CENSORSHIP: TWITTER ANNOUNCES NEW RESTRICTIONS FOR WORLD LEADERS
Big Tech moving to block Trump’s reach to public as election season heats up
OCTOBER 15, 2019
In a move surely meant to muzzle President Trump, Twitter has announced new rules for the accounts of world leaders, making clear that certain content will result in “enforcement action,” according to a press release.
“There continues to be meaningful public conversation about how we think about Tweets from world leaders on our service,” Twitter stated Tuesday. “We welcome the conversation and want to share more context on our principles and process for reviewing reported Tweets from these accounts.
“When it comes to the actions of world leaders on Twitter, we recognize that this is largely new ground and unprecedented. We understand the desire for our decisions to be “yes/no” binaries, but it’s not that simple. The actions we take and policies we develop will set precedent around online speech and we owe it to the people we serve to be deliberate and considered in what we do.”
“Our mission is to provide a forum that enables people to be informed and to engage their leaders directly. We also have a responsibility to the people who use Twitter to better explain why we make the decisions we make, which we will do here.”
Twitter then lays out their “Enforcement scenarios” that would limit a world leader’s account or the ability of users to share their posts.
“The below areas will result in enforcement action for any account on our service (without consideration of the potential public interest value in allowing the Tweet to remain visible behind a notice):”
– Promotion of terrorism;
– Clear and direct threats of violence against an individual (context matters: as noted above, direct interactions with fellow public figures and/or commentary on political and foreign policy issues would likely not result in enforcement);
– Posting private information, such as a home address or non-public personal phone number;
– Posting or sharing intimate photos or videos of someone that were produced or distributed without their consent;
– Engaging in behaviors relating to child sexual exploitation; and
– Encouraging or promoting self-harm.
“In other cases involving a world leader, we will err on the side of leaving the content up if there is a clear public interest in doing so.”
Notably, if Twitter believes a world leader violated these policies, the company will freeze other users’ ability interact with that leader’s post.
“We haven’t used this notice yet, but when we do, you will not be able to like, reply, share, or Retweet the Tweet in question,” Twitter stated. “You will still be able to express your opinion with Retweet with Comment.”
Though Twitter made a similar announcement back in June, these new restrictions are far more severe than simply “down-ranking” a post.
Democrats will likely pressure Twitter relentlessly to enforce these limitations on Trump because they’re triggered by everything he says or tweets.
2020 presidential candidate Kamala Harris already demanded that Twitter outright remove Trump’s account earlier this month because he could “harm” people with his words.
Other Democrats also called for Twitter to remove Trump’s account, including former DNC Deputy Chairman Keith Ellison and Rep. Jackie Speier (Calif.).
Regardless of what Democrats try to do, Twitter has clearly decided it will serve as the gatekeeper for what information you can and cannot disseminate from your elected leaders.
Joe Biden, Father of Hunter, Calls for Trump Impeachment ‘He Is Shooting Holes in the Constitution’
By Pam Key
On Wednesday, 2020 Democratic presidential hopeful former Vice President Joe Biden at a town hall in Rochester, NH called for President Donald Trump to be impeached.
CNN was there with cameras to capture the moment.
Biden said, “With his words and his actions, President Trump has indicted himself by obstructing justice, refusing to comply with the congressional inquiry. He’s also convicted himself in full view of the world and the American people, Donald Trump has violated his oath of office, betrayed this nation and committed impeachable acts.”
He continued, “You know to preserve our constitution, our democracy, our basic integrity. He should be impeached. That’s not only because of what he’s done. To answer whether he’s committed acts sufficient to warrant impeachment is obvious. We see it in Trump’s own words. We see it in the texts from state department officials that have been made public. We see it in his pulling much of the United States government into his corrupt schemes, individuals within the government, his appointees. But we have to remember that impeachment isn’t only about what the president’s done. It’s about the threat the president poses to the nation if allowed to remain in office. One thing about this president is absolutely clear, and I don’t think anyone can contradict this, he has seen no limits to his power regardless of what the Constitution says.”
He added, “He believes the entire United States government can be corrupted into furthering his personal political needs. He’s even willing to hold Congress and congressionally appropriated aid to a foreign nation hostage to his personal political demands. He believes if he does something, it’s legal, period. And perhaps most importantly, he believes there is nothing we can do about it. He believes he can and will get away with anything he does. We all laughed when he said he could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot someone and get away with it. It’s no joke. He’s shooting holes in the Constitution, and we can not let him get away with it.”
Is This Our Future?
By Mark Dice – Oct 4, 2019
Imagine an AG who really thinks that the first amendment is a “privilege”
Never trust a woman who gets ahead by lying on her back.
2019: The year that Socialist Democrats truly display their fervent disdain of the Bill of Rights & the U.S. Constitution.
DOUBLE WHAMMY: Calling Someone an Illegal Alien Could Strip You of Your Guns
By Jose Nino
The Strident Conservative reports that that New York City passed a new ordinance which criminalizes the threat of reporting someone to Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) or the use of phrases like “go back to your own country” or “illegal alien” when these actions are allegedly motivated by hate.
This 29-page directive was published by the New York City Commission on Human Rights and details numerous examples of actions or comments that would be banned under this law. Violators of this law could be punished by fines up to $250,000 per violation.
According to one passage in the law, “The use of certain language, including ‘illegal alien’ and ‘illegals,’ with the intent to demean, humiliate, or offend a person or persons constitutes discrimination.”
The Commission is open about the fact that the directive intends to reject the federal government’s attempts to crack down on illegal immigration. However, Daniel Horowitz pointed out that no such crackdown has been attempted by the Trump administration.
The author of this Strident Conservative piece, David Leach argues that this law “could have long-term consequences on our liberty.”
First he believes that the NYC law is “a clear violation of free speech rights.” The Supreme Court recently ruled that so-called hate speech is constitutionally protected under the First Amendment. However, Leach sees the bigger picture:
But putting free speech aside for a moment, the growing movement by the Far-Left to ban hate speech — and even criminalize it — could give them a foot-in-the-door toward dismantling the Second Amendment as well.
Right before the entire impeachment drama started, Democrats, along with Trump and the GOP, were already pushing for anti-gun legislation. Bans on high-capacity magazines and red flag laws were featured on Pelosi’s gun control wish list.
Hower, Leach notes that “there’s been another piece of anti-Second Amendment legislation flying under the radar.”
He expanded upon this:
Named the Disarm Hate Act (DHA), this little-noticed bill would use hate crime laws to deny gun rights. Using similar laws already on the books in a few states as a template, the DHA would prohibit people convicted of certain “violent” hate crime misdemeanors from possessing a weapon. Currently, federal law only bans people convicted of felony hate crimes from gun ownership.
What would constitute a violent misdemeanor hate crime? Leach cites the words of Pennsylvania Senator Bob Casey, the co-sponsor of the Senate version of the DHA:
“Most commonly this category includes low-level assault, threats, harassment, and property damage.”
Indeed, leftists have had trouble trying to subvert the Second Amendment directly. So they’ve turned to more indirect ways of doing so.
By linking it to assaults on free speech, they can now kill two birds with one stone. In doing so, they can eviscerate some of the most time-honored principles of American political freedoms.
Facebook CEO warns breaking up Big Tech will lead to more ‘election meddling’ and less censorship will hurt people in LEAKED audio
Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg appears to threaten politicians who want to break up the company with election interference ‘issues’, and warns that unregulated social media would create angry crowds, in recently leaked audio.
Breaking up Big Tech firms like Facebook “is not actually going to solve the issues,” Zuckerberg complained during a July open question-and-answer meeting with employees, a recording of which was obtained by The Verge. Instead, he warned, it’ll make them worse.
It doesn’t make election interference less likely. It makes it more likely because now the companies can’t coordinate and work together.
Why broken-up Facebooklets would refuse to coordinate to quash “election interference,” one can only wonder. The statement, which could be easily interpreted as a veiled threat, comes in response to widespread concern that Facebook is a monopoly with too much power over what information people see online. Facebook previously threatened the journalism industry with extinction if publishers refused to cooperate with the social media behemoth (“I’ll be holding hands with your dying business like in a hospice,” his deputy Campbell Brown warned publishers in a meeting last year, adding that Zuckerberg “doesn’t care” about what happens to them if they scorn Facebook’s olive branch), and Zuckerberg is very much aware of the amount of political power his company wields, especially heading into an election year.
An offer they can’t refuse? Facebook offers mainstream news millions in licensing fees
But Facebook being broken up isn’t even a concern, as the CEO said the company would “win the legal challenge” should Democratic presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren or any other candidate calling for the break up of the Big Tech monopolies actually follow through on that campaign promise. The court battle would “still suck for us,” though, since “I don’t want to have a major lawsuit against our own government.”
“We care about our country and want to work with our government to do good things. But look, at the end of the day, if someone’s going to try to threaten something that existential, you go to the mat and you fight.” Translation: we care about our country, as long as it doesn’t get in our way. And other countries? Asked about skipping hearings where he was expected to testify in Canada and the UK, Zuckerberg indicated he didn’t care so much about those: “It just doesn’t really make sense for me to go to hearings in every single country that wants to have me show up,” he explained, sounding genuinely bewildered that such a thing might be expected of him.
One particularly interesting employee question concerned how to improve Facebook’s “self-image” – what to tell friends and family who hate or fear the social network. Zuckerberg’s answer was elusive and vague – tell critics that “you care about the problems and acknowledge that there are issues and that you’re working through them.”
And Zuckerberg insisted – despite that boilerplate answer – that caring is genuine. He “really cares” about “making sure that our products promote positive well-being,” he said, adding that this concern was behind the company’s decision to more prominently feature content from “friends and family” in newsfeeds, deemphasizing political and viral content. That decision hurt both the producers of such content and the company itself, which lost $100 billion of market cap in one day as the number of users fell dramatically – a historic record for a single-day drop, according to Zuckerberg, who laughed it off.
He also tried to smooth over the rough rollout of Libra, Facebook’s digital currency that has been panned by governments worldwide, claiming that “the public things” – presumably meaning politicians’ calls for extreme scrutiny of the project owing to Facebook’s history of privacy abuses – “tend to be a little more dramatic” but private meetings with regulators have been much easier.
While Zuckerberg doesn’t seem to be a fan of regulations targeting Libra, he is very supportive of regulation of social media – and it has more to do with dodging the pitchforks of angry users than innate virtue. Without regulation, “people are just going to keep on getting angrier and angrier … demand more extreme measures, and eventually people just say ‘Screw it, take a hammer to the whole thing.’”
KAMALA HARRIS DEMANDS TWITTER BAN TRUMP
Could “harm” someone with his words.
OCTOBER 1, 2019
Senator Kamala Harris has demanded that Twitter ban President Trump because his words “could result in harm to other people.”
Appearing on CNN Monday night, Harris asserted that Trump’s suggestion that Rep. Adam Schiff should be arrested for treason crossed the line.
“Frankly, when you look at what he’s been tweeting today, directed at the whistleblower, directed at so many people, I frankly, think that based on this and all we’ve seen him do before, including attacking members of Congress that frankly his Twitter account should be suspended,” said Harris.
“I think there’s plenty of now evidence to suggest that he is irresponsible with his words in a way that could result in harm to other people. And so the privilege of using those words in that way should probably be taken from him,” she added.
Harris re-iterated that Trump “could subject someone to harm” as a result of his words and that Twitter should take action.
“If he’s not going to exercise self-restraint, then, perhaps, there should be other mechanisms in place to make sure that his words do not in fact harm anyone,” she said.
Twitter has repeatedly made it clear that it won’t ban Trump whether the president violates their rules or not.
“Blocking a world leader from Twitter or removing their controversial Tweets would hide important information people should be able to see and debate,” the company said last year.
MUST WATCH! SEE WHAT THIS SMART CONGRESSMAN JUST SAID TO NADLER AND THE ENTIRE DEMOCRATS
By Vizarer
Tom's Blog 