EXPOSING THE CENSORSHIP WAR

EMERGENCY: BIG TECH’S PLOT TO KILL FREE SPEECH REVEALED

Online digital rights are in turmoil and we must act now


The biggest and yet least talked about issue facing conservatives and Trump supporters heading into the mid-terms and the 2020 presidential elections is social media censorship and big tech’s efforts to rig elections by manipulating their algorithms.

In association with Mike Adams, Infowars has published a detailed master compendium on censorship that will serve as a roadmap for lawmakers and for President Trump as we begin the fight to return the battleground of ideas to a level playing field.

The original document is embedded below and should be read in full. What follows below is a brief summary of the major talking points of this document.

THE CENSORSHIP MASTER PLAN DECODED

Slaves to the algorithm

Algorithms are the most pernicious form of censorship because the target cannot conclusively prove they are being censored yet experience the impact of censorship anyway.

As Robert Epstein has documented, “Google’s search algorithm can easily shift the voting preferences of undecided voters by 20 percent or more—up to 80 percent in some demographic groups—with virtually no one knowing they are being manipulated.”

Epstein asserts that Google has the power to flip over 25% of elections worldwide and that “The search giant’s algorithms are manipulating people every minute of every day.”

By favoring certain search results over others, Epstein and his team discovered that Google could, “boost the proportion of people who favored any candidate by between 37 and 63 percent after just one search session.”

“More alarmingly, we also demonstrated this shift with real voters during an actual electoral campaign—in an experiment conducted with more than 2,000 eligible, undecided voters throughout India during the 2014 Lok Sabha election there—the largest democratic election in history, with more than 800 million eligible voters and 480 million votes ultimately cast. Even here, with real voters who were highly familiar with the candidates and who were being bombarded with campaign rhetoric every day, we showed that search rankings could boost the proportion of people favoring any candidate by more than 20 percent—more than 60 percent in some demographic groups.”

In other words, it’s entirely possible that Google determined the winner of the largest democratic election in history and could do so over and over again.

During its back and forth conversation with CNN, Facebook admitted that it artificially demotes Infowars content to censor our reach.

“We work hard to find the right balance between encouraging free expression and promoting a safe and authentic community, and we believe that down-ranking inauthentic content strikes that balance,” said Facebook spokeswoman Lauren Svensson. “In other words, we allow people to post it as a form of expression, but we’re not going to show it at the top of News Feed.”

As Mike Adams’ master report documents, Facebook has already deplatformed countless prominent natural health and conservative political channels.

Google intensifies its crackdown

Over the course of the last year, we have also noticed a clear change in Google’s search results in which mainstream media articles that denigrate Infowars appear well above Infowars in search results, even when one specifically searches for an exact headline from Infowars.

Google is already directing teams of employees to flag content that is deemed “upsetting” or “offensive” and bury such websites in order to “improve the quality of its search results”.

“The new “upsetting-offensive” flag instructs quality raters to “flag to all web results that contain upsetting or offensive content from the perspective of users in your locale, even if the result satisfies the user intent,” according to the Associated Press.

One of the examples cited that would get flagged is a website that criticizes the religion of Islam.

Google-owned YouTube has also deliberately ranked legacy media-produced videos above independently produced videos about major news events, even when the independently produced videos are more popular.

As we reported in February, Robert Thompson, CEO of News Corp., the publishing arm of Rupert Murdoch’s media empire, brazenly admitted that big corporations are pushing for the likes of Google and Facebook to censor alternative media outlets so that News Corp-owned publications can make more money.

Thompson complained that “misinformation” is being promoted at the expense of media properties such as the Wall Street Journal (which just happens to be owned by News Corp).

“The potential returns for our journalism would be far higher in a less chaotic, less debased digital environment,” he asserted, acknowledging the financial incentive behind censorship.

The tyranny of partisan “fact checkers”

Google has also hired so-called “fact checkers” from the Southern Poverty Law Center to police content on YouTube. The SPLC is a hyper-partisan left-wing organization whose business model revolves almost exclusively around fanning the flames of hysteria about “hate speech” and defaming good people as extremists.

As we have previously documented, another fact checker being used by Google, Snopes.com, presents itself as a non-partisan outfit, yet has proven itself to be a mouthpiece for the Democratic Party and the left on numerous occasions.

Snopes previously tried to “debunk” claims that the New York Times had colluded with Clinton’s campaign by warning them in advance about potentially negative stories that were about to be published, despite Wikileaks emails proving this to be true on two separate occasions.

As the Daily Caller reported, Kim Lacapria, Snopes’ main political “fact checker,” describes herself as “openly left-leaning” and a liberal. She has previously equated Tea Party conservatives with jihadists.

In December 2016, an investigative report revealed how Snopes was accused of using company money to pay for prostitutes.

Snopes’ obvious far-left bias is genuinely disconcerting given that it is being used by the likes of Google and Facebook as a supposedly independent “fact checker” to combat “fake news” online.

As Mike Adams explains, “What Robert Mueller accused the Russians of doing—interfering with U.S. elections—is actually being carried out right now by tech giants, the establishment media and third-party fact-checkers.”

CNN lobbies social media giants to shut down Infowars

Not content with seeing Infowars be disabled in terms of being downranked by algorithms, CNN, along with a media echo chamber that amplifies their narratives, has openly lobbied both Google-owned YouTube and Facebook to shut down Infowars.

Earlier this year, CNN repeatedly contacted YouTube in an attempt to have our channel closed down because we challenged the gun control narrative that emerged after the Parkland school shooting.

At one point, Infowars was one strike away from losing its YouTube presence and being terminated on the platform forever.

After failing to trigger the deletion of our YouTube channel, CNN’s senior media reporter Oliver Darcy re-appeared last week, this time attempting to lobby Facebook to shut down Infowars under the excuse of combating “fake news”.

Darcy’s zeal to silence Infowars was so persistent that he eventually forced Facebook to back themselves into a corner and admit that they supported free speech, which is quite the commitment for a company that has been so aggressive in policing the content on its platform.

The fact that an international media brand with vast resources like CNN would direct its journalists to launch a campaign to shut down a smaller competitor is not only chilling, it smacks of total desperation.

In Russia or Turkey, the government shuts down media outlets. In the United States, CNN apparently thinks that’s its role.

The fallacy of fake news

While the legacy media routinely publishes misleading, harmful and downright duplicitous news with wanton abandon, the “fake news” narrative was amplified after the election as a means of discrediting and de-legitimizing the presidency of Donald Trump and populist movements across Europe.

Much like the term “post-truth world,” fake news is a contrived moral panic created by elites to deflect from the fact they are increasingly unable to manufacture consent.

A major Stanford University study found that “even the most widely circulated fake news stories were seen by only a small fraction of Americans,” and that the most widely believed fake news stories were those that benefited Hillary Clinton.

Fake news had virtually no impact on the election, but the establishment media weaponized the term as part of an agenda to silence and censor voices of dissent, including media platforms, that had opposed Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign.

It is completely hilarious to realize that the legacy media created the contrived “fake news” hysteria but thanks to Trump and their own malicious agenda, it just ended up defining them. According to an April poll by Monmouth University Polling Institute, 77 per cent of Americans believe that the traditional media is guilty of fake news.

In a 2017 CNN opinion piece written by Hossein Derakhshan and Claire Wardle, who are affiliated with the globalist Council of Europe, the authors argued that the term “fake news” had “become meaningless” and lost its power because politicians (primarily Donald Trump) hijacked it as a way to “undermine” the media establishment.

The authors decried the fact that many people now believe the mainstream media peddles “fabricated stories” and that information monopolies are being challenged by the ability for “anyone in the world” to have a platform.

As Sharyl Attkisson documents in her presentation below, the attempt to focus America’s attention on the idea of “fake news” was itself a propaganda effort.

Fake news is a baseless conspiracy theory invented by elites as an excuse to explain why their arguments no longer resonate with a majority of people.

The master document created by Mike Adams explains some of the solutions to these problems – real steps that can be implemented very quickly to turn the tide and return the Internet and social media to a level playing field.

Solutions

They include;

1) Declaring the dominant online platforms to be “public commons” communication infrastructure to protect free speech.

2) Outlawing the censoring of content based on “political views” or “unpopular views”.

3) Requiring social media platforms to make transparent all their algorithms and requiring platforms to disclose down-ranking content policies

4) Requiring complete transparency on all reasoning for shadow bans, content bans and account bans.

All of these measures and more could be introduced in a special Online Digital Rights bill that could be passed and signed into law by President Trump.

“Google, Facebook, YouTube, CNN and even the ACLU are all conspiring to defraud the United States of America by silencing conservative voices, en masse, in the run up to a critical election that may decide the fate of our nation,” writes Adams.

We are running out of time. The mid-term elections are just months away. Every day that goes by without these fundamental problems being addressed, the state of online free speech becomes ever more precarious.

We must act now before it’s too late.

Follow on Twitter: 

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/paul.j.watson.71

*********************

Paul Joseph Watson is the editor at large of Infowars.com and Prison Planet.com.

Advertisements

THIS COULD BE THE END OF INTERNET FREEDOM AS WE KNOW IT

DRUDGE WARNS: EU ‘LINK BAN’ COULD KILL DRUDGE REPORT, INTERNET FREEDOM

EU’s Article 11 would ban fair use – and possibly even links to news stories

In 2015, Internet pioneer Matt Drudge warned that the establishment would try to ban links to news stories without paid permission from the site – and now the EU’s proposed Article 11 could do just that.

During an interview on the Alex Jones Show, Drudge revealed that copyright laws which prevent websites from even linking to news stories were being drafted.

“I had a Supreme Court Justice tell me it’s over for me,” he said. “They’ve got the votes now to enforce copyright law, you’re out of there. They’re going to make it so you can’t even use headlines.”

“To have a Supreme Court Justice say to me it’s over, they’ve got the votes, which means time is limited.”

On June 20, the EU will vote on its proposed Copyright Reform, which includes Article 11, aka the link tax, that would “force anyone using snippets of journalistic online content to get a license for the publisher first — essentially outlawing current business models of most aggregators and news apps,” according to an article from TheNextWeb.com.

In other words, Article 11 outlaws fair use reporting of news articles – such as this article – and critics even warn that the vagueness of Article 11 could ban websites like the Drudge Report from even linking to news articles, just as Matt Drudge warned nearly three years ago.

BoingBoing.net goes into even further detail:

Article 11’s link tax allows news sites to decide who gets to link to them, meaning that they can exclude their critics. With election cycles dominated by hoaxes and fake news, the right of a news publisher to decide who gets to criticize it is carte blanche to lie and spin.

“That will end (it) for me – fine – I’ve had a hell of a run,” said Drudge, warning web users were being forced into the Internet “ghettos” of Twitter, Facebook and Instagram.

“This is ghetto, this is corporate, they’re taking your energy and you’re getting nothing in return – nothing!”


RELATED

Successive Prosecution

As many Red Herring Alert readers know, I was falsely convicted of 6 felony counts of parental deprivation in September 2016. I was incarcerated for 4 months at the Ramsey County Correctional Facility and sentenced to 8 years of probation.

One of my unconstitutional probation conditions ordered by Judge Karen Asphaug included language that I am not to reference parties involved in this case on any social media.

On July 31st, 2017, I was served with a Temporary Restraining Order for violating my probation condition and referencing the party on Red Herring Alert. On August 28th, 2017, I received a probation violation summons for the same offense.

Temporary Restraining Order

An application for restraining order, filed with the court, provides the victim with temporary protection until a hearing can be held. A temporary restraining order, also referred to as a “TRO,” only becomes effective once an application for a permanent restraining order has been filed with the court and served on the offender. A temporary restraining order offers the victim the same level of protection and a long-term order, but it only requires the victim to provide the court with proof that they are in imminent dangerlegaldictionary.net

Temporary orders last only weeks. Judges intentionally keep cases open without a decision as a method of controlling the parties without entering a final judgment. Among other problems, this approach denies worthy petitioners the enforceability of an order recorded in a law enforcement database and denies worthy respondents the ability to appeal. Actions that would otherwise be lawful become potentially criminal.

TIMELINE OF ACTIONS (All hearings were continued at the actual court hearing vs. prior, which means that I had to drive 1 1/2 hours each way for all non-hearings.)

Image result for Judge Asphaug

Judge Asphaug

07/31/2017  Served with a Temporary Restraining Order (Signed by Judge Asphaug who presided over our criminal trials).
08/18/2017 I filed a motion to vacate the false Temporary Restraining Order
08/29/2017  Served with a Probation Violation Summons for blog posts
09/11/2017  Served with Summons and Complaint for Harassment Restraining Order violations.
09/28/2017   Contested Revocation Hearing (Rescheduled by Judge Asphaug to 11/02/2017) Judge Asphaug indicated the validity of the restraining order needed to be determined prior to the probation violation hearing. Prosecutor: Kathryn Keena, Assistant Dakota County Attorney

Image result for Judge Kanning

Judge Kanning

09/29/2017   Hearing Motion to Vacate the Temporary Restraining Order (At this hearing, Judge Kanning rescheduled the motion hearing to 12/13.2017 to allow time for opposing counsel to prepare. Judge Kanning indicated that the validity of the temporary restraining order needs to be determined prior to the disposition of the related criminal case because a ruling on the validity of the temporary restraining order may have a direct impact on that related criminal case.) I would think so.
10/17/2017  Arraignment for Restraining Order Violation (9:00 AM) (Judicial Officer Mayer, Michael J.)Result: Held (Criminal Prosecutor Elliott Knetsch)
11/02/2017   Contested Revocation Hearing (Rescheduled by Judge Asphaug due to rescheduling of the motion hearing to vacate.)

12-13-2017  Motion to Vacate Hearing Judge Kanning continued the hearing per Attorney Lisa Elliott’s request to allow more time to complete collection of evidence. In the Order for Continuance, Kanning wrote, “Further hearings on Respondent’s motion shall be continued to May 16th, 2018, or until such other date following final adjudication of the pending criminal charges against Respondent arising out of the alleged violation of the Restraining Order.” (So now instead of determining the validity of the TRO prior to the criminal trial, they’re going to just have the criminal trial and the motion hearing to vacate after the trial.)

01/09/2018   Pre-trial hearing for Restraining Order violation Judge Asphaug Reset by Court to 04/30/2018 Reset by Court to 07/16/2018

Image result for judge gearin

Judge Gearin

03/01/2018  Emergency Motion Hearing to remove blog posts. Unconstitutional purge conditions were met and more were added by Attorney Lisa Elliott. Conditions again were met however, Lisa Elliott filed an Affidavit of Noncompliance and Request for Arrest Warrant on 03/09/2018 which was signed by retired Judge Kathleen Gearin on 03/14/2018. I filed an Affidavit of Compliance on  03/17/2018 and was arrested on 03/18/2018. I was brought to Stearns County Jail and transported to Dakota County Jail on 03/19/2018. I was transported to Ramsey County Correctional Facility at 5:00 PM and transported back to Dakota County on 3/20/2018 for a hearing with Judge Christopher Lehmann. He stated that I would have to wait to be heard in front of Judge Gearin on 03/21/2018. I was transported back to Ramsey County after spending the day in a holding cell. On 03/22/2018 hearing took place with Judge Gearin. Judicial order included immediate release from custody, constructive contempt of court sentence stayed until March 26th, at 4:30 p.m. in order to allow continued removal of posts. If items are not removed by 4:30 p.m. on March 26th, I was required to turn myself in to the Dakota County Correctional Facility for women on March 27th, at 9:00 a.m. to serve the remaining 26 days. (Some of the images and articles were hot linked from the Red Herring Alert site to other sites and data remained on the web for a short time before they were purged from the servers. I had no control over the cached data.)

05/16/2018  Motion Hearing to Vacate TRO. Attorney Lisa Elliott indicated that my motion to vacate was not filed within the 20 day timeline and could not be reviewed. Judge Kanning indicated that he would tee up an order to appeal the Restraining Order vs. hearing it at the District Court level.

The following objections were provided to the District Court: PETITIONERS OFFER NO EVIDENCE OF HARASSMENT – There is no allegation or evidence of direct contact by Respondent. Instead, the focus of this action is a number of blog posts written by Respondent that are either about
Petitioners or at least mention Petitioner in some way.

The blog posts by themselves cannot meet this definition, and to the extent the Court believes this definition can be expanded to included blog posts, then the statute must necessarily run afoul of the First Amendment

THE BLOG POSTS ARE NOT HARASSMENT AS DEFINED UNDER LAW

THE ORDER IS AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL PRIOR RESTRAINT – Because there are no findings of unprotected speech making up the conduct of Respondent and because the Order prohibits a large category of protected speech, the Order is an unconstitutional prior restraint.

THE MINNESOTA HRO STATUTE, IF APPLIED TO SITUATIONS LIKE THIS WOULD VIOLATE THE FIRST AMENDMENT 

04/30/2018  Jury Trial  (9:00 AM) (Judicial Officer Gearin, Kathleen R.) Reset by Court to 07/23/2018  -Only to be heard by Judge Gearin-

06/06/2018   Probation Revocation Hearing Reset by Court to 09/05/2018

09/05/2018   Contested Revocation Hearing  (9:00 AM) (Judicial Officer Asphaug, Karen)

The contested revocation hearing in file 19HA-CR-15-4227 has been rescheduled to September 5, 2018 at 9:00 a.m. at the Dakota County Judicial Center in Hastings, MN.  The hearing for this Wednesday, June 6 has been cancelled.  The matter had to be rescheduled due to a continuance in the criminal case 19AV-CR-17-16709.  Your trial in that matter is set for July 23, 2018.

Sincerely,

Megan Loyas
Law Clerk to the Honorable Karen Asphaug
651-438-4318

Stay tuned for updates!

RESTORING FREEDOM OF SPEECH

Britons Rage Over Robinson Arrest As Mass Protests Break Out Worldwide

ZeroHedge MAY 29, 2018

The arrest, imprisonment, and government-ordered media blackout of UK journalist and activist Tommy Robinson has set off a firestorm of protests around the world.

Free speech advocates and supporters of Robinson’s movement from Melbourne to Berlin came out by the thousands to protest the Friday arrest outside of Leeds Crown Court while Robinson was reporting on a pedophile grooming trial via Facebook livestream. Within six hours of his detention, Robinson was slapped with a 13 month prison term for violating a prior suspended sentence for a similar offense.

A big police van with about seven police officers pulled up and arrested [Robinson] and told him to stop live streaming,” Robinson’s producer told RT (before their article (archivedwas scrubbed from the internet). “They said it was incitement and a breach of the peace.

“No peace has been breached – there were two other people there and he’s been perfectly quiet talking into his phone. [The police] said nothing about the court proceedings. It’s very strange.”

Equally as disturbing are the implications of a court-ordered media banmaking it a criminal offense for news outlets operating in the UK to cover Robinson’s arrest and incarceration. In a page straight out of George Orwell’s 1984, several news outlets were forced to pull articles which were published before the ban.

Mass protests broke out following Robinson’s arrest – the largest of which was a crowd of thousands in the UK, demonstrating at the gates of Downing Street to demand the release of the conservative activist.

Operation Paul Revere

WATCH LIVE: OPERATION PAUL REVERE 2018 HAS LAUNCHED!

Free speech is under attack and now is the time to fight back

As the establishment works to silence Infowars and other media outlets, Operation Paul Revere 2018 is a chance to fight back against globalist censorship. The 34-hour marathon broadcast will run from Thursday, March 1 at 8AM to Friday at 6PM. The First Amendment is under attack and the future of free speech hangs in the balance. Infowars will be announcing huge sales at InfowarsStore.comthroughout the transmission, which will feature exclusive reports and surprise guests.

Continue Reading

RELATED

Why we’re calling for the regulation of Google, Facebook, YouTube and Twitter to halt malicious censorship and create a fair platform for public debate

Banned In the U.S.A.

Canadian MGTOW
This is song very applicable 25 years later, except the enemy of Free Speech are now Social Justice Warriors and Feminists.
figment1988
this was pretty much a middle finger which was pointed towards Nick Navarro (who led the crackdown on the sale of As Nasty As They Wanna Be), and Jack Thompson (yes, the same guy who believes GTA leads to real crime which ironically Luke Campbell was a DJ for in Vice City Stories).
Edwardo Snowdeno
In 2014 America I am watched by the NSA I am…watched by the NSA yeah ..watched by the NSA
gabriel blackmon
2 Live Crew WON’T be banned in the United States of America!
Uncle Creepy
The first amendment doesn’t protect the kind of speech that you like it protects the kind of speech that you don’t like.

‘FREE SPEECH’ SUIT AIMS TO END TWITTER’S POLITICAL CENSORSHIP

Image result for twitter images

Conservatives tired of being targeted and silenced on social media

A group of free-speech lawyers filed the most serious legal challenge yet to Twitter’s censorship policies Tuesday in San Francisco County Superior Court, seeking a ruling preventing Twitter from banning users purely on the basis of their views and political associations.

The 29-page complaint contends that, under a California legal doctrine that recognizes some private facilities as “public forums,” Twitter may not discriminate against speech on their platform based purely on viewpoint.

If successful, it would be the first extension of that doctrine to internet social media platforms and could transform the way free speech is treated online.

The suit became all the more relevant Wednesday as Twitter stood accused of locking out thousands of conservatives under the guise of cracking down on “Russian bots.”

Read more