Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Posts tagged ‘censor’

“An America Issue”: Washington Post Reporter Calls on White House to Censor Trump for America


BY: Jonathan Turley | August 14, 2024

Read more at https://jonathanturley.org/2024/08/14/an-america-issue-washington-post-reporter-calls-on-white-house-to-censor-trump-for-america/

In my new book on free speech, I discuss at length how the mainstream media has joined an alliance with the government and corporations in favor of censorship and blacklisting. The Washington Post, however, appears to be taking its anti-free speech campaign to a new level with open calls for a crackdown. The newspaper offered no objection or even qualification after its reporter, Cleve Wootson Jr., appeared to call upon the White House to censor the interview of Elon Musk with former President Donald Trump. Under the guise of a question, Wootson told White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre that censoring its leading political opponent is “an America issue.”

During Monday’s press briefing, the Washington Post’s Cleve Wootson Jr. flagged the interview and said “I think that misinformation on Twitter is not just a campaign issue…it’s an America issue.” After making that affirmative statement, Wootson then asked

“…What role does the White House, or the president have in sort of stopping that or stopping the spread of that or sort of intervening in that? Some of that was about campaign misinformation, but, you know, it’s a wider thing, right?”

Note how his question was really a political statement. Wootson begins by stating as a fact that Musk and X are engaging in disinformation, and it is a threat to the country. He then asks a perfunctory softball question at the end to maintain appearances. Jean-Pierre’s response was equally telling. While noting that this is a private company, she praised the Washington Post for calling for action, saying “[i]t is incredibly important to call that out, as you’re doing. I just don’t have any specifics on what we have been doing internally.”

So, let’s recap. The Washington Post used a White House presser to call for censorship of one of the leading candidates for the White House and then demanded to know what the White House would do about it. The censorship was framed as an “America issue.”

There was a time when a reporter calling for censorship of a political opponent would have been a matter for immediate termination in the media. Instead, the newspaper that prides itself on the slogan “Democracy dies in Darkness,” has been entirely silent. No correction. No qualification. The Washington Post has long run columns supporting censorship of information that it deems disinformation or misinformation. For many of us in the free speech community, it has become one of the most hostile newspapers to free speech values.

Now censorship has become “an America issue” for the Washington Post. The collapse of any semblance of support for free speech is complete.

The call for censorship for disinformation is ironic given the Post’s publication of a series of false stories and conspiracy theories. When confronted about columnists with demonstrably false statements, the Post simply shrugged. One of the most striking examples was after its columnist Philip Bump had a meltdown in an interview when confronted over past false claims. After I wrote a column about the litany of such false claims, the Post surprised many of us by issuing a statement that they stood by all of Bump’s reporting, including false columns on the Lafayette Park protests, Hunter Biden laptop and other stories.  That was long after other media debunked the claims, but the Post stood by the false reporting.

The decline of the Post has followed a familiar pattern. The editors and reporters simply wrote off half of their audience and became a publication for largely liberal and Democratic readers. In these difficult economic times with limited revenue sources, it is a lethal decision.

Robert Lewis, a British media executive who joined the Post earlier this year, reportedly got into a “heated exchange” with a staffer. Lewis explained that, while reporters were protesting measures to expand readership, the very survival of the paper was now at stake:

“We are going to turn this thing around, but let’s not sugarcoat it. It needs turning around,” Lewis said. “We are losing large amounts of money. Your audience has halved in recent years. People are not reading your stuff. Right. I can’t sugarcoat it anymore.”

Other staffers could not get beyond the gender and race of those who would be overseeing them. One staffer complained “we now have four White men running three newsrooms.” The Post has been buying out staff to avoid mass layoffs, but reporters are up in arms over the effort to turn the newspaper around. Yet, in this case, a reporter openly advocated for censorship and pushed the White House to take action against X and Trump; to use government authority to “intervene” to stop Trump from being able to make certain claims on social media.

We have previously written how the level of advocacy and bias in the press has created a danger of a de facto state media in the United States. It is possible to have such a system by consent rather than coercion. The Biden White House has become more open in its marching orders to media, including a letter drafted by the Biden White House Legal Counsel’s Office calling for major media to “ramp up their scrutiny” of House Republicans. President Biden has even instructed reporters “[t]hat is not the judgment of the press” when asked tough questions.

To the credit of the Post, it is not killing “democracy in the darkness.” This incident occurred in the light of day for all to see as its reporter pushed the White House for the censoring of political opponents.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. He is the author of The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage (Simon & Schuster).

Why Big Tech Needs First Amendment to Censor You


By: Joel Thayer / February 05, 2024

Read more at https://www.dailysignal.com/2024/02/05/why-big-tech-needs-first-amendment-to-censor-you/

The social media platforms say, on the one hand, they have every right to act as publishers to curate their platforms any way they see fit. On the other hand, they say they are not publishers to gain legal immunity under Section 230. They can’t be allowed to have it both ways. (Photo: Jonathan Raa/Nur Photo/Getty Images)

Big Tech is back at the Supreme Court.

Appealing from a big loss they suffered at the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, social media platforms are challenging Texas’ social media law that prohibits those companies from engaging in viewpoint discrimination when curating their platforms.

They claim Texas’ law violates their First Amendment rights for compelling them to host content. In other words, the platforms are saying that prohibiting a platform’s viewpoint censorship is effectively the same as forcing students in public schools to salute the American flag and recite the Pledge of Allegiance.

HUH??? What, WHAT?

It’s an odd argument for myriad reasons, but mainly because Big Tech has continually said that they serve as neutral platforms that merely transmit information from one point to another, like an internet service provider or a telephone.

They don’t claim to be publishers, like a newspaper or broadcaster. For example, Mark Zuckerberg told The New York Times that Facebook “explicitly view[s] [itself] as not editors … .”  Nor “does [Facebook] want to have editorial judgment over the content that’s in your feed.”

Zuckerberg’s view is consistent with Big Tech’s court representations when seeking legal immunities under Section 230 of the Communications Act. Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram; X, the former Twitter; and Google have all stated that they are neither responsible for, nor materially contribute to, their users’ content to avoid liability for hosting it.

In other words, they are conduits of others’ speech, not speakers themselves.

It’s why their First Amendment argument is patently confusing: You have to be speaking to avail yourself of its protection.

It’s also why the First Amendment has long allowed the government to apply nondiscrimination laws, as Texas did, on communications platforms that merely transmit the speech of others. For instance, telephone companies are prohibited from discriminating against callers. 

The courts have upheld nondiscrimination provisions imposed on internet service providers.  And the Supreme Court has held that even a property owner must allow expressive activities on his property.

However, platforms say, on the one hand, they have every right to act as publishers to curate their platforms any way they see fit. On the other hand, they say they are not publishers to gain legal immunity under Section 230.

Not only are these two positions contradictory, but they are also inconsistent with the First Amendment’s history and its jurisprudence. The relevant part of the First Amendment states that “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech … .” James Madison, when drafting the Free Speech Clause, intended it as a bulwark against government influence over what we can say or do. It doesn’t provide for tech exceptionalism.

Indeed, the opposite is true. Yes, the First Amendment does derive, in part, from Madison’s—and the nation’s—distrust over the concentrated power the government wields. But Madison also knew that private operators, too, could be a source of concentrated authority, and, if left unchecked, could amass more power than the government itself.

Today’s tech behemoths have proven Madison’s skepticism warranted. The power of social media platforms have over speech eclipses that of any sitting president or government. As Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas succinctly put it, social media companies can “remove [an] account ‘at any time for any or no reason.’” In this case, Twitter, now X, “unapologetically argues that it could turn around and ban all pro-LGBT speech for no other reason than its employees want to pick on members of that community … .”

And recent history shows that the tech titans aren’t shy at doing just that with impunity.

YouTube blocks and demonetizes users who support certain political candidates or content creators that Google does not favor. What was then still Twitter censored The New York Post for accurate reporting ahead of a consequential election. Facebook even removed posts that shared a study published by the British Medical Journal—one of the oldest and most prestigious medical journals in the world—because the platform believed the study was disinformation for calling some of Pfizer’s data on its COVID-19 vaccines’ effectiveness into question.

It’s clear from their advocacy in this case that Big Tech companies don’t truly care about free speech. What they really care about is liability. If Texas is now going to hold them accountable for these decisions to censor users, then they are going to need another liability shield for that.

Big Tech thinks the First Amendment is the vessel to ensure they have complete immunity from any scrutiny. Candidly, it’s hard to imagine that Madison drafted the First Amendment as a corporate instrument to cut down an individual’s speech, but that’s what they argue. Not to mince words, their aim in this case is to contort the application of the First Amendment to create more protections to void every legislative proposal directed at them. It has almost nothing to do with free speech.

‘Smoking-gun documents’ prove Facebook censored Americans on behalf of White House, Jim Jordan says


Jordan shared documents that ‘prove’ Facebook changed content after ‘unconstitutional pressure’ from White House

Brian Flood

By Brian Flood | Fox News | Published July 27, 2023 2:28pm EDT

Read more at https://www.foxnews.com/media/smoking-gun-documents-prove-facebook-censored-americans-behalf-white-house-jim-jordan-says

Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, on Thursday shared what he called “smoking-gun documents” proving Facebook censored Americans on behalf of the Biden administration in a lengthy social media thread.

Jordan wrote the all-caps message, “THE FACEBOOK FILES, PART 1: SMOKING-GUN DOCS PROVE FACEBOOK CENSORED AMERICANS BECAUSE OF BIDEN WHITE HOUSE PRESSURE,” before diving into the lengthy thread reminiscent of the so-called “Twitter Files” used earlier this year to disclose once-internal documents given to journalists once Elon Musk bought the social media platform. 

“Never-before-released internal documents subpoenaed by the Judiciary Committee PROVE that Facebook and Instagram censored posts and changed their content moderation policies because of unconstitutional pressure from the Biden White House,” Jordan wrote on X, formerly known as Twitter. 

“During the first half of 2021, social media companies like Facebook faced tremendous pressure from the Biden White House—both publicly and privately—to crack down on alleged ‘misinformation,’” he continued. “In April 2021, a Facebook employee circulated an email for Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg and COO Sheryl Sandberg, writing: ‘We are facing continued pressure from external stakeholders, including the [Biden] White House’ to remove posts.”

‘FACEBOOK RECEIPTS’ PROJECT AIMS TO REVEAL META’S ABILITY TO INFLUENCE CONGRESS THROUGH HIGH-POWERED LOBBYISTS

Jim Jordan questions FBI Director Wray

Rep. Jim Jordan, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, shared what he calls “smoking-gun documents” proving Facebook censored Americans on behalf of the White House.  (Al Drago/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

Jordan then wrote that an April 2021 email revealed that a Facebook executive informed his team that a Biden administration senior advisor was “outraged” that Facebook did not remove a particular post. The post, according to Jordan, was a meme of actor Leonardo DiCaprio pointing at a TV with the caption, “10 years from now you will be watching TV and hear… Did you or a loved one take the COVID vaccine? You may be entitled to…”

AOC SAYS FACEBOOK ‘SHOULD BE BROKEN UP,’ ‘SUBJECT TO ANTITRUST ACTIVITY’

Facebook noted that “removing content like that would represent a significant incursion into traditional boundaries of free expression in the US,” but Andy Slavitt, the Biden senior advisor who was worked up over the meme, “disregarded the warning and the First Amendment,” according to Jordan. 

“What happened next? Facebook panicked,” Jordan wrote. “In another April 2021 email, Brian Rice, Facebook’s VP of public policy, raised the concern that Slavitt’s challenge felt ‘very much like a crossroads for us with the [Biden] White House in these early days.’”

Jordan noted that “Facebook wanted to repair its relationship with the White House to avoid adverse action,” and provided a document in which someone who appears to be a Facebook staffer wrote, “Given what is at stake here, it would also be a good idea if we could regroup and take stock of where we are in our relations with the [White House], and our internal methods too,” in an internal document. 

“This wasn’t the first time that the Biden White House was angry that Facebook didn’t censor more,” Jordan wrote before listing other examples. 

“In July 2021, President Biden publicly denounced Facebook and other social media platforms, claiming they were ‘killing people’ by not censoring alleged ‘misinformation,’” Jordan wrote. “On August 2, 2021, Facebook admitted it was going to change its policies because of pressure from the Biden White House.”

BIG TECH BACKLASH: APPLE, GOOGLE, FACEBOOK, AMAZON CEOS GRILLED ON CAPITOL HILL

A Facebook logo on a phone

Facebook is accused of censoring Americans on behalf of the White House.  ((Photo Illustration by Thiago Prudencio/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images))

Jordan then wrote that “it wasn’t just the White House,” because “Facebook also changed its policies in direct response to pressure from Biden’s Surgeon General, censoring members of the ‘disinformation dozen'” for sharing claims about COVID. 

“These documents, AND OTHERS that were just produced to the Committee, prove that the Biden Admin abused its powers to coerce Facebook into censoring Americans, preventing free and open discourse on issues of critical public importance,” Jordan wrote. 

TOP BIDEN OFFICIAL RAISES EYEBROWS BY ‘LOBBYING’ FORMER AGENCY AFTER LEAVING GOVERNMENT, WATCHDOG SAYS

“Only after the Committee announced its intention to hold Mark Zuckerberg in contempt did Facebook produce ANY internal documents to the Committee, including these documents, which PROVE that government pressure was directly responsible for censorship on Facebook,” he continued. “Based on Facebook’s newfound commitment to fully cooperate with the Committee’s investigation, the Committee has decided to hold contempt in abeyance. For now. To be clear, contempt is still on the table and WILL be used if Facebook fails to cooperate in FULL.”

Jordan ended his thread with, “To be continued…”

Facebook and the White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment. 

Video

For more Culture, Media, Education, Opinion, and channel coverage, visit foxnews.com/media

Brian Flood is a media reporter for Fox News Digital. Story tips can be sent to brian.flood@fox.com and on Twitter: @briansflood. 

Today’s Politically INCORRECT Cartoon by A.F. Branco


A.F. Branco Cartoon – Farcebook

A.F. BRANCO | on April 19, 2023 | https://comicallyincorrect.com/a-f-branco-cartoon-farcebook/

Twitter owner Elon asks Facebook to open up the books and reveal the deep state and Democrat collusion.

Facebook Government Secrets
Political cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2023.

DONATE to A.F.Branco Cartoons – Tips accepted and appreciated – $1.00 – $5.00 – $25.00 – $50.00 – $100 – it all helps to fund this website and keep the cartoons coming. Also Venmo @AFBranco – THANK YOU!

A.F. Branco has taken his two greatest passions, (art and politics) and translated them into cartoons that have been popular all over the country, in various news outlets including NewsMax, Fox News, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, and “The Washington Post.” He has been recognized by such personalities as Rep. Devin Nunes, Dinesh D’Souza, James Woods, Chris Salcedo, Sarah Palin, Larry Elder, Lars Larson, Rush Limbaugh, and President.

Daniel Horowitz Op-ed: Thanks to federal judge, we will find out extent of government-sponsored Twitter censorship


Daniel Horowitz | July 14, 2022

Read more at https://www.conservativereview.com/horowitz-government-twitter-censorship-2657672472.html/

Can Congress pass a law requiring that all platforms of speech censor any negative comment about Pfizer? “Well, of course not,” you will say, “it violates the First Amendment.” In that case, why should it be different when the executive branch works intimately with government-created and liability-protected monopolies to zap anyone’s Twitter account who is critical of Pfizer and its magical products? That is not free market or private enterprise; it is the worst form of fascism, and now a new federal court ruling might bring this point to life.

On Tuesday, a federal judge in Louisiana granted the request from the Louisiana and Missouri attorneys general for discovery to collect documents linking the Biden administration to social media censorship. Thanks to this important order, we might be able to discover the scope of collaboration between government and Twitter and Facebook to censor stories (and people) pertaining to the Hunter Biden laptop story, the origins of COVID-19, the efficacy of masks and lockdowns, and election integrity.

On May 5, Missouri AG Eric Schmitt and Louisiana AG Jeff Landry filed a First Amendment complaint against the Biden administration in the Western District of Louisiana alleging that the administration violated the Free Speech Clause by working with the tech giants to label all dissenting viewpoints on the aforementioned issues as “misinformation.” They alleged that this effort is being led by a “Disinformation Governance Board” (“DGB”) within the Department of Homeland Security.

In Judge Terry Doughty’s Tuesday order, he ruled that the states have standing to bring the claim and in an effort to buttress their request for an injunction against the federal collaboration in censoring private political views, they can request information from the Biden administration proving or disproving their allegations of collaboration with social media companies. The administration has 30 days to turn over the documents.

It’s already in the public sphere that the Biden administration has been leaning into social media censorship in numerous ways. Here are just a few examples:

  • In a March 15, 2020, email with Dr. Fauci, Facebooks’s Mark Zuckerberg proposed to coordinate with Fauci to “make sure people can get authoritative information from reliable sources” and proposed including a video message from Fauci because “people trust and want to hear from experts.” Remember, as a candidate running for president, Biden suggested that Facebook should be subject to liability for not censoring views he deemed harmful.
  • On May 5, 2021, former Biden press secretary Jen Psaki stated, “The president’s view is that the major platforms have a responsibility related to the health and safety of all Americans to stop amplifying untrustworthy content, disinformation, and misinformation.”
  • On July 15, Psaki went a step further and acknowledged the collaboration in private. “We are in regular touch with these social media platforms, and those engagements typically happen through members of our senior staff,” she revealed. “We’re flagging problematic posts for Facebook that spread disinformation,” she added. This was a direct admission that what was going on behind the scenes was old-fashioned government censorship, which clearly violates the Constitution.
  • After that press conference, Facebook responded to the pressure by acknowledging that “the company has partnered with government experts … to take ‘aggressive action against misinformation about COVID-19.’”
  • The following day, Psaki took it to the next level by suggesting that the various social media companies should be collaborating with each other to ban anyone from all the platforms after being removed from one. “You shouldn’t be banned from one platform and not others … for providing misinformation out there,” she declared. This is also the same day Surgeon General Vivek Murthy posted a misinformation advisory laying out the parameters for social media platforms to censor information on COVID and its policies.
  • Then of course we all remember in February when the Biden administration directly called on Spotify to censor Joe Rogan for having doctors on his show who were successfully treating COVID.

Finally, let’s not forget that the White House singled out 12 private individuals to be targeted for censorship as the “disinformation dozen.” We also know that private emails released via FOIA revealed that the CDC Foundation worked with Facebook, Merck, the WHO, and other pharma entities on an “Alliance for Advancing Health Online” initiative to control the narrative.

Thus, it doesn’t take a genius to realize that there were likely some juicy conversations going on between the tech executives and the Biden administration, probably in concert with the pharma companies, to silence all opposition. When you have the president demanding such censorship and warning that the opposing viewpoints are “killing” people, the entire argument of “private” companies being able to do what they want goes out the window. As Justice Thomas wrote in a 2021 case, it is indeed a First Amendment violation “if the government coerces or induces it to take action the government itself would not be permitted to do, such as censor expression of a lawful viewpoint.”

Thankfully, it appears that this judge saw through the high-tech modern version of censorship for what it is – pure fascism.

While the legal dispute plays out in court, it’s time for conservatives in the legislatures to hit back at the RINO governors for continuing to act as if anything COVID-related – be it a vaccine or mask mandate – is somehow coming from the private sector. The government mandated it for some, censored opposing viewpoints, absolved pharma of liability, paid for the product, distributed it, and marketed it. The notion that private actors endorsing these policies is an exercise in free-market capitalism is absurd. It is the responsibility of the state to interpose against such tyranny by banning companies from joining in with the federal policies.

We saw this done very effectively when the Florida Department of Health recommended against the baby shots and refused to distribute them. Publix actually decided on its own to follow the guidance of Florida rather than the federal government. It demonstrates that so much of this enforcement in the private sector is being done with the federal boot on companies’ necks. Those Republicans who hide behind affinity for the “private” sector and free markets to allow federal tyranny, censorship, and persecution to continue are complicit in the worst form of fascism. The fact that private monopolies get roped into government fascism doesn’t ameliorate the pig; it makes it even more dangerous.

Tag Cloud