Free Speech Legislation Gains Attention Following Supreme Court Siding with Biden in Social Media Censorship Case
By Didi Rankovic | Reclaim The Net | June 27, 2024
US House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan has reacted to Wednesday’s ruling by the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) in the Murthy v. Missouri case, to call for new legislation that would, going forward, reinforce the rules, already contained in the First Amendment, meant to protect citizens from government-orchestrated censorship.
Jordan, whose Committee is probing alleged government-Big Tech collusion in violation of the First Amendment through the Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government, noted that the US Constitution’s First Amendment is “first for a reason.”
According to the Republican congressman, free speech that this amendment protects (from government intervention) should extend to any government infringement – be it in Congress, or online.
Jordan said that while respectfully disagreeing with the SCOTUS ruling the Committee’s own oversight “has shown the need for legislative reforms.”
“While we respectfully disagree with the Court’s decision, our investigation has shown the need for legislative reforms, such as the Censorship Accountability Act, to better protect Americans harmed by the unconstitutional censorship-industrial complex,” Jordan wrote in a statement.
In other words, the increasingly pressing issue of how the government “interacts” with social platforms (because of their massive reach and therefore influence among the electorate) should be put into the hands of courts and their interpretations based on new and clear legislation to guide those decisions.
The Judiciary Committee chairman mentioned the Censorship Accountability Act – a bill that would let citizens launch legal action against federal employees suspected of colluding to suppress free speech.
Regardless of the SCOTUS decision, Jordan pledged that the Committee’s “important work will continue” – stating that the Subcommittee thus far has “uncovered how and the extent to which the Biden Administration engaged in a censorship campaign in violation of the First Amendment.”
Murthy v. Missouri – which sought to give the plaintiffs the right to pursue their legal case against the government, alleging it pressured social media to censor online user content, was thrown out by the Supreme Court in a 6-3 ruling as “lacking standing to sue.”
At the same time, the court canceled – at a particularly sensitive time, mere months before the upcoming US presidential election – an injunction that limited the way the government can “interact” with social platforms regarding a range of issues.
The collusion allegations for the most part refer to activities and communications between the government and Big Tech in the context of the previous vote that resulted in the installment of the current US administration.
Autopsy Study Linking COVID Shots to Deaths Finally Published, After Lancet Removed It
‘Unprecedented Censorship’
By Brenda Baletti, Ph.D. | The Defender | June 25, 2024
A systematic review of autopsy-related literature following COVID-19 vaccination found that 73.9% of the 325 deaths were linked to the shots, suggesting “a high likelihood of a causal link” between the shots and death.
The review, published on June 21 in the peer-reviewed journal Forensic Science International, was first posted on July 5, 2023, on The Lancet preprint server, SSRN, an open access research platform.
However, Preprints with The Lancet removed the study from the server within 24 hours, “because the study’s conclusions are not supported by the study methodology,” according to a statement on the SSRN page, The Daily Sceptic reported.
The paper had been viewed over 100,000 times.
Authors submitting papers to Lancet journals for review post their work to the SSRN to make it publicly available while it undergoes peer review.
University of Michigan researcher Nicolas Hulscher authored the study, along with Dr. William Makis, Peter A. McCullough, M.D., MPH, and several of their colleagues at The Wellness Company.
The authors said autopsies should be performed on all deceased people who have received one or more COVID-19 vaccines and that vaccinated people should be clinically monitored for at least one year following vaccination. They called for further research into the issue.
McCullough told The Defender :
“Our study faced unprecedented censorship from the Lancet SSRN preprint server and was taken down after massive downloads by concerned physicians and scientists across the globe.
“Lancet did not want the world to know that among deaths that were autopsied after COVID-19 vaccination, independent adjudication found that the vaccine was the cause of death in 73.9% of cases.
“The most common fatal vaccine syndromes were myocarditis and blood clots. Investigative journalists should probe Lancet to uncover who was behind unethical suppression of critical clinical information to the public.”
Makis announced the publication of the “Lancet censored” paper on X last week.
McCullough also noted the project was approved through the University of Michigan’s School of Public Health and used a standard scientific methodology to evaluate the studies for inclusion in the review.
The authors subsequently posted on the Zenodo preprint server, while the review underwent peer review at Forensic Science International. It was downloaded over 125,000 times.
Preprint servers were established to address inefficiencies in academic publishing. The peer-review process typically takes months or more, delaying the real-time sharing of scientific findings with the public.
Also, many journals are proprietary and can only be accessed through expensive personal or institutional subscriptions.
Preprint servers offer a location for scientific reports and papers to be available to the public while the paper goes through peer review — making scientific findings available immediately and for free and opening them up to broader public debate.
There is no peer-review process for preprints, although there is a vetting process.
Preprint servers are intended to be neutral and to post all research conducted with a clearly explained and reproducible methodology, according to Vinay Prasad, M.D., MPH, who reported last year that his COVID-19-related work was subject to similar censorship.
Thirty-eight percent of Prasad’s own lab’s submissions to preprint servers were rejected or removed — even though those same articles eventually were published in journals and extensively downloaded.
Preprint servers have become “gatekeepers” for what science gets published, Prasad said.
When The Lancet took down the paper, The Daily Sceptic’s Will Jones wrote that given the credentials of the authors, “It is hard to imagine that the methodology of their review was really so poor that it warranted removal at initial screening rather than being subject to full critical appraisal. It smacks instead of raw censorship of a paper that failed to toe the official line.”
The Lancet Preprints did not respond to The Defender’s request for comment.
Findings have wide-ranging implications
The authors searched the published literature archived in PubMed and ScienceDirect for all autopsy and necropsy — another word for autopsy — reports related to COVID-19 vaccination, where the death occurred after vaccination.
They screened out 562 duplicate studies among the 678 studies initially identified in their search. Other papers were removed because, for example, they lacked information about vaccination status.
Ultimately 44 papers containing 325 autopsies and one necropsy case were evaluated. Three physicians independently reviewed each case and adjudicated whether or not the COVID-19 shot was the direct cause or contributed significantly to the death reported.
They found 240 of the deaths (73.9%) were found to be “directly due to or significantly contributed to by COVID-19 vaccination” and the mean age for death was 70.4 years old.
Primary causes of death included sudden cardiac death, which happened in 35% of cases, pulmonary embolism and myocardial infarction, which occurred in 12.5% and 12% of the cases respectively.
Other causes included vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia, myocarditis, multisystem inflammatory syndrome and cerebral hemorrhage.
Most deaths occurred within a week of the last shot.
The authors concluded that because the deaths were highly consistent with the known mechanisms for COVID-19 vaccine injury, it was highly likely the deaths were causally linked to the vaccine.
They said the findings “amplify” existing concerns about the vaccines, including those related to vaccine-induced myocarditis and myocardial infarction and the effects of the spike protein more broadly.
They also said the studies have implications for unanticipated deaths among vaccinated people with no previous illness. “We can infer that in such cases, death may have been caused by COVID-19 vaccination,” they wrote.
The authors acknowledged some potential biases in the article.
First, they said, their conclusions from the autopsy findings are based on an evolving understanding of the vaccines, which are currently different from when the studies evaluated were published.
They also noted that systematic reviews have bias potential in general because of biases that may exist at the level of the individual papers and their acceptance into the peer-reviewed literature.
They said publication bias could have affected their results because the global push for mass vaccination has made investigators hesitant to report adverse events.
They also said their research did not account for confounding variables like concomitant illnesses, drug interactions and other factors that may have had a causal role in the reported deaths.
This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.
Supreme Court Rules 6-3 That Biden Regime Pressuring Platforms To Censor Speech Doesn’t Violate First Amendment
By Dan Frieth | Reclaim The Net | June 26, 2024
The US Supreme Court has ruled in the hotly-awaited decision for the Murthy v. Missouri case, reinforcing the government’s ability to engage with social media companies concerning the removal of speech about COVID-19 and more. This decision, affirming that these actions do not infringe upon First Amendment rights, delineates the limits of free speech on the internet, dealing a massive blow to freedom of expression online and the interpretation that the First Amendment prevents the government from pressuring platforms to remove legal speech.
The verdict, decided by a 6-3 vote, found that the plaintiffs lacked the standing to sue the Biden administration. The dissenting opinions came from conservative justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, and Neil Gorsuch.
We obtained a copy of the ruling for you here.
John Vecchione, Senior Litigation Counsel at NCLA, responded to the ruling, telling Reclaim The Net, “The majority of the Supreme Court has declared open season on Americans’ free speech rights on the internet,” referring to the decision as an “ukase” that permits the federal government to influence third-party platforms to silence dissenting voices. Vecchione accused the Court of ignoring evidence and abdicating its responsibility to hold the government accountable for its actions that crush free speech.
Jenin Younes, another Litigation Counsel at NCLA, echoed Vecchione’s sentiments, labeling the decision a “travesty for the First Amendment” and a setback for the pursuit of scientific knowledge. “The Court has green-lighted the government’s unprecedented censorship regime,” Younes commented, reflecting concerns that the ruling might stifle expert voices on crucial public health and policy issues.
Further expressing the gravity of the situation, Dr. Jayanta Bhattacharya, a client of NCLA and a professor at Stanford University, criticized the Biden Administration’s regulatory actions during the COVID-19 pandemic. Dr. Bhattacharya argued that these actions led to “irrational policies” and noted, “Free speech is essential to science, to public health, and to good health.” He called for congressional action and a public movement to restore and protect free speech rights in America.
This ruling comes as a setback to efforts supported by many who argue that the administration, together with federal agencies, is pushing social media platforms to suppress voices by labeling their content as misinformation.
Previously, a judge in Louisiana had criticized the federal agencies for acting like an Orwellian “Ministry of Truth.” However, during the Supreme Court’s oral arguments, it was argued by the government that their requests for social media platforms to address “misinformation” more rigorously did not constitute threats or imply any legal repercussions – despite the looming threat of antitrust action against Big Tech.
Here are the key points and specific quotes from the decision:
Lack of Article III Standing: The Supreme Court held that neither the individual nor the state plaintiffs established the necessary standing to seek an injunction against government defendants. The decision emphasizes the fundamental requirement of a “case or controversy” under Article III, which necessitates that plaintiffs demonstrate an injury that is “concrete, particularized, and actual or imminent; fairly traceable to the challenged action; and redressable by a favorable ruling” (Clapper v. Amnesty Int’l USA, 568 U. S. 398, 409).
Inadequate Traceability and Future Harm: The plaintiffs failed to convincingly link past social media restrictions and government communications with the platforms. The decision critiques the Fifth Circuit’s approach, noting that the evidence did not conclusively show that government actions directly caused the platforms’ moderation decisions. The Court pointed out: “Because standing is not dispensed in gross, plaintiffs must demonstrate standing for each claim they press” against each defendant, “and for each form of relief they seek” (TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 594 U. S. 413, 431).The complexity arises because the platforms had “independent incentives to moderate content and often exercised their own judgment.”
Absence of Direct Causation: The Court noted that the platforms began suppressing COVID-19 content before the defendants’ challenged communications began, indicating a lack of direct government coercion: “Complicating the plaintiffs’ effort to demonstrate that each platform acted due to Government coercion, rather than its own judgment, is the fact that the platforms began to suppress the plaintiffs’ COVID–19 content before the defendants’ challenged communications started.”
Redressability and Ongoing Harm: The plaintiffs argued they suffered from ongoing censorship, but the Court found this unpersuasive. The platforms continued their moderation practices even as government communication subsided, suggesting that future government actions were unlikely to alter these practices: “Without evidence of continued pressure from the defendants, the platforms remain free to enforce, or not to enforce, their policies—even those tainted by initial governmental coercion.”
“Right to Listen” Theory Rejected: The Court rejected the plaintiffs’ “right to listen” argument, stating that the First Amendment interest in receiving information does not automatically confer standing to challenge someone else’s censorship: “While the Court has recognized a ‘First Amendment right to receive information and ideas,’ the Court has identified a cognizable injury only where the listener has a concrete, specific connection to the speaker.”
The case revolved around allegations that the federal government, led by figures such as Dr. Vivek Murthy, the US Surgeon General, (though also lots more Biden administration officials) colluded with major technology companies to suppress speech on social media platforms. The plaintiffs argue that this collaboration targeted content labeled as “misinformation,” particularly concerning COVID-19 and political matters, effectively silencing dissenting voices.
The plaintiffs claim that this coordination represents a direct violation of their First Amendment rights. They argue that while private companies can set their own content policies, government pressure that leads to the suppression of lawful speech constitutes unconstitutional censorship by proxy.
The government’s campaign against what it called “misinformation,” particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic – regardless of whether online statements turned out to be true or not – has been extensive.
However, Murthy v. Missouri exposed a darker side to these initiatives—where government officials allegedly overstepped their bounds by coercing tech companies to silence specific narratives.
Communications presented in court, including emails and meeting records, suggest a troubling pattern: government officials not only requested but demanded that tech companies remove or restrict certain content. The tone and content of these communications often implied serious consequences for non-compliance, raising questions about the extent to which these actions were voluntary versus compelled.
Tech companies like Facebook, Twitter, and Google have become the de facto public squares of the modern era, wielding immense power over what information is accessible to the public. Their content moderation policies, while designed to combat harmful content, have also been criticized for their lack of transparency and potential biases.
In this case, plaintiffs argued that these companies, under significant government pressure, went beyond their standard moderation practices. They allegedly engaged in the removal, suppression, and demotion of content that, although controversial, was not illegal. This raises a critical issue: the thin line between moderation and censorship, especially when influenced by government directives.
The Supreme Court ruling holds significant implications for the relationship between government actions and private social media platforms, as well as for the legal frameworks that govern free speech and content moderation.
Here are some of the broader impacts this ruling may have:
Clarification on Government Influence and Private Action: This decision clearly delineates the limits of government involvement in the content moderation practices of private social media platforms. It underscores that mere governmental encouragement or indirect pressure does not transform private content moderation into state action. This ruling could make it more challenging for future plaintiffs to claim that content moderation decisions, influenced indirectly by government suggestions or pressures, are tantamount to governmental censorship.
Stricter Standards for Proving Standing: The Supreme Court’s emphasis on the necessity of concrete and particularized injuries directly traceable to the challenged government action sets a high bar for future litigants. Plaintiffs must now provide clear evidence that directly links government actions to the moderation practices that allegedly infringe on their speech rights. This could lead to fewer successful challenges against perceived government-induced censorship on digital platforms.
Impact on Content Moderation Policies: Social media platforms may feel more secure in enforcing their content moderation policies without fear of being seen as conduits for state action, as long as their decisions can be justified as independent from direct government coercion. This could lead to more assertive actions by platforms in moderating content deemed harmful or misleading, especially in critical areas like public health and election integrity.
Influence on Public Discourse: By affirming the autonomy of social media platforms in content moderation, the ruling potentially influences the nature of public discourse on these platforms. While platforms may continue to engage with government entities on issues like misinformation, they might do so with greater caution and transparency to avoid allegations of government coercion.
Future Legal Challenges and Policy Discussions: The ruling could prompt legislative responses, as policymakers may seek to address perceived gaps between government interests in combating misinformation and the protection of free speech on digital platforms. This may lead to new laws or regulations that more explicitly define the boundaries of acceptable government interaction with private companies in managing online content.
Broader Implications for Digital Rights and Privacy: The decision might also influence how digital rights and privacy are perceived and protected, particularly regarding how data from social media platforms is used or shared with government entities. This could lead to heightened scrutiny and potentially stricter guidelines to protect user data from being used in ways that could impinge on personal freedoms.
Overall, the Murthy v. Missouri ruling will likely serve as a critical reference point in ongoing debates about the government’s ability to influence and shut down speech.
Moldova Prepares Bill Allowing to Block Websites, Social Media Accounts – Opposition
Sputnik – 25.06.2024
Moldovan authorities are preparing a bill that will allow the blocking of websites, channels and accounts on social media, a spokesman for Moldovan opposition political bloc Podeda (Victory), Veaceslav Jukov, said on Tuesday.
Earlier in the day, the country’s authorities annulled a broadcasting license held by Moldova’s Media Resurse company which owned two Russian language broadcasters, Orhei TV and TV6, Moldovan news outlet NewsMaker reported.
“The Moldovan government is considering a law which presupposes the suspension and even elimination of websites, as well as blocking channels and accounts on social media. The new legislation provides measures to control and manage the information space ,” Jukov wrote on Telegram.
In 2023, Moldovan authorities blocked access to 31 websites, including 21 managed from Russia, saying that they had been used in an “information war” against Kishinev. Apart from the Russian information sources, Kishinev has also banned websites of Moldovan broadcasters Orizont TV, Prime TV, Publika TV, Canal 2, and Canal 3, among others.
Earlier in 2023, Moldovan President Maia Sandu said that Moldova would create a national center for informational defense and combating propaganda symbolically named Patriot, which would protect Moldovan citizens from disinformation and manipulation at a national level. The new center will counter Russia’s alleged information attacks as well as deal with “traitors to the homeland” who are allegedly blocking Moldova’s attempts to integrate into the European Union, Sandu added.
Russia retaliates against EU’s latest media ban
RT | June 25, 2024
Russia is restricting access to more than 80 EU media outlets on its territory that have been involved in spreading disinformation about the Ukraine conflict, the Russian Foreign Ministry announced on Tuesday.
According to a statement issued on the ministry’s website, the move comes in response to the EU’s latest crackdown on Russian media.
In May, the European Council banned four media outlets from reporting to audiences in the EU, including leading Russian news agency RIA Novosti, as well as newspapers Izvestia and Rossiyskaya Gazeta. The ban also applies to the relatively small Czech-based portal Voice of Europe, which the EU has described as a “Kremlin-linked propaganda network.” The restrictions on the media outlets came into force on June 25.
“The Russian side has repeatedly and at various levels warned that politically motivated harassment of its journalists and unfounded bans on Russian media in the EU will not go unnoticed,” the ministry said, noting that Brussels and other EU capitals had chosen to take the path of escalation with their latest illegal ban despite warnings, forcing Moscow to take mirror countermeasures.
“Responsibility for such a development of events lies solely with the leadership of the European Union and the countries of the bloc that supported such a decision,” according to the ministry.
The list of EU media outlets that “systematically disseminate false information” about the progress of Moscow’s special military operation includes 81 organizations from 25 member states. They include Germany’s Der Spiegel, Spain’s El Pais, Italy’s La Stampa and La Repubblica newspapers, the French Agence France-Presse, Le Monde, Liberation, as well as the pan-European Politico and EUobserver.
Moscow may reconsider its decision in relation to the media outlets if restrictions on Russian media are lifted, according to the statement.
Brussels had already barred several Russia-associated media from engaging with audiences in member states due to the Ukraine conflict. Even platforming content from the targeted organizations is illegal in the bloc. Those sanctions included RT and Sputnik, suspending their TV broadcasting licenses and blocking both websites for readers across the EU.
Moscow has accused Brussels of duplicity and attacking freedom of speech with its restrictions. The campaign to undermine the work of Russian news organizations long predates the Ukraine conflict and is aimed at preventing European citizens from hearing opinions that their governments deem undesirable, Russian officials have claimed.
Journalism under fire: Jailed for exposing Jordan
The Cradle | June 24, 2024
In Jordan, failing at self-censorship can land you in jail. Literally.
Freelance journalist Hiba Abu Taha, a passionate pro-resistance Jordanian of Palestinian origin, refused to self-censor. On 11 June, the Magistrate Court in Amman sentenced her to a harsh one-year prison term for violating the kingdom’s controversial Cybercrimes Law introduced last year.
This was due to an article she wrote for Lebanese news site, Annasher, criticizing “Jordan’s role in defending the enemy entity.” The article was published on 22 April, eight days after Jordanian, US, British, and French aircraft intercepted Iranian drones and rockets over Jordanian airspace heading towards Israeli targets.
However, Abu Taha was arrested on 13 May after Annasher published her investigative report on 28 April titled “Partners in extermination: Jordanian capital owners involved in Gaza genocide.” The timing of her arrest gave the impression that she was detained for exposing Jordanian companies transporting exports to Israel – a land corridor that government officials went out of their way to publicly deny amid growing popular outrage at Amman’s continued ties with Tel Aviv while it commits the Gaza genocide.
It is widely believed that her nearly 2,000-word investigative report, supported by a 15-minute video of evidence she gathered undercover, was the real reason for the journalist’s indictment.
Exposing government deception on Israeli trade routes
In her report, Abu Taha accused Prime Minister Bisher Khasawneh and other officials of concealing the use of Jordan as a land route for UAE and Bahraini exports via Saudi Arabia to Israel to break the Yemeni Ansarallah blockade in the Red and Arabian Seas.
She cites transport and clearance company employees in Amman and Aqaba about their services to transport goods through the northern Sheikh Hussein Bridge or the southern Wadi Araba crossing. She went on to expose the names of the Jordanian companies and their influential owners, who have shown no qualms about doing business as usual with the occupation state as it commits unprecedented war crimes in both Gaza and the West Bank.
Abu Taha also identifies influential company owners acting as agents for Israeli or Israel-bound shipping companies. Resorting to official documents, she writes that Jordanian exports to Israel increased from $123 million in 2022 to $143 million in 2023, with a record monthly high of $17 million in December 2023, a month after Yemen began targeting Israeli-owned and Israel-bound cargo ships.
She notes that despite court evidence “recognizing the existence of the land bridge” as well as video footage and pictures of the movement of trucks at the Sheikh Hussein border crossing, Khasawneh insisted that:
The land bridge is a figment of imagination with no truth on the ground … The number of trucks entering and leaving Jordan for the entity has decreased, and what is being raised is nothing but self-flagellation.
Abu Taha details her exchange with government spokesman Muhannad Mubaidin, who fires back at “those accusing Jordan” of providing a land bridge for Israel as “shameful.”
She writes that he “initially tried to deny the government’s role” in this regard and “even tried to point the finger at West Bank merchants as deceiving their colleagues in Jordan by telling them that the exports are for the Arabs.”
When confronted with the facts she found, Mubaidin immediately referred to the 1994 Wadi Araba peace treaty with Israel and stressed that the government would not ban trade with the Zionist state because “such a decision is a populist one that appeases a certain party or faction.”
Meanwhile, Trade Ministry Spokesman Yanal Barmawi told Abu Taha that he was unaware of the “export issue” and that “the private sector would know.” She writes that official denials and blaming the private sector, which cannot operate without government approval, “confirms that the authorities are trying to contain the Jordanian street.”
Opinion prosecution
Despite the rigor of her investigative report, Abu Taha was prosecuted for her 22 April opinion piece. Nidal Mansour, co-founder of the Center for Defending Freedom of Journalists (CDFJ), noted that Abu Taha was convicted under the restrictive Cybercrimes Law, which was enacted shortly before 7 October 2023.
The Media Commission, a government-controlled regulatory body, filed a complaint against her, accusing her of “inciting sedition and discord among members of the community,” “threatening community peace,” “inciting violence,” and “spreading false news” through electronic media.
Abu Taha’s article accused Jordan of “treason,” among other derogatory terms, for intercepting Iran’s retaliatory strikes against Israel and giving the US, British, and French military forces a free hand in the country to defend the occupation state.
The Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) quotes Media Commissioner Bashir al-Momani as saying that Abu Taha’s article contained “serious insults against Jordanian state institutions, incitement to the state’s positions, and stirring up discord among the components of the people,” which he added “necessitated her prosecution.”
According to a CDFJ statement, Abu Taha was convicted under Articles 15 and 17 of the 40-article Cybercrime Law of August 2023. Article 15 stipulates:
Whoever intentionally sends, resends, or publishes data or information through an information network, information technology, information system, website, or social media platforms that includes fake news targeting the national security and community peace, or defames, slanders, or contempt [sic] any person shall be imprisoned for a period of not less than three months or a fine of not less than 5,000 dinars and no more than 20,000 dinars, or both penalties.
Article 15 also gives the prosecutor the right to take legal action “without the need to file a complaint or claim a personal right if it is directed at one of the authorities in the state, official bodies, or public administrations,” which means that Abu Taha could have still been punished even if the Media Commission had not filed a complaint.
The court also invoked Article 17 to hand her a one-year sentence. It states that:
Whoever intentionally uses an information network, information technology, information system, website, or social media platform to spread what is likely to stir up racism or sedition, targets social peace, incites hatred, calls for or justifies violence, or insults religions, shall be punished by imprisonment from one to three years or a fine of no less than 5,000 dinars and no more than 20,000 dinars, or both penalties.
Draconian laws and legal challenges
Abu Taha’s opinion piece in Annasher undoubtedly lacked the self-censorship that Amman has successfully induced by imposing a series of restrictive press and media laws over the decades.
Mansour tells The Cradle that the press and publication laws have become more draconian with the evolution of information technology, beginning with restrictive laws on the independent weekly press back in the 1990s, to online news sites in the early 2000s, and social media with the most recent “fluid” Cybercrime Law that could effectively stifle any form of free speech on these platforms.
He notes that Abu Taha’s lawyer, Rami Odatallah, appointed by the leftist Jordanian Popular Unity Party (an offshoot of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine), is more experienced in defending political activists than journalists.
Abu Taha is not a member of the political party. Still, it stood by her ordeal and denounced her arrest and sentencing, demanding her release and other activists that had been “harassed and arrested” for supporting the resistance against Israel online or on the street.
Mansour reveals that the CDFJ plans to hire a lawyer specialized in the Cybercrime Law to appeal her sentence, which his organization described as “deeply concerning” and called for “abolishing imprisonment in cases related to publication and freedom of expression in accordance with international human rights standards.”
Abu Taha’s arrest and sentencing drew attention to Jordan’s crackdown on both journalists and rightfully enraged activists by using the Cybercrime Law. … Full article
Israel targets US public with massive propaganda campaign: Report
The Cradle | June 24, 2024
Israel is covertly funding a massive propaganda campaign to target the US public, including through the passage of legislation to restrict US citizens’ right to free speech when criticizing Israel and its ongoing war on Gaza, The Guardian reported on 24 June.
The UK newspaper reported that there are 80 programs already underway as part of the massive propaganda campaign known as the “Voices of Israel.”
The program is funded and run by the Israeli Ministry of Diaspora Affairs, led by MK Amichai Chikli.
The program was designed to carry out what Israel calls “mass consciousness activities” targeting the US and European public.
Voices of Israel is part of the “latest incarnation” of a “sometimes covert operation” by the Israeli ministry to censor students, human rights organizations, and other critics of Israel.
Known previously as “Concert” and before that, “Kela Shlomo,” the campaign previously spearheaded efforts to pass so-called “anti-BDS” state laws that penalize Americans for engaging in boycotts or other non-violent protests of Israel.
Voices of Israel works through non-profits and other entities that often do not disclose donor information. From October through May, the campaign spent about $8.6 million to target US citizens with pro-Israel propaganda.
The Institute for the Study of Global Antisemitism and Policy (ISGAP) is one such organization receiving funding through the Israeli program.
The ISGP cited its success during congressional hearings in which Claudine Gay, the president of Harvard University, was grilled for allowing pro-Palestinian protests on campus.
Congresswoman Elise Stefanik confronted Gay during the hearing, accusing her of fostering antisemitism at Harvard. The confrontation was widely viewed on social media.
Gay, the prestigious university’s first African-American president, soon resigned amid the resulting negative media coverage. She was replaced as interim president by Jewish-American professor and Harvard provost Alan Garber.
The Guardian reported further that the ISGAP touted its “congressional public relations coup” at a 7 April Palm Beach Country Club event.
“All these hearings were the result of our report that all these universities, beginning from Harvard, are taking a lot of money from Qatar,” bragged Natan Sharansky, the ISGAP chair. Sharansky, a former minister of Diaspora Affairs, told the assembled supporters that 1 billion people had viewed Congresswoman Stefanik’s aggressive questioning of Harvard president Gay.
The ISGAP has also been deeply involved in the campaign to limit US citizens’ Second Amendment right to free speech by passing laws at the state and local levels that redefine antisemitism to include certain criticisms of Israel, The Guardian added.
The ISGAP lobbies governments to adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism, which equates criticism of Israel as a ‘racist endeavor’ and anti-Zionism with antisemitism.
“We shifted the focus to work at the local level,” said Brig Gen Sima Vaknin-Gill, a former intelligence officer now managing director of the ISGAP.
“We’ve found that mayors and states – it’s much easier to work with them and actually make the definition into something real.”
Another US group tied to Voices of Israel and the Ministry of Diaspora Affairs campaign is CyberWell, a pro-Israel “anti-disinformation” group led by former Israeli military intelligence and Voices officials. CyberWell established itself as an official “trusted partner” to TikTok and Meta, allowing it to help screen and edit content.
A recent CyberWell report called for Meta to suppress the popular slogan “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free.”
The Guardian notes, “One struggles to find a parallel in terms of a foreign country’s influence over American political debate.”
US-based organizations producing propaganda or lobbying to influence US citizens are required by law to register as foreign agents.
However, none of the groups identified in The Guardian’s report have registered under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA).
“There’s a built-in assumption that there’s nothing at all weird about viewing the US as sort of an open field for Israel to operate in, that there are no limitations,” said Lara Friedman, president of the Foundation for Middle East Peace.
Former PM says Ukraine has no opposition: ‘They are in prison or abroad’
By Ahmed Adel | June 25, 2024
Currently, in Ukraine, there is no opposition and politicians challenging Volodymyr Zelensky as they are either in prison or abroad, according to the country’s former prime minister, Mykola Azarov. He also highlighted that Kiev would be forced to accept any agreement between Russia and the United States.
“There is no opposition in Ukraine now. [Pyotr] Poroshenko or [Yulia] Tymoshenko are not opposition. Their policy was no different from the current policy of the Kiev regime. The real opposition was eliminated. Some were killed, others are in prison, and some were forced to go abroad,” Azarov said in an interview with the newspaper Argumenty i Fakty published on June 24.
According to the former prime minister, the left-wing parties and opposition forces in Ukraine now do not exist.
“In addition, trade unions are absent, and there is strong persecution of the Church. The current conflict is often presented as a confrontation between Russia and Ukraine, but this is not true,” he added.
Azarov also mentioned that some people want to oppose Zelensky in Ukraine but do not speak out.
Zelensky was elected in 2019, and his first term was supposed to have ended in May. However, the regime introduced a new martial law, saying no election could be held during the war. The Ukrainian president is consolidating his power and has even purged political opponents.
It is recalled that the former head of Ukraine’s armed forces, Valeriy Zaluzhny, was appointed as the country’s ambassador to the UK only a few months ago after being touted as a potential rival to Zelensky. After being removed from Ukraine, Zaluzhny has now stayed quiet on the political front. The case of the former general is just one of many examples of individuals purged in Ukraine if they threatened Zelensky’s power.
The Ukrainian president has also jailed his political rivals, even Petro Poroshenko, shut down independent media outlets, such as ZIK, NewsOne and 112 Ukraine, and used the SBU state security agency to go after his critics, like Gonzalo Lira.
Azarov also stated that the US understands that the world cannot be subjected to the risk of a nuclear war, and Washington can start an informal dialogue with Moscow on this issue and influence Kiev.
“On the other side [USA], there are still some sensible ideas that the world cannot be subjected to the risk of a nuclear war. There are hopes that an informal dialogue could emerge that would result in some kind of concrete agreement,” he said.
According to the former prime minister, Zelensky’s regime will have to comply with this agreement between Moscow and Washington.
“There is no way around this. The Americans have one hundred percent influence over the current leadership of Ukraine. Just stop providing funding and weapons, and the regime will literally fall and physically disintegrate. The regime cannot exist without money when salaries are not paid to soldiers and the security service,” Azarov explained.
His comments on the nuclear issue come following a Ukrainian attack on the Raduga substation of the Zaporozhye nuclear power plant on June 21.
“As a result of the attack by the Armed Forces of Ukraine on the Raduga substation of the Zaporozhye nuclear power plant, work on the infrastructure facilities was interrupted,” the press service of the nuclear plant published on its Telegram channel.
Compounding the nuclear issue, Russian President Vladimir Putin confirmed on the same day as the attack the intentions to modernise the nuclear triad, the three components of the country’s atomic arsenal, by adding the nuclear-capable Sarmat (RS-28) intercontinental ballistic missiles, with a range of 18,000 kilometres, to its arsenal.
“We plan to continue improving the nuclear triad as a guarantee of strategic deterrence,” Putin said, adding that the advances in the land, air and naval components of the nuclear forces guarantee balance in the world.
“Taking into account the difficult international situation, the emergence of new challenges and risks, we will continue to improve our Armed Forces,” he said.
Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said on June 24, citing Putin’s statement, told a briefing that “work is underway to bring the doctrine in line with current realities.”
This was the inevitable course of action after the US allowed the Kiev regime to use American-made weapons to strike inside Russian territory. Besides the attack on the nuclear power plant, there was also the brutal attack with ATACMS missiles on civilian infrastructure in Crimea that left four people dead and 153 seeking medical help on June 23.
The Kremlin previously vowed to respond to any Ukrainian attacks with US-made weapons, and Azarov’s assessment that Kiev may be forced to accept any agreement made between Moscow and Washington could eventuate if the Americans feel that the situation is escalating in a way that cannot be controlled. Meanwhile, despite the escalation, the US will continue to hypocritically overlook that Zelensky is heading a regime that has subverted democracy and human rights whilst lying that liberalism and Western values are being defended in Ukraine.
Ahmed Adel, Cairo-based geopolitics and political economy researcher.
EU accuses Telegram of hiding its reach
European Commission vice-president for values and transparency Vera Jourova, March 14, 2024. © Getty Images / SOPA Images / Contributor
RT | June 24, 2024
Telegram underreports its user numbers to avoid being targeted by EU regulators, the vice-president of the bloc’s Commission for Values and Transparency, Vera Jourova, has alleged. She also accused Moscow of using the platform to spread “disinformation” among Russian-speaking EU residents, claiming that the Baltic nations, Poland, and Bulgaria are among the most exposed.
“I don’t trust Telegram, I don’t think they only have 42 million users,” Jourova said in an interview with Suddeutsche Zeitung on Sunday. She added that the European Commission is convinced that Telegram’s audience amounts to more than 45 million people – the threshold for regulatory control.
The commission is currently examining whether it should investigate the platform, Jourova revealed.
Last month, Bloomberg cited anonymous sources as saying that EU lawmakers were considering listing Telegram, founded by Russian-born entrepreneur Pavel Durov less than ten years ago, as a “very large online platform.” The move would open the privacy-focused messaging app up to strict censorship regulation.
As of February 2024, Telegram had an estimated average of 41 million monthly active EU users over the preceding six months. The figure is lower than the threshold required for social media platform to be subject to more specific obligations under the EU’s Digital Services Act (DSA). The regulation requires companies located outside the bloc to have legal representation in one of its member states.
The DSA, which came into force in February, allows the bloc’s regulators to fine platforms as much as 6% of their global annual turnover if they are found to have broken its rules. The regulation also provides the EU watchdog with the right to ban repeat offenders from operating in the bloc.
According to Durov, Telegram respects the rights of its users to privacy and freedom of expression. In an interview with American journalist Tucker Carlson earlier this year, Durov said he had rejected requests from Washington to share user data with US authorities or to build so-called surveillance “backdoors” into the platform.
Brussels has already launched investigations into X (formerly Twitter) over alleged breaches of EU rules in areas linked to risk management, content moderation, dark patterns, advertising transparency, and data access for researchers. Similar probes have been opened in relation to TikTok and Meta, the latter of which is the parent company of Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp.
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 