PDA

View Full Version : Obama May Censor ’Net In Effort to Shut Down ‘Conspiracy Theorists’



Ares
22nd September 2010, 10:36 AM
By Victor Thorn

Big Brother is running scared, and it’s the double-edged sword of technology that pursues him. Most certainly science can be used to control, but just as powerfully it can be utilized to expose. That’s why the moneyed elite have historically been so horrified of allowing information to be freely released to the masses, and why they so desperately try to conceal it.

The great science fiction writer Robert Heinlein once propounded, “Secrecy is the keystone of all tyranny. Not force, but secrecy—censorship. When any government or any church, for that matter, undertakes to say to its subjects, ‘This you may not read, this you must not see, this you are forbidden to know,’ the end result is tyranny and oppression.”

In January 2008 Barack Obama’s information and technology czar, Harvard professor Cass Sunstein, wrote that the following may result under “imaginable conditions”: (a) government might ban conspiracy theorizing, and (b) government might impose some kind of tax, financial or otherwise, on those who disseminate such theories.

Potentially, Obama’s Big Brother representative fully believes that ideas that run contrary to the government’s official “holy dogma” may be eliminated or levied with financial penalties. Considering that government is, in reality, our employee, the absurdity of this situation is obvious. Imagine a housekeeper demanding that her employer be only permitted to think certain thoughts. She would immediately be fired. Yet a crypto-Orwellian Zionist such as Sunstein seeks to impose such conditions on potentially everyone who uses the Internet.

Government isn’t the only culprit. Earlier this month, Google threatened to shut down operations in China due to China’s censorship policies. Yet, in a Jan. 13 letter to Chinese Ambassador Zhou Wenzhong, author Michael Hoffman related how Google has engaged in the overt censorship of material related to Holocaust revisionism. Hoffman wrote that these data have been “censored by Google strictly on the basis that they contradicted the official American version of what transpired during World War II.”

In a Jan. 16 interview, Hoffman told this writer: “How ironic that Google, with its self-righteous motto of ‘Do no evil,’ poses as a champion against Chinese censorship. But at the same time it acts as a censor to protect the American and Israeli version of history.” Hoffman also pointed out how Deborah Lipstadt, who coincidentally coined the term “holocaust denier,” has had a great deal of influence on Google’s top brass.

Similarly, YouTube—which is owned by Google— announced on Dec. 11, 2008, that they had entered into an ominous partnership.

“YouTube has reached out to the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) for its expertise in dealing with hate on the Internet. The league is now a contributor to YouTube’s newly launched Abuse & Safety Center.”

What makes this situation so heavy-handed is that two-thirds of all online videos are streamed via YouTube, while Google is undoubtedly the world’s largest search engine. In this capacity, Google holds a stranglehold on what computer users see and don’t see. Plus, more often than not, the suppressed data relate to such topics as Israel’s role in 9-11, the facts and myths of the Holocaust, Israeli war crimes and other “taboo” subjects.

Equally complicit in this arrangement are Jewish-controlled media sources that paint Google as a righteous proponent of free speech. A fitting illustration can be found in a Jan. 14 article for New-York-based Bloomberg, wherein Edwin Chen and Indira Lakshmanan quote House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. “Google’s decision to no longer tolerate censorship of its search engine should serve as an example to businesses and governments,” Mrs. Pelosi reportedly said.

These reporters also added, “Google briefed the Obama administration before it took action [against Chinese leaders].”

With Sunstein, the ADL and the Google triad of Larry Page, Sergey Brin and Jonathan Rosenberg at the helm, Big Brother assuredly frowns with disapproval at what’s considered “hate speech,” and cooperates in flushing it down the Memory Hole.

http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/obama_may_censor__208.html

Silver Rocket Bitches!
22nd September 2010, 11:11 AM
As more and more people are jarred awake due to present social circumstances, this initiative will consume more and more of our tax driven resources in order to keep the con going.

It's infuriating to think about all the censorship going on in the name of (jewish) power.

Silver Shield
22nd September 2010, 12:00 PM
Ultimately the powers that be will become more tyrannical in their efforts to hold on to power.
The key is to be aware of their tactics and know what to do...

TheNocturnalEgyptian
22nd September 2010, 03:51 PM
Unless we're right, there's no need to censor anything. If we're right, you have no privledge to censor anything.

slvrbugjim
22nd September 2010, 09:22 PM
Unless we're right, there's no need to censor anything. If we're right, you have no privledge to censor anything.


Because we are right they will do everything to take out the information at all costs.

Truth is the enemy of Tyranny

keehah
2nd August 2021, 03:24 PM
Posted comment here as I have not found a thread specifically on the topic of Youtube censorship (many comments on this but scattered here and there on other threads).

So after all the censoring of 'hate', undesirable topics such as guns and religion, the right and then the left news and information reporting (as they expressed new policy to favour corporate "authoritative" news) now they are even censoring that.

CNN: Sky News Australia suspended from YouTube for a week over Covid-19 misinformation (https://www.cnn.com/2021/08/02/media/sky-news-australia-youtube-suspension-intl-hnk/index.html)

Mon August 2, 2021
According to the Google (GOOGL)-owned platform, the broadcaster was issued a "strike" last Thursday, which prevents it from posting videos or live-streams for a week. Three strikes over a period of 90 days would result in a permanent removal of the channel.

A YouTube spokesperson did not disclose which videos by Sky News Australia had violated its policies, but said in a statement issued on Monday that "we don't allow content that denies the existence of Covid-19 or that encourages people to use hydroxychloroquine or ivermectin to treat or prevent the virus."...

Sky News Australia is run by a subsidiary of News Corp Australia, owned by billionaire media mogul Rupert Murdoch. The channel, which is known for its conservative commentators, has 1.86 million subscribers on YouTube.

Sky News Australia hit back in a statement Monday, saying that it "expressly rejects that any host has ever denied the existence of Covid-19 as was implied, and no such videos were ever published or removed."

On Sunday, the outlet posted an online article by its digital editor, Jack Houghton, who argued that the decision was "a disturbing attack on the ability to think freely."

In the piece, he claimed that YouTube's decision to suspend the network was "for publishing opinion content the tech giant disagrees with."

"Among the videos deemed unpalatable for societal consumption were debates around whether masks were effective and whether lockdowns were justified when considering their adverse health outcomes," Houghton wrote.

keehah
8th July 2023, 07:55 PM
WaPo.com: Judge blocks U.S. officials from tech contacts in First Amendment case (https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2023/07/04/biden-social-lawsuit-missouri-louisiana/)

July 4, 2023
A federal judge on Tuesday blocked key Biden administration agencies and officials from meeting and communicating with social media companies about protected speech, in an extraordinary preliminary injunction in an ongoing case that could have profound effects on the First Amendment.

The injunction came in response to a lawsuit brought by Republican attorneys general in Louisiana and Missouri, who allege that government officials went too far in their efforts to encourage social media companies to address posts that they worried could contribute to vaccine hesitancy during the pandemic or upend elections..

Over the past five years, coordination and communication between government officials and the companies increased as the federal government responded to rising election interference and voter suppression efforts after revelations that Russian actors had sowed disinformation on U.S. social sites during the 2016 election. Public health officials also frequently communicated with the companies during the coronavirus pandemic, as falsehoods about the virus and vaccines spread on social networks including Facebook, Twitter and YouTube...

The injunction was a victory for the state attorneys general, who have accused the Biden administration of enabling a sprawling federal Censorship Enterprise to encourage tech giants to remove politically unfavorable viewpoints and speakers, and for conservatives whove accused the government of suppressing their speech. In their filings, the attorneys general alleged the actions amount to the most egregious violations of the First Amendment in the history of the United States of America.

The judge, Terry A. Doughty, has yet to make a final ruling in the case, but in issuing the injunction, he signaled he is likely to side with the Republican attorneys general and find that the Biden administration ran afoul of the First Amendment. He wrote that the attorneys general have produced evidence of a massive effort by Defendants, from the White House to federal agencies, to suppress speech based on its content....

In his order, the judge made some exceptions for communications between government officials and the companies, including to warn them of national security threats, criminal activity or voter suppression.

WaPo: CASE NO. 3:22-CV-01213 MEMORANDUM RULING ON REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION (https://www.washingtonpost.com/documents/75e9f7a3-da4e-45af-8430-6eeba37eaf9f.pdf?itid=lk_interstitial_manual_30)

INTRODUCTION
This case is about the Free Speech Clause in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The explosion of social-media platforms has resulted in unique free speech issuesthis is especially true in light of the COVID-19 pandemic. If the allegations made by Plaintiffs are true, the present case arguably involves the most massive attack against free speech in United States history. In their attempts to suppress alleged disinformation, the Federal Government, and particularly the Defendants named here, are alleged to have blatantly ignored the First Amendments right to free speech.

Although the censorship alleged in this case almost exclusively targeted conservative speech, the issues raised herein go beyond party lines. The right to free speech is not a member of any political party and does not hold any political ideology. It is the purpose of the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment to preserve an uninhibited marketplace of ideas in which truth will ultimately prevail, rather than to countenance monopolization of the market, whether it be by government itself or private licensee.

Plaintiffs allege that Defendants, through public pressure campaigns, private meetings, and other forms of direct communication, regarding what Defendants described as disinformation, misinformation, and malinformation, have colluded with and/or coerced social-media platforms to suppress disfavored speakers, viewpoints, and content on social-media platforms. Plaintiffs also allege that the suppression constitutes government action, and that it is a violation of Plaintiffs freedom of speech under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Glen Greenwald: Biden & FBI BANNED From Censoring Big Tech by Federal Court | SYSTEM UPDATE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r3g2mC8Z7Uc&t=15s
13:13

https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1676338298585772033