei, Nicolas Maduro, and O.J. Simpson to tweet freely.
Farrakhan is the leader and most prominent figure of the Nation of Islam, a militant Black supremacist and nationalist group that formed in the 1930s. Since taking leadership in the late 1970s, Farrakhan has been accused of anti-Semitism and homophobia for his comments and sermons. He tweets on a regular basis.
2. Richard Spencer
The Anti-Defamation League has called infamous White nationalist Richard Spencer a “symbol of the new white supremacy.” He has publicly called for the removal of African-Americans, Hispanics and Jewish people from the United States.
Spencer’s highly protested public speeches often include attendees making Nazi salutes and he was a scheduled speaker at the 2017 “Unite the Right” rally in Charlottesville, Va., that led to deadly violence. Yet, somehow he has managed to appear on CNN and also tweets regularly:.
3. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei
Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has emerged as one of the most powerful Iranian leaders of the last century and wields control over all aspects of the country’s government, military and media.
During the 1979 revolution in Iran, Khamenei preached about overthrowing the shah and resisting the United States and the western world in an effort to reaffirm Islamic values in the Iranian government and avoid any influences that threaten to undermine his autocratic rule and the self-sufficiency of his country.
Khamenei has grown increasingly angered and disdainful at the U.S., which he recently described as “deceitful, untrustworthy and backstabbing.” Twitter doesn’t seem to have any issue with him, though.
Simpson joined Twitter last year on the 25th anniversary of his wife’s murder. Nicole Brown Simpson, and her friend, Ron Goldman were stabbed outside her Los Angeles home in 1994 and soon after Simpson became the prime suspect in the murder investigation which became an international phenomenon. In October 1995, he was found not guilty in one of the most controversial jury decisions in American history.
While Simpson avoided prison in the murder trial, he was convicted in 2007 on armed robbery and kidnapping charges. He was sentenced to 33 years in prison, nine years minimum without parole. He was released from prison on October 1. 2017 and is allowed to tweet. He recently mocked CNN’s Jeffrey Toobin after the legal pundit was accused of masturbating during a Zoom meeting with colleagues
President Nicolas Maduro
An explosive UN Human Rights Council-commissioned report unveiled last month, detailed the extensive and systematic human rights abuses orchestrated by Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro’s inner circle, which amount to crimes against humanity.
According to the findings, his government and security forces have engaged in an assortment of brutal torture tactics ranging from electric shocks, genital mutilation, and asphyxiation to kill and maim dissidents.
Maduro tweets regularly from his verified account:
Unlike most of the suppression of conservatives’ speech the past several years, this suppression of an important verified news story before the most important presidential election since 1860 has been noticed by the congress.
The Senate Judiciary Committee plans to issue a subpoena on Tuesday to Twitter Inc. Chief Executive Jack Dorsey after the social-media company blocked a pair of New York Post articles that made new allegations about Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden, which his campaign has denied.
The political establishment, Big Tech, and entertainment platforms are getting nervous as they see President Trump catching up and even passing Joe Biden in the polls.
As a mob of those inflicted with Trump Derangement Syndrome who are losing their ability to act with civility, yet demand President Trump and his supporters take their abuse, not fighting back.
To them, anyone who supports Trump is a racist, pro-white colonialists, who want to turn back the clock to 1776.
President Trump tried again to give access to the fake news networks, but like the last town hall, they came in swinging and disrespecting the office of the presidency.
Today President Trump lashed out at “60 Minutes” correspondent Lesley Stahl for not wearing a mask at the White House following what has been described to Fox News as an “extremely hostile” interview.
Trump took to Twitter on Tuesday afternoon and shared a video of a maskless Stahl speaking with two staffers, both of whom were wearing masks.
“Lesley Stahl of 60 Minutes not wearing a mask in the White House after her interview with me. Much more to come,” the president teased.
The tweet is likely in reference to the ongoing criticism the Trump administration receives from members of the media for not strictly following CDC guidelines that urge mask-wearing and social-distancing.
And then later this afternoon President Trump threatened to release the entire interview with Stahl before “60 Minutes” is able to smear him.
White House Assistant Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt also called out the veteran journalist, accusing her of hypocrisy.
“This is moments after she criticized me for not wearing a mask while working at my desk Rules for thee but not for me, Lesley?” Leavitt tweeted.
I say, do it President Trump!
Release the video and show the world how correct the Fake News is, before the editors final cuts.
The Trump administration continues to pursue the Big Tech corporations even weeks before the 2020 Presidential election, which could potentially reverse everything with Democrat Joe Biden being much more open to the control and dominance of Teach leaders over the American people.
The announcement is expected Tuesday that The US Department of Justice will file anti-trust violations against Google.
The announcement came Tuesday that the long awaited measures against Google for overusing their reach, was going to be addressed by the US Department of Justice, sending shock waves thru the business community and into the community of social media users.
Zero Hedge wrote:
Update (0915ET):Reuters has some more details about Tuesday’s Google lawsuit, which the DoJ has now confirmed.
GOOGLE CASE IS MOST SIGNIFICANT ANTITRUST ACTION IN DECADES
GOOGLE ABUSED ITS DOMINANT POSITION IN SEARCH MARKET, U.S. SAYS
GOOGLE ACCUSED BY U.S. OF ABUSING MARKET POWER IN LANDMARK CASE
US GOOGLE ANTITRUST CASE JOINED BY ELEVEN STATES
More official details are expected during a briefing set for Tuesday morning, but many of the key details have already appeared in press reports.
Republican Sen Josh Hawley accused Google of keeping power through “illegal means” and called the lawsuit “the most important antitrust case in a generation.” Reuters also note that the federal lawsuit marks a rare moment of comity between the Trump Administration and progressive Democrats like Sen Elizabeth Warren, who has called for “swift, aggressive action.”
Sen Ted Cruz took to CNBC’s Squawk Box earlier to trash Google and its Big Tech peers for abusing their market position and censoring conservative voices.”
Business Insider showed the movement:
Fox News Business reported,”The Department of Justice is expected to announce it is filing a major antitrust lawsuit against Google, accusing the company of a host of anti-competitive practices.”
CNBC Business reacted saying,”Cramer: DOJ’s expected lawsuit against Google takes Alphabet stock from ‘buy’ to ‘strong buy”
The New York Times reacted and said,” A victory for the government could remake one of America’s most recognizable companies and the internet economy that it has helped define.”
According to CNN Business, “The Trump administration will sue Google on Tuesday in what is the largest antitrust case against a tech company in more than two decades.In its complaint, the Justice Department is expected to make sweeping allegations that Google (GOOG) has stifled competition to maintain its powerful position in the marketplace for online search, according to two people familiar with the matter.
Also joining the US government’s complaint will be 11 states including Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, South Carolina and Texas, according to public court records.”
Market Watch reported, “The Justice Department is expected to formally sue Alphabet Inc.’s Google for antitrust violations Tuesday, the first major action against Big Tech for its staggering market power and values. Sources told MarketWatch that charges were expected this week.”
Politico said, “Eleven Republican attorneys general — representing Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, South Carolina and Texas — signed on to the complaint.”
Reaction from Senator Josh Hawley, who posted on Twitter: “NEW — Sen. Hawley on the @TheJusticeDept announcement of a lawsuit against @Google: “Today’s lawsuit is the most important antitrust case in a generation…” But this is just a first step. Hawley will continue to fight for legislative solutions to end the Big Tech tyranny.”
The following footage is from the announcement of the probe in 2019:
This happens a day after Project Veritas released video footage of a Google employee admitting that Google is biased against President Donald J. Trump.
1984’s IngSoc, er, I mean Twitter and Facebook, have censored President Donald Trump’s social media accounts, including his campaign’s account, at least 65 times over the last two years, but has never held Joe Biden accountable for the numerous lies his staffers post using his account or the former vice president’s campaign accounts, an new analysis from Media Research Center’s (MRC) Techwatch department has revealed.
You can’t check out Joe Biden’s social media threads without reading bald-faced lies about Trump, but for some really weird reason Biden’s accounts never get held accountable. For example, the tech giants never went after Biden for posting the Charlottesville lie even though that narrative has been debunked with the very words of the president in a video from the speech. Every post Biden did where he repeated that lie is still up with no label, warning, whatever.
MRC’s Techwatch department looked at social media activity from Trump, Biden, and their campaigns’ social media activities from May 2018 to October 16, 2020. According to NewsBusters, the analysis “did not include any ads from PACs or super PACs that had made ads in favor of either candidate” and focused only on social media posts rather than paid advertisements:
In general, the analysis discovered at least 65 cases of censorship against Trump and his campaign’s accounts. Through comparison, MRC’s Techwatch department found no cases of censorship against Biden or his campaign in the same time period.
Twitter is the top hatchet man for censorship such as “labeling, fact-checking, and removing Trump’s tweets and the tweets from his campaign accounts 64 instances since the president’s election,” NewsBusters reported.
Last month, Twitter put up warning labels on some of Trump’s tweets, where he encouraged voters to “go to your Polling Place to see whether or not your Mail In Vote has been Tabulated (Counted).”
“If it has you will not be able to Vote & the Mail In System worked properly. If it has not been Counted, VOTE (which is a citizen’s right to do). If your Mail In Ballot arrives after you Vote, which it should not, that Ballot will not be used or counted in that your vote has already been cast & tabulated,” he said.
“YOU ARE NOW ASSURED THAT YOUR PRECIOUS VOTE HAS BEEN COUNTED, it hasn’t been ‘lost, thrown out, or in any way destroyed’. GOD BLESS AMERICA,” he wrote in the thread. They should see how many thousands of Trump ballots are being thrown in Pennsylvania.
Twitter’s warning, which blocked visibility to the tweets, said that the message violated Twitter rules “about civic and election integrity.” You’ve got to be kidding me. Trying to protect a person’s vote is violating civic and election integrity? In what universe?
“However, Twitter has determined that it may be in the public’s interest for the Tweet to remain accessible,” the warning added:
The month prior, Twitter put up the same warning label after Trump said that mail drop boxes are a “voter security disaster,” which could “make it possible for a person to vote multiple times”:
[insert pic 1 here]
Twitter censored a tweet from the president last week on his recovery from the Chinese virus. The tech giant accused Trump of “spreading misleading and potentially harmful information related to COVID-19”:
[insert pic 2 here]
They need to lose their platform status. They are now publishers.
The analysis done by MRC discovered that Facebook censored and throttled traffic from posts against Trump and his campaign 5 times and Instagram once.
Each time, the platform has made the statement that it opposes whatever Trump and the campaign have said or stood for.
A video attacking Antifa was removed from the platform, because it violated the platform’s “organized hate policy” for featuring an upside-down red triangle. The ad asked supporters “to sign a petition and “stand with your President and his decision to declare ANTIFA a Terrorist Organization.” The ad was removed from both the president’s page and his campaign’s page. However, multiple violent Antifa pages that have doxxed members of the Senate remain on the platform, unscathed.
The analysis came after last week’s bombshell report from the New York Post, showcasing Joe Biden’s alleged involvement in his son’s profitable foreign business shenanigans. The story was quickly censored by big tech companies to protect Biden, prompting the Senate Judiciary Committee to announce its plans to subpoena Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey. At the time, Twitter locked the accounts of both the Trump campaign and White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany while censoring links to the House Judiciary Committee’s website, branding their link to material related to the Post’s report as “potentially unsafe.” How is that potentially unsafe? It was an expose by the fourth largest newspaper in the country that is 219 years old.
“Straight blocking of URLs was wrong, and we updated our policy and enforcement to fix. Our goal is to attempt to add context, and now we have capabilities to do that,” Dorsey said in an update to the controversy last week:
President Trump last week told supporters that his reelection would send a big message to the tech giants.
“The biggest thing we can do? November 3rd,” Trump said. “We’re not just running against Joe Biden. We’re running against the left-wing media and we’re running against Big Tech.”