Thursday, June 30, 2022

Biased fact-checker colludes with teachers union

NewsGuard, a self-appointed arbiter of truth that calls itself “The Internet Trust Tool,” strikes again. These guardians of the political elite supposedly rate news websites for credibility and transparency. Even though PragerU is an educational nonprofit—not a news website—NewsGuard came after us anyway!

NewsGuard gives PragerU a terrible rating (a score of 57 out of 100), warns viewers to “proceed with caution” before viewing our videos, and is telling companies that we do business with to drop PragerU as a client.

We tried to work with them to improve our rating, but quickly found they weren't acting in good faith and had no intention of being fair.

With its ever-growing power, NewsGuard is now colluding with the second-largest teachers union in America.

The American Federation of Teachers (AFT) announced a new partnership with NewsGuard, saying the deal is a "game-changer for teachers and families drowning in an ocean of online dishonesty."

We all know what this really means. The teachers union is now hiding behind a third-party “fact-checker” to censor anything—and taking zero responsibility for it.

This teachers union has 1.7 MILLION members teaching TENS OF MILLIONS OF AMERICAN CHILDREN.

NewsGuard’s biased ratings are about to stop anything the union disagrees with from reaching millions of children across America under the guise of keeping youth safe from “dishonesty.” Most parents have no idea this is happening. Are we going to allow this institutionalized left-wing indoctrination of young minds?

 PragerU is exposing NewsGuard and the union for what they are...authoritarian oligarchs who want to stop America’s youth from learning the facts and thinking critically for themselves.

<i>Email from PragerU (</i>




Wednesday, June 29, 2022

Abortion Debate Video Censored

The Chinese-owned TikTok social media giant has banned a pro-life video from its platform. Students For Life Of America was told the video did not adhere to multiple community guidelines.

The group says it initially had its account terminated for posting the video.  It claims TikTok also removed 35,000 followers when it appealed against the ban.

The video showed the group’s president Kristan Hawkins debating abortion at a Texas university campus. It was titled “Pro-Choicer Defeated by Simple Logic.”

Ms Hawkins is on a nationwide tour called ‘The Future of Anti-Abortion’.

Her video has gone viral with millions of views on other social media platforms which took no action against it.

In a similar case, The Christian Post reports Twitter threatened a pro-life site with a permanent ban over an abortion-related image that had been sanitised for publication within the platform’s guidelines.




Tuesday, June 28, 2022

Amazon Staff Demand Ban of Books Calling Transgender People Mentally Ill

 A group of Inc. employees plans to march in Seattle’s Pride Parade on Sunday to protest the online retailer’s sale of books they consider anti-transgender—an action that threatens to erode the company’s image as an inclusive employer.

In recent months, several hundred staffers have been pushing the e-commerce giant to ban books like “Irreversible Damage: The Transgender Craze Seducing Our Daughters.” They say such titles dehumanize trans people and dismiss their identities as mental disorders, which runs counter to the recommendations of almost every major medical group. Employees say the books could confuse vulnerable teens and their parents who turn to Amazon seeking information.

“It’s pretty jarring to see books that are promoting that trans people should not transition in the LGBT book section,” said Lina Jodoin, who transitioned two years ago and quit her engineering job at Amazon last month in protest. “It just hurts on a personal level.”




Monday, June 27, 2022

Washington Post reporter Dave Weigel suspended following retweet of sexist joke

From Watergate to whinegate: The Washington Post is a hot mess
Washington Post politics reporter Dave Weigel has been suspended following uproar over a sexist joke he retweeted.

The newspaper suspended Weigel Monday without pay, CNN reported, after he reposted a tweet from Youtuber Cam Harless that stated, “Every girl is bi. You just have to figure out if it’s polar or sexual.”

Colleague Felicia Sonmez, who also covers national politics, then blasted Weigel for sharing the off-putting joke, tweeting, “Fantastic to work at a news outlet where retweets like this are allowed!” with a screenshot of Weigel’s retweet.

Later that day Weigel removed the tweet. “I just removed a retweet of an offensive joke,” Weigel said. “I apologize and did not mean to cause any harm.”

It’s unclear how long the suspension will last, but an email to Weigel seeking comment led to automatic reply that said he was out of the office and returning July 5.




Sunday, June 26, 2022

WWE stars slam wrestling legend Kane over response to controversial abortion ruling

A tidal wave of horrified celebrity reactions have come out in response to the US Supreme Court decision that will strip abortion rights from millions.

The Sun reports the decision ultimately means abortion procedures will be banned in about half of America’s states. Thirteen states have so-called trigger laws in place that will see abortion banned within 30 days.

Kane — real name Glenn Jacobs — is now the Mayor of Knox County, Tennessee and he hailed the ruling as a victory despite it sparking outrage across America and the rest of the world.

He tweeted: “Roe v. Wade has been overturned!

“This clears the way for states like TN to pass stronger protections for the unborn, and is an answer to a prayer for so many. #RightToLife #Victory.”

Paige — real name Saraya-Jade Bevis — who recently announced she will be leaving the WWE at the end of her contract in July after 11 years with the company, hit back with a brutally honest assessment of Jacobs’ controversial opinion.

The former WWE Divas Champion said: “Glenn you were an idol of mine and I sung your praises to anyone I met. “But this is the biggest piece of s**” take from you ever.

“Very disappointing that you think controlling women’s bodies and taking away our rights is a ‘victory’.”




Friday, June 24, 2022

Australia: State government to scrap gendered language like 'maternity leave' and 'she' as part of major shake up to industrial laws

The terms 'she' and 'maternity' are set to be replaced in a series of changes to Queensland's industrial relations laws proposed by the state government.

The changes were put forward by Queensland's Industrial Relations Minister Grace Grace on Thursday, reports The Courier Mail.

It comes after the government's five-year independent review into state workplace laws was released by Premier Anastasia Palaszczuk and Miss Grace in February.

The review resulted in 40 recommendations to Queensland's industrial relations laws to 'better reflect evolving community standards for the workplace'.

Among the changes, gendered language will be removed and replaced with gender-neutral terms.  

The word 'she' will be scrapped and replaced with the term 'the employee'.

'Maternity leave' will also be cut and changed to 'birth-related leave'.

In another clause in the recommendations, 'maternity leave' was swapped with the term 'pregnancy-related'.

It was explained in the Bill that these changes were being made to 'remove language implying gendered divisions of parental leave'.

Other recommendations not related to the removal of gendered language included strengthening protections of employees subject to sexual harassment and gender pay equity changes.

There was also improvements to adoption leave entitlements and unpaid leave entitlements for a parent whose child was stillborn.

Queensland's Industrial Relations Minister Grace Grace said: 'The Palaszczuk Government is committed to doing all we can to prevent sexual harassment and gender inequity.'

'That's why I am proud that the Palaszczuk Government is introducing nation-leading reforms which provide workers subject to this type of abhorrent conduct a variety of remedies available through the QIRC.'

Miss Grace noted that the government had taken action because a 'lack of regulation' can 'create safety risks' and affects the 'financial security' of employees.




Wednesday, June 22, 2022

Buenos Aires Bans Woke Spanish in Schools

In yet another blow to the radical left’s attempts to mangle the language of Cervantes, the capital of one of South America’s largest countries has said schools can no longer teach bastardized, woke Spanish.

Buenos Aires City Hall recently announced it was banning the use of so-called inclusive Spanish in the city’s schools. According to the city’s mayor, Horacio Rodríguez Larreta, using e, x, and @, in written Spanish will no longer be acceptable.

“Teachers have to respect the rules of the Spanish language because children have to master the language as it is,” said Larreta, as reported by the Buenos Aires Times.

Woke Spanish, much like its English cousin, is mostly relegated to activists and universities. Use of the e, x, and @ are officially recognized in some niches of Argentine academia, like the Social Sciences Faculty at the University of Buenos Aires.

A guide to inclusive Spanish argues that people should use words that don’t exist like “todxs” or “amigues” to avoid gender entirely.  

This debate on whether to completely de-gender Spanish highlights one major difference between the war on language in America and Argentina.  

Every single word in Spanish is gendered, meaning even things like tables (las mesas) and pencils (los lapices) have a grammatical gender attached to them. To the radical left, that means the entire language must be changed.

There is something mind-boggling about the scope of the radical left’s attempt to alter Spanish. Americans are still reeling from repeated attempts to make “Latinx” a thing. But in Argentina, every single word and grammatical structure is under attack.

In the U.S., we cringe when someone says “birthing person” or “person who menstruates” instead of “woman,” but thankfully, it’s just one word. English is not a grammatically gendered language, so there’s less chances for the radical left to infect English and change it wholesale




Tuesday, June 21, 2022

Censorship in Ukraine

The Ukrainian parliament Sunday approved a law that stops the printing of books by Russian citizens unless they give up their Russian passport and become Ukraine citizens. The ban only applies to those authors who held Russian citizenship after the 1991 collapse of the Soviet Union.

Books printed in Russia, its ally Belarus and occupied Ukrainian territory also can no longer be imported, and special permission is required for the importation of books in Russian from any other countries.

Another law passed Sunday puts the brakes on music by post-1991 Russian citizens played by media outlets and on public transportation. It also forces television and radio broadcasts to play more Ukrainian-language speech and music content.




Monday, June 20, 2022

Congress Wants To Know Why Meta Is Censoring Iranian Dissidents

Congress is investigating the Meta social media network for censoring Iranian dissidents and pro-democracy advocates amid a wave of protests against Tehran’s hardline government, according to a copy of the probe exclusively obtained by the Washington Free Beacon.

Three Republican lawmakers on the House Foreign Affairs and Armed Services Committees want information about what steps Meta has "taken to confront infiltration by proponents of the Islamic Republic of Iran" following reports the social media giant is deleting and censoring accounts tied to anti-regime activists. The lawmakers—Reps. Jim Banks (Ind.), Claudia Tenney (N.Y.), and Joe Wilson (S.C.)—also want to know if Meta is investigating claims that Instagram, the video sharing app owned by the company, has "been infiltrated by those sympathetic to the Islamic Republic in Iran."

The probe comes on the heels of reports alleging that Instagram content moderators are deleting and censoring accounts that have documented the regime’s human rights abuses during the latest wave of protests. Those affected claim that Instagram is removing content showing Iranian security forces beating protesters and firing tear gas into crowds.

Social media is a vehicle for anti-regime activists to document the government’s crimes and galvanize international support for their movement. The Iranian government severely restricts internet access to prevent this information from becoming public. Banks and his colleagues say the notion that Meta is helping the Iranian government censor this content represents "an unacceptable threat to their privacy, liberty, and our national security."

Cameron Khansarinia, policy director at the National Union for Democracy in Iran, an Iranian-American organization that supports democracy, said social media is critical to the Iranian protest movement.

"Iranian protesters are fighting a multifront war: first and foremost against regime thugs on the street firing live ammunition, but also against the silence of the international community and mainstream media," Khansarinia said. "In this war, social media has been one of their few available tools. Now, not only is it filtered, banned, or entirely blocked by the Islamic Republic, but the companies that tell us they ‘build technologies that help people connect’ are apparently infiltrated by agents of brutal dictatorships looking to make those technologies disconnect and silence freedom movements."

While Iranian activists have long accused social networks like Facebook and Instagram of amplifying Iranian regime propaganda, the latest reports indicate the company may have outsourced its content moderation to regime agents.

Instagram reportedly enlisted a third-party company, Telus International, to police the network’s content. Telus International is alleged to have "been infiltrated by those sympathetic to the Islamic Republic in Iran," according to the lawmakers, citing a BBC Persian report.




Sunday, June 19, 2022

Australia: ABC boss Ita Buttrose criticised by hyphenated lady for using the term ‘Aborigines’ in speech

ABC chair Ita Buttrose has been accused of failing to comply with the broadcaster’s own editorial style guide in a major speech where she referred to First Nations people as “Aborigines”.

Ms Buttrose used the term in Sydney on Friday night as she delivered an annual media lecture in honour of distinguished journalist Andrew Olle, who died in 1995 at age 48.

While speaking about Mr Olle’s work, she said “he’d tell the stories of Aborigines, the mentally ill, the poor and the powerless … stories, at that time, with no assured place on the mainstream media’s agenda”.

Former ABC, SBS and NITV journalist Jennetta Quinn-Bates took offence at use of the term “Aborigines” and she took to Twitter to highlight it was not in-line with the ABC style guide.

“She’s still calling us Aborigines and basically reminding First Nations people we’re lucky for any airtime at all,” Ms Quinn-Bates wrote.

“Message received loud and clear. Sincerest apologies to my former ABC indigenous colleagues.”

After her initial comments, Ms Quinn-Bates posted screenshots of the ABC editorial style guide, which directs staff to “avoid Aborigine outside of quotes”.

Ms Quinn-Bates said while Ms Buttrose could argue it was “only a guide”, she called for “some respect please”.

“You would think one would be familiar with the policies and standards of the organisation they chair,” Ms Quinn-Bates posted.




Friday, June 17, 2022

UK: Sajid Javid disagrees with NHS ‘removing woman’ from ovarian cancer guidance

Sajid Javid has said he does not agree with the NHS reportedly removing the word “woman” from online guidance on ovarian cancer.

Speaking to Sky News on Wednesday morning, the health secretary said that “common sense and the right language” should be used to “give people the best possible patient care”.

Asked about reports the health service had dropped the word from advice pages on its website, he said: “Well, look, I haven’t seen that particular report, but I have heard of instances like that and I don’t think it’s right.

“You won’t be surprised to know that, as the health secretary, I think that your sex matters, your biological sex is incredibly important to make sure you get the right treatment, the very best treatment.”

Pressed on whether he would get the wording changed back, Mr Javid said: “I am looking into this and you’ll know, look, the NHS, there (are) many different trusts and I want to listen to why someone might have taken a different approach – I don’t just want to assume – but I think I’ve made my views clear on this.”

He added: “I know there’s some sensitivity around this language, but we have to use common sense and use the right language so that we can give people the best possible patient care.”

The main page on womb cancer previously described it as “a common cancer that affects the female reproductive system”, adding: “It’s more common in women who have been through the menopause.” It now describes the cancer as a disease “that affects the womb,” adding: “The womb (uterus) is where a baby grows during pregnancy.”




Thursday, June 16, 2022

Lawsuit FILED: University censors Christian student

“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it,” goes a famous expression about free speech.
But today, our nation’s public universities have a different mantra: “I not only disapprove of what you say, but I will keep you from saying it.”
That’s exactly what officials at Southern Illinois University Edwardsville (SIUE) did to one of their recent master’s program graduates, Maggie DeJong. They censored Maggie because of her religious and political views, violating her free speech and due process rights.

Last week, we filed a lawsuit against SIUE officials on Maggie’s behalf to correct the violation of her constitutional rights. We also asked a federal court to declare unconstitutional portions of the university's policy wielded to punish Maggie.
What happened to Maggie shouldn’t happen to any student.

Maggie spent the last three years pursuing her master’s degree in Art Therapy Counseling at SIUE. Her goal? To one day counsel child trauma victims.

But while she was a student, the school informed Maggie that three students had taken out a “no contact order” against her. SIUE forbade Maggie from engaging with the three students and denied her constitutional right to defend herself against their allegations.

Maggie was prevented from speaking to them in their shared class, at their jobs in the same building, and in public spaces under threat of further punishment from the school.

Maggie was given no reason why. That’s when she first contacted ADF. We sent a demand letter to the school to have the orders rescinded and find out why they were even issued in the first place.

Here’s what we learned: The University issued the orders because certain students claimed they were offended by her speech on topics including religion, politics, critical race theory, and COVID-19 regulations.

Maggie was punished simply for expressing her beliefs—beliefs held by millions of Americans.

Maggie did not break any school policy or rule. She always engaged in respectful and loving conversations with her classmates. But university officials ignored her rights and disciplined her based solely on her protected speech.

<i>Email from </i>




Wednesday, June 15, 2022

Monkeypox will be renamed, says World Health Organization

The World Health Organization (WHO) says it is working with experts to officially rename monkeypox, amid concerns over stigma and racism around the "discriminatory" name of the virus.

WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus announced on Tuesday morning that the organisation was "working with partners and experts from around the world on changing the name of monkeypox virus, its clades [strains] and the disease it causes."

Mr Ghebreyesus said the WHO would make announcements about the new names as soon as possible.

The decision comes less than a week after more than 30 international scientists wrote in a position paper that there was an "urgent need" for a "non-discriminatory and non-stigmatising nomenclature for monkeypox virus".




Tuesday, June 14, 2022

Lizzo releases a new version of her song Grrrls after being blasted by disability activists for using 'ableist' term 's**z'

Lizzo announced that she released an updated version of her new song Grrrls that features a 'lyric change', after she received backlash for using an ableist slur on the track.

The pop singer, 34, said she 'never want(s) to promote derogatory language' and said she was 'dedicated to being part of the change I've been waiting to see in the world'.

Lizzo was blasted by disability activists on Twitter for including the 'ableist' slur in her latest track off her sophomore album Special, which was released on Friday, with fans begging her to 'remove' it from streaming services.

Short for the derogatory term 'spastic', it is considered to be offensive in the UK, while its US definition is to 'lose physical or emotional control'.

In her opening verse, the Grammy winner sings: 'Hold my bag, b****, hold my bag / Do you see this s***? Ima s**z.'




Monday, June 13, 2022

The Term ‘Female’ Can Be Dehumanizing, Boston University Medical School Says

Should people use the word “female” to describe women?

The Boston University School of Medicine advises its students and faculty against it, saying and the term can be “dehumanizing.”

Since October 2021, the school has used what it calls the Glossary for Culture Transformation. The guide contains 107 words and phrases that it defines to give people a better understanding of what terms to use. In some instances, it recommends certain words while explaining why the selected word or phrase is a better fit than a similar term.

One of the changes that Boston University’s School of Medicine wants people to make to their vocabularies is dropping the term “female” when describing women.  

Here is what the guide says:

"Consider using “woman/women” rather than “female/females” as a noun. Female is an adjective, descriptive of animals. When female is used as a noun, it can reduce someone to their ability to reproduce and can be dehumanizing. It is also not inclusive of trans-women. The similar rule applies to male (adjective) vs. man (noun). E.g. male doctors (used correctly as an adjective) vs. doctors who are men (used correctly as a noun)"

The guide is used by Boston University’s Office of Equity, Vitality, and Inclusion; the Boston Medical Center; Boston University School of Medicine; and Boston University Medical Group.

Dropping the term “female” one of a few changes the school wants people to make to their language use to avoid dehumanizing people.

Another term the school wants people to rid from their vocabulary is “illegal immigrant.” Instead, the school wants people to use the term “undocumented” in lieu of “illegal.”




Sunday, June 12, 2022

Lia Thomas' Teammate Says School Pressured Athletes Into Silence: If 'You Say Anything Negative...Your Life Will Be Over'

A former teammate of transgender swimmer Lia Thomas said the University of Pennsylvania relied on threats and bullying to keep the women’s team in line.

The female swimmer appeared in The Daily Wire’s “What is a Woman?” documentary, in which commentator Matt Walsh goes on an “often comical, yet deeply disturbing journey, as he fearlessly questions the logic behind a gender ideology movement that has taken aim at women and children,” according to the film’s web page.

The woman wasn’t identified and her image and voice were obscured in the segment because she said she feared the repercussions of her critical comments about Thomas and other men who identify as female competing in women’s sports.

“They’ve made it pretty clear that if you speak up about it and you say anything negative, that, like, your life will be over in some way,” she told Walsh.

“You’ll be blasted all over the internet as a transphobe if you come out and then you’ll never be able to get a job,” she said. “Anyone who wants to hire you will look you up and see that you’re transphobic and your life will be over.”




Friday, June 10, 2022

Court order to expose @PRguy17 threatens the right to be anonymous online

The problem is not anonymity.  It is defamation. A more robust and accessible system to punish misleading and derogatory tweets is what is needed

A Federal Court order forcing Twitter to hand over identifying details of a prominent anonymous account has far-reaching consequences for all internet users.

For those who engage in heated online debates under a pseudonym, the decision means they may be at risk of having their identity exposed.

But even if you’re not a chronic online poster, this court decision has important implications for our online rights. It is part of a growing debate about the merit of online anonymity, which stands to affect the way we can participate in cyberspace.

The court order is a result of defamation proceedings launched by far-right social media personality Avi Yemini against anonymous Twitter account @PRGuy17, which was set up in March 2020 and has since attracted more than 80,000 users.

The account is known for posting content in support of the Labor Party, with particular emphasis on praising Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews. PRGuy has been critical of the anti-lockdown “Freedom Movement”, of which Yemini has been a figurehead. Sky News has accused the account of pumping out “pro-Labor propaganda” and some have claimed it may be connected to the premier’s office.

However, the precedent created by this case – where a social media platform has been ordered to hand over identifying information so a party to a court case can legally pursue the person behind the account – is chilling for many who use anonymity to participate in online debate. Defamation has a notorious history in Australia, and certain plaintiffs have used it to strategically silence criticism.

Those who benefit from the use of pseudonyms online are not a small minority. People who have jobs that limit their ability to engage in public debates, such as those in the public service or in frontline client-facing roles, often rely on anonymity to call out bad behaviour (or to simply have an opinion) without fear of repercussions in the physical world.

Human rights defenders, political organisers, lawyers and whistleblowers often rely on the shield offered by anonymity to do their vital work while also engaging in regular online life. Even if you aren’t one of these people, we all benefit from their ability to hold power to account.

We cannot glorify the Arab Spring protests and the might that social media has given to other social movements since then, then seek to remove the key ingredient which made those movements possible.

All this must be balanced against the proliferation of online trolling, in which people can be subjected to hundreds, even thousands, of abusive messages, often for posting something innocuous.

Defamation policy won’t tackle online trolls, lawyers tell PM

In criticising trolls in October 2021, then prime minister Scott Morrison labelled social media a “cowards’ palace” and called for a crackdown on anonymous accounts. In March that year, a federal parliamentary committee had recommended people be required to provide 100 points of ID to create a social media account. Morrison’s government then unveiled draft legislation purported to tackle online trolls with a requirement that social media companies collect unspecified additional identifying information. This has a huge impact on those who need online anonymity for safety, such as victims of domestic violence.

Regardless of whether you personally feel you have “nothing to hide”, in an environment where it is increasingly difficult to protect our data from breaches and misuse, the proposal to hand over additional information to big tech giants – despite the privacy and security risks – is troubling.

There is little evidence that reducing anonymity online would prevent trolling. Research has found that prohibiting anonymity online does not necessarily reduce bullying or the spread of misinformation. And when it was attempted in South Korea, 35 million people had their national identification numbers stolen by hackers. We need to improve the quality of online debate, but policies should be based on evidence, not instinct.

These are not easy challenges to tackle. Anyone who has ever been attacked by an anonymous online troll would tell you the abuse has real-world consequences. But if we give up the ability to be anonymous we pave the way for the complete erosion of privacy online, to the detriment of public debate, safety, expression and democratic participation.

Regardless of your opinion on Yemini or PRGuy, we shouldn’t let a public beef between two of Australia’s most divisive people on the internet obscure why online anonymity is vital for our democracy. The consequences of this court decision may very well impact all internet users, not just the people who say things we don’t like.

Thursday, June 09, 2022


It is actually an adaption of the common German word "hoffentlich" -- probably via Yiddish

Since the 1960s there has been a persistent outcry from those offended by the way ‘hopefully’ is now used. Take the sentence: ‘Hopefully the rain will stop by Saturday.’ ‘No! No!,’ say the protesters, ‘“Hopefully” is an adjunct word and by attaching it to rain means it’s the rain that is hoping.’

That protest may have once held water, but not anymore. English is a living language (a river not a lake) and it has flowed on to where ‘hopefully’ is now treated as a disjunct, not an adjunct. That is, it is no longer attached to the word(s) it precedes, but to the speaker.

 Starting in the 1960s and rapidly gathering strength in the decades that followed ‘hopefully’ joined a long list of similar words: ‘frankly’, “thankfully”, luckily’ and many others.

Why the outcry? Possibly because the shift happened fairly quickly; possibly because it came out of America (and we are very ready to be dubious about American usage).

Perhaps the outrage will now start to slowly simmer down (and we can move on to worrying about real language problems).




Wednesday, June 08, 2022

YouTube is now censoring journalism for the Biden administration

For as ugly as the worst acts of those who descended on Washington, DC, on Jan. 6, 2021, were, none could justify the chilling assault on liberty and justice that has followed in its wake.

The Ruling Class has used Jan. 6 to wage a jihad against its political opposition, including an assault on our most basic rights such as free speech.

Big Tech has reinforced the narrative that views antithetical to regime orthodoxy are dangerous and must be policed accordingly.

In the latest example, YouTube deleted a Jan. 6, 2020, interview conducted by a Post reporter with a Capitol-breach participant.

In the video, Aaron Mostofsky, son of a Brooklyn Supreme Court judge, explains why he was compelled to come to the Capitol, namely “to express . . . [his] opinion as a free American . . . that this election was stolen.”

To Google-owned YouTube, the footage contains dangerous “misinformation” — speech that it equates with harm — meriting removal. In its removal notice, it asserts that “it’s our job to make sure that YouTube is a safe place for all,” arguing that “content that advances false claims that widespread fraud . . . changed the outcome of the US 2020 presidential election is not allowed . . .”




Tuesday, June 07, 2022

Unchecked by Courts, Government Censorship of Social Media Platforms Will Prove Fatal to Free Speech in Digital Age

The Biden administration’s increasingly aggressive efforts to combat so-called misinformation, along with the prospective acquisition of Twitter by free speech advocate Elon Musk, have sparked a national debate about what role, if any, the government should play in censoring social media.

While some have applauded the administration’s campaign to police online “misinformation” about COVID-19 and other subjects, including through its recent creation of a “Disinformation Governance Board” within the Department of Homeland Security, others have harshly criticized the notion that the government should be the arbiter of truth.

As these critics have observed, many views derided as COVID-19 “misinformation” in 2020 or 2021—for instance, that the virus originated in a lab and that community masking appears to be relatively ineffective—are now gaining traction in mainstream circles.

Likewise, government officials, including President Joe Biden and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Rochelle Walensky, have made claims that later turned out to be untrue, such as that the vaccines reliably stop transmission and that masks are 80% effective at preventing infection.

These revelations have prompted many discerning Americans to question the notion that anyone—whether the government or tech companies—should be allowed to control information shared on social media. Indeed, the understanding that no one has a monopoly on the truth, and that governments are themselves prone to bias and disseminating falsehoods, is a primary reason the Framers included the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights.

Yet in the same week, four separate lawsuits brought on behalf of suspended Twitter users challenging such censorship on First Amendment grounds were dismissed in federal courts, including one brought by former President Donald Trump.

Three of the four lawsuits—all except Trump’s—were premised on versions of the theory that social media censorship is effectively state action, due to pressure exerted on companies by the federal government to quell the spread of “misinformation.”

Plaintiffs pointed to myriad statements by Biden administration officials and congressional Democrats, beginning as early as December 2020, threatening to hold social media platforms “accountable” or “liable” if they do not censor users who spread virus “misinformation.”




Monday, June 06, 2022

The color that may not be mentioned or seen

White People Have Disappeared From Commercials: Leftist Racism at work.  It is heavily reinforced by social pressures -- fears of criticism, boycotts etc.  The commercials would be "too white" etc otherwise

One imagines that it makes the commercials less effective in their purpose of selling things.  Getting people to identify with people in the ads is usually a major aim.  And there are a lot more whites than blacks</i>

If you were someone from the past and you time-traveled to this time period and watched television, you would think that all white people disappeared.

This is not coming from a place of malice, but an observation.

Now, I am not one to watch a lot of television, to be honest, and when I do I prefer streaming services. Even with streaming services, there are commercials and truthfully, I didn’t even really pay attention since I mute them when they come on.

However, while watching some television with my father, he made the comment that white people in commercials seemed to disappear.

At first, I said to him that I didn’t think so, but my opinion changed.  It is sort of like when you get a new car and then you notice that particular car all over the roads. I started to pay attention and he was correct, as usual.

Now, I am of Hispanic and Sicilian descent, so I obviously have no issue seeing other ethnic people on television. That’s not the issue. It’s the erasing of white people/couples in commercials that has me wondering what the heck is going on.

If we’re supposed to be a great big, diverse society, why are advertisers erasing a huge chunk of it?

Here is what American Thinker had to say on this topic, and as usual, they nailed it:

"In the United States today, the White population (not including Hispanics) is 57.8%. In real life, Caucasians are still in the majority, but now on TV and the Internet, they are swept under the rug like trash. Blacks comprise 14% of the U.S. population but appear in 50% of commercials. White actors now appear to promote health insurance, gold, loans, and some medicines. Moreover, if a White person appears in a commercial, he/she is usually old, sick, a freak, or at the very least, an appendage to a Black partner. If there’s a doctor on the screen, he’s usually Black, while the patient is usually White. Caucasian young men appear in only 4% of the commercials! If some aliens began to study the population of Planet Earth through our TV commercials they would have a somewhat distorted picture of Americans, to put it mildly.

So why do advertisers ignore the long-standing rules of marketing, and to the detriment of their own financial interests, fill the media space with content that displaces and degrades its biggest market segment? The answer is simple. At the heart of this nonsense is political correctness in a form even an Orwell could not have foreseen.  Business executives go out of their way to publicly show their conformity with the universal “diversity” and “critical racial theory” (CRT), demanding that the White man be blamed for all the sins one can imagine.  Replacing ancient, long-vanished oppression of Blacks with real oppression of Whites, overcompensating and planting racism-in-reverse.


Ordinary people keep their mouths shut for fear of losing their jobs, not getting a holiday bonus, not getting promoted, or being socially ostracized This is understandable, and I wouldn’t blame them, although I wouldn’t respect them either. But what are people of higher position afraid of — the heads and owners of businesses? What is threatening them? Indeed, nobody is going to drive them out of their positions or take their business, though fear of boycotts can be realistic.  They are afraid of various inconveniences: negative articles in the leftist press, social shunning, frivolous lawsuits, loss of state and federal licenses, government contracts, unexpected audits by the IRS, fines for alleged violations of minorities’ rights, and the like small and large troubles"




Sunday, June 05, 2022

WEF 'press freedom' panel calls for suppression of hate speech

Rumours, falsehoods, division, and hate speech should be suppressed by social media algorithms, according to a “freedom of the press” panel at the World Economic Forum in Davos on Thursday.

The WEF panel, which was held in collaboration with Time magazine, featured the head of Soros-backed Human Rights Watch, Kenneth Roth, who argued that social media should not focus on banning or overt censorship but rather on algorithmic manipulation in order to promote content from a “subset of society… journalists” to convey information as “carefully as possible” to the public.

“The algorithms are written to promote engagement because engagement is profitable, engagement is more eyeballs, and what is engaging? The provocative, rumours, falsehoods, hate speech, divisiveness.

“I don’t focus so much on what should be taken down, the overt censorship, but rather what is being promoted. If algorithms are promoting information that in essence is false or divisive because it is profitable, there I think there is accountability that is quite warranted for these companies”, Roth said.

The statements from Roth fall in line with previous arguments from the globalist World Economic Forum, which has previously called for the promotion of “diversity and anti-bias” on social media.

A blog post published by the WEF last April said that “technologies can be designed and developed in an inclusive manner by engaging those who are affected by online hate and discrimination.”

The post said that tech companies should partner with organisations such as the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), which has already reportedly begun working with PayPal to blacklist and surveil so-called extremists.

“Unless tech companies want to play catch-up on a constant basis, they should move beyond detection and content moderation to a holistic and proactive approach to how hatred is generated and disseminated online,” the WEF argued




Friday, June 03, 2022

Woke Capitalism

According to a new business index released on Thursday, corporate America dislikes the First Amendment.

In a press release, the Viewpoint Diversity Score, which is a collaboration between the legal nonprofit Alliance Defending Freedom and Christian financial firm Inspire Investing, examines 50 Fortune 1000 companies to determine “corporate respect for religious and ideological diversity.”

Software and internet services, in particular, scored poorly, with 6 percent and 7%, respectively. For example, Meta, the parent company of Facebook, received a 9 percent overall rating— 13 percent for promoting diversity in the public square, 12 percent in the workplace, and a pitiful 3% in the market.

In a recent poll of American investors conducted on behalf of The Daily Wire by Echelon Insights, respondents want companies to stop preaching and focus on profits. While 29% of respondents agreed that companies should use their financial power for political or social causes supported by executives, 58 percent — more than twice as many — said it is a “bad thing.”




Thursday, June 02, 2022

BBC Changed Victim’s Statement So As Not To ‘Misgender’ Her Trans Rapist

The Times of London reports that the BBC changed the wording of a rape victim’s testimony because woke employees didn’t want to ‘misgender’ the biological man who allegedly carried out the abuse.

The report notes that the BBC modified the woman’s statement following “a debate over the pronouns of her transgender attacker.”

“The woman referred to her alleged rapist as ‘him’ but insiders said that her words were changed to avoid ‘misgendering’ the abuser in an article on the corporation’s website,” the report adds.

 The report clarifies that wherever the words “he” or “him” were used by the woman, the BBC changed the language to “they” or “them”.

“A source said the quote was the subject of heated debate prior to publication. Some journalists argued that the quote should remain intact, while others said it should reflect the trans woman’s preferred she/her pronouns,” the report further notes.

The woman, who is a lesbian, reportedly described the incident to the BBC, saying “He threatened to out me as a terf and risk my job if I refused to sleep with him. I was too young to argue and had been brainwashed by queer theory so he was a ‘woman’ even if every fibre of my being was screaming throughout, so I agreed to go home with him. He used physical force when I changed my mind upon seeing his penis and raped me.’”

After the BBC had finished editing the above statement it read “[They] threatened to out me as a terf and risk my job if I refused to sleep with [them]. I was too young to argue and had been brainwashed by queer theory so [they were] a ‘woman’ even if every fiber of my being was screaming throughout so I agreed to go home with [them]. [They] used physical force when I changed my mind upon seeing [their] penis and raped me.”

The piece is still up on the BBC website at time of writing.

An anonymous source from within the BBC told The Times that “They were originally all male references but the woke bros at the news website wanted to make them female because of misgendering. It’s quite shocking. I can’t think of any other situation where we would change the words of an alleged rape victim.”

Responding to the matter, the BBC said “It’s routine to have editorial discussions about different stories. Our only intention when deciding on language is to make things as clear as possible for audiences.”


Not out of line with the attitude of the British government, however, which is moving to brand ‘misgendering’ as a ‘non-crime hate incident’, according to reports.

All to satiate the woke mob.




Wednesday, June 01, 2022

ACLU still defending free speech

Earlier this month the ACLU argued before the US Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit in defense of a high school student expelled for temporarily posting to Snapchat a picture of his friends dressed in World War II–era clothes at a thrift store with the caption: “Me and the boys bout to exterminate the Jews.” He took it down shortly thereafter—and apologized for what was a stupid and deeply offensive joke—but the school expelled him nonetheless. We argued that while the anti-Semitic message was deeply offensive, it was also protected by the First Amendment when uttered outside of the school, and could not be the basis for punishment. In doing so, we were only doing what we have always done—defending speech rights for all, even those with whom we disagree.

Since Charlottesville and the guidelines, we have defended the First Amendment rights of countless individuals and groups whose views we do not share. They include: Trump lawyer Michael Cohen, the NRA, anti-Semitic protesters outside a synagogue, racist and homophobic college students, and the Koch-funded Americans for Prosperity. Most recently, we called on Georgetown Law not to fire conservative scholar Ilya Shapiro for his “lesser Black woman” tweet about Biden’s promise to name a Black woman to the Supreme Court; criticized the FBI’s tactics in investigating the conservative group Project Veritas; and hailed Elon Musk’s decision to re-platform Donald Trump. We didn’t agree with the speech of any of these individuals or groups—but that didn’t stop us from defending their First Amendment rights.