Tag: INTERNET CENSORSHIP

Washington Post Scrubs Headline Calling Louis Farrakhan ‘Far-Right’

Barack Obama and Louis Farrakhan (Askia Muhammad via TriceEdnyWire.com)

By Justin Caruso

UPDATE 5:23 PM EST: The Washington Post has added a correction to the post in question — after this article was published. The paper held off on a correction on its site for nearly two hours after acknowledging the error on Twitter. The headline on Breitbart’s story has been updated to reflect this change.

The Washington Post described Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan as “far-right” Thursday, then scrubbed the error from the article’s headline and text without acknowledging the edit.

The far-left newspaper’s coverage of Facebook’s latest move to ban controversial and anti-establishment figures linked Farrakhan with conservative activists, originally posting the headline “Facebook bans far-right leaders including Louis Farrakhan, Alex Jones, Milo Yiannopoulos for being ‘dangerous.’”

The false label was also included in the first line of author Elizabeth Dwoskin’s article.

CAP

CAP

The publication’s official Twitter account posted the same headline with this false information. In a followup tweet, the Post said, “We have deleted this tweet because it incorrectly included Louis Farrakhan, who has espoused anti-Semitic views, in a list of far-right leaders. Facebook banned extremist figures including Farrakhan, Alex Jones, Milo Yiannopoulos for being ‘dangerous.’”

CAP

However, the paper has not acknowledged any error on the article page itself — or told readers that its editors altered the headline, lead paragraph, and URL after publication.

CAP

Despite the stealth correction, the article has received the endorsement of NewsGuard, a Microsoft partner that marks news sources as reliable or not in a web browser extension — even on a cached version of the article with the false “far-right” label still included in the URL.

CAP

“This website adheres to all nine of NewsGuard’s standards of credibility and transparency,” a pop-up reads when users mouse over the green checkmark next to the Post‘s name. Among those criteria: “Regularly corrects or clarifies errors.”

NewsGuard similarly defended a stealth edit from corporate media in February, saying that the New York Times did not run afoul of its policy by altering a headline without acknowledging the update.

Another article published in The Atlantic about the Facebook bans used the headline “Instagram and Facebook Ban Far-Right Extremists,” with a photo of Farrakhan in the featured image. As of this writing, it has not been corrected.

Farrakhan, who has praised Adolf Hitler and promotes an anti-Semitic and black nationalist worldview, has a number of well-documented relationships with Democratic lawmakers.

Former president Barack Obama posed for a photo with Farrakhan, and Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison (D) and Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) have long associatedwith the hateful preacher.

Last October, Farrakhan said during an address that he was not an “antisemite” but an “anti-Termite.”

“So when they talk about Farrakhan, call me a hater, you know they do, call me an antisemite–stop it! I’m anti-termite! I don’t know nothing about hating somebody because of their religious preference,” he said

 

0

Leftist Activists Force Mastercard to Vote On Blacklisting The ‘Far Right’

By Chris Menahan

The ability to buy and sell goods and services may soon require folks to hold the “right” politically correct beliefs. 

From Tim Pool:

Activist group “The Sum Of Us” has successfully forced Mastercard to hold a vote that would see the creation of a “human rights committee” to oversee who uses the Mastercard service.

The goal of the leftist activist group is to shut down access for ‘far right’ groups as well as politicians and activists. They stress that stopping to flow of income will stop people they do not agree with.

This may be the most dramatic escalation in the Culture War we have seen yet, the targeting of major financial institutions to shut down opposition. While it sounds noble to ban certain groups we do not like it won’t end there. Massive multi national corporations should not have the right to sever access to basic services based on bad opinions.

Far left social justice activists have pushed for restrictions and censorship and this news marks the most dramatic escalation we have seen yet.

More from Breitbart:

In its supporting statement, ThisIsUs wrote:

Companies can face risks related to human rights even when they only perform support functions. Internet infrastructure companies like web host GoDaddy, social media platform Facebook and payments firm PayPal have come under pressure for doing business with or providing a forum for neo-Nazis and other hate groups. Mastercard has received negative publicity for processing of payments to white supremacist groups. “Organizers Catch Credit Card Companies Profiting From White Supremacy: Online payment companies are complicit in authorizing transactions related to hate groups,” AlterNet, August 22, 2017; and “Color Of Change Is Attacking Hate Groups At The Source: Their Funding,” Fast Company, August 21, 2017. According to the website bloodmoney.org (accessed on December 18, 2018), Mastercard continues to process payments for organizations such as American Border Patrol, League of the South, Proud Boys and Stormfront.

In response, the board of Mastercard recommended that stockholders vote against the proposal, stating that the company operates on the principle that consumers should be able to make “all lawful purchases.”

The Proposal focuses on the use of our products by certain organizations. We operate our network on the principle that consumers should be able to make all lawful purchases, and our franchise rules ensure compliance with the laws pertaining to the acceptable use of our payment processing services by merchants, acquirers and issuers. We regularly monitor activities involving our products and services for any alleged illegal use. When we process payment transactions, we do not have visibility into goods that are purchased or the use of those goods. When we are made aware of illegal activity or rules violations, we work closely with law enforcement and acquirers to shut down those activities.

Accordingly, because Mastercard has a committee with oversight over issues of corporate social responsibility and has disclosed its commitment to and oversight of human rights issues, the Board does not believe that establishing a separate human rights committee is necessary to properly exercise its oversight of this important area, nor does it add to Mastercard’s existing commitment to social responsibility and human rights.Therefore, our Board recommends that our stockholders vote AGAINST this joint proposal.

Although Mastercard’s board says it is committed to the principle of allowing “all lawful purchases,” online payments platform Patreon says that Mastercard asked it to withdraw service from Islam critic Robert Spencer, founder of JihadWatch.org, in August 2018.

Mastercard has yet to respond to a Breitbart News inquiry into why, if Patreon’s allegation is true, the company used its influence to cut off Spencer.

Multiple cases with Mastercard, Chase Bank and Bank of America suggest these megabanks are already doing a “belief check.”

0

COLLUSION: Liberal Media Was Tipped Off About Paul Joseph Watson Being Banned by Facebook Before He Was

by Jim Hoft May 2, 2019

As reported earlier today, Facebook announced that it had banned several high-profile conservative personalities from their platform for good, including an incoming ban on the Facebook-owned Instagram.

Milo Yiannopoulos, Laura Loomer, and all accounts related to Alex Jones or Infowars (including Paul Joseph Watson) were the main targets of Facebook’s latest purge and were labeled ‘dangerous’ by the social media giant.

To draw away from criticism about only banning pro-Trump figures, Facebook also claimed to be taking action against Louis Farrakhan, the Hitler-loving Nation of Islam leader.

The company alleges that all individuals or accounts engaged in the following behaviors, according to a statement given to pro-censorship CNN reporter Oliver Darcy.

The Facebook spokesperson said such factors include whether the person or organization has ever called for violence against individuals based on race, ethnicity, or national origin; whether the person has been identified with a hateful ideology; whether they use hate speech or slurs in their about section on their social media profiles; and whether they have had pages or groups removed from Facebook for violating hate speech rules.

Darcy, who himself has been personally involved in lobbying digital platforms to ban his political enemies, also claims that the company may end up banning accounts that share content related to any of the banned individuals.

Facebook tipped off the liberal media before they notified Paul Joseph Watson of his account being banned. Watson was banned — not because of his content — but because he works for Inforwars.

CAP

Paul tweeted out earlier.

CAP
CAP

Not likely.

Paul Joseph Watson’s YouTube videos and writings at Infowars are exceptional.
He has never come under fire for hate speech.
The Republican Party continues to be AWOL.

0

(CENSORSHIP) – Poynter Wants 515 Outlets Blacklisted, Including Breitbart Leaves Out All Corporate Media Behind Dangerous Hoaxes… …Vast Majority of Blacklist Compiled by One Assistant Prof

Screen Shot 2019-05-01 at 10.13.07 AM

By John Nolte

Poynter Institute claims on its “About” page that “it champions freedom of expression.” And yet, on another page, Poynter published a list of 515 media sites, including Breitbart News, that it wants blacklisted and shut down.

Poynter calls this list an “index of unreliable news sites” and is openly calling for advertisers to stop sponsoring these sites, to pull their sponsorship, to put these sites out of business.

If that’s not a blacklist, tell me what is [emphasis added]:

Advertisers don’t want to support publishers that might tar their brand with hate speech, falsehoods or some kinds of political messaging — but too often, they have little choice in the matter.

Most ad-tech dashboards make it hard for businesses to prevent their ads from appearing on (and funding) disreputable sites. Marketers can create blacklists, but many of those lists have been out-of-date or incomplete.

Aside from journalists, researchers and news consumers, we hope that the UnNews index will be useful for advertisers that want to stop funding misinformation.

This is straight-up McCarthyism. This is nothing less than the return of the 1950s’ blacklisting crusade against those who hold inappropriate, unacceptable, and unapproved opinions.

And what’s more, the lion’s share of the list cites a single source — “OpenSources,” a list curated by a single Assistant Professor from Merrimack College, Melissa Zimdars (pictured). She is the author of academic papers such as “Watching Our Weights: The Consequences and Contradictions of Televising Fatness in the ‘Obesity Epidemic’” and “Having It Both Ways: ‘Two and a Half Men,’ ‘Entourage’ and the Televising of Juvenile Postfeminist Masculinity.”

What is Zimdars’s methodology? Can’t say, exactly, as the OpenSources official site is totally blank. About two years ago, she gave an interview where she said that one of her criteria for blacklisting a site is “hate” — that is, she still believes the far-left SPLC is a credible organization whose “hate” labels should get you kicked out of public discourse.

Those of you who suddenly approve of blacklisting will argue, “Hey, this is how democracy works! A private company has the right to do or not do business with whoever they want!”

Well, how the hell do you think the 1950s’ blacklist worked? That was nothing more than private companies (movie studios, advertising sponsors) and private individuals (studio heads, producers) deciding all on their own whom they did and did not want to do business with.

Nevertheless, we rightly look back on this dark era with disgust, as an un-American era where people were persecuted and silenced (by private corporations and private individuals) for holding ideas and opinions the powerful establishment did not want shared or discussed.

And now, the 1950s’ blacklist has returned with a vengeance because the establishment media are fighting for advertising dollars and have lost their moral authority and ability to influence public opinion due to outlets like this one and the Media Research Center, Pajamas Media, Washington Examiner, The Daily Wire, The Blaze, Red State, Project Veritas, Newsmax, Zero Hedge, LifeSite, Judicial Watch, Frontpage, The Washington Free Beacon, The Daily Caller, and the Drudge Report — all of which are on Poynter’s blacklist — exposing their lies and biases, and…

Just as the blacklisters did during the McCarthy era, they are trying to silence us by targeting our advertising sponsors.

Sure, just as some of those people targeted in the 1950s were actual communists looking to do our country harm, there are some legitimate bad faith players on Poynter’s blacklist. But here’s where Poynter’s blacklist gets especially sinister…

There is no one on Poynter’s list of “unreliable news outlets” responsible for spreading the biggest, most irresponsible and dangerous lies of the last half-decade — lies that have caused race riots and destroyed innocent lives.

In other words, the outlets Poynter does not want blacklisted are every bit as revealing as those Poynter does want blacklisted.

There is simply no question that for over five years, CNN, the New York Times, the Washington Post, NPR, ABC, CBS, PBS, NBC, MSNBC, Politico, BuzzFeed, etc., have relentlessly and deliberately misled the American people on the biggest stories of the day…

  • The Trayvon Martin Hoax

  • The Hands Up, Don’t Shoot Hoax

  • Donald Trump Can’t Win

  • The Russia Collusion Hoax

  • The Brett Kavanaugh Serial Rapist Hoax

  • The Covington High School Boys Hoax

And yet, every outlet I listed above that are part of Poynter’s blacklist either got these stories 100 percent correct, as Breitbart News did, or was at least skeptical of them.

But we are the ones these so-called “champions of free expression” are openly calling to be blacklisted, not those who have relentlessly and deliberately lied to the public for more than a half-decade.

Which proves this is not a blacklist targeting the unreliable, but a blacklist targeting those who hold ideas the un-American Poynter finds inappropriate and unacceptable.

How else to explain why Poynter wants the Media Research Center blacklisted for bias but not Media Matters?

The Poynter Institute is nothing less than a non-profit version of Joseph McCarthy, Father Coughlin, and Big Brother.

0

CBS News, NYT Reporter Suggest U.S. Scrap Free Speech In Favor Of New Zealand-Style Censorship

Chris Menahan
InformationLiberation
Apr. 30, 2019
https://twitter.com/zyntrax/status/1122955568921100288

Both the CBS News host and NYT reporter Cecilia Kang said the US should look to countries like Australia, New Zealand, Germany and India — which do not have free speech — as models for suppressing free speech on the internet.

Here’s the full segment:
As I reported in November 2018, the New York Times editorial board wrote a propaganda piece comparing right-wingers to jihadists and demanded authoritarian censorship of the internet to stop the spread of “toxic ideas.”

The New York Times last year hired virulent anti-white racist Sarah Jeong in August 2018 as their lead technology writer and made her a member of their editorial board.

CAP
Jeong’s Twitter feed featured her attacking “dumbass f**king white people” for “marking up the internet with their opinions like dogs pissing on fire hydrants.”

She also said she gets a sick “joy” out of “being cruel to old white men” and wondered if white people’s light skin is a sign they’re “only fit to live underground like groveling goblins.”

The New York Times said they were aware of her anti-white tweets when they hired her and argued her tweets were justified because some trolls called her mean names on the internet.

While journos love to act as though they’re crusaders for free speech and a free press, as we saw over the weekend during the White House Correspondents’ Dinner, they’re actually the biggest crusaders against free speech and the free press in America and throughout the West.

0

Who checks the fact-checkers? Facebook leaves verification to groups funded by Soros, US Congress

CAP

In its crusade against ‘fake news’, Facebook has vowed to fight for impartiality. However, when it comes to fact-checking, it seems to rely on sources, which have links to the US government, and renowned political meddlers.

For more than two years, the social media giant has been seeking to convince the public that it does its best to take a stand against malicious disinformation spread through its network and presented a whole bunch of instruments aimed at revealing and countering false narratives.

It appears, though, that Facebook heavily relies on decisions taken by some third-parties in its ‘anti-disinformation’ policy.

Submissions from the so-called fact-checkers – alongside some feedback from users – seem to be the primary source on which Facebook relies when saying a post is ‘false’.

One-fits-all solution?

Facebook proudly boasted that all the “partners” it cooperates with were “certified” through what it calls “the non-partisan International Fact-Checking Network” or IFCN.

However, the social network’s choice of people to trust with the power to decide what is true or false does raise questions. This seemingly impressive “international network” Facebook mentions is a project run by Florida-based private school of journalism – the Poynter Institute for Media Studies.

The project, which Facebook apparently uses as a sole instrument to find trustworthy “partners,” seems to be way more than just a selfless initiative aimed at helping people navigate through questionable information.

ALSO ON RT.COMAP & Snopes quit ‘fact-checking’ for Facebook as NewsGuard’s blacklist model pushes aheadThe IFCN was launched in 2015 following a generous donation totaling $300,000, which the Poynter Institute received from two sources. One of them is the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) – a “soft-power” organization, which is funded primarily through annual allocations from the US Congress. Another one is the Omidyar Network – a foundation run by the eBay founder and self-described “progressive” billionaire Pierre Omidyar.

Although he has not yet apparently gained as much fame – or infamy for that matter – as another US billionaire and renowned political meddler, George Soros, Omidyar has also lately shown himself as a major patron of regime-change operations. As early as in 2014, the US media reported that Omidyar supported anti-government groups in Ukraine that opposed the then President Viktor Yanukovych, who was ousted during Maidan.

A report by Forbes also suggested that the billionaire was one of the major funders of the Kiev-based Hromadske TV, which harbored anti-Russian views while backing the violent 2014 coup. Most recently, a group of journalists revealed that Omidyar funds a wide range of media outlets through foundations, nonprofits and other cutouts that in fact promote the liberal interventionist agenda.

Notably, two years after the launch of the IFCN Omidyar teamed up with none other than another “liberal interventionist” – Soros – to channel some $1.3 million into the project to support its development.

The Poynter Institute itself also has the Omidyar Network as well as the Democracy Fund – another foundation linked to the eBay founder – on its list of major donors, alongside Open Society Foundations (OSF) run by Soros and the NED.

Providers of ‘ultimate truth’

The list of “certified” fact-checkers provided by the IFCN certainly looks impressive. It includes such international news agencies as Associated Press and Agency France Press (AFP), which appear on the list along with its branch offices in a dozen and a half countries. In total, the ‘network’ describes 66 organizations as “verified signatories” of the self-styled “code of principles” it developed.

However, the impartiality question remains. At least some of the organizations listed as reliable suppliers of the ultimate truth and described as “partners” by Facebook in fact receive substantial funding from the likes of Soros and Omidyar – or even directly from Western governments.

One of these organizations called PolitiFact even enjoys what it calls “administrative support” from the Poynter Institute while receiving significant funding from Facebook itself. The US-based fact-checker also collected regular donations from Omidyar’s Democracy Fund since at least 2013, which amounted to between $125,000 and $250,000.

ALSO ON RT.COMMeet Pierre Omidyar, billionaire patron of US regime change operations, neocons & activist media

Across the pond, the British Full Fact charity lists the Omidyar Network and Open Society Foundations among its top-5 donors. And in the Philippines Omidyar is backing the Rappler, a news site that also made its way to the IFCN fact-checkers’ list while opposing President Rodrigo Duterte.

Together, Omidyar’s Luminate Group and Soros’ OSF also provided a quarter of the funding, which a South Africa-based fact-checker, the ‘Africa Check’, received in 2018. Meanwhile, another such organization based in Turkey and called Teyit got its funds directly from Western governments in the form of “financial support”provided by the British embassy in Ankara as well as the European Endowment for Democracy – a foundation financed directly by most EU states along with Switzerland and Norway.

Some of the organizations on the list also manage to collect donations both from Western governments and the “liberal interventionists.” One such example is the Columbian ‘La Silla Vacia’ group, which received 14.5 percent of its funding from Soros, 9.5 percent from the British embassy and another four percent from the NED.

It seems, after all that, the accusations of “bias” Facebook complained so bitterly about in 2018 might be not as unsubstantiated as the social media giant would like it to appear. Back then, Facebook’s project manager, Tessa Lyons, rhetorically asked if it is possible to have a set of fact-checkers that are widely recognized as objective in today’s world. That’s a really good question, which Facebook might need to ask itself again.

CAP

0

‘How is this not meddling?’ Twitter bans Tommy Robinson, Sargon of Akkad campaign accounts

CAP

Campaign accounts of two British candidates for the European Parliament, Tommy Robinson and Carl Benjamin, have been deleted by Twitter, prompting outcries of election meddling with less than a month before the vote.

Robinson and Benjamin – better known under his YouTube handle ‘Sargon of Akkad’ – are running in the May 23 election, which the UK will have to participate in due to the ongoing Brexit delays. Benjamin is a member of the UK Independence Party (UKIP), while Robinson announced his independent candidacy on Thursday.

CAP

CAP

Both of them have had personal accounts purged from Twitter a while ago, but the accounts terminated on Friday were run by their campaign staff, and not them personally.

“We are investigating why, but strongly suspect this is a deliberate act of political censorship to deny a candidate his voice in a crucial election,” Benjamin’s campaign staffer Michael De La Broc said, adding the campaign will complain to the election authorities and maybe even seek restitution in court for “political interference by a foreign entity in our elections.”

UKIP has also declared the ban “election interference” and vowed to “get to the bottom” of the issue.

CAP

Benjamin has come under attack by the media and establishment politicians, who have accused him of “racist” speech. The YouTuber maintains he fights for free speech and against political correctness.

Mainstream media have described Robinson as a “far-right activist” and accused him of “Islamophobia.” He was banned from Facebook and Instagram in February over alleged “hate speech.”

British Muslim organization Tell MAMA has claimed credit for reporting Robinson’s campaign account to Twitter, saying it’s using the candidacy to circumvent his personal ban.

The purge of MEP candidates comes just three days after Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey went to the White House and met with US President Donald Trump to address complaints about “shadowbanning” and suspensions disproportionately targeting conservative voices on the social media platform.

While Twitter and other social media platforms have defended censorship on grounds that they are companies and not the government, last year a federal judge in the US ruled that Twitter is a “designated public forum,” and that Trump is not allowed to block people from his personal account on grounds of political speech.

0

TWITTER SHADOW BANS MICHAEL SAVAGE FOR QUESTIONING NOTRE DAME FIRE NARRATIVE

Twitter Shadow Bans Michael Savage For Questioning Notre Dame Fire Narrative

Conservative host “may join the rebels in the shadows”.

Steve Watson | Infowars.com – APRIL 25, 2019

Michael Savage believes that Islamist terrorists may have been behind the Notre Dame blaze, and he is being vocal about it. In response, Twitter has reportedly moved to shadow ban Savage to stop his opinion spreading.

Savage’s reasoning is that terrorists attempted to set the cathedral on fire as recently as 2016, in addition to the fact that hundreds of churches in France have been desecrated over the past year.

Screen Shot 2019-04-25 at 10.53.35 AM

Savage found that after he expressed that opinion, Twitter stopped a lot of other users from seeing his posts.

“It became apparent Sunday after being temporarily blocked last week following the burning of Notre Dame, that now he may join the rebels in the shadows,” wrote Amanda Metzger, who works for Savage on his website.

“Some followers who used to receive notifications of his tweets on their smartphones no longer received them,” she added.

Metzger also noted that Savage “suddenly found his Periscope live broadcast was limited in the number of viewers.” (Periscope is owned by Twitter).

Infowars’ Alex Jones is still permanently banned from Twitter. No explanation was ever given, other than the vague suggestion that Jones ‘violated’ T&C’s.

It appears Savage now finds himself in the Twitter sin bin along with Jones and many others.

“Who is in the shadows deciding who is heard and who is silenced? Someone in a dark room behind a bright screen in a foreign country with no First Amendment?” Metzger asked, adding “maybe it’s an American trying to create a safe space online.”

“I can’t think of anything less safe – anything more damaging – than limiting the exchange of ideas,” she continued. “We’re in a dangerous place when we’ve forgotten the phrase, ‘I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.’”

“We are getting closer to the point where federal regulation of social media is inevitable. The airwaves are regulated. In this case, my plea is that there is some transparency in who is banned, blocked or deplatformed and why,” Metzger urged, adding “I would prefer no one find themselves silenced by another.”

“Maybe you don’t care who was deplatformed last year. You didn’t agree with them anyway and seeing their tweets and posts ruined your day,” Metzger concluded. “But if you don’t stand up for them now, they won’t have a voice to come to your defense when you are silenced.”

In related news, it appears that Twitter is planning to allow users to report tweets that they believe are an attempt to ‘mislead’ people at election time.

What could go wrong there?

In a blog post regarding the change, Twitter declared that “Any attempts to undermine the process of registering to vote or engaging in the electoral process is contrary to our company’s core values.”

The move appears to be an effort on behalf of Twitter to adhere to the EU ‘Code of Practice against disinformation’ which Facebook and Google have also signed up to.

0

CENSORSHIP WAR: The Koch Brothers Fight To Silence Independent Voices

By Patrick Howley

The globalist Koch political network headed by billionaire Charles Koch is waging a war to silence independent journalists on the Internet.

The nonsense Koch group Americans For Prosperity is lobbying Judiciary Committee members to “oppose any effort to use antitrust laws to break up America’s innovative tech companies,” circulating a petition under the disingenuous header “Government Shouldn’t Pick Winners and Losers on the Internet.”

Government already picks winners and losers on the Internet by allowing Silicon Valley to ban independent truth-tellers like Alex Jones, Milo, Laura Loomer, and Roger Stone and shadowban many good American patriots who simply want to share information about Deep State corruption that won’t get picked up by the mainstream media. Just ask Gab about how hard it is to build a competitor social media platform in this current monopolized landscape.

Big League Politics links were banned from Reddit after my investigative reporting series exposing how a recent employee of the George Soros-funded Atlantic Council, now a top Reddit executive, was leading a “Ban Out” effort to suppress the free speech of President Donald Trump’s supporters. In protest, some Reddit users now post screenshots of Big League Politics articles onto the Reddit platform.

Now, the Koch-funded Daily Caller is actually partnering with Facebook to censor its competitors on Mark Zuckerberg’s platform. The outlet, which received nearly a million dollars from the Charles Koch Foundation in 2017 through their “Daily Caller News Foundation” content machine, is one of the “fact checker” organs for Zuckerberg to determine whether news sites get their reach throttled down. That gives the Caller an opportunity to shadowban their competitor sites on the Right and wage censorship war against the America First writers who are openly despised by Caller management (Tucker Carlson is no longer affiliated with the Daily Caller in any way).

To give you a sense of the kind of people who are tasked with “fact checking” competitors, look at Daily Caller editor-in-chief Geoff Ingersoll’s disgusting rant against populist nationalist reporter Cassandra Fairbanks, whom Ingersoll accused of being a Russian puppet.

“Still better than eating Putin’s cock bacon for breakfast, you hapless harlot,” Ingersoll ranted at Fairbanks. “By the way, maybe cut down. You’re blowing up.”

With many of the New Right accounts from the 2016 election — including the loud and proud Pepe the Frog shitposters — now virtually banned from the Internet, the Kochs are clearly hoping that they can suppress anyone who strays from the 2-D Narrative and control the conservative movement with their establishment “Blue Check” aggregators, many of whom sprang to force-fed prominence after Trump’s election to disparage America First people and constantly virtue-signal to the mainstream media mob.

Fortunately, independent journalists are not taking this laying down.

I broke the news:

Investigative journalist Laura Loomer filed a lawsuit Thursday against Twitter following her ban from the platform for comments about Muslim congresswoman Ilhan Omar of Minnesota.

Loomer is also suing the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), which reportedly“complained to Twitter” about Loomer’s work on the platform prior to her ban. Loomer, renowned for ambush video interviews of Democrat politicians, amassed more than 250,000 followers on Twitter. She was first suspended without clear explanation in the days leading up to the 2018 midterm election, and later banned outright from the social media platform after the election in November during her efforts to expose voter fraud in Florida.

“Ilhan is pro Sharia Ilhan is pro- FGM Under Sharia homosexuals are oppressed & killed. Women are abused & forced to wear the hijab. Ilhan is anti Jewish,” Loomer tweeted, referring to forced genital mutilation (FGM). That tweet was cited as the reason for her ban.

Loomer and her company Illoominate Media are being represented by attorney Ronald Coleman of the New Jersey-based law firm Mandelbaum Salsburg. Loomer’s legal defense fund can be found at FreeLoomer.com.

Loomer’s lawsuit can be READ HERE.

  1. This is an action for breach of contract, tortious interference with an advantageous business relationship, restraint of trade in violation of Fla. Stat. § 542.18, civil conspiracy and violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Fla. Stat. § 501.201, et seq. for which plaintiff seeks and is entitled to damages in excess of Fifteen Thousand Dollars ($15,000) exclusive of interest, special damages, costs or attorney fees.
  2. Plaintiff is a journalist and activist. In order to suppress plaintiff’s views regarding certain controversial political topics – in particular, the role of radical Islam and its proponents American public life and policy – defendants CAIR Florida, Inc. and CAIR Foundation, which have been established by the U.S. government and adjudicated as essentially American branches of the Mideast terrorist group Hamas, have acted in concert and conspired with defendant Twitter, Inc. (“Twitter”) to cause her to be banned, and prevented her from making a living through the use of, the majority of social media platforms.
  3. These include not only Twitter and the blog platform Medium.com, but also major payment processors PayPal.com and Venmo, ride-sharing systems Uber (including Uber Eats) and Lyft, crowdfunding website GoFundMe, online custom merchandise platform Teespring.
  4. Twitter claims that Ms. Loomer was banned because she violated Twitter’s Terms of Service (“TOS”). But, as set forth below, this claim is implausible, because the TOS provide essentially no substantive guidance to all but the most extreme users regarding whether they will or will not be censored on Twitter.
  5. The reason for this is that the TOS are not only vague but are applied with so selectively and in such bad faith that they are meaningless except for purposes of providing Twitter with a pretext for wrongful, bad faith conduct such as is alleged here.
  6. Moreover, innumerable Twitter users, ranging from little-known or anonymous users with a handful of followers to major media organizations, non-governmental human rights and social activist organizations and popular commentators and celebrities, have made the same statements as Ms. Loomer at various times – and in many cases, repeatedly – without adverse action by Twitter.
  7. This conduct by Twitter demonstrates that its pretext for banning Ms. Loomer – because her tweets violated the TOS – is false, and that Twitter’s ban on her as well as Twitter’s explanation of it were made in bad faith.
  8. In fact, there is little serious debate that the Twitter TOS are mere window-dressing, pretexts for employing censorship policies that are either arbitrary and capricious or, far more frequently, and in the facts set forth here, driven by ideology or in coordination with favored or commercially influential advocacy groups, or both.
  9. Rather than being the result of a TOS violation, Ms. Loomer’s ban from Twitter was, upon information and belief, proximately caused by defendants CAIR Florida, organization the Federal Bureau of Investigation has identified as the U.S. “face” of the Mideast terrorist group Hamas, and CAIR National (collectively, “CAIR” or “CAIR / Hamas”), which on information and belief acted in concert with Twitter to procure her elimination as a voice in opposition to them and their favored politicians and causes.
  10. As alleged further herein, the TOS are merely a pretext to place a “progressive” and positive gloss on Twitter’s bad faith, unjustified and unprivileged elimination of plaintiffs’ predominant publishing and fundraising platform, in concert with and at the behest of CAIR Florida and CAIR National, acting with or on behalf of their affiliate Hamas and their financial sponsor the Kingdom of Qatar and, on information, other parties not presently known to plaintiff, thereby effectively silencing Ms. Loomer, eliminating a vigorous and courageous journalistic and investigatory adversary from the public square, enabling defendants to benefit unfairly thereby and causing Ms. Loomer and Illoominate the harm set forth herein”….

Loomer’s February protest at Twitter’s New York City headquarters, where she handcuffed herself to the front door, resulted in Loomer trending #1 on Twitter despite being banned.

Screen Shot 2019-04-22 at 10.43.46 AM

0

Facebook bans British anti-immigrant groups including EDL, BNP and Britain First

Screen Shot 2019-04-18 at 10.56.54 AM

Facebook has banned 12 high-profile, anti-immigrant British organizations and individuals including the English Defence League, the British National Party, Britain First and Jayda Fransen.

The silicon valley company said it took the decision because it bans users who “proclaim a violent or hateful mission or are engaged in acts of hate or violence.”

“Individuals and organisations who spread hate, or attack or call for the exclusion of others on the basis of who they are, have no place on Facebook,” it said in a statement.

The following organizations and people are now prohibited from the site: The British National Party and Nick Griffin, Britain First and Paul Golding and Jayda Fransen, English Defence League and Paul Ray, Knights Templar International and Jim Dowson, National Front and Tony Martin, and Jack Renshaw.

ALSO ON RT.COMTommy Robinson banned from Facebook, Instagram over ‘hate speech’They were all outlawed under Facebook’s ‘Dangerous Individuals & Organisations policy’. They will no longer be allowed a presence on Facebook or Instagram and posts and other content which expresses praise or support for them will also be banned.

“Our work against organised hate is ongoing and we will continue to review individuals, organisations, pages, groups and content against our Community Standards,” the statement added.

The Knights Templar International said it was “horrified” by the ban, and that it was investigating legal options. “Facebook has deemed our Christian organisation as dangerous and de-platformed us despite never being charged, let alone found guilty of any crime whatsoever,” it said in a statement. “This is a development that would have made the Soviets blush.”

In February the social media giant banned EDL founder Tommy Robinson from its platforms saying the prominent anti-immigration activist repeatedly breached its policies on Hate speech.

Like this story? Share it with a friend!

0

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑