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.
US Republicans Condemn UK’s Online Censorship Law as a “Tsunami… Heading Towards America”
By Didi Rankovic | Reclaim The Net | November 26, 2024
UK’s “censorship law” – Online Safety Act – has gained in notoriety, as it has now become the subject of interest of the US House Judiciary Committee, which has for years tried to shed light on the censorship on the internet, and its actors and factors.
So much so that the committee’s members have coined the expression, the Censorship Industrial Complex.
While most of the body’s activities are centered around US social media and allegations of the Biden-Harris administration’s involvement in pressuring them to censor speech, no “complex” is considered to be on an industrial scale for no reason.
A flurry of third parties – such as “fact-checkers” and “raters” – have been involved and investigated, including those based abroad – notably, the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH).
A member of the Republican-majority committee, Congressman Darrell Issa, now strongly criticized the trends concerning censorship-enabling legislation in the EU and in the UK, singling out the Online Safety Act, and warning that “a tsunami of censorship is heading towards America” from abroad.
And that’s just to add to what is already there – Issa called that situation, “malign actors here at home.” As for the UK law, the congressman is unimpressed by its authors and supporters promoting it as a way to protect against hate speech and other online ills.
According to Issa, what it does is give regulators a tool to censor free speech, and as such is viewed by Republicans as part of “a broader global push by the Censorship Industrial Complex.”
Issa in full, from The Spectator:
“The growing attacks on free speech in the US – as well as the UK and EU – pose a direct threat to free people on both sides of the Atlantic. We know that legislation like the Online Safety Act that is said to combat ‘hate speech’ empowers regulators to censor free speech.
“Congressional Republicans understand that these threats to free speech are part of a broader global push by the Censorship Industrial Complex, which includes not only the EU, UK, and other nations but also malign actors here at home. We are committed to confronting this growing threat alongside the incoming Trump Administration to fight against these assaults on free speech within our borders and around the world.”
The congressman had no problem counting the UK and the EU (with its Digital Services Act) among the places this push emanates from, while also vowing that the second Trump administration, alongside Congress Republicans, intends to “fight against these assaults on free speech within our borders and around the world.”
In the UK itself, there are those like Reform Party leader Nigel Farage who couldn’t agree more. Farage, who has close ties with Trump, has made comments about a free speech crackdown in his country.
The UK branch of the Alliance Defending Freedom advocacy group also agrees. Executive Director Paul Coleman said that the Judiciary Committee’s criticism and stance on a number of issues “shows that the UK is fast becoming notorious around the world for its censorious practices.”
Vienna police ban mass protest supporting excluded Freedom Party’s ‘People’s Chancellor’ Herbert Kickl
By Thomas Brooke | Remix News | November 28, 2024
A massive protest planned for Saturday in Vienna to support Freedom Party (FPÖ) leader Herbert Kickl, who was excluded from ongoing government negotiations despite winning the most votes in the recent election, has been banned by the police.
Heute reported that the rally was expected to draw 1.4 million participants and was organized by the group Fair Thinking, which gained notoriety among the Austrian establishment for its demonstrations during the Covid-19 pandemic.
The protest, promoted as a show of support for “People’s Chancellor Kickl,” sought to challenge the so-called “sugar coalition” of parties negotiating to form the government. The FPÖ and Kickl, despite their electoral success, were left out of talks, fueling outrage among his supporters.
Kickl, who previously appeared at Fair Thinking’s protests, has become a popular figure among many Austrians, representing opposition to Covid policies, insisting on neutrality in the Ukraine conflict, and expressing dissatisfaction with Austria’s political elite over its commitment to mass immigration.
The initial protest date of Nov. 9, which coincided with the anniversary of the 1938 Nazi pogroms, drew condemnation from political leaders, including Chancellor Karl Nehammer, who called the timing a “slap in the face to victims’ relatives.”
President Alexander Van der Bellen also expressed strong disapproval, leading to organizers postponing the event to Nov. 30.
On Thursday, however, Vienna police announced the prohibition of the protests under Section 6 Paragraph 1 of Austria’s Assembly Act. The justification cited potential disruptions to businesses in Vienna’s shopping districts and the flow of traffic.
A statement from the police warned: “Holding an unannounced or prohibited meeting constitutes an administrative violation. Such meetings can be dissolved, and participants must disperse immediately.”
Organizers have not backed down, hinting at plans to proceed informally or under different guises. A statement on their Telegram channel invited supporters to “take a walk” in Vienna during Advent and visit Christmas markets, particularly the one at Marien-Theresien-Platz.
Critics have argued that prioritizing undisturbed shopping and traffic flow over freedom of assembly sets a dangerous precedent amid fear this rationale could be used to justify arbitrary bans on protests, limiting democratic expression.
The ban has further inflamed tensions in Austria’s political landscape, highlighting deep divisions over Kickl’s exclusion from government negotiations.
Kickl’s FPÖ has gained support since topping the September federal elections but being sidelined by other parties in coalition talks, winning Sunday’s state election in Styria with 35.6 percent of the vote.
The legacy Social Democrats (SPÖ) and Austrian People’s Party (ÖVP) saw their vote shares drop in what is considered to be punishment for its anti-democratic cordon sanitaire imposed around the FPO.
Featured Video
Laith Marouf: Hezbollah’s position on US-Iran ceasefire
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
Is Israel to blame for the Iraq War?
American Goy | March 10, 2008
I am so tired of this old canard that “Israel had nothing to do with USA’s war with Iraq – in fact, it officially advised America against it”.
Bullshit. … continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News- Laith Marouf: Hezbollah’s position on US-Iran ceasefire: What you’re not being told
- Israel’s priority lies in destroying chances of peace between Iran, US: Ex-UN nuclear chief
- Ceasefire for all or for none: Iran shuts Hormuz over Lebanon attacks
- Strait of Hormuz is Iran’s ‘nuclear weapon’ that forced US retreat: Medvedev
- Energy crisis will last for months – Kremlin envoy
- Europe’s quiet role in the war on Iran
- Forty days that shook the Empire: How Iran turned the tables on US and prevailed
- Netanyahu unilaterally declares Lebanon outside of ceasefire deal
- Israeli leaders: ‘Not a single goal’ achieved in war with Iran
- What on earth just happened? Trump, Iran, and the unlikely ceasefire
- If Americans Knew
- Gazans face a triple crisis: severe shortages of water and bread, healthcare in tatters
- NY Times reports how Netanyahu took the US into Iran War
- A sigh of relief over Iran, but Gaza and Lebanon in dire straits – Daily Update
- Thousands dead and neighborhoods razed to the ground: Aid agencies fear southern Lebanon is becoming the new Gaza
- The war the US is fighting for Israel could cost trillions
- ‘Cigarette Burns, Nail Wounds’: Toddler Tortured in Gaza to Coerce Father
- Trump Says US Sent ‘a Lot of Guns’ to Protesters in Iran
- Israeli forces destroy 17 UN peacekeeper cameras in south Lebanon
- US-Israeli strikes ‘completely destroy’ synagogue in Tehran
- Archbishop for US Military Says Iran War Is Unjust Under Catholic Teaching
- No Tricks Zone
- An Inconvenient Tree: Uncovered In Alps… Europe Much Warmer Than Today 6000 Years Ago
- New Study Reports A 60% Slowdown In Greenland’s Ice Loss Rate In The Last Decade
- Low Intensity Tornado Wrecks Major Solar Farm, Creating A Potential Toxic Dump
- 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
Aletho News 