Bipartisan Push to Shield Free Speech Targets Abusive Lawsuits
By Didi Rankovic | Reclaim The Net | December 9, 2024
A new bipartisan bill – the Free Speech Protection Act – has been introduced in the US Congress with the goal of improving ways to fight what are known as strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs).
We obtained a copy of the bill for you here.
Congressman Jamie Raskin and Kevin Kiley are behind the House proposal, while “companion” legislation in the Senate is sponsored by Ron Wyden.
SLAPPs are described as serving to chill both free speech and political action through litigation that is both frivolous in nature – and burdensome for those targeted by such lawsuits.
“Though many such suits often prove meritless, they are nonetheless effective at silencing, intimidating, and discouraging dissent,” a press release said.
The proposed legislation would prevent “Goliath triumphing over David,” as Congressman Raskin put it, by those with more money and power essentially abusing the judiciary and wearing down their opponents with huge legal costs and “prolonged invasive discovery.”
If the Free Speech Protection Act becomes law, its sponsors hope to rein in “the rich and powerful” both from draining those with fewer resources of money and in the process silencing people whose political views they consider “incorrect.”
Journalists, whistleblowers, and activists are likely to be subjected to meritless SLAPP lawsuits, the lawmakers note in their press release.
The legislative effort, which is supported by a number of civil rights groups, is meant to extend similar state laws to the federal level.
Although two-thirds of US states already restrict SLAPPs, in cases involving First Amendment free speech violations these laws do not apply – since they are tried in federal courts.
And those (ab)using the judicial system to their own end are aware of this and tend to file their SLAPPs in those courts, Institute for Free Speech President David Keating remarked, adding that this is why his group has supported the bipartisan and bicameral proposal.
The Free Speech Protection Act seeks to provide federal courts with a new mechanism to control SLAPPs, including by letting judges act quickly to identify when a SLAPP is going after constitutionally protected speech and dismiss such lawsuits.
Another provision is to prevent those filing SLAPPS from treating the discovery process as a privacy-invasive tool, and lastly, federal judges would be able to deter these lawsuits by awarding attorney fees to the victim – “to reduce the cost burden and deter future exploitation of this tactic.”
An Open Letter From A UK Doctor To Muslim Scholars Advising On Covid Vaccines
A Better Way with Dr Tess Lawrie | December 8, 2024
Following my call recent for religious leaders to reflect on their response to the experimental COVID-19 vaccine rollout, I am grateful to share Dr Ayiesha Malik’s open letter to Muslim Scholars. Dr Malik is one of the founders of Doctors for Patients UK, an organisation for ethical doctors based in the UK.
Dr Malik’s Note:
I have been a medical doctor for nearly 20 years. I graduated from the University of Birmingham in 2005 and as a GP in 2014. I am an NHS GP and have my own private clinic.
I am a practising Muslim and am advising here in my personal capacity.
بسم الله الرحمن الرحیم “In the name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate.”
Objective
I am submitting my views and research on Covid vaccines for consideration by respected scholars because many believe there is a consensus amongst Muslim doctors that the vaccine is safe and effective and, therefore, to be recommended to Muslim patients. There is no such consensus. I don’t believe the covid vaccines to be safe and effective, but unsafe and ineffective.
Doctors and scientists internationally are raising concerns about the harms they are seeing following vaccination, including “turbo” cancers and heart conditions. The rates of advanced cancer, strokes and heart disease are rising and the Covid-19 vaccine is not even being considered as a possible cause. Vaccine harms need to be investigated.
Action
I call for its rollout to be immediately suspended. I call on Muslim scholars to abstain from recommending the Muslim community “get vaccinated” as an Islamic duty and a commendable action to protect themselves and their communities.
Need For Muslim Doctors To Do Independent Research
The Shariah (Islamic law) recommends that Muslims consult a God-fearing doctor for advice about their medical treatment. This is because Muslim doctors will advise the patient from a place of taqwa (sincerity to God), wanting the best outcome for the patient, regardless of facing any backlash for their advice.
UK doctors were warned that they could face disciplinary action if they criticised the Government guidelines on Covid-19 measures and vaccines. (1) It’s important for scholars to be aware of this because doctors are not safely able to raise concerns and have open discussions but are expected to conform to current guidance.
To sincerely give medical advice requires an open mind, research beyond the medical school curriculum, accurate knowledge about the illness, conflicts of interest and possible safe alternatives. I am concerned that advice and guidance are being issued with a lack of awareness as to the larger relevant issues, as stated in this principle:
حكم الشيء فرع عن تصوره
“Judging something is based on understanding it.”
This means that making a correct or accurate judgment about something depends on having a clear and comprehensive understanding. If the thing is not properly understood, the judgment about it is likely to be incomplete or incorrect.
Criminal Record of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers of Vaccines
Pfizer has been charged with fraud and criminal liability, for which they have been ordered to pay billions of dollars (2), yet they continue to manufacture vaccines that are recommended to the Muslim community and beyond.
Censorship
Many doctors follow government guidelines and cannot state a concern without threats from the GMC and being accused of spreading misinformation. GP Dr Sam White lost his medical license for raising his concerns about the harms mRNA vaccines, lockdowns and masks. (3). Other doctors have been reported to the GMC for raising similar concerns.
Islam allows for debate and discussion- but unfortunately, it’s difficult to have conversations and debate with fellow doctors about these issues.
This lack of opportunity to discuss and debate vaccine concerns means that only one viewpoint is being heard, by Islamic scholars, doctors and patients.
Lack Of Support For Vaccine-Injured Patients
Patients who raise concerns are gaslighted and left without support. One example is Mr Adam Rowland, father of 4, who was a fit and well physiotherapist and has been left unable to work or function since his 2nd Astra Zeneca vaccine due to experiencing medical issues, including myocarditis and neuropathy (4)
UKCVFamily, a UK charity has been set up by the vaccine-injured to help support those injured. They have supported over 2000 UK residents. (5) They have sadly, experienced gaslighting, a lack of acknowledgement of their condition and little medical or financial support.
Over 16,000 people applied to the Covid vaccine scheme (6), with very strict eligibility and therefore, the majority of these claims are refused. The number of applicants is the tip of the iceberg but again highlights the vaccine has caused harm to many.
What will happen to Muslim patients who suffer side effects, from a Covid vaccine? Who will accept responsibility for this harm? Or will they be abandoned, like others have?
Mohamed Hijab, a prominent Muslim speaker, was hospitalised after he suffered a pulmonary embolism, a life-threatening clot of his lung 10 days after his first Pfizer vaccine, which he regretted having. Despite this, he was still being invited for further vaccines. (7)
The Risk of Covid-19 Was Exaggerated
To increase compliance with lockdowns and the uptake of Covid-19 vaccines, government messaging aimed to “frighten the pants off everyone (8)
Side effects from the vaccines are not openly addressed. This was the case from the very beginning and in the early trials, the voice of patients who were harmed was censored from the internet.
One such case is that of Maddie De Gray, a 12 year old who was left wheelchair-bound with a nasogastric tube following the Pfizer vaccine (9). Her symptoms were misleadingly recorded in the trial data as “abdominal pain”.
A whistleblower from the initial Pfizer trials raised many concerns about the trials, including the lack of timely follow-up of patients who experienced adverse events (10).
There Is no Long-Term Safety Data For COVID-19 Vaccines
Covid-19 vaccines are being promoted as safe, effective and necessary without long-term data, even to groups such as pregnant women, breastfeeding women and children.
Lack Of Safety Data To Recommend To Pregnant Women
In the 1950s, a drug called thalidomide was promoted to women for morning sickness without any long-term data. Thousands of women suffered miscarriages, and babies were born blind and without limbs and the drug was subsequently withdrawn. (11) This scandal is taught to doctors during training, and a great deal of caution is urged when prescribing medications to pregnant women.
Pregnant women are taught to be very careful in terms of what they consume. They are advised to reduce caffeine intake and not take unnecessary medications for the first 12 weeks in particular, as the fetus’s organs are developing in this delicate time.
Concerningly, a new mRNA vaccine was recommended for pregnant women by the government and the medical profession, with no long-term safety data. It continues to be promoted to pregnant women, although will be withdrawn from July 2025 after 4 years of the rollout. (12)
A US obstetrician Dr James Thorpe raised concerns about vaccinating pregnant women and published a paper highlighting an increase in adverse events in vaccinated mothers, including development disorders and fetal deaths. (13)
I also wrote a rapid response in the BMJ, highlighting my concerns about this group of women being vaccinated. (14).
Concerns About “Turbo” Cancer
Professor Angus Dalgliesh, a professor of Oncology at St George’s, London, has been raising concerns about the link between Covid vaccines and “turbo” cancer in his patients. (15) “Turbo” cancer refers to cancer that is presenting in advanced and alarming stages.
Consultant Surgeon Mr James Royle has also raised concerns about turbo cancers and thrombosis in his Covid-vaccinated patients. (16)
Concerns About Myocarditis and Heart Attacks
Consultant Cardiologists Dr Aseem Malhotra and Dr Dean Patterson have both been raising concerns about the rates of myocarditis and myocardial infarction following Covid vaccination. (17)(18)(19)
I joined other UK doctors who were also concerned about about the harms of Covid vaccines and together we formed, Doctor for Patients UK. (20)
Safe Treatment For Covid-19
Doctors have been treating covid safely using ivermectin, blackseed oil, vitamin C and D, along other supplements with good results. Dr Tess Lawrie has raised awareness about the effectiveness of treatment such as ivermectin and treatment protocols can be found on the World Council For Health website. (21)
International Concerns By Doctors And Scientists
There are many doctors and scientists internationally raising concerns about vaccine harms, but we have no voice in the mainstream, due to censorship.
US cardiologist Dr Peter McCullough called for an immediate withdrawal of these products in a speech made in the EU Parliament on 13 September 2023. (22)
Over 64 000 people worldwide have joined me in calling for the suspension of the covid vaccine and an investigation into the roll-out, by signing The Hope Accord. (23)
Vaccinating To Prevent Transmission
There is no evidence that vaccines prevent transmission to another individual, as this was not studied in the early trials. Pfizer admitted they had not studied transmission in the early trials to the EU Parliament and they had “lied” about this previously. (24) Recommendations to get vaccinated cannot be made to prevent spread and protect the vulnerable.
Further Issues Needing Research
I have summarised some of my concerns about the Covid-19 vaccines. There are still many issues that need to be discussed, including the DNA plasmids and the ingredients of these genetic injections.
Concluding Remarks
Islamically, medication is merely mubah (permissible). This is when a patient is suffering from an illness. In the case of prophylaxis, to prevent illness the ruling for intervention is even less.
I believe the Covid-19 vaccinations should be suspended and the harms investigated. I do not support Muslim organisations or scholars making blanket recommendations for every Muslim to get vaccinated.
Instead, patients should seek the advice of a local God-fearing Muslim doctor, who has independently researched any benefits and harms of the vaccines beyond Government recommendations.
I hope this helps provide insight into deeper issues that need to be considered when issuing guidelines for Muslim doctors and the community about COVID-19 vaccinations and beyond.
And Allah Almighty knows best.
Dr Ayiesha Malik, MBChB, MRCGP (2014)
Website: https://www.drayieshamalik.com/
UK: Student’s Suspension Over Gender-Critical Views Sparks Campus Free Speech Uproar
By Ben Squires | Reclaim The Net | December 6, 2024
A third-year student at the University of Leeds has found herself at the center of a free speech controversy after being suspended from her role at the university’s student radio station. Connie Shaw, who studies philosophy, ethics, and religion, has drawn attention from campaigners advocating for free expression, who claim her removal is rooted in her views critical of modern gender ideology.
According to The Telegraph, the dispute arose following a complaint to Leeds Student Radio (LSR), where Shaw held the position of head of daytime radio. She oversaw popular programs such as Woman’s Hour and LGBTQ+ Hour. According to the Free Speech Union (FSU), the student union accused the 20-year-old of breaching its code of conduct, alleging she had failed in her “duty of care” and damaged the university’s reputation.
The situation escalated when Shaw received a suspension notice in October. The union cited her social media activity as a central concern but withheld specifics until a meeting on November 6. During this meeting, Shaw learned that the complaint stemmed from a blog post she published on Substack the previous month. The post was hosted by Graham Linehan, a writer known for his outspoken views that are critical of modern gender ideology. In the piece, Shaw critiqued Leeds University’s gender policies, including a fund that provides financial support for trans students to purchase items such as chest binders and makeup.
The blog also scrutinized a feminist philosophy essay question Shaw encountered during her studies, which asked whether subordination is essential to being a woman. Describing the question as problematic, she argued it implied that systemic oppression defines womanhood. Additionally, Shaw’s podcast, linked in the post, featured interviews with both Linehan and Charlie Bentley-Astor, a notable detransitioner. These interviews, recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival in London, were cited as contributing factors in the complaint.
In late November, the Leeds University Union (LUU) determined that Shaw’s actions had brought the station into disrepute, resulting in her suspension from the LSR committee. To regain her position, she was reportedly instructed to issue a written apology and complete an e-learning course.
The FSU, acting on Shaw’s behalf, has challenged the union’s decision, alleging it constitutes direct discrimination under the Equality Act 2010, which protects gender-critical beliefs. Toby Young, FSU’s general secretary, criticized the investigation’s process, describing it as flawed and biased. “The natural inference from their approach was that Shaw’s beliefs alone were sufficient to tarnish the station’s reputation,” he said.
Young further denounced what he called “hostile questioning” during the inquiry, including being asked how she could foster inclusivity at LSR when her views might discomfort others. He argued that the complaints against her were exaggerated and lacked concrete detail.
Shaw herself expressed frustration at the outcome, pointing to what she views as hypocrisy. “It is ironic that LSR promoted a freedom of speech event – the Battle of Ideas – only for me to face repercussions for interviews conducted there and for exercising my legal right to free speech,” she said.
The controversy has sparked a broader conversation about freedom of expression on university campuses. The FSU has vowed to support Shaw through an appeal process and potential legal claims, calling for the investigation to be overturned. Meanwhile, the LUU has maintained its commitment to inclusivity but has declined further comments due to the ongoing appeal.
This case highlights the tension between fostering an inclusive environment and protecting individuals’ rights to express contentious views, raising critical questions about the boundaries of free speech in academic settings.
US, Canadian universities hire Israeli firms to curb pro-Palestinian protests, report says
Press TV – December 7, 2024
A report by an Israeli newspaper reveals that several universities across the United States and Canada have engaged Israeli-linked security firms to suppress pro-Palestinian protests on their campuses.
The report by the Yedioth Ahronoth highlights that following Donald Trump’s election campaign, during which he promised to penalize institutions that didn’t adequately control “radicals and Hamas supporters,” many universities sought Israeli security companies for assistance in managing protest activities.
The City University of New York (CUNY), a significant site for protests in the past year, has recently signed a contract worth $4 million with Strategy Security Corp., owned by Yosef Sordi, a former New York City police officer with professional training in Israel.
The report also draws attention to the involvement of Israeli security firms in violent confrontations that occurred in May at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA). Protesters stated that personnel from Magen Am, a company with Israeli military ties, were aggressive in their actions during the demonstrations.
UCLA confirmed that the firm worked alongside local police to manage the protests, with the company receiving $1 million in return.
Additionally, the Contemporary Services Corporation (CSC), which has a specific division in Israel, has been contracted to oversee demonstrations at various US university campuses.
In Montreal, Concordia University has engaged two Israeli security firms: Percentage International and Moshav Security Consulting.
In April, Columbia University students and faculty staged a sit-in opposing Israel’s genocidal actions in Gaza, demanding the administration cut ties with Israeli universities and divest from companies supporting the occupation.
As police intervened and arrested dozens of protesters at US universities, similar demonstrations spread to universities across France, the UK, Germany, Canada, and India, as protesters expressed solidarity with their American counterparts and called for an end to the war on Gaza.
Israel’s ongoing genocidal war on Gaza has killed over 44,664 people, most of them women and children, since October 7, 2023.
Last month, the International Criminal Court issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former war minister Yoav Gallant for war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza.
Israel is also facing a genocide case at the International Court of Justice due to its genocidal campaign in Gaza.
TikTok on the Clock: US Appeals Court Hits the “Ban” Button
By Christina Maas | Reclaim The Net | December 6, 2024
The winds of Washington are blowing icy cold for TikTok this December. A federal appeals court panel handed down a ruling today that could send the app packing— or at least force it into a kind of corporate divorce.
The US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has today declared the law threatening TikTok’s existence to be totally constitutional, leaving the platform to fight for its digital life. In short, TikTok has until mid-January to break ties with its Beijing-based parent, ByteDance, or risk an outright ban in the United States.
TikTok responded with the following statement:
“The Supreme Court has an established historical record of protecting Americans’ right to free speech, and we expect they will do just that on this important constitutional issue. Unfortunately, the TikTok ban was conceived and pushed through based upon inaccurate, flawed and hypothetical information, resulting in outright censorship of the American people. The TikTok ban, unless stopped, will silence the voices of over 170 million Americans here in the US and around the world on January 19th, 2025.”
The Free Speech Shuffle
TikTok played the First Amendment card, arguing that banning the platform would stomp on Americans’ free speech rights. But the court wasn’t having it, throwing in a little verbal aikido about protecting actual freedom.
“The First Amendment exists to protect free speech in the United States,” the court wrote, presumably while straightening its tie in a metaphorical mirror. “Here the Government acted solely to protect that freedom from a foreign adversary nation and to limit that adversary’s ability to gather data on people in the United States.”
Translation: TikTok, it’s not you — it’s China.
ByteDance’s Legal Tango
TikTok and its parent company, ByteDance, is already planning to appeal to the Supreme Court because apparently, they’re gluttons for punishment. And hey, why not? When you’re staring down a deadline that could nuke your entire US business, you either fight or fold.
But here’s where it gets interesting: the same President-elect Donald Trump who once tried to fire TikTok like it was a contestant on The Apprentice now says he’s against a ban. Trump has promised to swoop in and “save” the platform during his second term.
The law itself was signed by President Joe Biden in April, marking a rare bipartisan moment in a town otherwise allergic to cooperation. For years, Washington has been gnashing its teeth over TikTok’s ties to the Chinese government, accusing the app of being a national security threat disguised as a dance challenge factory.
Of course, critics argue this is about power. TikTok’s cultural dominance has made it an unpredictable disruptor, threatening not only Big Tech’s grip on social media but also giving the average American teen more clout than your local senator.
Government officials argue that the app’s voracious appetite for user data could lead to sensitive information, from browsing histories to biometric identifiers, being vacuumed up by the Chinese communist government. But the main issue? The proprietary algorithm, that magical machine-learning potion that keeps you scrolling at 2 a.m., is painted as a weapon of influence — a subtle but powerful propaganda tool ready to tweak your feed for Beijing’s benefit.
Except, there’s a catch: a good chunk of the government’s evidence for these claims is locked behind classified curtains. TikTok’s attorneys — and by extension the American public — are left in the dark.
TikTok Fights Back
TikTok has steadfastly denied being a Chinese Trojan horse, insisting that no evidence exists to prove they’ve ever handed over data to Beijing. As for the algorithm? TikTok says any suggestion of manipulation is pure speculation. Their legal team hammered home that the government’s arguments rely on what might happen in the future — a slippery foundation for ripping apart a platform that’s glued to the cultural zeitgeist.
But the Department of Justice isn’t just playing futurist. It has hinted — vaguely and ominously — at unspecified past actions by TikTok and ByteDance in response to Chinese government demands. The key word here is “unspecified,” because whatever receipts the DOJ might have, they’re conveniently out of reach for TikTok’s lawyers, the media, or anyone else.
A Courtroom Tango: First Amendment vs. National Security
The appeals court panel, a politically mixed trio of judges, seemed as torn as the rest of us about how far Uncle Sam can stretch its First Amendment arguments to justify banning an app with foreign ties. Over two hours of oral arguments in September, the judges volleyed tough questions at both sides.
Can the government really shut down a platform just because it’s foreign-owned? the judges asked, channeling TikTok’s core argument. On the flip side: What happens if this platform turns into a covert disinformation campaign during wartime? they wondered, invoking wartime-era laws restricting foreign ownership of broadcast licenses.
Both sides twisted themselves into legal yoga poses. TikTok’s lawyer, Andrew Pincus, argued that a private company — even one with foreign owners — deserves constitutional protections. The DOJ’s Daniel Tenny countered that the government has a duty to head off potential foreign interference, even if the threat isn’t fully realized yet.
$2 Billion in Data Defenses
TikTok itself hasn’t just been sitting back while lawyers spar. The company claims it’s invested over $2 billion to fortify its US data, including setting up Project Texas — a heavily marketed initiative to store American user data on servers managed by Oracle. ByteDance has also floated the idea of a comprehensive draft agreement that it says could have eased Washington’s fears years ago.
But according to TikTok, the Biden administration ghosted them, walking away from the negotiating table without offering a viable path forward. The DOJ insists the draft didn’t go far enough, but skeptics wonder if the government’s hardline stance is less about national security and more about flexing control over Big Tech.
Divestment Drama
Washington’s solution to the TikTok dilemma sounds deceptively simple: ByteDance should sell the US arm of TikTok. However attorneys for the company argue that such a divestment would be a logistical and commercial nightmare. And without TikTok’s algorithm—intellectual property that Beijing is unlikely to let go of—the app would lose its magic. Imagine TikTok without its eerily intuitive feed: it’d be MySpace 2.0, a ghost town for millennials waxing nostalgic.
Still, some sharks smell blood in the water. Billionaire Frank McCourt and former Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin have rallied a consortium with over $20 billion in informal commitments to snap up TikTok’s US operations.
A Perfect Storm of Lawsuits
TikTok isn’t going down without a fight and it’s bringing allies to the battlefield. The company’s legal challenge has been bundled with lawsuits from several content creators, who argue that losing the platform would gut their livelihoods, and conservative influencers who claim a ban would silence their political speech. TikTok, ever the sugar daddy, is footing the legal bills for its creators — a savvy PR move if ever there was one.
The Clock is Ticking
If TikTok’s Hail Mary appeal to the Supreme Court fails, it’ll be up to President Trump’s Justice Department to enforce the ban. That means app stores would have to scrub TikTok from their offerings, and hosting services would be barred from supporting it.
And what happens to the millions of creators, small businesses, and teenagers who’ve turned TikTok into a cultural juggernaut? Well, they’ll probably migrate to Instagram Reels or YouTube Shorts—platforms that coincidentally happen to be owned by US tech giants who’ve been salivating at the thought of TikTok’s demise.
This is far from over.
You’d Better Watch Out: The Surveillance State Is Making a List, and You’re On It
By John & Nisha Whitehead | The Rutherford Institute | December 4, 2024
You’d better watch out—you’d better not pout—you’d better not cry—‘cos I’m telling you why: this Christmas, it’s the Surveillance State that’s making a list and checking it twice, and it won’t matter whether you’ve been bad or good.
You’ll be on this list whether you like it or not.
Mass surveillance is the Deep State’s version of a “gift” that keeps on giving… back to the Deep State.
Geofencing dragnets. Fusion centers. Smart devices. Behavioral threat assessments. Terror watch lists. Facial recognition. Snitch tip lines. Biometric scanners. Pre-crime. DNA databases. Data mining. Precognitive technology. Drones. Contact tracing apps. License plate readers. Social media vetting. Surveillance towers.
What these add up to is a world in which, on any given day, the average person is now monitored, surveilled, spied on and tracked in more than 20 different ways by both government and corporate eyes and ears.
Big Tech wedded to Big Government has become Big Brother.
Every second of every day, the American people are being spied on by a vast network of digital Peeping Toms, electronic eavesdroppers and robotic snoops.
This creepy new era of government/corporate spying—in which we’re being listened to, watched, tracked, followed, mapped, bought, sold and targeted—has been made possible by a global army of techno-tyrants, fusion centers and Peeping Toms.
Consider just a small sampling of the tools being used to track our movements, monitor our spending, and sniff out all the ways in which our thoughts, actions and social circles might land us on the government’s naughty list, whether or not you’ve done anything wrong.
Tracking you based on your phone and movements: Cell phones have become de facto snitches, offering up a steady stream of digital location data on users’ movements and travels. For instance, the FBI was able to use geofence data to identify more than 5,000 mobile devices (and their owners) in a 4-acre area around the Capitol on January 6.
Tracking you based on your DNA. DNA technology in the hands of government officials completes our transition to a Surveillance State. By accessing your DNA, the government will soon know everything else about you that they don’t already know: your family chart, your ancestry, what you look like, your health history, your inclination to follow orders or chart your own course, etc. It’s only a matter of time before the police state’s pursuit of criminals expands into genetic profiling and a preemptive hunt for criminals of the future.
Tracking you based on your face: Facial recognition software aims to create a society in which every individual who steps out into public is tracked and recorded in real-time as they go about their daily business. Similarly, biometric software, which relies on one’s unique identifiers (fingerprints, irises, voice prints), is becoming the standard for navigating security lines, as well as bypassing digital locks and gaining access to phones, computers, office buildings. Scientists are also developing lasers that can identify and surveil individuals based on their heartbeats, scent and microbiome.
Tracking you based on your behavior: Rapid advances in behavioral surveillance are not only making it possible for individuals to be monitored and tracked based on their patterns of movement or behavior, including gait recognition (the way one walks), but have given rise to whole industries that revolve around predicting one’s behavior based on data and surveillance patterns and are also shaping the behaviors of whole populations.
Tracking you based on your spending and consumer activities: Consumer surveillance, by which your activities and data in the physical and online realms are tracked and shared with advertisers, has become big business, a $300 billion industry that routinely harvests your data for profit.
Tracking you based on your public activities: Private corporations in conjunction with police agencies throughout the country have created a web of surveillance that encompasses all major cities in order to monitor large groups of people seamlessly, as in the case of protests and rallies. They are also engaging in extensive online surveillance, looking for any hints of “large public events, social unrest, gang communications, and criminally predicated individuals.”
Tracking you based on your social media activities: As The Intercept reported, the FBI, CIA, NSA and other government agencies are increasingly investing in and relying on corporate surveillance technologies that can mine constitutionally protected speech on social media platforms such as Facebook, Twitter and Instagram in order to identify potential extremists and predict who might engage in future acts of anti-government behavior.
Tracking you based on your social network: Not content to merely spy on individuals through their online activity, government agencies are now using surveillance technology to track one’s social network, the people you might connect with by phone, text message, email or through social message, in order to ferret out possible criminals. What this creates is a “guilt by association” society in which we are all as guilty as the most culpable person in our address book.
Now the government wants us to believe that we have nothing to fear from these mass spying programs as long as we’ve done nothing wrong.
Don’t believe it.
The government’s definition of a “bad” guy is extraordinarily broad, and it results in the warrantless surveillance of innocent, law-abiding Americans on a staggering scale.
As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People and in its fictional counterpart The Erik Blair Diaries, surveillance, digital stalking and the data mining of the American people—weapons of compliance and control in the government’s hands—haven’t made America any safer. And they certainly aren’t helping to preserve our freedoms.
Indeed, America will never be safe as long as the U.S. government is allowed to shred the Constitution.
Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. His most recent books are the best-selling Battlefield America: The War on the American People, the award-winning A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State, and a debut dystopian fiction novel, The Erik Blair Diaries. Whitehead can be contacted at staff@rutherford.org. Nisha Whitehead is the Executive Director of The Rutherford Institute. Information about The Rutherford Institute is available at www.rutherford.org.
US embassy in Kiev blocking Zelensky interview – Tucker Carlson
RT | December 4, 2024
American journalist Tucker Carlson has said the US government has been blocking his attempts to organize an interview with Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky for more than a year.
On Wednesday, Carlson published a video on X in which he previewed the upcoming release of an interview with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov.
The journalist said the conversation with Russia’s top diplomat was aimed at providing a perspective on how close Washington and Moscow could be to a direct clash, after the administration of outgoing US President Joe Biden granted Ukraine permission to fire American-made long-range weapons deep into Russian territory.
In the same clip, filmed on Manezhnaya Square in the heart of Moscow, the former Fox News host revealed that “we have also tried for over a year to get an interview with Zelensky, the president of Ukraine.”
According to Carlson, his team “have attacked that from a bunch of different angles. We have spoken to a lot of different people around him, had dinner with them. We have been in talks continuously.”
“And those efforts have been thwarted by the US government. The American Embassy in Kiev, which our tax dollars pay for, told the Zelensky government: No, you may not do the interview. You can talk to CNN. You cannot talk to us,” Carlson said.
In June, the journalist said he had agreed an interview with the Ukrainian leader. However, Zelensky’s press-secretary, Sergey Nikiforov, swiftly rejected the claim, saying that “Tucker Carlson should check his sources in the FSB (Russia’s Federal Security Service) more carefully.” Zelensky “has a completely different schedule, and Tucker Carlson is not on it,” Nikiforov stressed.
Carlson’s latest trip to Moscow is his second since the escalation between Russia and Ukraine in early 2022. In February, he interviewed Russian President Vladimir Putin, with the recording of their two-hour conversation getting 14 million views on YouTube and 185 million views on X in the first three days after its release.
UNESCO’s New Mission: Train Influencers About Combatting Online “Misinformation”
By Didi Rankovic | Reclaim The Net | December 2, 2024
The UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) is now incorporating teaching influencers how to “fact check” into its activities.
UNESCO claims that influencers have become “primary sources of news and cultural information” around the world – which prompted it to carry out a survey into how these online personalities verify the “news” they present.
Citizens in UN member-countries may or may not be happy that this is how their taxpayer money funding the world organization is being spent these days. But UNESCO is not only conducting surveys; it is also developing a training course for said influencers (which are also interchangeably referred to as content creators in press releases).
It’s meant to teach them not only to “report misinformation, disinformation and hate speech” but also to collaborate with legacy media and these outlets’ journalists, in order to “amplify fact-based information.”
The survey, “Behind the screens,” was done together with researchers from the US Bowling Green State University. 500 influencers from 45 countries took part, and the key findings, UNESCO said, are that 63 percent of them “lack rigorous and systematic fact-checking protocols” – but also, that 73% said they “want to be trained.”
This UN agency also frames the results as showing that respondents are “struggling” with disinformation and hate speech and are “calling for more training.”
UNESCO is justifying its effort to teach influencers to “rigorously” check facts by referring to its media and information literacy mandate. The report laments that mainstream media has become “only the third most common source (36.9%) for content creators, after their own experience and their own research and interviews.”
It would seem content creators/influencers are driven by common sense, but UNESCO wants them to forge closer ties with journalists (specifically those from legacy, i.e., traditional media – UNESCO appears very eager to stress that multiple times.)
Under the guise of concern, the agency also essentially warns creators/influencers that they should be better aware of regulations and “international standards” that pertain to digital media – in order to avoid “legal uncertainty” that exposes them to “prosecution and conviction in some countries.”
And now, UNESCO and US-based Knight Center for Journalism in the Americas have launched a one-month course which is currently involving 9,000 people from 160 countries. The goal is to train them to “address disinformation and hate speech and provide them with a solid grounding in global human rights standards.”
The initiative looks like an attempt to get “traditional” journalists to influence the influencers, and try to prop up their outlets, that are experiencing an erosion in trust among their audiences.
Secrecy and the Divine Right to Deceive
By Jim Bovard | The Libertarian Institute | December 2, 2024
Secrecy and lying are two sides of the same political coin. The Supreme Court declared in 1936, “An informed public is the most potent of all restraints upon misgovernment.” Thus, conniving politicians have no choice but to drop an Iron Curtain around Washington.
Politicians guarantee that Americans are left clueless on the most controversial or dangerous federal policies. The government is creating trillions of pages of new secrets every year. The total is equivalent to “20 million four-drawer filing cabinets filled with double-spaced text on paper,” according to The Washington Post. If those cabinets were laid end to end, they would stretch almost to the moon. The feds have accumulated the equivalent of hundreds of pages of secrets for each American, blighting any hope for citizens to learn of their rulers’ rascality.
“All rulers in all ages have tried to impose a false view of the world upon their followers,” George Orwell wrote in his novel Nineteen Eighty-Four. This is where government classification—i.e., secrecy—comes in handy. The more information government classifies, the easier it becomes for politicians to dupe the American people. In Washington, deniability is better than the truth.
Secrecy was usually not a grave peril to most Americans’ rights, liberties, and safety until the U.S. government began warring in the 1940s and on into this century.
Secrecy helped deliver a death warrant for tens of thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese. President Lyndon Johnson fabricated claims about an alleged North Vietnamese attack in the Gulf of Tonkin to sway Congress to give him unlimited authority to attack North Vietnam. Johnson assumed he was entitled to deceive Americans to vastly expand the war he decided to fight to boost his 1964 presidential election campaign. But other federal officials claimed a prerogative to blindfold the American people. When Assistant Defense Secretary Arthur Sylvester visited Saigon in 1965, he hectored American correspondents covering the Vietnam War: “Look, if you think any American official is going to tell you the truth, then you’re stupid. Did you hear that? Stupid!” Sylvester declared that he expected the American press to be “the handmaidens of government.” Most of the American media has followed orders regarding foreign reporting most of the time since then.
In March 1972, President Richard Nixon, as part of his “pledge to create an open Administration,” ordered radical changes in how Uncle Sam kept secrets. Nixon announced that the classification system “failed to meet the standards of an open and democratic society, allowing too many papers to be classified for too long a time. Classification has frequently served to conceal bureaucratic mistakes or to prevent embarrassment to officials and administrations.” He promised “to lift the veil of secrecy which now enshrouds” federal documents. Nixon’s campaign against secrecy faltered after the Watergate coverup destroyed his presidency.
In 1978, President Jimmy Carter created the Information Security Oversight Office to oversee classification but secrecy regime continued and grew. In 1989, former Solicitor General of the United States Dean Erwin Griswold complained that “there is massive overclassification and that the principal concern of the classifiers is not with national security, but with governmental embarrassment of one sort or another.” In 1991, former National Security Council official Rodney McDaniel estimated that “only 10% of classification was for legitimate protection of secrets.” In 1997, a federal commission headed by Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D-NY) lamented that “secrets in the federal government are whatever anyone with a stamp decides to stamp secret.”
In the weeks after the 9/11 attacks, the percentage of Americans who trusted the federal government doubled. The George W. Bush administration exploited the new credulity to boost the number of classified government documents almost tenfold. The New York Times reported in 2005 that federal agencies were “classifying documents at the rate of 125 a minute as they create new categories of semi-secrets bearing vague labels like ‘sensitive security information.’” William Leonard, former chief of the federal Information Security Oversight Office, complained of seeing information “classified that I’ve also seen published in third-grade textbooks.”
But secrecy again signed a death warrant for thousands of Americans. President George W. Bush persuaded Americans to support invading Iraq by blaming Saddam Hussein for the 9/11 attacks, among other pretexts. Bush could vilify Iraq thanks to a sweeping coverup of the role of the Saudi government in bankrolling and directly assisting the 9/11 hijackers.
According to the Barack Obama administration, even federal judges must bow to classification labels. “We don’t think there is a First Amendment right to classified documents,” Justice Department lawyer Catherine Dorsey told a federal judge in 2015. The New York Times’ James Risen spent almost a decade in the federal crosshairs after his 2006 book State of War exposed the NSA’s illegal warrantless wiretapping and other federal crimes. Robert Litt, general counsel for the Director of National Intelligence, compared journalism to drunk driving to justify punishing any journalist who published confidential information. But the Justice Department could not prove Risen’s disclosures harmed anything except federal credibility.
Secrecy leaves truth up to the discretion of today’s political appointees. Secrecy lets government officials fill in the blanks as they please. Government secrecy can blindfold people as effectively as federal marshals descending upon a newspaper’s printing presses with axes and sledgehammers. The more facts government suppresses, the more lies politicians can tell.
Will secrecy determine whether Americans are dragged into another world war in the coming months? The Joe Biden administration is encouraging the Ukraine government to become far more aggressive, if not reckless, in its attacks on Russia. But Americans are being treated the same as the downtrodden serfs whom Russian czars dragged into wars centuries ago. The Biden administration decided that Americans have no right to know the facts when their rulers swerve closer to Armageddon. Unfortunately, as in Saigon in 1965, most of the media is still shamefully “the handmaidens of government.”
World leaders sign new censorship declaration at UN event as Secretary-General Guterres pushes for increased online censorship
By Didi Rankovic | Reclaim The Net | December 1, 2024
A new UN-driven censorship declaration has been signed by a number of world leaders during an event in Portugal – the Cascais Declaration at the United Nations Alliance of Civilizations (UNAOC) Global Forum.
We obtained a copy of the final declaration for you here.
The gathering was addressed by UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, who once again reiterated his commitment to censoring online speech, bringing up the usual set of “arguments” in favor of moving in this direction.
During the address, Guterres spoke about “unchecked digital platforms and AI” and accused them of allowing “hate speech to proliferate like never before” – and did not miss the opportunity to mention “misinformation and deepfakes” in the same context.
Guterres wants Big Tech, advertisers, and media – that is, along with some governments and organizations like the UN, among the most egregious offenders when it comes to online censorship – to double down.
“Taking responsibility for their role” in spreading hate speech, deepfakes, etc., was how he phrased it.
Guterres also again pushed a UN initiative that critics say introduces algorithmic censorship and demonetization under the stated “anti-misinformation and hate speech” scope – the UN’s Global Principles for Information Integrity.
According to Guterres, these recommendations allow for “a more humane information ecosystem.”
Meanwhile, the Cascais Declaration states that the leaders who signed it are “alarmed” at what is described as a global spread, online and offline, of “disinformation, misinformation and hate speech.”
The signatories also want those to be combated while at the same time strengthening “information integrity” (without going into what that means, and how it is supposed to be achieved.)
Another of the many controversial UN schemes, the Pact for the Future, is “noted” in the declaration, and framed as recognizing the role of “reinvigorated multilateralism” and religious organization promoting a culture of peace.
However, those opposed to the Pact see yet another mechanism to usher in more censorship and surveillance.
These points about the supposed greater-than-ever dangers of AI, misinformation, etc., are nestled inside the declaration’s overall message of the need to protect a variety of human rights and cultural diversity.
Among them is the mention of “monitoring antisemitism,” but also “combating Islamophobia” – including by appointing a special UN envoy to deal with the latter task.
US breaks off ‘strategic partnership’ with Georgia; blasts Tblisi for ‘pro-Russia lean’
Press TV – November 30, 2024
The United States has broken off its “strategic partnership” with Georgia after the latter’s decision to suspend negotiations on potential accession to the European Union, while condemning Tbilisi for, what it called, leaning towards Russia.
State Department spokesperson Matthew Miller announced the development on X, former Twitter, on Saturday.
“The US and EU regret Georgian Dream (GD)’s decision to suspend EU accession,” he wrote, referring to Georgia’s ruling party.
“The EU is a bulwark against the Kremlin. We have, therefore, suspended our Strategic Partnership with Georgia,” Miller said.
He also claimed that the party’s decision on the accession talks was a “betrayal” of the European country’s constitution.
The State Department, meanwhile, released a statement on Washington’s decision, accusing the GD of “various anti-democratic actions [that] have violated the core tenets of our US-Georgia Strategic Partnership.”
By freezing the accession talks, it added, the party “has rejected the opportunity for closer ties with Europe and made Georgia more vulnerable to the Kremlin.”
The department also claimed that Georgian people “overwhelmingly support integration with Europe.”
GD Chairman Prime Minister, Irakli Kobakhidze suspended the accession process on Thursday, saying the EU was expecting Georgia to enact “reforms” in exchange for joining the bloc that were actually “steps that mean renouncing our dignity.”
The official was referring to Brussels’ various demands on Tbilisi, including its repealing of the foreign agents’ law that requires NGOs and media outlets that receive more than 20 percent of their funding from foreign donors to register as organizations “bearing the interests of a foreign power.”
Brussels, he added, was effectively “blackmailing” Tbilisi through the demands.
The EU, itself, froze Georgia’s application for joining the bloc earlier this year in response to ratification of the law among other things.
The Georgian premier, meanwhile, addressed the ongoing anti-government riots that have been underway in the capital for the past two days, during which anarchists have put up barricades along the central Rustaveli Avenue and thrown fireworks at the riot police.
The country, he said, would not allow a revolution to take place, saying the rioters were seeking to overthrow the government, using the same tactics that were used during 2014 riots in Ukraine, known as the Maidan riots, which ousted the government in Kiev.
“In Georgia, the Maidan scenario cannot be realized. Georgia is a state, and the state will not, of course, permit this,” Kobakhidze said.
Georgia’s State Security Service also commented on the riots, calling them evidence that a violent coup attempt was taking place in the country.
“Developments occurring in recent days in the country show that planned destructive processes are taking place in accordance with actual circumstances becoming known to the State Security Service as part of the investigation of the violent upheaval case. We informed the society in advance about that,” the service said.
Specific political parties and non-governmental organizations are interested in a violent coup, it noted, adding that the developments were being investigated under Article 315 of the Georgian Criminal Code that covers conspiracy or mutiny for purposes of violent change of the Georgian constitutional order.
Rumble Sues California Over Censorship Law That Impacts Satire
By Dan Frieth | Reclaim The Net | November 27, 2024
A new legal challenge, spearheaded by Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys, has thrust the state of California into the spotlight once again over allegations of infringing on free speech rights. This federal lawsuit, lodged on behalf of video-sharing platform Rumble, argues that two new California statutes unconstitutionally restrict users’ ability to share political content online.
We obtained a copy of the lawsuit for you here.
Under these controversial laws, specifically AB 2655, platforms like Rumble are coerced into policing and removing content that the state deems harmful. These regulations have been criticized for compelling platforms to censor speech, thereby becoming unwilling agents of government censorship. According to ADF Senior Counsel Phil Sechler, in a press release sent to Reclaim The Net, “California’s war against political speech is censorship, plain and simple. We can’t trust the government to decide what is true in our online political debates.” He emphasized the importance of platforms like Rumble, which resist governmental pressures to curtail free expression.
The complaint details the operational challenges: “The law forces Rumble to undertake the impossible task of training its team to recognize and then remove and label content based on inherently vague and subjective terms on which even pollsters and government officials cannot agree, such as what content may be ‘likely to harm’ electoral prospects or may likely undermine confidence in an election.”
Further, Rumble contends that AB 2655 oversteps by altering and compelling the speech of private entities, thus infringing upon their rights to free speech. It argues that neither the Constitution nor Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act allows California to “alter and compel Rumble’s speech while also mandating that it censor its users’ speech. As such, this Court should enjoin AB 2655 and declare it unlawful.”
The genesis of these laws can be traced back to July when a parody video targeting Vice President Kamala Harris spurred Gov. Gavin Newsom to advocate for making such content illegal. Subsequently, the California Legislature expedited the passage of these laws, which Gov. Newsom signed into action on September 17. AB 2839, in particular, imposes vague criteria to penalize individuals for sharing content related to elections, such as political memes and parodies.
In the detailed legal challenge, attorneys argue that AB 2655 forces Rumble to alter its own speech and police its users’ speech based on arbitrary criteria that even experts cannot uniformly interpret. The law imposes a duty on Rumble to train staff to identify and mitigate content that could potentially damage a politician’s reputation or undermine confidence in elections — criteria seen as inherently subjective.
This lawsuit follows a similar successful defense of free speech by ADF on behalf of The Babylon Bee and attorney Kelly Chang Rickert, leading to a temporary halt on enforcing AB 2839 against them while their legal battle continues.
Featured Video
America Racing to Strategic Defeat in Iran
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
Should Europeans ‘Thank’ the Americans for Destroying Nord Stream?
By Robert Bridge | Strategic Culture Foundation | September 29, 2022
With an investigation continuing into the destruction of the Nord Stream gas pipeline that provided energy supplies to Europe from Russia, there appears to be just one prime suspect, and that should surprise nobody.
Following the sabotage of the Nord Stream 1 and 2 gas pipelines, former Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski already seemed to know the identity of the perpetrator when he tweeted out: “Thank you, USA.”
At first glance, it seemed that Sikorski was speaking sarcastically, berating Washington for carrying out an attack that will have severe repercussions for the people of Europe. After all, how could anyone see any good coming from the termination of Europe’s primary source of gas reserves with winter just around the corner? It was Sikorski’s homeland of Poland, after all, that urged its citizens to collect firewood in the face of dwindling gas reserves.
In fact, the Polish diplomat was speaking one-hundred percent literally… continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News- UK’s New Pandemic Plan Would Turn Big Tech Into a Mass Location Tracking Network
- Growing insecurity, soaring prices fuel protests in north as regime bans evacuation: Sources
- Iran denies responsibility for ‘depraved’ attack on Kuwait desalination plant
- Bring The Troops Back. End This War Now!
- Can we please stop calling Israel the ‘only democracy in the Middle East’ now?
- US should start removing its troops from Germany, proposes AfD co-leader Chrupalla
- Iran Red Crescent: 600 educational centers attacked in US-Israeli ‘war crimes’
- Russian Oil Tanker Arrives in Cuba Amid U.S. Blockade
- America Racing to Strategic Defeat in Iran: Lt Col Daniel Davis
- FTC Warns Visa, Mastercard, PayPal, Stripe Over Political Debanking
- If Americans Knew
- As Iran targets US military bases, will they be relocated to Israel? Not a ceasefire Day 171
- Will Trump Go Kamikaze?
- Is the University of Florida Shutting Down College Republicans over Israel Criticism?
- Jewish extremist arrested over alleged plot to firebomb Palestinian activist Nerdeen Kiswani’s home
- More than half of Palestinian child detainees have no charges
- The More Murderous Israel Gets, The More We Hear About “Antisemitism”
- Land Day and the Palestinian struggle after 30 months of genocide
- The Iran War Is About Palestine
- Israeli soldiers echo settler ideology, talk of revenge after targeting Palestinians and detaining CNN crew in the West Bank
- Israeli Policies Threaten Future of Christian Schools in Jerusalem
- No Tricks Zone
- New Study Finds Warming Saves Lives…Cold Temperatures 12 Times More Deadly Than Excess Heat
- German Science Blog Accuses PIK Climate Institute Of Hallucinating Climate Tipping Points
- Devastating Assessment Of Comirnaty Vaccine By Former Senior Pfizer Europe Toxicologist
- New Study: CO2 Is ‘Effectively Negligible’ As An Explanatory Climate Change Factor Since 2000
- Former Pfizer Toxicologist Dr. Helmut Sterz Tells Bundestag Hearing Pfizer Vaccine Should Have Never Been Approved
- Energy Expert: Germany’s Nuclear Phaseout Was A “500 Billion Euro Mistake”
- New Research: South Australia’s Mid-Holocene Sea Surface Temperatures Were 4°C Warmer Than Today
- Storing Green Energy To Last Germany 10 Days Would Require A 60-Million Tonne Battery
- New Studies: UK Sea Levels Were 4 Meters Higher Than Today During The Mid-Holocene
- Destructive Green New Deal: German Energy And Metal Group Warns Of Drastic Crisis
Aletho News 