Biden Cartel Black Supremacy Censorship Free Speech Government Overreach Links from other news sources. The Courts The Law

Jonathan Turley Weighs in on Freeze on Trump Gag Order.

Hits: 13


Jonathan Turley Weighs in on Freeze on Trump Gag Order. He thinks that it’s significant because the judges could have passed on it but didn’t. His reasoning is that it’s unconstitutional.

The part that bothers me is that the judge allows Smith to attack and witnesses like Barr to make derogatory statements. But when Trump defends himself, the judge says no. This from Turley.

“I said that when it was first issued. It’s a very odd concept of an order because the court here insisted on having this trial before the election, sort of shoehorned it in before Super Tuesday,” Turley added. “And everyone in this election is going to be talking about these cases, except one person under this gag order and that is Donald Trump.”

Turley continued, “He can’t criticize the prosecutors, he can’t criticize witnesses, and special counsel Jack Smith just asked for this order to be expanded in an equally unconstitutional way and that has drawn the criticism even of the ACLU, which is a staunch critic of Donald Trump, but the ACLU has said look, this is flagrantly unconstitutional.”

Jonathan Turley Reacts To Stay On Trump D.C. Gag Order (


Biden Cartel Censorship Commentary Corruption Free Speech Links from other news sources. Reprints from others.

The Westminster Declaration.

Hits: 24

The Westminster Declaration. One hundred and thirty-eight artists, public intellectuals, and journalists demand governments dismantle the Censorship Industrial Complex

We write as journalists, artists, authors, activists, technologists, and academics to warn of increasing international censorship that threatens to erode centuries-old democratic norms.

Coming from the left, right, and centre, we are united by our commitment to universal human rights and freedom of speech, and we are all deeply concerned about attempts to label protected speech as ‘misinformation,’ ‘disinformation,’ and other ill-defined terms.

This abuse of these terms has resulted in the censorship of ordinary people, journalists, and dissidents in countries all over the world.

Such interference with the right to free speech suppresses valid discussion about matters of urgent public interest, and undermines the foundational principles of representative democracy.

Across the globe, government actors, social media companies, universities, and NGOs are increasingly working to monitor citizens and rob them of their voices. These large-scale coordinated efforts are sometimes referred to as the ‘Censorship-Industrial Complex.’

This complex often operates through direct government policies. Authorities in India[1] and Turkey[2] have seized the power to remove political content from social media. The legislature in Germany[3] and the Supreme Court in Brazil[4] are criminalising political speech. In other countries, measures such as Ireland’s ‘Hate Speech’ Bill[5], Scotland’s Hate Crime Act[6], the UK’s Online Safety Bill[7], and Australia’s ‘Misinformation’ Bill[8] threaten to severely restrict expression and create a chilling effect.

But the Censorship Industrial Complex operates through more subtle methods. These include visibility filtering, labelling, and manipulation of search engine results. Through deplatforming and flagging, social media censors have already silenced lawful opinions on topics of national and geopolitical importance. They have done so with the full support of ‘disinformation experts’ and ‘fact-checkers’ in the mainstream media, who have abandoned the journalistic values of debate and intellectual inquiry.

As the Twitter Files revealed, tech companies often perform censorial ‘content moderation’ in coordination with government agencies and civil society. Soon, the European Union’s Digital Services Act will formalise this relationship by giving platform data to ‘vetted researchers’ from NGOs and academia, relegating our speech rights to the discretion of these unelected and unaccountable entities.

Some politicians and NGOs[9] are even aiming to target end-to-end encrypted messaging apps like WhatsApp, Signal, and Telegram.[10] If end-to-end encryption is broken, we will have no remaining avenues for authentic private conversations in the digital sphere.

Although foreign disinformation between states is a real issue, agencies designed to combat these threats, such as the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency in the United States, are increasingly being turned inward against the public. Under the guise of preventing harm and protecting truth, speech is being treated as a permitted activity rather than an inalienable right.

We recognize that words can sometimes cause offence, but we reject the idea that hurt feelings and discomfort, even if acute, are grounds for censorship. Open discourse is the central pillar of a free society, and is essential for holding governments accountable, empowering vulnerable groups, and reducing the risk of tyranny.

Speech protections are not just for views we agree with; we must strenuously protect speech for the views that we most strongly oppose. Only in the public square can these views be heard and properly challenged.

What’s more, time and time again, unpopular opinions and ideas have eventually become conventional wisdom. By labelling certain political or scientific positions as ‘misinformation’ or ‘malinformation,’ our societies risk getting stuck in false paradigms that will rob humanity of hard-earned knowledge and obliterate the possibility of gaining new knowledge. Free speech is our best defence against disinformation.

The attack on speech is not just about distorted rules and regulations – it is a crisis of humanity itself. Every equality and justice campaign in history has relied on an open forum to voice dissent. In countless examples, including the abolition of slavery and the civil rights movement, social progress has depended on freedom of expression.

We do not want our children to grow up in a world where they live in fear of speaking their minds. We want them to grow up in a world where their ideas can be expressed, explored and debated openly – a world that the founders of our democracies envisioned when they enshrined free speech into our laws and constitutions.

The US First Amendment is a strong example of how the right to freedom of speech, of the press, and of conscience can be firmly protected under the law. One need not agree with the U.S. on every issue to acknowledge that this is a vital ‘first liberty’ from which all other liberties follow. It is only through free speech that we can denounce violations of our rights and fight for new freedoms.

There also exists a clear and robust international protection for free speech. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)[11] was drafted in 1948 in response to atrocities committed during World War II. Article 19 of the UDHR states, ‘Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.’ While there may be a need for governments to regulate some aspects of social media, such as age limits, these regulations should never infringe on the human right to freedom of expression.

As is made clear by Article 19, the corollary of the right to free speech is the right to information. In a democracy, no one has a monopoly over what is considered to be true. Rather, truth must be discovered through dialogue and debate – and we cannot discover truth without allowing for the possibility of error.

Censorship in the name of ‘preserving democracy’ inverts what should be a bottom-up system of representation into a top-down system of ideological control. This censorship is ultimately counter-productive: it sows mistrust, encourages radicalization, and de-legitimizes the democratic process.

In the course of human history, attacks on free speech have been a precursor to attacks on all other liberties. Regimes that eroded free speech have always inevitably weakened and damaged other core democratic structures. In the same fashion, the elites that push for censorship today are also undermining democracy. What has changed though, is the broad scale and technological tools through which censorship can be enacted.

We believe that free speech is essential for ensuring our safety from state abuses of power – abuses that have historically posed a far greater threat than the words of lone individuals or even organised groups. For the sake of human welfare and flourishing, we make the following 3 calls to action.

  • We call on governments and international organisations to fulfill their responsibilities to the people and to uphold Article 19 of the UDHR.

  • We call on tech corporations to undertake to protect the digital public square as defined in Article 19 of the UDHR and refrain from politically motivated censorship, the censorship of dissenting voices, and censorship of political opinion.

  • And finally, we call on the general public to join us in the fight to preserve the people’s democratic rights. Legislative changes are not enough. We must also build an atmosphere of free speech from the ground up by rejecting the climate of intolerance that encourages self-censorship and that creates unnecessary personal strife for many. Instead of fear and dogmatism, we must embrace inquiry and debate.

We stand for your right to ask questions. Heated arguments, even those that may cause distress, are far better than no arguments at all.

Censorship robs us of the richness of life itself. Free speech is the foundation for creating a life of meaning and a thriving humanity – through art, poetry, drama, story, philosophy, song, and more.

This declaration was the result of an initial meeting of free speech champions from around the world who met in Westminster, London, at the end of June 2023. As signatories of this statement, we have fundamental political and ideological disagreements. However, it is only by coming together that we will defeat the encroaching forces of censorship so that we can maintain our ability to openly debate and challenge one another. It is in the spirit of difference and debate that we sign the Westminster Declaration.


  • Matt Taibbi, Journalist, US

  • Michael Shellenberger, Public, US

  • Jonathan Haidt, Social Psychologist, NYU, US

  • John McWhorter, Linguist, Columbia, Author, US

  • Steven Pinker, Psychologist, Harvard, US

  • Julian Assange, Editor, Founder of Wikileaks, Australia

  • Tim Robbins, Actor, Filmmaker, US

  • Nadine Strossen, Professor of Law, NYLS, US

  • Glenn Loury, Economist, USA

  • Richard Dawkins, Biologist, UK

  • John Cleese, Comedian, Acrobat, UK

  • Slavoj Žižek, Philosopher, Author, Slovenia

  • Jeffrey Sachs, Columbia University, US

  • Oliver Stone, Filmmaker, US

  • Edward Snowden, Whistleblower, US

  • Greg Lukianoff, President and CEO Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, USA

  • Stella Assange, Campaigner, UK

  • Glenn Greenwald, Journalist, US

  • Claire Fox, Founder of the Academy of Ideas, UK

  • Dr. Jordan B. Peterson, Psychologist, Author, Canada

  • Bari Weiss, Journalist, USA

  • Peter Hitchens, Author, Journalist, UK

  • Niall Ferguson, Historian, Stanford, UK

  • Matt Ridley, Journalist, Author, UK

  • Melissa Chen, Journalist, Spectator, Singapore/US

  • Yanis Varoufakis, Economist, Greece

  • Peter Boghossian, Philosopher, Founding Faculty Fellow, University of Austin, US

  • Michael Shermer, Science Writer, US

  • Alan Sokal, Professor of Mathematics, UCL, UK

  • Sunetra Gupta, Professor of Theoretical Epidemiology, Oxford, UK

  • Jay Bhattacharya, Professor, Stanford, US

  • Martin Kulldorf, Professor of Medicine (on leave), Harvard, US

  • Aaron Kheiriaty, Psychiatrist, Author, USA

  • Chris Hedges, Journalist, Author, USA

  • Lee Fang, Independent Journalist, US

  • Alex Gutentag, Journalist, US

  • Iain McGilchrist, Psychiatrist, Philosopher, UK

  • Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Human Rights Activist, Author, Netherlands

  • Konstantin Kisin, Author, UK

  • Leighton Woodhouse, Public, US

  • Andrew Lowenthal, liber-net, Australia

  • Aaron Mate, Journalist, USA

  • Izabella Kaminska, Journalist, The Blind Spot, UK

  • Nina Power, Writer, UK

  • Kmele Foster, Journalist, Media Entrepreneur, USA

  • Toby Young, Journalist, Free Speech Union, UK

  • Winston Marshall, Journalist, The Spectator, UK

  • Jacob Siegel, Tablet, US/Israel

  • Ulrike Guerot, Founder of European Democracy Lab, Germany

  • Heather E. Heying, Evolutionary Biologist, USA

  • Bret Weinstein, Evolutionary Biologist, USA

  • Martina Pastorelli, Independent Journalist, Italy

  • Leandro Narloch, Independent Journalist, Brazil

  • Ana Henkel, Independent Journalist, Brazil

  • Mia Ashton, Journalist, Canada

  • Micha Narberhaus, The Protopia Lab, Spain/Germany

  • Alex Sheridan, Free Speech Ireland

  • Ben Scallan, Gript Media, Ireland

  • Thomas Fazi, Independent Journalist, Italy

  • Jean F. Queralt, Technologist, Founder @ The IO Foundation, Malaysia/Spain

  • Phil Shaw, Campaigner, Operation People, New Zealand

  • Jeremy Hildreth, Independent, UK

  • Craig Snider, Independent, US

  • Eve Kay, TV Producer, UK

  • Helen Joyce, Journalist, UK

  • Dietrich Brüggemann, Filmmaker, Germany

  • Adam B. Coleman, Founder of Wrong Speak Publishing, US

  • Helen Pluckrose, Author, US

  • Michael Nayna, Filmmaker, Australia

  • Paul Rossi, Educator, Vertex Partnership Academics, US

  • Juan Carlos Girauta, Politician, Spain

  • Andrew Neish, KC, UK

  • Steven Berkoff, Actor, Playright, UK

  • Patrick Hughes, Artist, UK

  • Adam Creighton, Journalist, Australia

  • Julia Hartley-Brewer, Journalist, UK

  • Robert Cibis, Filmmaker, Germany

  • Piers Robinson, Organization for Propaganda Studies, UK

  • Dirk Pohlmann, Journalist, Germany

  • Mathias Bröckers, Author, Journalist, Germany

  • Kira Phillips, Documentary Filmmaker, UK

  • Diane Atkinson, Historian, Biographer, UK

  • Eric Kaufmann, Professor of Politics, Birkbeck, University of Buckingham, Canada

  • Laura Dodsworth, Journalist and Author, UK

  • Nellie Bowles, Journalist, USA

  • Andrew Tettenborn, Professor of Law, Swansea University,  UK

  • Julius Grower, Fellow, St. Hugh’s College, UK

  • Nick Dixon, Comedian, UK

  • Dominic Frisby, Comedian, UK

  • James Orr, Associate Professor, University of Cambridge, UK

  • Brendan O’Neill, Journalist, UK

  • Jan Jekielek, Journalist, Canada

  • Andrew Roberts, Historian, UK

  • Robert Tombs, Historian, UK

  • Ben Schwarz, Journalist, USA

  • Xavier Azalbert, Investigative Scientific Journalist, France

  • Doug Stokes, International Relations Professor, University of Exeter, UK

  • James Allan, Professor of Law, University of Queensland, UK

  • David McGrogan, Professor of Law, Northumbria University, UK

  • Jacob Mchangama, Author, Denmark

  • Nigel Biggar, Chairman, Free Speech Union, UK

  • David Goodhart, Journalist, Author, UK

  • Catherine Austin Fitts, The Solari Report, Netherlands

  • Matt Goodwin, Politics Professor, University of Kent, UK

  • Alan Miller, Together Association, UK

  • Catherine Liu, Cultural Theorist, Author, USA

  • Stefan Millius, Journalist, Switzerland

  • Philip Hamburger, Professor of Law, Columbia, USA

  • Rueben Kirkham, Co-Director, Free Speech Union of Australia, Australia

  • Jeffrey Tucker, Author, USA

  • Sarah Gon, Director, Free Speech Union, South Africa

  • Dara Macdonald, Co-Director, Free Speech Union, Australia

  • Jonathan Ayling, Chief Executive, Free Speech Union, New Zealand

  • David Zweig, Journalist, Author, USA

  • Juan Soto Ivars, Author, Spain

  • Colin Wright, Evolutionary Biologist, USA

  • Gad Saad, Professor, Evolutionary Behavioral Scientist, Author, Canada

  • Robert W. Malone, MD, MS, USA

  • Jill Glasspool-Malone, PhD., USA

  • Jordi Pigem, Philosopher, Author, Spain

  • Holly Lawford-Smith, Associate Professor in Political Philosophy, University of Melbourne, Australia

  • Michele Santoro, Journalist, TV Host, Presenter, Italy

  • Dr. James Smith, Podcaster, Literature Scholar, RHUL, UK

  • Francis Foster, Comedian, UK

  • Coleman Hughes, Writer, Podcaster, USA

  • Marco Bassani, Political Theorist, Historian, Milan University, Italy

  • Isabella Loiodice, Professor of Comparative Public Law, University of Bari, Italy

  • Luca Ricolfi, Professor, Sociologist, Turin University, Italy

  • Marcello Foa, Journalist, Former President of Rai, Italy

  • Andrea Zhok, Philosopher, University of Milan, Italy

  • Paolo Cesaretti, Professor of Byzantine Civilization, University of Bergamo, Italy

  • Alberto Contri, Mass Media Expert, Italy

  • Carlo Lottieri, Philosopher, University of Verona, Italy

  • Alessandro Di Battista, Political Activist, Writer, Italy

  • Paola Mastrocola, Writer, Italy

  • Carlo Freccero, Television Author, Media Expert, Italy

  • Giorgio Bianchi, Independent Journalist, Italy

  • Nello Preterossi, Professor, University of Salerno, Scientific Director of the Italian Institute for Philosophical Studies, Italy

  • Efrat Fenigson, Journalist, Podcaster, Israel

  • Eli Vieira, Journalist, Genetic Biologist, Brazil

  • Stephen Moore, Author and Analyst, Canada



Censorship Commentary Corruption Government Overreach Links from other news sources. Reprints from others. The Law Uncategorized White Progressive Supremacy

Victory for free speech as mayor backs down from censorship campaign Had ripped down flyers from parental rights group.

Hits: 10

Victory for free speech as mayor backs down from censorship campaign. Had ripped down flyers from parental rights group.

The mayor of Newburyport, Massachusetts, decided he didn’t like the message being offered in his community by a parental rights organization.

That group, Citizens for Responsible Education, had concerns regarding public school indoctrination and certain troubling instruction happening locally.

So members planned a forum, called “What is Social-Emotional Learning? What every parent needs to know about SEL and culturally responsive teaching in our public schools.”

Subjects to be covered include critical race theory; gender identity ideology; sex education curriculum; and diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives.

That was a message Mayor Sean Reardon decided he would not tolerate. So when the parents posted flyers advertising their meeting, Reardon ripped them down.

Now the resolution to that fight has resulted in a significant victory for free speech, according to a report from the American Center for Law and Justice.

“In addition to receiving a monetary payment to cover the damages CRE suffered, Newburyport’s Mayor Reardon agreed to issue a public statement acknowledging that his actions in ‘remov[ing] flyers from bulletin boards’ and the city’s posting policies should have better promoted the constitutionally protected free speech rights of CRE and, in the future, postings may not be censored based on their content or the viewpoints expressed,” the ACLJ reported.

“Additionally, Newburyport has agreed to revise its posting policies by removing its prohibition on religious flyers and its vague flyer review and approval process.”

The ACLJ reported that Matt Petry, a reporter for The Daily News of Newburyport, posted on social media that Reardon had confirmed he was ripping down the flyers.

The mayor claimed, to the reporter, the content “was not in line with the city of Newburyport’s values of being an inclusive and welcoming community.”

The parents initially asked the city to change its posting policy, but the city refused to respond.

Then, the ACLJ reported, the Massachusetts Family Institute and Attorney Kenneth A. Tashjy served a demand letter on the city, warning the policy was unconstitutional and a willful violation of free speech rights.

Article first found at the The Daily News of Newburyport.


Commentary Opinion

A Truism about the right of “Free Speech:” It isn’t free. Follow up to 421st

Hits: 24



There are certain groups of people that are always crying because their “right” of “free speech” was allegedly denied them.

They have no problem shouting down others whose “free speech” doesn’t agree with their speech, though.  Amazing how that is, isn’t it?

There is no such thing as “free speech” without consequences. Some consequences are good. Some are neutral. And some are unpleasant – or worse, deadly. Words of “free speech” have consequences every time, feels don’t count.

To use a clichéd example, yell “Fire!” in a crowded room (or “Bomb!”) and see how your Free-speech butt lands in jail in no time flat.

I started thinking about this after witnessing a couple of obscure websites that supposedly value free speech. One has free speech only for the favored few; the other is a dumpster fire of insults, feels over facts, and NSFW (or for FB) pictures. The denizens of both sites seem to think that rules of common decency – not to mention common sense – don’t apply to them because they’re more equal than those whom they despise.

Thus, they are disingenuously surprised when they show up on someone else’s site, exercise their “right of free speech,” and after being warned, are invited to leave, sometimes forcefully.

Robert H. Heinlein stated his belief that “An armed society is a polite society.”

The reason being that people would be more cautious if they knew that they might have to back up their words with their bodies. Being on the wrong end of a loaded gun barrel does that.

But today, these snowflakes scream to high heaven about how their “free speech” is being suppressed by — whomever. They think they can say or do anything they want to without care or pushback. And the stupidest ones keep coming back to repeat what got them banned in the first place. (I’m looking at YOU, Stan.)

JOS thought that way, repeatedly doxing people, threatening to beat them up, shoot them (from behind, of course), rape, and burn them alive, etc. He lost his all Disqus sites, two or three YouTube channels, and his Rumble channel because of his “free speech.” I’ll bet his DI at Camp Pendleton had some ideas of his own about JOS’s right to “free speech.” He and Jewish Jeff might BOTH be behind bars for all we know, for their “free speech.”

‘Nuff said.

Just like haters gotta hate, idiots gotta keep being idiots.




Links from other news sources. Politics Reprints from others.

Rep. Issa Demands PayPal Disclose Government Communications on ‘Disinformation Policy’

Hits: 27

A continuation on Phoenix’s excellent article.

Thanks to the folks at Breitbart.

Congressman Darrell Issa (R-CA) is demanding PayPal provide answers about new language in its user agreement, allegedly announced in “error,” fining accounts $2,500 owned by people who “promote misinformation” — asking specifically if the payment processing giant consulted with the Biden administration on the policy.

PayPal this week announced that it would deduct $2,500 from users who violate its policy on “misinformation,” “hate,” or speech the company deemed “unfit for publication,” but then quickly pivoted to reverse the move following backlash.

Rep. Issa has now sent a letter to PayPal CEO Dan Schulman, obtained exclusively by Breitbart News, requesting information on the move — which the Congressman called a “policy that would unmistakably censor free speech” — and inquiring whether the company “[consulted] or [inquired] with the Biden administration … regarding the need, drafting or implementation of this mis/disinformation policy.”

Then-White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki revealed in July, 2021, that the White House was coordinating with Facebook to censor what the government deemed “disinformation” about COVID, saying at the time they were “flagging problematic posts” to be removed from public discourse — leading Issa to question whether this behavior has extended to PayPal.

Issa asks PayPal how they intend to “adjudicate the ambiguous term ‘misinformation’,” asking specifically if COVID misinformation would be included, as well as gender pronouns.

Issa also told Breitbart the move indicates a new frontier of censorship — not just hiding written posts, but controlling speech through financial penalties.

“The PayPal action is a new line in the sand: Big Tech isn’t just censoring speech, but imposing huge financial penalties to cripple people who don’t comply,” Issa said.

Read the full text of the letter:

Dear Mr. Schulman

I write to express deep concern and to obtain answers regarding widespread media reports that PayPal surreptitiously added language to its users’ policy that would unmistakably censor free speech and fine participants for the spread of what the company determines to be “misinformation.”

As reported by The Daily Wire, Fox Business and other outlets, PayPal issued notice of the intent to update its user “Acceptable Use Policy” that was set to go into effect November 3, 2022. Specifically, the update specified to PayPal users that “You may not use the PayPal service for activities that … involve the sending, posting, or publication of any messages, content or materials that, in PayPal’s sole discretion … promote misinformation.” If found to have violated the policy, your company threatened to not only remove users from the platform, but also that $2,500 per violation will be deducted from their accounts.

Historically, the PayPal Acceptable Use Policy has not sought to police speech, but rather prevent illegal activity on the platform, including the sale of narcotics, the trafficking of stolen goods, the promotion of Ponzi schemes and other criminal activities. Because of this, the public was rightly alarmed upon learning of the addition of the highly ambiguous “misinformation” provision. Unfortunately, however, millions of Americans are today very well-versed in the regular attempts of Big Tech and Big Government to censor and silence their free speech.

Following the reporting, your company rescinded this policy update, explaining that it was added in “error” and that PayPal is still developing an updated policy. This has also become a routine excuse term when a tech platform targets and takes down a user and a public outcry ensues. It is therefore of critical importance that your company detail the full extent of this “error.”

Given this concerning policy and the intent of PayPal to issue an upcoming user update, please answer the following questions no later than October 30, 2022.

1. Please detail the offices and/or departments within PayPal that approved of the updated Acceptable Use Policy language that was posted on the company’s website, with a planned implementation date of November 3, 2022.

a. Please detail the offices, departments and officials that will be approving of the update currently in draft form.

2. Did PayPal, or any of its officials, consult or inquire with the Biden Administration, any of its employees, or recent former employees regarding the need, drafting or implementation of this mis/disinformation policy?

3. How did PayPal intend to adjudicate the ambiguous term “misinformation”?

a. Would COVID misinformation have been covered by the policy?

b. Would the definition of “male” and “female” have been covered by the policy?

c. What categories of “misinformation” did PayPal contemplate needed censorship that were not already covered by the previous policy?

4. How many PayPal users did the company have before October 7, 2022, and how many users are currently on the platform? What is the average PayPal user’s account balance at any given time?

5. When can a new policy be expected?

6. Will the company commit itself to a corporate practice of fundamental fairness and not single out for sanction users who don’t share certain political views.

Darrell Issa

Within days of the policy being announced, PayPal claimed the policy was announced “in error” and that it included “incorrect information.”

“An AUP notice recently went out in error that included incorrect information,” PayPal said in a statement. “PayPal is not fining people for misinformation and this language was never intended to be inserted in our policy. We’re sorry for the confusion this has caused.”

Former top management at PayPal, including Elon Musk, David Sacks, and David Marcus, spoke out on social media against the announcement.

Markus called the policy “Insanity,” to which Musk replied “Agreed.”

David Sacks warned, “Get your money out of paypal right now.”

“The only ‘mistake’ PayPal made was thinking the American people are going to stand for this abuse of their power,” Rep. Issa told Breitbart. “Time and again, conservatives and others are being targeted and taken down by Big Tech companies that want to silence them. There is no way we will allow this to continue.”

Emma-Jo Morris is the Politics Editor at Breitbart News.


The Courts

Reprint. Now this is a Judge who speaks the truth.

Hits: 55

Original article can be found here.

Reprint. Now this is a Judge who speaks the truth. Now if you read the whole article, you’ll see that Judge Silberman is spot on. His disent should be discussed at every law school.

A federal appeals court judge has offered a blistering dissent in an obscure libel case that takes the measure of the mainstream media‘s bias.

The case centers on a 2018 report from Global Witness Publishing that accused Liberian government officials Christiana Tah and Randolph McClain of accepting bribes from Exxon. Tah and McClain sued Global Witness alleging defamation and their claims were dismissed in Friday’s ruling.

However, in the course of his partial dissent, D.C. Circuit Court Judge Laurence Silberman went on an unprecedented written tirade against the press, in which he argued that the Supreme Court should revisit the landmark 1964 New York Times v. Sullivan ruling that granted the media broad First Amendment protections from being sued by public officials.

“[N]ew considerations have arisen over the last 50 years that make the New York Times decision (which I believe I have faithfully applied in my dissent) a threat to American Democracy,” he write. “It must go.”

“The increased power of the press is so dangerous today because we are very close to one-party control of these institutions,” said Silberman, who was nominated to the federal bench by Ronald Reagan and has been a senior judge on the D.C. Circuit Court since 2000.

“Although the bias against the Republican Party—not just controversial individuals—is rather shocking today, this is not new; it is a long-term, secular trend going back at least to the ’70s,” Silberman wrote. “Two of the three most influential papers (at least historically), The New York Times and The Washington Post, are virtually Democratic Party broadsheets. And the news section of The Wall Street Journal leans in the same direction. The orientation of these three papers is followed by The Associated Press and most large papers across the country (such as the Los Angeles Times, Miami Herald, and Boston Globe). Nearly all television—network and cable—is a Democratic Party trumpet. Even the government-supported National Public Radio follows along.”

He accused Silicon Valley of filtering news “in ways favorable to the Democratic Party” and fueling censorship, citing the suppression of the New York Post’s bombshell reporting on Hunter Biden in the final weeks of the 2020 presidential election.

“It is well-accepted that viewpoint discrimination ‘raises the specter that the Government may effectively drive certain ideas or viewpoints from the marketplace,'” Silberman said. “But ideological homogeneity in the media—or in the channels of information distribution—risks repressing certain ideas from the public consciousness just as surely as if access were restricted by the government.”

Silberman also sounded the alarm about the “serious efforts to muzzle” outlets like Fox News that aren’t under “Democratic Party ideological control.”

“It should be borne in mind that the first step taken by any potential authoritarian or dictatorial regime is to gain control of communications, particularly the delivery of news. It is fair to conclude, therefore, that one-party control of the press and media is a threat to a viable democracy,” the judge continued. “It may even give rise to countervailing extremism.

“The First Amendment guarantees a free press to foster a vibrant trade in ideas. But a biased press can distort the marketplace. And when the media has proven its willingness—if not eagerness—to so distort, it is a profound mistake to stand by unjustified legal rules that serve only to enhance the press’ power.”


Social media & sharing icons powered by UltimatelySocial
Verified by MonsterInsights