Police escalate the British state’s war on independent journalism
By Jonathan Cook | October 18, 2024
The UK government and police – the British state – made clear today they are waging a war of intimidation against the country’s independent journalists in a desperate attempt to silence them.
Ten Metropolitan police officers made a dawn raid on the home of investigative journalist Asa Winstanley and seized his electronic devices under the UK’s draconian Terrorism Act. A letter from the Met indicates that the associate editor of the Electronic Intifada is being investigated by the force for “encouraging terrorism”.
The raid isn’t about terrorism – except the UK government’s. It’s about scaring us into staying silent on Britain’s collusion in Israel’s genocide.
Winstanley is the latest – and most high profile – independent journalist to be targeted by counter-terrorism police in recent weeks. Earlier, Richard Medhurst was arrested at Heathrow airport on returning to the UK from a trip abroad. Then Sarah Wilkinson was arrested and her home ransacked.
Winstanley has repeatedly embarrassed the British establishment by exposing its covert and deep ties to Israel and its collusion with the Israeli lobby.
In his book Weaponising Anti-Semitism: How the Israel Lobby Brought Down Jeremy Corbyn, Winstanley exposed in shocking detail how antisemitism was weaponised against the former Labour leader.
The book would have made uncomfortable reading for his successor, Sir Keir Starmer, now Britain’s prime minister, because it documents his role in the smear campaign.
While in opposition, Starmer’s Labour party threatened to expel Winstanley as a member – he resigned in protest instead – and have made legal threats against him.
As the Electronic Intifada website notes: “Now that Labour is the UK’s ruling party, it has the potential to use the apparatus of the state against those it views as its own – or Israel’s – political enemies.”
There is precisely no reason for police to raid Winstanley’s home or seize his electronic devices. The preposterous accusation of “encouraging terrorism” clearly relates to his online work, which is fully in the public domain.
The British state wants to insinuate through the dawn raid and confiscation of his devices that he is somehow harbouring secret or classified information, or in illicit contact with terror groups, and that incriminating evidence will be forthcoming from searches of those devices.
It won’t. If there were any real suspicion that Winstanley had such information, the police would have arrested him rather than making a public show of a 6am raid and search they knew beforehand would turn up nothing.
This isn’t about terrorism at all. It is about frightening those opposing Israel’s genocide in Gaza, and the West’s collusion in it, into silence. If the British state is going after someone like Winstanley, you are supposed to conclude, they will surely soon come for me too.
Even the name of the “counter-terrorism” raid is performative: “Operation Incessantness”. The message the state wants to send is that it will not rest till it has us all behind bars.
Don’t believe this nonsense. The police have nothing on Winstanley. Exposing information about Israel and its genocide, and the British government’s culpability, is not a crime. At least not yet.
They want you to think it is, of course. They want you scared and mute. Because every time you go out and protest, you remind the world that the British government, and their bully-boys in blue, are the real criminals – for enabling genocide.
Church raid in Ukraine linked to Zelensky ‘victory plan’ – Russian diplomat
RT | October 17, 2024
An armed raid on St. Michael’s Cathedral in the Ukrainian city of Cherkasy on Thursday directly stems from the policies adopted by Kiev, which is selling out its people to the West, senior Russian diplomat Rodion Miroshnik has stated, condemning the raid.
The church, which was built two decades ago and is the largest temple in modern Ukraine, was in the process of being seized from the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (UOC). The initial raid was launched during a night service by armed men in military-style clothes. In the morning, many of the faithful who answered the diocese’s call to defend the cathedral managed to oust the raiders but, hours later, a second attack succeeded.
A military chaplain with the Kiev-backed Orthodox Church of Ukraine (OCU), a rival of the UOC, has declared that the cathedral is now a military church. In the future it will host a center for “national patriotic education, a Sunday school and a school for chaplains,” Vladimir Pedko said on Facebook. Ukrainian officials have claimed that Thursday’s events were part of a lawful transfer of the church to the OCU.
Miroshnik, who leads a special mission in the Russian Foreign Ministry to record and expose Ukrainian crimes, denounced the seizure as “blunt and grim lawlessness covered up by the gang of [Vladimir] Zelensky.”
In a series of posts online, Miroshnik linked the raid with Zelensky’s speech in parliament the day before the raid, in which the Ukrainian leader presented to the public his ‘victory plan’ against Russia. Among other things, he offered the services of battle-hardened Ukrainian troops to Western donors, claiming that eventually they could replace American soldiers stationed in Europe.
“Zelensky almost directly said that Ukraine is essentially a nation-sized private military company (PMC),” Miroshnik argued.
“A PMC nation’s ideology has no place for a thousand-year-old Orthodox linchpin, which has its traditions, rules and principles,” he added. “For the Kiev regime, people are a resource, livestock. Livestock are not allowed to have stable canons of reverence for the faith of their ancestors.”
Earlier this year, the Ukrainian parliament passed a law that established the legal grounds for a likely ban on the UOC. Kiev has accused the church of doing the bidding of Russia.
Many of the UOC clerics are being prosecuted for alleged crimes, including Metropolitan Theodosius, the bishop heading the diocese headquartered at St. Michael’s Cathedral. The church was reportedly partially looted and ransacked by unknown persons, who broke into it overnight.
There has also been a legal battle between the UOC and secular authorities for the parcel of land surrounding the cathedral.
Palestinian academic wins significant victory against UK university over leaked confidential details
MEMO | October 16, 2024
Prominent Palestinian academic, activist and artist Shahd Abusalama has won a significant victory and reached a settlement agreement with Sheffield Hallam University (SHU) for an undisclosed sum, including payment of 100 per cent of her legal costs. This brings an end to Dr Abusalama’s long-running legal battle in which she alleged that the university shared confidential and derogatory information about her with third parties, including politicians and the Jewish Chronicle, a community newspaper which is in crisis following the publication of fabricated stories justifying Israel’s war against the Palestinians in Gaza.
Abusalama was born and raised in Jabalia Refugee Camp in the besieged Gaza Strip. In January 2022, she was appointed as a lecturer at Sheffield Hallam University and, almost immediately, she faced a campaign of defamation and silencing from pro-Israel, right-wing organisations protesting against her employment. SHU subjected Dr Abusalama to multiple investigations but she was cleared of all wrongdoing in an independent report by Akua Reindorf KC. Nevertheless, the parties agreed to part ways in October 2022 in a confidential agreement.
However, according to court documents submitted on Abusalama’s behalf, between August and November 2022 SHU was preparing briefings against her to various third parties, including Members of Parliament, government ministers and the media. This information led to a damaging article published by the Jewish Chronicle on 8 November 2022, which included comments from the University’s Deputy Vice-Chancellor, Richard Calvert, in a breach of the confidential agreement. However, the university withheld the fact that Dr Abusalama had already been exonerated by Ms Reindorf’s independent report. The Jewish Chronicle article claimed, and the university denied, that senior SHU officials had reached out to the outlet specifically to discuss Dr Abusalama’s case.
The leaked details, which included information about Dr Abusalama’s departure from SHU, were revealed in the piece alongside details of the university’s new campus in the £8 billion Brent Cross development in London.
“This case is fundamentally about the right to challenge Israel’s longstanding domination of the Palestinian people without fear of reprisal from those in positions of power,” explained Shahd Abusalama. “At a time when I thought I was agreeing to part ways with Sheffield Hallam University amicably, I now know that it was suppressing the report which exonerated me, and smearing me to disreputable outlets that legitimate Israel’s genocide of my people.”
The end of this case, she added, represents one less injustice to endure during a Western-backed Israeli genocide which has led to the displacement of her family, the burning of the family home and the killing, maiming and starvation of the Palestinian people.
“This victory is not just personal. It is a victory against attempts to silence advocates for justice in Palestine, including through the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of anti-Semitism, a tool designed to protect Israel rather than combat anti-Jewish bigotry. Although the University has failed to admit its wrongdoing verbally, its latest actions speak louder than its lack of words, in particular its agreement to pay my legal costs, usually only payable by an unsuccessful party. My case highlights the multifaceted racisms and structural vulnerability that Palestinians are subjected to in Britain on a daily basis. But it also highlights that if we organise collectively and fight back, we can win.”
Dr Abusalama was represented by Liana Wood at Leigh Day who instructed Michael Sprack. She was also supported by the European Legal Support Centre (ELSC). Her victory follows [release of] a court judgement this week that anti-Zionist comments are protected by equality law in the case of Professor David Miller, who was sacked from the University of Bristol after being accused of making anti-Semitic comments when, in fact, he is a staunch critic of the Zionist state of Israel, not the Jewish people.
Sacked Bristol professor case: UK judge says anti-Zionist views ‘worthy of respect’
Press TV – October 16, 2024
An employment tribunal in the UK has concluded that holding the belief that Israel’s actions against Palestinians amount to apartheid, ethnic cleansing and genocide are “worthy of respect in a democratic society.”
In February, a UK judge ruled in a landmark decision that David Miller, the producer of Press TV’s ‘Palestine Declassified’ show, who was fired from the University of Bristol in 2021 for anti-Zionist views, was unfairly dismissed and subjected to discrimination.
This week, the tribunal published its 120-page judgement, which sets out why Miller’s views were protected under anti-discrimination laws.
“Although many would vehemently and cogently disagree with [Miller]’s analysis of politics and history, others have the same or similar beliefs,” Judge Rohan Pirani said in the judgement.
“We find that he has established that [the criteria] have been met and that his belief amounted to a philosophical belief.”
Miller was dismissed in 2021 after accusing Israel of wanting to “impose [its] will all over the world.”
Following his dismissal, he launched employment tribunal proceedings claiming unfair dismissal, breach of contract and discrimination or victimization on grounds of religion or belief.
At his hearing, he made clear that anti-Zionism was not the same as anti-Semitism, and was not a “racist set of ideas.” He also described Gaza as an “open air prison.”
He said that Zionism was “ideologically bound to lead to the practices of apartheid, ethnic cleansing and genocide in pursuit of territorial control and expansion.”
Zillur Rahman, who represented Miller, called it a “landmark case” which “marks a pivotal moment in the history of our country for those who believe in upholding the rights of Palestinians.”
The judgement noted that Miller had expertise on the subject of Zionism.
On the academic’s anti-Zionism beliefs, Pirani said, “We conclude that they have played a significant role in his life for many years. We are satisfied that they are genuinely held.”
“He is and was a committed anti-Zionist and his views on this topic have played a significant role in his life for many years.”
The panel said his beliefs were “worthy of respect in a democratic society, [are] not incompatible with human dignity and [do] not conflict with the fundamental rights of others.”
“[Miller]’s opposition to Zionism is not opposition to the idea of Jewish self-determination … but rather, as he defines it, to the exclusive realization of Jewish rights to self-determination within a land that is home to a very substantial non-Jewish population,” Pirani added.
The judgement was criticized in February by the London-based Union of Jewish Students (UJS), a body representing university Jewish societies and Jewish students.
“UJS believes this may set a dangerous precedent about what can be lawfully said on campus about Jewish students and the societies at the center of their social life. This will ultimately make Jewish students less safe,” it said.
Tim Walz Ducks Free Speech Debate in Evasive Interview Over Misinformation Crackdown
By Dan Frieth | Reclaim The Net | October 14, 2024
In an interview with Fox News Sunday’s Shannon Bream, Democratic Vice Presidential Nominee Tim Walz found himself in the hot seat over his stance on free speech, particularly regarding so-called “misinformation” and “hate speech.” Walz, who has previously expressed a desire to limit certain forms of expression, gave an evasive and meandering response when asked to clarify his position.
Walz’s comments have been the subject of concern, especially following his assertion that “There’s no guarantee to free speech on misinformation or hate speech” if he and Kamala Harris win the upcoming election.
When Bream pressed him on who would ultimately have the power to define “misinformation,” Walz sidestepped the question. Instead, he launched into a lengthy discussion about book bans and violent threats, avoiding the central issue of free speech restrictions.
Bream’s attempt to distinguish between threats and misinformation resulted in yet another detour from Walz, who again brought up book banning without offering any substantive answer on misinformation. His unwillingness to engage directly on the topic of free speech raised further concerns that under a Harris-Walz administration, the government itself could become the arbiter of what constitutes “misinformation.”
The implications of Walz’s remarks are troubling for advocates of free speech. In his convoluted responses, Walz seemed to blur the lines between genuine threats and dissenting opinions, a tactic that has left many questioning the true intent behind his push to regulate speech. By conflating hate speech with misinformation, Walz opens the door to potential government overreach that could infringe on the First Amendment rights of Americans.
While Walz insists that he supports the First Amendment, his reluctance to differentiate between dangerous threats and controversial speech raises red flags about the future of open discourse in America.
Related: Walz’s War on Words: A Blatant Distortion of the First Amendment
Democrat Congresswomen Tell Social Media Platforms to “Quickly and Decisively” Censor Hurricane “Misinformation”
By Cindy Harper | Reclaim The Net | October 11, 2024
Despite recent pushback for politicians encouraging social media platforms to increase censorship online, in the wake of Hurricanes Helene and Milton, a cadre of Democratic House representatives from the affected regions have appealed to major social media platforms to intensify their efforts to censor alleged “misinformation” related to the storms.
We obtained a copy of the letter for you here.
“We write to your platforms with an urgent request on behalf of states affected by the devastation of Hurricane Helene and those currently being impacted by Hurricane Milton,” the letter states. “In the aftermath of Helene, we have witnessed a troubling surge in misinformation, disinformation, conspiracy theories, and scams that are hindering recovery efforts and exploiting vulnerable individuals and families.”
The representatives say that they are concerned about the proliferation of false claims and blame these reportedly false claims for the hindering of recovery efforts. The congresswomen also say that social media posts are undermining public confidence in institutions.
The call for a crackdown on misinformation was articulated in a letter addressed to seven major social media entities, including Meta, X, TikTok, Discord, YouTube, Snap, and Instagram. Authored by Representatives Deborah Ross (D-N.C.), Kathy Castor (D-Fla.), Nikema Williams (D-Ga.), and Wiley Nickel (D-N.C.), the letter alleges that misinformation is having a dire impact.
The letter doesn’t directly demand censorship of alleged misinformation, but it does put pressure on platforms to police speech, saying that they have the “power and the responsibility” to “improve the digital spaces.”
The congresswomen say that they “strongly encourage” platforms to act “quickly and decisively.”
In a press conference today, President Biden dismissed some of the criticism of the response to the hurricane as “lies” and said, “Those who have been spreading these lies to try to undermine the opposition, they are going to pay a price for it.”
The political pressure on social media platforms to step in regarding a major event echoes what happened during the Covid pandemic.
During the pandemic, the call for online censorship by politicians and health authorities under the guise of combating misinformation became a contentious issue. This initiative, aimed at preventing the spread of allegedly harmful or misleading information about the virus, its transmission, and treatments, led to a wide array of interventions by social media platforms and tech companies.
As part of these efforts, platforms like Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube introduced policies to flag, remove, or demote content that contradicted the evolving understanding of health authorities such as the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The intent was supposedly to protect public health; however, the execution of these policies often resulted in the suppression of legitimate discourse and the removal of content that later proved to be accurate.
Adversarial Process or Oppo Research? Judge Agrees To Release More Trump Material Before the Election
By Jonathan Turley | October 11, 2024
It appears that U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan and Special Counsel Jack Smith are not done yet in releasing material in advance of the election. In a previous column, I criticized the release of Smith’s 180-page brief before the election as procedurally irregular and politically biased, a criticism shared by CNN’s senior legal analyst and other law professors. Nevertheless, on Thursday, Judge Chutkan agreed to a request from Smith to unseal exhibits and evidence in advance of the election.
The brief clearly contains damning allegations, including witness accounts, for Trump. The objection to the release of the brief was not a defense of any actions taken on January 6th by the former president or others, but rather an objection to what even the court admitted was an “irregular” process.
As discussed earlier, Smith has been unrelenting in his demands for a trial before the election. He has even demanded that Donald Trump be barred from standard appellate options in order to expedite his trial.
Smith never fully explained the necessity of holding a trial before the election beyond suggesting that voters should see the trial and the results — assaulting the very premise of the Justice Department’s rule against such actions just before elections.
To avoid allegations of political manipulation of cases, the Justice Department has long followed a policy against making potentially influential filings within 60 or 90 days of an election. One section of the Justice Department manual states “Federal prosecutors… may never select the timing of any action, including investigative steps, criminal charges, or statements, for the purpose of affecting any election.”
Even if one argues that this provision is not directly controlling or purely discretionary, the spirit of the policy is to avoid precisely the appearance in this case: the effort to manipulate or influence an election through court filings.
With no trial date for 2025, there is no reason why Smith or Chutkan would adopt such an irregular process. The court could have slightly delayed these filings until after the approaching election or it could have sealed the filings.
If there is one time where a court should err on the side of avoiding an “irregular” process, it is before a national election. What may look like simply an adversarial process to some looks like oppo research to others. Delaying the release would have avoided any appearance of such bias.
For Smith, the election has long been the focus of his filings and demands for an expedited process. Smith knows that this election is developing into the largest jury verdict in history. Many citizens, even those who do not like Trump, want to see an end to the weaponization of the legal system, including Smith’s D.C. prosecution. Trump has to lose the election for Smith to be guaranteed a trial in the case.
Chutkan has given the Trump team just seven days to oppose her order. That would still allow the material to make it into the public (and be immediately employed by the media and Harris campaign) just days before the election. The move will only increase criticism that this looks like a docket in the pocket of the DNC.
It is telling that, once again, the timing just works out to the way that is most politically impactful. Many are left with a Ned Flanders moment of “well, if that don’t put the “dink” in co-inky-dink.”
Arizona State University Caught in Free Speech Tug-of-War Over Gov-Funded “Disinformation” Battle
By Didi Rankovic | Reclaim The Net | October 9, 2024
Arizona State University (ASU) is a public school and therefore undisputed subject to the US Constitution’s free speech rules. Yet a new Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) demonstrates that it was prominently involved in working with, and on behalf of the US government. To affect free speech.
That would be a blatant example of what Congress is investigating and what the critics are calling Big Tech-(Big) Government collusion, given that the target of the “collaboration” the university was involved in was online “disinformation.”
The thing to remember when talking about this collusion is that the current White House had enough wits about it to never make a “beeline” reaching the end result of censorship. From what is known from the congressional probe and the Twitter Files alone, this was always instead a meandering effort that included many seemingly intermediary and/or legitimate actors.
According to James Rushmore for Racket News, in this case, ASU was the recipient of grants (and, in line with the overall “process” – the purpose of the one given in January 2024 and reported by the Washington Examiner is not clearly stated). The grant though did come from the State Department’s Global Engagement Center (GEC).
In and of itself, not ring many alarm bells – until the reason behind it, and the activities of GEC are taken into account. Those activities, in the case of ASU’s involvement, meant working with government agencies to flag what was decided to be disinformation, but also something referred to as “falsified media.”
The obsession with “Russian disinformation” featured here as well, a hallmark of “arguments” of the political party that came to power in 2020 in the US. But also a hallmark that had been introduced into public discourse with the party’s defeat four years earlier. The claims have since, but it seems to no avail, been thoroughly debunked.
ASU’s role was to contribute by developing “or refining” automated tools and techniques to pinpoint the specter of “fake news,” “disinformation,” and, “(foreign) propaganda.”
The public university’s involvement didn’t stop there, since another project saw it become a US Department of Defense DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency) subcontractor.
“Falsified media” was once again supposed to be the target, with ASU teaming up with Kitware software company based in New York to give spies a system capable of detecting how media, branded as such, work, and what algorithms they use.
Fearful of the Public, Western Leaders Turn to Censorship
By Ian DeMartino – Sputnik – 07.10.2024
On Saturday, former US First Lady Hillary Clinton called for increased federal regulation of the internet and repealing Section 230. “If the platforms… don’t moderate and monitor the content, we lose total control,” she said, raising the question of who “we” represents in that statement.
From the recent purge of YouTube accounts, including those from Mark Sleboda, Rachel Blevins, Glenn Diesen, DD Geopolitics, Fiorella Isabel, Larry Johnson, and Eva K. Bartlett, it is clear that the Western leaders are scared of their populations finding out the truth about their policies and actions.
“We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people,” Former US President John F. Kennedy.
“That’s what they’re afraid of,” Sleboda, an expert in geopolitical relations and a frequent guest on Sputnik Radio, told The Final Countdown. “They don’t trust you to hear an alternate view from the official US government narrative and come to what they consider the right political conclusions.”
Many Americans were taught that freedom was proof-positive that Western-style democracies were superior to other systems.
In separate interviews, Sleboda and Blevins both said that their channels were taken down without warning or strikes. Both were accused of violating YouTube’s policies on hate speech and said their appeals were denied within minutes.
“Just anyone who is critical of a US foreign policy, of hegemony, has had their YouTube channels deleted,” Sleboda contended.
While the censorship technically came from Alphabet, the mega-monolith tech company that owns both Google and YouTube, a comprehensive program between the US government and large social media companies has slowly been revealed over the past couple of years making the line one without distinction.
“My lawyer called that First Amendment censorship via proxy, or government censorship via proxy,” Political cartoonist and The Final Countdown co-host Ted Rall explained. “The US government has reached out to big tech companies, talked to people like [Meta CEO] Mark Zuckerberg and so on, and said, ‘we want you to control and squish what we call misinformation and disinformation.’”
With the internet practically ubiquitous in modern society, an expansion of the First Amendment to public and private sectors of the internet is needed to protect our speech rights.
“What does the First Amendment actually mean in today’s age when just about everyone is on social media or on the internet in some way, and it has become sort of the new public square?” asked Blevins, an independent journalist, and host of The Backstory on Radio Sputnik. “What are we okay with when it comes to the ongoing censorship? Because I don’t think it’s going away anytime soon.”
Even if the government were removed from the equation, and censorship came exclusively from the tech companies themselves they have become so powerful that acts of self-censorship would be indistinguishable from government-ordered censorship, especially during wartime.
In post-9/11 America, large media companies kept dissenting voices off the air, limiting the reach of those who, for example, opposed the war in Iraq.
“And you get that corporate mentality of what will the advertisers think?” legendary Gonzo journalist Hunter S Thompson argued in an August 2002 interview with Media Report.
“A kind of we’re all in this together thinking.” The consolidation of the internet from disparate groups of message boards and newsgroups into a handful of omnipresent tech companies raises that specter again.
“As we saw this weekend, YouTube can come in and just delete your channel and take your life’s work away from you,” decried Blevin, noting that her channel was backed up on the free speech platform Rumble.
The majority of the deleted accounts offered views that opposed the NATO-led proxy war in Ukraine and/or Western support of Israel. As the war drums beat ever louder in Europe, the Middle East, and the South Pacific, not to mention the US Presidential election next month, the crackdown is likely to increase.
“They haven’t really thrown out the term election interference just yet, but I have a feeling that’s coming in some way,” warned Blevins.
“We’ll tell our grandchildren about the golden age of a global internet,” before censorship took it over, predicted Sleboda. “I think we’re going to see our internet fractured into either individual states’ internets or geopolitical block’s internets. And I think the process has already begun,” he warned.
Fact-Checking or Fact-Shielding? Twitter Files Journalist Slams PolitiFact’s Defense of Government Pressure on Big Tech
By Didi Rankovic | Reclaim The Net | October 7, 2024
Poynter Institute’s PolitiFact, a Meta fact-checking partner, has decided that the Biden-Harris administration is not engaged in censorship at an industrial scale.
This claim made by vice presidential candidate J.D. Vance is false, PolitiFact has asserted, because the Biden-Harris White House “contacting” (according to Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, they were contacted to be pressured) social media companies to flag content for removal “didn’t cross the line into coercion.”
Not only that but pressuring these companies (yet allegedly never coercing) to censor online speech is not a threat to democracy, PolitiFact was told by a Colombia professor – if the censors decide that speech is disinformation about Covid or election results.
The scale and nature of the way the US government leaned on tech companies to stifle speech that did not suit its political agenda is, to date, best revealed in the Twitter Files.
One of the journalists who worked on publishing the internal documents, Michael Shellenberger, now examined this PolitiFact “verdict” and the arguments the organization used. He rejects the notion that suppressing voters’ free speech is somehow “not a threat to democracy.”
Shellenberger was equally unimpressed by PolitiFact trying to explain its opinion regarding Vance’s claim by referring to the Supreme Court, which they said ruled it was not unconstitutional for the government to exert the kind of pressure it did.
“But the Court did not consider the US government’s pressure of Meta or many other cases of government demands for censorship,” Shellenberger writes and notes that the ruling (in the Murthy v Missouri case) was based on the judges deciding there were no legal grounds to bring the case.
To the question – as old as the rise of the fact-checking industry – why did a fact-checker (in this case, PolitiFact) get things wrong, the journalist suggests it’s more a case of “playing on the same team”.
PolitiFact, he writes, is “part and parcel of the Censorship Industrial Complex.”
Shellenberger goes into the many instances of those, either while they were in power, such as Hillary Clinton, or with a lot of power, like Bill Gates, openly advocating for censorship.
As for how the US government, despite the country’s constitution, became prone to stifling speech and manipulating public opinion at home, the answer could be the “lesson learned” from decades of doing the same abroad.
Namely, it works.
The Misinformation Bill will harm Australians and protect bad governments
JoNova | September 30, 2024
The Misinformation Bill is not just wholly unnecessary, it’s an abject travesty. How did such a preposterous overbearing, undemocratic, anti-science and dangerous piece of legislation get past the first focus group? It wouldn’t survive a high-school debate, and yet, here it is?
Misinformation is easy to correct when you own a billion dollar news agency, most academics, institutions, expert committees and 25% of the economy. The really hard thing, even with all that power and money is to defend an absurd lie and stop people pointing it out, which is surely the main purpose of the Misinformation Bill amendments. The government can already correct any misinformation that really matters, so these amendments curtail our freedom of speech for no benefit at all.
Guilty until proven innocent?
The amendments turn free speech on its head — instead of having the implicit right to criticize the government, everyone now needs to prove to some judge that their views are “reasonably” satire, or reasonable dissemination for an “academic, scientific or religious” purpose, and that their “motive” is honest and their behaviour is “authentic”.
When it comes to reasonableness in a democracy the highest court should be the court of public opinion, but how can the people decide if they are not allowed to hear it?
How is it even a democracy still if the government is allowed to take our money to force feed us the government’s view on the ABC and in every captured university (dependent on government funds), but the people cannot even reply through sheer unfunded creative wit?
This legislation puts a very unfree cloud over all groups, forums, blogs, and social media.
The fines (and all legal fees today) are so obscenely, disproportionately harmful to Australians that few will risk going to court, instead the platforms will be preemptively second guessing what a judge might say is reasonable, and people with serious social media accounts will be second guessing the second-guesses of their platform controllers in fear that they might be thrown off, and lose years of work if they guess wrongly.
Worse, the big platforms, supposedly so “independent” will become unaccountable but de facto arms of the government. The platforms will know if they don’t perform as expected and favorably to the incumbent masters, that the rules will get more onerous, the fines bigger. And thus and verily the unholy alliance of Big-Tech and Big-Government will become Big-Brother in your conversations, and Big Bankrupter in your nightmares.
The government claim they are not censoring anyone, but it’s just done at arms length with “implausible” deniability. Obviously the laws will censor all of us who are not already controlled by ACMA or the government through a public salary, a grant, or a Code of Practice written into the the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Act.
Who silences the government misinformation, then?
We were there when the government experts told us margarine with hydrogenated fake vegetable fat would be great for our hearts. We heard them when they told us an ice age was coming, and antibiotics were useless against stomach ulcers. We noticed they told us to hold off on the peanut butter for babies to prevent allergies, only to find out that all these things were misinformation.
What happens when the experts are wrong, but the people who are unconvinced can’t speak up because they might “harm… the efficacy of a preventative health measure”? These health measures may take a … lifetime… to even measure the efficacy. Does the government get a free pass for 40 years?
It was estimated dietary trans fats (found in margarine) were killing 82,000 people a year in the US. (Danaei et al 2009). Should we have fined all the people who talked about this, and perhaps delayed things, and killed a half a million more? Someone speaking against hydrogenated margarine could have been deemed to be spreading “misinformation causing harm to public health in Australia”. So 20 years later, they turn out to be right — will the government compensate the families of the dead who might have chosen a different sandwich spread had they heard another opinion and been able to make up their own mind?
Will Facebook and Twitter need to block the accounts of experts who were wrong? Or, are there two kinds of citizens in Australia — one sort that work for the government, who can give their opinions and get things wrong without losing their right to speak, and the Untermenschen, who cannot speak, even if they are right?
Confidence has to be earned, not ordered
Apparently the citizens of Australia are not allowed to say anything that might harm the confidence in the banking system or the financial markets. But if our banking system is so fragile, or our currency so fake, that it needs a law to force people to “feel confident” then we are in a trouble already.
Nothing damages confidence like making a law to silence critics.
As adults, we filter misinformation our whole lives, it’s our job
We are all adults in this room, and we have lived our whole lives filtering out advertising spin, ignoring political lies, and reading books telling us we can stop storms if we just ride a bike. Since the stone-age we’ve spent our lives climbing from one misinformation-swamp to another, but as adults, it’s our job to figure it out. Free will and all. How dare you treat us like children.
And even the children about to enter the room have to learn how to deal with misinformation. How exactly can we teach them, if the government serves up one permitted line to protect us from accidentally hearing something “wrong”?
It’s not just that this misinformation bill is egregiously wrong, it’s that we shouldn’t have one at all in the first place.
REFERENCES
Danaei et al (2009) The preventable causes of death in the United States: comparative risk assessment of dietary, lifestyle, and metabolic risk factors, PLoS Med, . 2009 Apr 28;6(4):e1000058. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000058. Epub 2009 Apr 28.
Melania Trump Reveals She Was Debanked and Banned From Her Business Email Provider
By Cindy Harper | Reclaim The Net | October 6, 2024
In a Sunday interview with Fox News’ Maria Bartiromo, former First Lady Melania Trump revealed the challenges she faced post-White House, highlighting how her political affiliations led to punitive measures from various service providers, including her bank and an email service provider. This issue casts a light on the increasing trend of “debanking” and “deplatforming”—a form of censorship that has seen individuals and entities cut off from essential financial and communication services for non-criminal reasons.
“You know, this pushback from so many areas of your life that you never saw before, but suddenly the powers that be wanted to cancel you,” stated Bartiromo, probing into the unexpected hurdles encountered by Trump.
Melania Trump detailed several instances of this cancellation, noting, “the bank suddenly informed me they will not be able to do business with me anymore.” Moreover, she described how an “email distribution service provider just rapidly terminated my agreement.” These cancellations, according to Trump, were due to her political beliefs and affiliations, revealing a troubling trend of service denial as a political weapon.
This has not only affected Trump but also extended its impact to philanthropic efforts. She recounted an incident involving a university that initially accepted her donations for foster students’ scholarships but later reneged upon realizing her involvement. “They didn’t want to do business with me because of political affiliation, my political beliefs,” Trump said, pointing out the real victims of this decision—”children from the foster community.”
The phenomenon of debanking is increasingly recognized as a tool of exclusion and censorship, impacting individuals and organizations worldwide. While traditionally associated with financial crimes or risk management, it is now frequently weaponized against those a provider believes have controversial or unpopular political views. This growing form of censorship raises significant concerns about the neutrality of service providers and the broader implications for free speech and political engagement in a highly polarized era.
Despite facing significant setbacks, Trump remains optimistic about changing attitudes towards this suppressive trend. “I think some people got the courage and they said, like, they see it, what’s going on. They are not afraid to speak, but it’s still going on,” she acknowledged, showing a mix of resistance and ongoing challenges.
Featured Video
HE SAVED LIVES. NOW HE FACES PRISON.
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
NATO Sanctions and the Coming Global Diesel Fuel Disaster
By F. William Engdahl – New Eastern Outlook – 11.04.2022
Amid the ongoing global inflation crisis, NATO heads of state and mainstream media repeat a mantra that high energy prices are a direct result of Putin’s actions in Ukraine since end of February. The reality is that it is the western sanctions that are responsible. Those sanctions including cutting SWIFT interbank access for key Russian banks and some of the most severe sanctions ever imposed, are hardly having an impact on the military actions in Ukraine. What many overlook is the fact that they are increasingly impacting the economies of the West, especially the EU and USA. A closer look at the state of the global supply of diesel fuel is alarming. But Western sanctions planners at the US Treasury and the EU know fully well what they are doing. And it bodes ill for the world economy.
While most of us rarely think about diesel fuel as anything other than a pollutant, in fact it is essential to the entire world economy in a way few energy sources are. The director general of Fuels Europe, part of the European Petroleum Refiners Association, stated recently, “… there is a clear link between diesel and GDP, because almost everything that goes into and out of a factory goes using diesel.” … continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News- Trita Parsi: Middle East Unraveling — Are We on the Path to World War?
- Iran FM meets with US envoy on UN meeting’s sidelines at American side’s insistence: Report
- Qatar PM calls for Gulf security framework with Iran, says war must be ‘wake-up call’
- China condemns US extortion of Iranian airlines, rejects Washington’s ‘illegal’ sanctions threats
- Italy to move military personnel from Taif base after missile strike
- Finland’s Stubb tells European leaders to calm down
- Defeating Russia on battlefield impossible – Fico
- Finland’s Gender Clinic Reversal
- Massachusetts Wants Mental Health Visits, Why Does Government Use ‘Health’ to Enter Our Homes & Families?
- US lawmaker admits American people footing bill for Trump’s failed aggression against Iran
- If Americans Knew
- Sanctions are collective punishment: immoral and self-defeating
- Phosphorus Munitions Fired by Israel Burn Groves, Orchards in Southern Lebanon
- Israel Carries Out New Ceasefire Violations Across Gaza
- AI – Emphasis on the ‘I’: Israel Is Funding AI Chatbot Propaganda
- Israel Blocking Hundreds of Wheelchairs for Injured Children From Entering Gaza
- Israel Is Expanding and Upgrading Compounds for Palestinian Militias in Gaza
- The Palestinian-American Residents of This West Bank Town Are Wondering: Where Is Trump?
- Gaza desperately needs tents, wheelchairs, fuel… and everything else (Israel blocks it all) – Daily Update
- Israeli Attacks in Gaza Kill at Least Seven Palestinians Over Three Days, including Woman and Child
- Trump’s militarization of Washington DC as he pursues Israel’s war against Iran
- No Tricks Zone
- New Study: Earth And Venus Surface Warmth Largely Explained By Convection And Lapse Rate, Not CO2 Or Radiation
- 2025 Nature Paper Claiming Worsening Global Drought Gets RETRACTED …Heavily Flawed
- New Study: ‘Global Drought Shows No Detectable Recent Acceleration Under Climate Warming’
- Economic Masterminds: German Socialists Suggest Taxing Productivity Gains Stemming From Using AI
- The South China Sea Has Not Been Cooperating With The Climate Change Narrative
- Energy Crisis: Germany Enters Heating Season With Historically Low Gas Reserve Fill Levels
- New Study: The Antarctic Ice Sheet Gained Mass From 2020-2024 Due To Staggering Snow And Ice Accumulation
- Study: Ocean Heating Rates From Thousands Of Years Ago ‘Dwarf’ Modern Ocean Heating Rates
- Climate Extremists Target, Attack Large-Scale Power Grid Infrastructure In Germany!
- New Study: Antarctic Ice Melt Has Contributed Less Than 1 Centimeter To Sea Level Rise In The Last 30 Years
