Author Topic: More Liberal Censorship  (Read 181100 times)

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63696
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: More Liberal Censorship
« Reply #700 on: April 26, 2022, 06:03:37 PM »
These meltdowns are hilarious.  Crying real tears because their days of censoring conservatives are over.

Twitter’s top lawyer reassures staff, cries during meeting about Musk takeover
Vijaya Gadde, a key executive involved in decisions to remove former President Donald Trump and ban political advertising, expressed uncertainty about the future of the platform.
By EMILY BIRNBAUM and BETSY WOODRUFF SWAN
Updated: 04/26/2022
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/04/26/twitters-top-lawyer-reassures-staff-cries-during-meeting-about-musk-takeover-00027931

Skeletor

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 15617
  • Silence you furry fool!
Re: More Liberal Censorship
« Reply #701 on: April 26, 2022, 06:34:17 PM »
These meltdowns are hilarious.  Crying real tears because their days of censoring conservatives are over.

Twitter’s top lawyer reassures staff, cries during meeting about Musk takeover
Vijaya Gadde, a key executive involved in decisions to remove former President Donald Trump and ban political advertising, expressed uncertainty about the future of the platform.
By EMILY BIRNBAUM and BETSY WOODRUFF SWAN
Updated: 04/26/2022
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/04/26/twitters-top-lawyer-reassures-staff-cries-during-meeting-about-musk-takeover-00027931


Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39372
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: More Liberal Censorship
« Reply #702 on: May 02, 2022, 05:47:57 AM »
Panicked CNN Guest Wonders “How We’re Going To Control The Channels Of Communications In This Country”
Zubu Brothers ^ | 5-2-2022 | Steve Watson via Summit News
Posted on 5/2/2022, 8:38:24




A CNN talking head declared Sunday that if Elon Musk is allowed to buy Twitter, the platform will have to be government regulated to prevent ‘discourse’ being open and free, and not subject to establishment controlled censorship.

While discussing the Musk take-over on CNN’s potato time with Brain Stelter, “media analyst” David Zurawik proclaimed that Musk is “dangerous” and shouldn’t be allowed to restore free speech on the platform.

Zurawik suggested that the U.S. look to Europe, which has recently brought in new laws to limit social media, and even threatened to ban Twitter if Musk doesn’t play ball.

“There’s a bigger problem here about how we’re going to control the channels of communications in this country,” Zurawik frothed, panicking at the notion of the likes of CNN not being able to dictate what Americans think.

“This is dangerous! We can’t think anymore in this country!” Zurawik whined, adding “I’m serious! We don’t have people in Congress who can make regulations, that can make it work.”

“I think we can look to the Western countries in Europe for how they are trying to limit it. But you need controls on this,” the talking slap head continued.

“You need regulation. You cannot let these guys control discourse in this country or we are headed to hell,” Zurawik further suggested.

“We are there,” he added, further claiming that “Trump opened the gates of hell and now they’re chasing us down.”

“We gave over what amounts to our airwaves or our internet waves to Mark Zuckerberg and Elon Musk, and we are in so much trouble because those guys believe in making money,” he said.

Watch:

CNN’s David Zurawik: “Dangerous” with Elon Musk buying Twitter, we need to look to Europe.

“You need regulation. You cannot let these guys control discourse in this country or we are headed to hell. We are there. Trump opened the gates of hell and now they’re chasing us down.” pic.twitter.com/QubyKZwVCQ

— Julio Rosas (@Julio_Rosas11) May 1, 2022

Zurawik repeated a talking point that Hillary Clinton raised last week, championing Europe for cracking down on ‘disinformation’:

They got it done! https://t.co/Wc4kA9DPsb

— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) April 25, 2022

And now, just a week later, Biden’s Department of Homeland Security has rolled out a literal Ministry of Truth, headed up by a deranged partisan who truly believes that anything she disagrees with is hate speech.

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39372
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: More Liberal Censorship
« Reply #703 on: May 02, 2022, 07:40:50 AM »

Skeletor

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 15617
  • Silence you furry fool!
Re: More Liberal Censorship
« Reply #704 on: May 08, 2022, 12:27:03 PM »
"Democracy dies in darkness"...



A few days ago, apparently it's fine if billionaire Bezos owns the Washington Post but bad news if Musk invests in Twitter.


Skeletor

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 15617
  • Silence you furry fool!
Re: More Liberal Censorship
« Reply #705 on: May 12, 2022, 02:17:04 PM »
I Criticized BLM. Then I Was Fired.

If you are a devoted reader of Common Sense, by now you have surely noticed a trend: workplaces—in some cases, storied institutions—that turn hostile to independent thinking seemingly overnight.

That’s what Paul Rossi experienced at Grace Church School. It’s what Jennifer Sey went through at Levi’s. It’s what Antonio García Martínez dealt with at Apple. And Roland Fryer at Harvard. And Gordon Klein at UCLA. And Maud Maron at Legal Aid.

Now comes the story of Zac Kriegman, who, until not so long ago, was a director of data science at Thomson Reuters. Kriegman’s crime? Questioning the Black Lives Matter narrative.

Kriegman is a person who loves numbers and statistics. As you’ll read below, he didn’t just voice an opinion to his colleagues. He made an argument after having done extensive research. He thought logic would win out. He was wrong.

This story is most obviously about the assault on difference. The assault on the notion, previously taken for granted, that you shouldn’t punish employees for having heterodox opinions or for voicing disagreement with the political consensus in an organization. But it is also about the assault on reason itself.

https://bariweiss.substack.com/p/i-criticized-blm-then-i-was-fired

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63696
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: More Liberal Censorship
« Reply #706 on: September 01, 2022, 06:22:32 PM »
Over 50 Biden Administration Employees, 12 US Agencies Involved in Social Media Censorship Push: Documents
By Zachary Stieber September 1, 2022

Over 50 officials in President Joe Biden’s administration across a dozen agencies have been involved with efforts to pressure Big Tech companies to crack down on alleged misinformation, according to documents released on Aug. 31.

Senior officials in the U.S. government, including White House lawyer Dana Remus, deputy assistant to the president Rob Flaherty, and onetime White House senior COVID-19 adviser Andy Slavitt, have been in touch with one or more major social media companies to try to get the companies to tighten rules on allegedly false and misleading information on COVID-19, and take action against users who violate the rules, the documents show.

In July 2021, for instance, after Biden said that Facebook was “killing people” by not combating misinformation effectively, an executive at Meta reached out to Surgeon General Vivek Murthy, a Biden appointee, to say that government and Meta teams met after the remarks “to better understand the scope of what the White House expects from us on misinformation going forward.”

The same executive later wrote to Murthy saying, “I wanted to make sure you saw the steps we took just this past week to adjust policies on what we are removing with respect to misinformation, as well as steps taken to further address the ‘disinfo dozen,'” including removing pages linked to the group.

The White House publicly pressured social media companies to take action against a group officials dubbed the “disinformation dozen,” which a nonprofit claimed were producing the bulk of “anti-vaccine misinformation” on the platforms. Also in July 2021, Murthy said Facebook had not done enough to combat misinformation.

Rob Flaherty, director of digital strategy for the White House, told Slavitt and others in April 2021 that White House staff would be briefed by Twitter “on vaccine misinfo,” with the meeting including “ways the White House (and our COVID experts) can partner in product work,” according to one of the messages.

In another exchange that year, a Department of Treasury official working on “mis, dis, and mal-information” told Meta workers that the deputy treasury secretary wanted to talk about “potential influence operations.”

In a text in February 2021, meanwhile, U.S. Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) Director Jen Easterly, wrote to another agency official that she was “trying to get us in a place where Fed can work with platforms to better understand the mis/dis trends so relevant agencies can try to prebunk/debunk as useful.”

The documents were part of a preliminary production in a lawsuit levied against the government by the attorneys general of Missouri and Louisiana, later joined by experts maligned by federal officials.

“If there was ever any doubt the federal government was behind censorship of Americans who dared to dissent from official Covid messaging, that doubt has been erased,” Jenin Younes, a lawyer with the New Civil Liberties Alliance who is representing some of the plaintiffs in the case, said in a statement. “The shocking extent of the government’s involvement in silencing Americans, through coercing social-media companies, has now been revealed.”

‘Censorship Enterprise’
Plaintiffs said the massive pressure campaign amounted to a “Censorship Enterprise” because it involved so many officials and agencies.

Government lawyers only identified 45 officials at five agencies—the Department of Homeland Security, CISA, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, and Murthy’s office—who communicated with social media companies on misinformation, but documents they produced showed others were involved, including officials at the Census Bureau and the Departments of Treasury and State.

Responses from the Big Tech companies also revealed more officials involved with the effort.

Meta has disclosed that at least 32 federal officials, including top officials at the White House and the Food and Drug Administration, were in communication with it about content moderation. Many of the officials were not identified in the response by the government.

YouTube disclosed 11 officials not disclosed by the government and Twitter identified nine, including senior officials at the State Department.

“The discovery provided so far demonstrates that this Censorship Enterprise is extremely broad,” plaintiffs said, adding later that “it rises to the highest levels of the U.S. Government, including numerous White House officials.”

Additionally, the FBI was not identified even though the agency recently said, after Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg revealed that the bureau reached out before the 2020 election, that it routinely issues communications to social media companies.

More discovery is needed to uncover the full breadth of the pressure campaign, plaintiffs told the judge overseeing the case.

“When the federal government colludes with Big Tech to censor speech, the American people become subjects rather than citizens,” Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry, a Republican, said in a statement. “The [U.S. Department of Justice] must not be allowed to hide behind the veil of executive privilege, especially when there is already compelling evidence that the people’s government colluded with these social media companies to suppress their right of free speech.”

https://www.theepochtimes.com/over-50-biden-administration-employees-12-us-agencies-involved-in-social-media-censorship-push-documents_4704349.html?utm_source=partner&utm_campaign=BonginoReport

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63696
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: More Liberal Censorship
« Reply #707 on: September 07, 2022, 10:42:32 AM »
Glenn Greenwald posts EPIC thread about how the authoritarian Left is squashing dissent
Posted September 7, 2022 by Mike
https://twitchy.com/mike-313136/2022/09/07/glenn-greenwald-posts-epic-thread-about-how-the-authoritarian-left-is-squashing-dissent/

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39372
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: More Liberal Censorship
« Reply #708 on: September 07, 2022, 11:42:11 AM »
Glenn Greenwald posts EPIC thread about how the authoritarian Left is squashing dissent
Posted September 7, 2022 by Mike
https://twitchy.com/mike-313136/2022/09/07/glenn-greenwald-posts-epic-thread-about-how-the-authoritarian-left-is-squashing-dissent/

Liberals hate free speech. 

Grape Ape

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22182
  • SC è un asino
Re: More Liberal Censorship
« Reply #709 on: September 07, 2022, 12:06:47 PM »
Liberals hate free speech.

Yet they call Republicans fascist
Y

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39372
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: More Liberal Censorship
« Reply #710 on: September 07, 2022, 12:19:03 PM »
Yet they call Republicans fascist

Projection at its worst.  Remember when that fool Straw would come on here and say we were making this up? 

Grape Ape

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22182
  • SC è un asino
Re: More Liberal Censorship
« Reply #711 on: September 07, 2022, 01:28:13 PM »
Projection at its worst.  Remember when that fool Straw would come on here and say we were making this up?

From the link:

Quote
It is astonishing to watch Dems and their allies in media corporations posture as opponents of "fascism" - while their main goal is to *unite state and corporate power* to censor their critics and degrade the internet into an increasingly repressive weapon of information control.
Y

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39372
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: More Liberal Censorship
« Reply #712 on: September 13, 2022, 08:30:18 AM »
The Biden Administration Is Engaged in a Massive Censorship Campaign
National Review ^ | September 11, 2022 | Kenin M. Spivak
Posted on 9/13/2022, 11:20:32 AM


The bedrock of American democracy, the First Amendment, prohibits Congress from making laws “abridging the freedom of speech.” The Supreme Court has repeatedly applied this prohibition to executive actions, as well.

The Biden administration’s campaign to censor, demonetize, and suppress dissenting voices on social media is much broader than previously known, as demonstrated by an amended complaint filed last month in federal district court in the case of Missouri v. Biden. The complaint, by the Louisiana and Missouri attorneys general along with the New Civil Liberties Alliance on behalf of leading health-care professionals, provides strong evidence of the administration’s vigorous campaign to coerce and collude with social-media companies in suppressing and deplatforming criticism of the administration as well as views with which it disagrees on subjects such as Covid, elections, the Hunter Biden laptop, and climate change, among others.

The evidence shows that at least 80 senior officials have participated in a concerted federal enterprise involving at least eleven federal agencies, including the White House, Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Office of the Surgeon General, Census Bureau, and FBI. The manifestly unconstitutional public–private partnership between the administration and Big Tech disregards Chief Justice Warren Burger’s warning that it is “axiomatic that a state may not induce, encourage or promote private persons to accomplish what it is constitutionally forbidden to accomplish.”

Responses to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests and emails produced in discovery show that White House, DHS, and HHS officials flagged specific content and examples of content for censorship, including factually accurate dissenting views, under the guise of suppressing “domestic terrorism.”

(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39372
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: More Liberal Censorship
« Reply #713 on: September 14, 2022, 05:54:52 AM »
Liberal censorship. 


Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39372
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: More Liberal Censorship
« Reply #714 on: September 16, 2022, 07:57:59 AM »
Facebook spied on private messages of Americans who questioned 2020 election
New York Post ^ | 9/14/2022 | Miranda Devine
Posted on 9/15/2022, 11:53:52 AM by Tench_Coxe

Facebook has been spying on the private messages and data of American users and reporting them to the FBI if they express anti-government or anti-authority sentiments — or question the 2020 election — according to sources within the Department of Justice.

Under the FBI collaboration operation, somebody at Facebook red-flagged these supposedly subversive private messages over the past 19 months and transmitted them in redacted form to the domestic terrorism operational unit at FBI headquarters in Washington, DC, without a subpoena.

(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...


illuminati

  • Competitors II
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 20648
  • The Strongest Shall Survive.- - Lest we Forget.
Re: More Liberal Censorship
« Reply #715 on: September 16, 2022, 12:08:27 PM »
Facebook spied on private messages of Americans who questioned 2020 election
New York Post ^ | 9/14/2022 | Miranda Devine
Posted on 9/15/2022, 11:53:52 AM by Tench_Coxe

Facebook has been spying on the private messages and data of American users and reporting them to the FBI if they express anti-government or anti-authority sentiments — or question the 2020 election — according to sources within the Department of Justice.

Under the FBI collaboration operation, somebody at Facebook red-flagged these supposedly subversive private messages over the past 19 months and transmitted them in redacted form to the domestic terrorism operational unit at FBI headquarters in Washington, DC, without a subpoena.

(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...

sad to say America is as bad if Not worse Than China for spying on it's own folk.
No opinions allowed that don't fit the Government narrative !!

WTF is happening to America - welcome to the New democratic Dictatorship.

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63696
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: More Liberal Censorship
« Reply #716 on: September 21, 2022, 02:19:35 PM »
PayPal, Venmo, and Google Cut off Group Fighting to Protect Children From Groomers
By Nick Arama | September 21, 2022
https://redstate.com/nick-arama/2022/09/21/paypal-venmo-and-google-cut-off-group-fighting-to-protect-children-from-groomers-n630856

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39372
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: More Liberal Censorship
« Reply #717 on: October 03, 2022, 08:56:07 AM »
Bombshell: Feds Paid Companies to Silence Trump, His Family, and Supporters on Social Media Around 2020 Election
westernjournal.com ^ | 10/2/2022 | Michael Austin, The Western Journal
Posted on 10/3/2022, 10:37:46 AM by bitt

The federal government has been working with a group of four private companies to flag supposed election “misinformation” for censorship by social media platforms.

Two recent reports, published on Friday and Saturday by Just the News, reveal the group was responsible for the censorship of 20 news outlets during the 2020 election.

After Biden was in the White House, Just the News reported, the group was “rewarded” with millions of taxpayer dollars and its work continues today.

Most of the targeted groups were right-leaning in their coverage. Those outlets include Just the News, the New York Post, The Epoch Times, The Washington Times and the Washington Examiner.

In addition, the group, which calls itself the Election Integrity Partnership, put together a list of “repeat spreaders” of election misinformation in 2020. The list included now-former President Donald Trump, his sons Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump and a number of other prominent right-leaning figures on social media.

The four members of the EIP are the Stanford Internet Observatory, the University of Washington’s Center for an Informed Public, the Atlantic Council’s Digital Forensic Research Lab and Graphika, which deals in social media analytics.

In a lengthy report dated June 15, 2021, the EIP describes itself as an “information exchange” between various entities, including “election officials, government agencies, civil society organizations, social media platforms, the media, and the research community.” The report said the EIP helps these groups pass information back and forth regarding supposed “mis- and disinformation” occurring on social media.

(Excerpt) Read more at westernjournal.com ...


Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63696
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: More Liberal Censorship
« Reply #718 on: November 07, 2022, 09:32:14 PM »
Trinity College Pulls Down Students' Patriotic Flags—While BLM and Trans Ones Fly Free
By Bob Hoge | November 05, 2022
https://redstate.com/bobhoge/2022/11/05/trinity-college-pulls-down-students-patriotic-flags-while-blm-and-trans-ones-fly-free-n654760

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39372
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: More Liberal Censorship
« Reply #719 on: November 30, 2022, 10:37:48 AM »
Ex-Twitter safety chief admits Hunter Biden laptop censorship was a 'mistake'
FOC]X ^ | 11/30/2022 | Lanum
Posted on 11/30/2022, 1:12:25 PM


The former head of trust and safety at Twitter recently admitted that the social media company’s decision to censor the Hunter Biden laptop story in 2020 was a "mistake."

During a sit down with journalist Kara Swisher, ex-Twitter safety chief Yoel Roth said that despite concerns about the authenticity of the laptop story, it still did not reach a point where he wanted to remove the content — which was later censored anyway. Initial reporting suggested that Roth blocked user access from the October 2020 story, but the former Twitter division lead said the decision was not up to him.

(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63696
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: More Liberal Censorship
« Reply #720 on: December 01, 2022, 01:38:21 PM »
Ex-Twitter safety chief admits Hunter Biden laptop censorship was a 'mistake'
FOC]X ^ | 11/30/2022 | Lanum
Posted on 11/30/2022, 1:12:25 PM


The former head of trust and safety at Twitter recently admitted that the social media company’s decision to censor the Hunter Biden laptop story in 2020 was a "mistake."

During a sit down with journalist Kara Swisher, ex-Twitter safety chief Yoel Roth said that despite concerns about the authenticity of the laptop story, it still did not reach a point where he wanted to remove the content — which was later censored anyway. Initial reporting suggested that Roth blocked user access from the October 2020 story, but the former Twitter division lead said the decision was not up to him.

(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...

A little late in the game for this confession. 

Musk is claiming he will release the "Twitter files" about this censorship. 

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63696
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: More Liberal Censorship
« Reply #721 on: December 01, 2022, 03:29:17 PM »
“Welcome Consequences”: Hogan Lovells Fires Partner for Voicing Her Views on the Dobbs Decision
November 30, 2022

In a column in the Wall Street Journal, Robin Keller, a partner at Hogan Lovells, wrote about being fired from the firm after a distinguished career of 44 years. Keller was not fired for intermingling funds or violating confidentiality of clients. She was fired because she exercised free speech in an internal meeting on the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health. After Keller expressed her support for the opinion and concern about higher rates of abortions in the black community, a participant complained that she could not breathe and others called her a racist. She was later suspended and reportedly fired.

What is striking about this controversy is that there is not a great deal of disagreement on what was said at the meeting. Take Above the Law, which Keller references in her column. The site has become one of the most vocal anti-free speech sites on the Internet. It recently even defended the virtual elimination of conservative and libertarian faculty at universities as commendable.

In a column entitled “White Counsel At Biglaw Firm Spreads ‘Inappropriate And Offensive’ Theories About Abortion, Gets Suspended,” Kathryn Rubino celebrated the “welcome consequences” for people who share dissenting or unpopular views on such subjects. Rubino expressed disbelief that “a white partner who attended HoLove’s women’s meeting felt it appropriate to chime in with her support of the Dobbs decision.”

Lawyers at the firm demanded the firing of Keller and said that they were “traumatized” by having to hear someone defend the decision on a call to allow people to discuss the decision.

Let’s repeat that again . . . these are lawyers who were traumatized because a colleague expressed a dissenting view of abortion, a view held by millions of other Americans as well as many judges and justices. It is a view that has been expressed widely in the media, including by African-American and female commentators.

I can understand how such arguments can insult or enrage others. Pro-life lawyers can also be deeply offended on the other side by pro-choice arguments. Abortion is an area that has torn apart this country for generations. The addition of race only magnifies the passion and anger in such discussions. However, this is an area that raises difficult constitutional, social, racial, economic, and gender issues.

Yet, rather than engage Keller on why they believe that she is wrong, these lawyers asked her to leave the call and then pushed for her to be fired for expressing her views. As we have seen on college campuses, it has become commonplace to seek to silence others rather than to engage them in such debates.

As Keller wrote, “I was invited to participate in what was billed as a ‘safe space’ for women at the firm to discuss the decision. It might have been a safe space for some, but it wasn’t safe for me.”

She recounts how “Three weeks later I received a letter stating that the firm had concluded that my reference to comments labeling black abortion rates genocide was a violation of the antiharassment policy.”

The firm adopted the usual “we support free speech but …” rationalization:

“Firm leaders promptly reached out to the firm community to express their regret about the pain and upset that this has caused our community. We appreciate that this was brought to our attention and we are treating this matter seriously. While we encourage members of our community to engage in frank, candid discussion, we expect all discussion in our place of work, or in settings sponsored by the firm, to uphold our values of inclusivity, respect for diverse members of our community, and non-discrimination.”

We have seen corporations joining a campaign targeting Twitter over the plan of Elon Musk to restore free speech protections on the site. However, this is a law firm yielding to demands to silence a colleague for expressing a dissenting view on Dobbs and the impact of abortion in an internal meeting on the decision. To state opposing views in a forum on the case is now considered harmful and harassing — and a basis for termination.

That is certainly a “consequence” but it is hardly “welcomed” if you have a modicum of concern for free speech values. Private firms and companies are obviously given a wider leeway in the limitation of free speech rights. As I have previously written, workers do not have a legal right to protest or display political symbols in the workplace.

For years, anti-free-speech figures have dismissed objections to social media censorship by stressing that the First Amendment applies only to the government, not private companies. The distinction was always a dishonest effort to evade the implications of speech controls, whether implemented by the government or corporations. The First Amendment was never the exclusive definition of free speech. Free speech is viewed by many of us as a human right; the First Amendment only deals with one source for limiting it. Free speech can be undermined by private corporations as well as government agencies.

Yet, we have seen reporters and lawyers rally to the cause of censorship or speech controls in recent years. It is the subject of my recent publication in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy. The article entitled “Harm and Hegemony: The Decline of Free Speech in the United States.”

That alarming trend is no more evident than lawyers saying that they “cannot breathe” in the presence of the exercise of free speech.

https://jonathanturley.org/2022/11/30/welcome-consequences-hogan-lovells-fires-partner-for-voicing-her-views-on-the-dobbs-decision/

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39372
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: More Liberal Censorship
« Reply #722 on: December 05, 2022, 05:23:08 AM »
How Corrupt is a Corrupt Media?
American Greatness ^ | 4 Dec, 2022 | Victor Davis Hanson
Posted on 12/5/2022, 8:15:39 AM by MtnClimber

The media has ceased to exist, and the public plods on by assuming as true whatever the media suppresses and as false whatever the media covers.

The current “media”—loosely defined as the old major newspapers like the New York Times and Washington Post, the network news channels, MSNBC and CNN, PBS and NPR, the online news aggregators like Google, Apple, and Yahoo, and the social media giants like the old Twitter and Facebook—are corrupt.

They have adopted in their news coverage a utilitarian view that noble progressive ends justify almost any unethical means to obtain them. The media is unapologetically fused with the Democratic Party, the bicoastal liberal elite, and the progressive agenda.

The result is that the public cannot trust that the news it hears or reads is either accurate or true. The news as presented by these outlets has been carefully filtered to suppress narratives deemed inconvenient or antithetical to the political objectives of these entities, while inflating themes deemed useful.

This bias now accompanies increasing (and increasingly obvious) journalistic incompetence. Lax standards reflect weaponized journalism schools and woke ideology that short prior basic requisites of writing and ethical protocols of quoting and sourcing. In sum, a corrupt media that is ignorant, arrogant, and ideological explains why few now trust what it delivers.

Suppression

Once a story is deemed antithetical to left-wing agendas, there arises a collective effort to smother it. Suppression is achieved both by neglect, and by demonizing others who report an inconvenient truth as racists, conspiracist “right-wingers,” and otherwise irredeemable.

The Hunter Biden laptop story is the locus classicus. Social media branded the authentic laptop as Russian disinformation. That was a lie. But the deception did not stop them from censoring and squashing those who reported the truth.

Instead of carefully examining the contents of the laptop or interrogating Biden-company players such as Tony Bobulinksi, the media hyped the ridiculous disinformation hoax as a mechanism for suppressing the damaging pre-election story altogether.


Grape Ape

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22182
  • SC è un asino
Re: More Liberal Censorship
« Reply #723 on: December 05, 2022, 05:34:59 AM »
Devine's article in the Post today is pretty telling.
Y

Grape Ape

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22182
  • SC è un asino
Re: More Liberal Censorship
« Reply #724 on: December 09, 2022, 07:16:39 AM »
So, just read the Weiss Twitter updates.

It's unbelievable - Twitter did exactly what everyone thought - a small group of liberal leaders manipulating content to achieve political goals.

It's not even a question now.

The question is, was anything illegal (probably not), will anything come of it?

But it's hilarious to read the comments from folks (what happened to you Bari?, etc).   People readily admitting that Weiss, Taibbi doing real journalism is somehow "wrong".
Y