The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to ExomatrixTV For This Post:
bojancan (18th January 2024), Ewan (19th January 2024), Jamie (18th February 2024), Kryztian (17th January 2024), mountain_jim (21st January 2024), Yoda (19th January 2024)
Ireland 🇨🇮: Free Speech Groups Slam Government For Proposing Law That Could Jail People For Possession Of “Hateful” Memes
Shay Woulahan January 17, 2024
A free speech advocacy group in Ireland has launched a new campaign in an effort to fight back against a proposed “hate speech” bill which would limit public discourse around political issues. Free Speech Ireland is labeling the law “onerous anti-free speech legislation.”
The grassroots campaign shared their petition on social media, along with a video warning Irish citizens of the danger the bill poses to freedom of expression which is meant to be protected under both the Irish constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights.
“The Irish government wants to pass a law that could see you or your loved ones jailed for possession of memes, cartoons or any content that could be deemed ‘hateful,'” Free Speech Ireland stated. “The bill includes no definition of hate and is wide open to abuse by bad actors.”
The Hate Speech Bill, formally known as the Criminal Justice (Incitement to Violence or Hatred and Hate Offences) Bill 2022 covers hate crimes and hate speech. Some sections of the legislation outline 12 offenses which are already illegal but could now result in a harsher punishment if the motive for the crime is found to be “hateful.” The bill also introduces the new offense of incitement to violence or hatred in Section 7 which criminalizes certain speech.
In their petition, which was launched this week, Free Speech Ireland outlined that the provision in Section 7 “sets a troubling precedent” by establishing that an individual could be deemed guilty of an offense through the act of “communicating material to the public or a section of the public.”
Due to its far-reaching implications, the bill has been highly criticized internationally. Vocal opponents of the bill include Tesla CEO Elon Musk and Donald Trump Jr.
Musk took to X (formerly Twitter) to call the proposed legislation a “massive attack against freedom of speech.” He has also announced plans to file a legal action to try and stem the law.
Yesterday, Musk shared Free Speech Ireland petition on X writing, “Destroying freedom of speech means destroying democracy.”
A spokesperson from the Irish Ministry of Justice has claimed that the true purpose of the bill is to “protect those who are most vulnerable” to hate crime and hate speech.
The bill is currently at the third stage of the Irish Senate. It was expected to be enacted by the end of 2023, but was delayed earlier in the year as it had come under heavy scrutiny in the Senate, particularly because the bill does not include clear definitions of either “hate” or “gender.”
The definition of gender in the bill is vaguely defined as “the gender of a person or the gender which a person expresses as the person’s preferred gender.”
The bill includes gender identity and gender expression as protected characteristics, and seeks to protect individuals who identify as non-binary or any other new gender identity label from “hate speech.”
When asked how many genders there are, Irish Taoiseach Leo Varadkar was unable to answer, stating that the government has “no official position” despite his government attempting to legislate speech around gender.
Many have expressed concerns that the bill will criminalize people for expressing criticism of gender ideology or for using the correct-sex pronouns for transgender individuals. But despite the controversy, Irish Green Party Senator Pauline O’Reilly defended the bill.
Speaking in June at a hearing, she said: “If a person’s views on other people’s identities make their lives unsafe and insecure, and cause them such deep discomfort that they cannot live in peace, our job as legislators is to restrict those freedoms for the common good.”
But Senator Rónán Mullen of the Human Dignity Alliance criticized the bill.
“There are about 105 genders listed on the Internet, including agender, acegender, androgyne, apogender, astronomique, cookie gender, gendercat, fluid queer, one that I cannot politely render here, hyperfluid, etc,” he said.
“All of this is now being landed in the middle of a criminal law bill where somebody could be attacked for being a hater for stating in robust, but necessarily robust, terms that not only is this nonsense but it is dangerous nonsense that puts children at risk when it is imported into the curriculum of schools.”
Free Speech Ireland’s petition currently has 2,278 signatures at the time of writing, with a goal of 10,000 signatures.
"The Weaponizing of Our Federal Government!
Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication,
and/or other vital information.
Our founding fathers realized the importance of freedom of speech, so they gave it a dignified place in the First Amendment of our U.S. Constitution.
Censorship is bad enough, but let’s not forget the government’s obsession with mass surveillance! The American public is being carefully watched by criminals seated in our own government, and they are abusing their power!
Our phone records AND bank records are being poured over at this time! Exclusive from Fox News:
Federal investigators asked banks to search and filter customer transactions by using terms like “MAGA” and “Trump” as part of an investigation into Jan. 6, warning that purchases of “religious texts” could indicate “extremism,” the House Judiciary Committee revealed Wednesday.
Government officials have suggested that banks query transactions with keywords like Dick’s Sporting Goods, Cabela’s, Bass Pro Shops, and more. So, they are looking for your political and religious expressions to see if you pose a threat.
So, are YOU on the FBI watch list? Think about going to Dick’s Sporting Goods and buying a pair of work pants. Work pants!! Or going to Bass Pro Shops and buying a hat or a fishing pole…
Let’s take a look at how T-Mobile is surveilling the people and justifying this AND their censorship.
In a Terms of Service update of November 2020, T-Mobile quietly announced that, in order to “protect its Customers and provide a supportive environment for messaging services,” Direct Connection Aggregators (DCAs) who signed an agreement with
T-Mobile to provide messaging services… are expected to ensure that each Messaging Campaign is completely compliant with all legal requirements.”
Read what T-Mobile has said, in their own writing:
T-Mobile Code of Conduct Version 2.2 November 2020
With “these policies and best practices, T-Mobile strives to protect subscribers from unwanted messaging…and empower consumer choice.”
[Best Practices is a World Economic Forum (WEF) term that ALWAYS carries a deadly United Nations agenda. Beware of this term in government documents!]
T-Mobile, how can we have the choice if you block them from coming through? How can we decide what we want to see if you decide for us? This is Censorship, but don’t worry, “T-Mobile reserves the right to protect [their] consumers by turning down a messaging campaign on a case-by-case basis,” so they surely will respect the 1st Amendment rights of companies to share a stance on certain issues, along with the rights of private citizens who wish to have free and open communications. Remember, the Supreme Court decided years ago that Companies are entities and therefore also have rights like citizens.
T-Mobile is ensuring that the Direct Connection Aggregators (DCAs) keep their end of the bargain by spying on our text messages. DCAs are required to keep track of who opts in, when, where, how, and at any given moment, provide such information to T-Mobile. The Code of Conduct states:
At any time, T-Mobile may request proof of consumer opt-in. It is the DCA and their content provider requirement to pride [provide] opt-in consent records along with the method of how opt-in was obtained (i.e. Shortcode keyword, website URL, etc.). Below are examples of documented opt-in consent data acceptable by T-Mobile.
• The capture of experience (e.g., language and action) used to secure consent;
• Specific campaign for which the opt-in was provided;
• IP address used to grant consent;
• The consumer phone number for which consent to receive messaging was granted; and
• Identity of the individual who consented (name of the individual or other identifier (e.g., online username, session ID, etc.)). (emphasis ours)
They require the private information of ALL who sign up for the business texts. They’re taking your data whether you like it or not, and they’ll use it as they wish.
If T-Mobile doesn’t get this information as soon as it asks for it, if they don’t like the content of a business’s messages, or if they decide a company sent messages to people who didn’t want them, according to their Code of Conduct, “T-Mobile may, at its discretion, review content for compliance with these policies and best practices may result in the following:
• Non-compliance could result in the suspension of sending rights for a provisioned shortcode, longcode or Toll-Free numbers;
• Restriction daily quota message buckets for 10DLC services;
• Suspension of provisioning rights for new phone numbers; and/or
• Suspension of all network services.
What kinds of messages could potentially be deemed inappropriate? Congress designates what is appropriate in the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. This is a legal means of government and private entities spying on your phone. 10DLC.org is a website for a program introduced by phone carriers to implement laws regarding phone usage. Bing AI was asked to explain what 10DLC is, and it provided:
10DLC stands for 10-digit long code, and it is a program introduced by US carriers to prevent spam/fraud and unwanted messaging 12. It is mandatory for businesses to register their 10DLC numbers with a third-party organization called The Campaign Registry (TCR) 1. The registration process is designed to ensure a positive and secure consumer experience and protect the performance of text campaigns 1. Upon registration, TCR verifies that your business is legitimate, then assigns each number in its registry a trust score which carriers then use to prioritize text message delivery 1. The registration process requires a one-time registration fee as well as a monthly campaign fee 1. To get your registration approved, your business information all needs to be verified and you must adhere to industry best practices as outlined by the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) 1. (Administrator) (emphasis ours)
According to 10DLC, the following message categories are prohibited for SMS and MMS:
• High-risk financial service
• Third-party lead generation
• Debt collection and forgiveness
• “Get rich quick” schemes or Multi-level marketing
• Illegal substances
• Gambling
• Sex, hate, alcohol, firearms, and tobacco (SHAFT)
Who decides what is hateful? What about companies that sell firearms? What if a company wants to discuss its support for, or opposition to, something like abortion or the 2nd Amendment? What if a company wants to discuss crimes against humanity? Why can’t we talk about gambling? Churches may want to send messages to their congregation regarding several of these things, but they are not allowed. Is this religious discrimination, barring churches from using these messaging systems?
One interesting part of T-Mobile’s Code of Conduct is “programs must be legal across all 50 states.” This means companies that wish to discuss the legal use of marijuana or the legality of abortion should be very careful what they say. If it’s not legal everywhere, companies are not allowed to discuss it. Isn’t this discrimination against state and local campaigns and businesses? Isn’t it censoring their voice to the local communities? Isn’t it illegal to censor speech REGARDLESS of where it is? When did it become legal to tell people and businesses what we’re allowed to say in a private message? Apparently in 2020. Interesting timing.
Bing’s AI was asked if a telephone company could bar someone from using its towers, and its response was:
Yes, a telephone provider can bar someone from using its towers. The records kept by wireless phone companies about the use of cell phones are immense and very detailed. Wireless companies keep records about when and where a phone call is made, when text messages are sent and received, and when data is transferred 1. These records are known as call detail records and they are different from phone bills. A phone bill is only accurate to the minute since the majority of wireless phone companies bill to the next full minute. This means that a phone call that lasts 15 seconds would show 1 minute on a phone bill 1. Cell phone records, otherwise known as “Call Detail Records”, show the caller’s phone number, duration of call, start and end time of the call, and the cell phone tower the phone was connected to 1. The cell tower, and therefore location, is only available upon request for each connected phone call 1. So, if a telephone provider wants to bar someone from using its towers, it can do so by discontinuing service or blacklisting the phone from its network 1. (Microsoft)
If T-Mobile can bar a number from using its towers, it can ban ANY user from ANY company, not just T- Mobile’s customers. If a company was banned by T-Mobile and decided to use another company, if that company has agreements with T-Mobile to use their towers, the business cannot use them. This means T-Mobile has the ability to ban any phone number, and it’s just banned.
While on the surface, T-Mobile (and Congress) claim this is for our safety, yet the implications are enormous. They’re constantly in the business of protecting us from ourselves. No, thanks. They have obliterated the 4th Amendment right to privacy, as they readily search our phones without warrants. They openly and expressly dissolve the 1st Amendment when they ban free speech. Companies, entities with rights, have the right to free speech, according to SCOTUS.
Interestingly, we have another Presidential Election coming up this November. The last time we had one, in 2020, they implemented this policy. Any bets on why it’s coming to the forefront again?
Microsoft & OpenAI. (2023). Bing Chat [GPT-4 language model]. https://www.bing.com/search
NOTE: Most of the cellular towers in the United States are owned or managed by:
American Tower (A Global Provider of Digital Communications Infrastructure)
Largest shareholders include Vanguard Group Inc, BlackRock Inc., State Street Corp, VGSIX – Vanguard Real Estate Index Fund Investor Shares, Cohen & Steers, Inc., VTSMX – Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund Investor Shares, Wellington Management Group Llp, VFINX – Vanguard 500 Index Fund Investor Shares, Geode
Crown Castle — Here’s what they say on their website:
We are the nation’s largest provider of shared communications infrastructure—including cell towers, rooftop antennas, small cells and fiber networks. This plays in important role in making sure communities like yours can support the data, technologies and wireless services you rely on every day, while paving the way for tomorrow’s innovations. We do all of this through close partnership and cooperation with wireless carriers, telecommunications providers, municipalities, enterprises, utility companies and landowners.
Again, the largest shareholders are: Spo Advisory Corp, Vanguard Group Inc, BlackRock Inc, State Street Corp and more.
SBA Communications— Here’s what they state on their website:
SBA Communications Corporation (SBA) is a leading independent owner and operator of wireless communications infrastructure, including towers, buildings, rooftops, distributed antenna systems (DAS) and small cells. Founded in 1989 and headquartered in Boca Raton, Florida, SBA has operations and offices throughout the Americas, Africa and in Asia. We are listed on NASDAQ under the symbol SBAC and our organization is part of the S&P 500. SBA is also one of the top Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITs) based on market capitalization.
Largest shareholders: include Vanguard Group Inc, BlackRock Inc., Cohen & Steers, Inc., State Street Corp, VGSIX – Vanguard Real Estate Index Fund Investor Shares, VTSMX – Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund Investor Shares, Principal Financial Group Inc, Geode Capital Management, Llc, Jpmorgan Chase & Co, and VFINX
Here are the network operators: AT&T, T-Mobile, US Cellular, and Verizon. Looks like they just lease space on the existing towers. Unfortunately, over the last 20 years, the tower companies have bought towers from wireless carriers.
So, who owns the dangerous 5G cellular towers in the United States? American Tower, Crown Castle, and SBA Communications. Their questionable and devious shareholders are Vanguard, BlackRock, and State Street! We wonder… who controls our government?
The sectors of digital infrastructure include towers, data centers, fiber, and small cells & distributed antenna systems (DAS).
Why should we be concerned about Vanguard and BlackRock? Unfortunately, these “woke” predator investment firms hold significant shares in many of the world’s leading companies. They invest trillions of dollars for their clients. This empire needs to fall!
Chinese investors pour $1 billion into BlackRock’s new fund
Vanguard and BlackRock Funnel U.S. Investment To Chinese Shipyard That Built Third CCP Aircraft Carrier. So, they are helping the Chinese military!
Vanguard Invests in Chinese military-linked companies: report
Americans are ‘unwittingly funding’ blacklisted Chinese companies,l Congressional panel says
New YorkCNN —
A Congressional select committee is investigating BlackRock, the world’s largest asset manager, and MSCI, one of the biggest providers of index funds, to determine whether they are investing Americans’ savings in Chinese companies blacklisted by the US government for security and human rights issues.
The Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party of the US House of Representatives sent letters to BlackRock (BLK) CEO Larry Fink and MSCI CEO Henry Fernandez on Monday notifying both parties that it is investigating their investments in certain Chinese companies, according to documents reviewed by CNN.
It’s been said that these predator investment companies operate like a cartel. We can definitely see that, too.
Google, Yahoo, and Microsoft Suppressing Free Speech Online
Big Brother (totalitarian government) is here and we need to be aware of all the data collected. That being said, below are two articles about how that technology works.
Internet Censorship (Part 1): The Technology of the Working Web
Below are a couple of snippets. Please click on the above line to understand how censorship works.
Despite the guarantee of free access to information enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human rights, the number of countries engaging in some kind of internet censorship continues to grow rapidly around the world. The issue of internet censorship is now central in policy, communication, and technology debates. It has also become of interest to scholars in the humanities and social sciences who think seriously about the relationship between culture, politics, and the internet.
But in order to build a rich conversation about the causes and consequences of internet censorship, we must first understand how internet censorship works, especially on a technical level. This two-part post lays out a (simplified) explanation of internet censorship technologies. The first of these gives a broad overview of how the internet works, while the next post builds on these foundations to explain how various censorship techniques can block information on the internet.
Internet Censorship (Part 2): The Technology of the Working Web.
Below are a couple of excerpts. Please click on the above link to understand more about how censorship works.
Internet censorship, like all censorship, can take multiple forms, from filtering and blocking content to monitoring and penalizing users who access certain content. Governments may both define what to block and implement the technological process of blocking, or they may create legislation, extra-legal incentives, or policy to compel “autonomous” technological firms to carry out the blocking and surveillance for them. Often the most simple strategy is to demand the removal of websites with illegal content.
Even within the technical domain, Internet censorship refers to a plethora of tools and strategies to prevent information from reaching users. So it is important to remember that when we refer to “internet censorship” we are not referring to one thing, one software, one point of blockage. Censorship can occur at one point on the internet circuit, can manifest as a blanket filter for all connections in a given country or can be micro-focused on individual sites, machines, and even words.
WEF, WHO & UN All Targeting Your Speech – and YOU!
The World Economic Forum has announced that “misinformation” is the NUMBER ONE threat to the world, but what they really mean is that truth is the top threat to their evil agenda, explains journalist Alex Newman on this episode of In Focus with OAN’s Alison Steinberg.
Along with its “strategic partners” at the United Nations and the World Health Organization, these globalist organizations are targeting free speech as well as control over your healthcare, Alex explains. The government’s dominance over healthcare is critical to controlling every other area of life.
Digital Kill Switches: How Tyrannical Governments Stifle Political Dissent
Communications kill switches have become tyrannical tools of domination and oppression to stifle political dissent, shut down resistance, forestall election losses, reinforce military coups, and keep the populace isolated, disconnected and in the dark, literally and figuratively.
Digital authoritarianism, as the Center for Strategic and International Studies cautions, involves the use of information technology to surveil, repress, and manipulate the populace, endangering human rights and civil liberties, and co-opting and corrupting the foundational principles of democratic and open societies, “including freedom of movement, the right to speak freely and express political dissent, and the right to personal privacy, online and off.”
This particular kill switch can be traced back to the Communications Act of 1934. Signed into law by President Franklin D. Roosevelt, the Act empowers the president to suspend wireless radio and phone services “if he deems it necessary in the interest of national security or defense” during a time of “war or a threat of war, or a state of public peril or disaster or other national emergency, or in order to preserve the neutrality of the United States.”
In closing, we can see things have gotten out of control with our country’s federal government. Our text messages as well as our phone and banking records are now under heavy surveillance. Censorship is conducted daily. Tyranny is upon us, folks!
And even our own state government, including our Arkansas Governor, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, has turned against our right to inquire by denying us complete access to government meetings and records. The Freedom of Information Act is under threat here in Arkansas! Forget transparency, our governor insists upon more secrecy, and especially when it comes to her travel records. She is continually looking for many more exemptions of our FOIA, too. Sadly, this RINO governor wants to eliminate the ability to hold our government accountable.
So, don’t forget!
We are still in a battle to get the transparency amendment approved and on the ballot for November 2024. Attorney General Tim Griffin is doing everything he can to keep this from happening!
.
State legislatures need to band together and pass protective legislation regarding intrusive surveillance and improper censoring of our First Amendment Rights (free speech) while they still can, before totalitarianism takes over our government completely. One thing that the legislators could do is to create and pass legislation that will fine any open carrier, FaceBook, Instagram or X (formerly Twitter) operations that censors free speech being sent over their platforms. The Attorney General of your state may have to get involved because it deals with things at the federal level.
It’s our duty to beat back government overreach!
And our country needs to repent. Our cup runneth over…
2 Chronicles 7:14 KJV “if my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.” "
00:30 The World Economic Forum in Davos discusses global collaboration to combat misinformation and disinformation, led by Ursula von der Leyen. 02:15 The top concern for the global business community in the next two years is misinformation, followed by polarization, impacting the ability to address climate and geopolitical challenges. 03:54 Ursula von der Leyen's emphasis on global collaboration contrasts with her critique of increasing competition between countries, expressing a preference for centralization over individual liberty. 05:17 Despite discussing serious global issues, reports suggest that the Davos meeting includes fully booked sex workers and extravagant parties, raising questions about the event's true focus. 07:19 Klaus Schwab calls for a paradigm shift to rebuild trust, emphasizing collective action over individual and national concerns, reflecting a trend towards ultra-collectivism. 09:37 The speaker argues that the current approach involves stakeholder capitalism, not communism, creating a new form of collectivist empire through powerful corporations and institutions, challenging traditional notions of democracy.
"As of several weeks back, Substack has been under a massive seemingly coordinated attack from subversive forces seeking to create a viral exodus from the site by reputationally damaging it. Unfortunately, it seems the program is of such wide scope as to even target individual high volume accounts, of which I appear to be one—as I too have now come under the hatchetmen’s blade of deplatformization."
- Simplicius The Thinker's Lyceum
*******
It's quite some wonder that here on the forum we've not completely lost our collective temper with "censorship" in all its abhorrent manifestations - we should get a medal really
Here Simplicius excoriates the gatekeepers in his typically erudite fashion, and with customary wit this time focusing on the overt attempts by certain actors to blogicide Substack. I will very occasionally post his quite wonderful posts in full where they may just be too good to cherrypick from but also appreciate that they are often very detailed and lengthy, although seldom ever taking more than about 15-20 minutes to read which, in my view, isn't terribly much time really. (Some folks might spend about that length of time, at different times throughout any one day, on the khazi, for which in this instance I'm thankful we don't have an emoji )
In any case, I'll link the article here for those with time to make. Trust me it's another good one
Extracted:
The next guy, Ryan Broderick, is the writer once famously fired from Buzzfeed for what was reported to be long-spanning plagiarism. His main claim to fame was—you guessed it: getting ZeroHedge perma-banned on Twitter after tattle-telling on them for supposedly “doxing” a Chinese scientist in a Covid origins report. You see a pattern here? These pearl-clutching male Karens appear enamored with calling the principal on anyone they disagree with ideologically.
Demonstrating a deficit of self-awareness, Ryan Broderick’s own past posting history exhibited extremely disturbing patterns that clash with no little irony against his performative ‘moral outrage’ at Substack hosting ‘disagreeables’. In his goodbye piece he likewise cites the Atlantic smearjob and its subsequent fallout as the turning point, and mealymouths about some phantom ‘Nazis’. Because this guy is the moral compass of the world, right?
******
Year of Troubles: The Hatchets Come Out for Substack and Simplicius
“If a man does not keep pace with [fall into line with] his companions, perhaps it is because he hears a different drummer. Let him step to the music which he hears, however measured or far away.” - Thoreau
Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
The idea that George Soros controls politicians around the world is an antisemitic conspiracy theory, insists the media. But it's not a theory. Here's his son, Alex, with Ireland's Prime Minister, who is at this moment seeking to seize control over the entire Internet through hate speech legislation.
Visit Alex Soros's http://X.com account and it's full of pictures of him with politicians from around the world. Why does he post them? Because he wants to advertise his power over them.
George Soros was the largest donor to Democrats in 2022, one of the largest donors to Biden, and one of the largest donors to various NGO efforts demanding censorship around the world, including Media Matters. Alex today controls his father's political operation.
See new posts
Conversation
Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger It sounds like a "Black Mirror" episode: a small country announces a crackdown on hate speech to seize control over the entire Internet.
Except it's not a "Black Mirror" episode. It's real life. And it's happening right now in Ireland.
The so-called "Hate Speech" bill isn't what it seems. It's not a bill about protecting the Irish people from hate crimes. It's a Trojan Horse designed to control the world's Big Tech companies — X, Facebook, Google, and YouTube.
This is a free speech emergency. We thought the legislation was dead. But the Irish government is using recent riots as an excuse to ram the legislation through before Christmas.
THIS IS NOT A DRILL. THIS IS NOT ABOUT IRELAND. THIS IS A TOTALITARIAN EFFORT BY GLOBAL ELITES TO CENSOR ALL OF US.
It's right there in black and white: "One of the key features of the Bill," write two attorneys with a leading Irish law firm, "is the provision for offences by corporate bodies."
You guessed it: by agreeing to regulation of their content by the Irish government.
"The current iteration of the Bill provides a defence for the corporate body to show that it took all reasonable steps and exercised due diligence to avoid the commission of the particular offence. Therefore, to establish and maintain such a defence, companies will need to have the appropriate processes and procedures in place."
The Irish government is almost certainly not acting alone. As my colleagues and I have reported, the demand for censorship is coming directly from the militaries, intelligence agencies, and their front groups in the US, UK, and around the world.
The intelligence communities of the Five Eyes nations of the US, UK, Australia, Canada, and New Zealand have been working together to censor ordinary citizens and politicians alike for disfavored speech for the last several years.
There's no time to mince words. What governments are doing is against the law. They are violating the constitutions of the nations that the people elected them to uphold.
Because of the high level of secrecy they are using, we can't say whether or not these are "rogue" elements within governments or whether these orders are coming from heads of state.
But we do know that demands for censorship have come both directly from the US military and from heads of state of Western nations around the world.
What's happening should terrify all freedom-loving people.
We must fight back.
We will fight back.
That starts with recognizing what's going on.
Please follow
@FreeSpeechIre
@Ben_Scallan
and other Irish free speech leaders.
Please share this post and tell friends and family what's going on.
Finally, please consider getting involved directly. We have created and personally contributed to an Emergency Free Speech Fund to get the word out:
This isn't about "hate speech." This is about out-of-control elites within the intelligence, military, and security agencies around the world who are grotesquely abusing their power in a mad bid to take control of the Internet.
If we don't stop them, this terrifying "Black Mirror" episode will become real life.
Last edited by mountain_jim; 21st January 2024 at 15:39.
I don't believe anything, but I have many suspicions. - Robert Anton Wilson
The present as you think of it, and in practical working terms, is that point at which you select your physical experience from all those events that could be materialized. - Seth (The Nature of Personal Reality - Session 656, Page 293)
(avatar image: Brocken spectre, a wonderful phenomenon of nature I have experienced and a symbol for my aspirations.)
"Hi, Henry. As you may know, I had a long affiliation with the John Birch Society, They were the ones who published The Shadows of Power.
"However, things have greatly deteriorated over the years. Now they suppress The Shadows of Power. As the main justification, they're using the claim that I'm an "anti-Semite," despite the fact that the Perloffs were a Jewish family, and Shadows said nothing negative about Israel or Zionism.
"However, I recently discovered something even worse. Someone has gone onto The New American website and removed my name as author for virtually all the articles I wrote for The New American. In most cases, the articles are now attributed to other writers, or in a few cases, to "staff." I have just published an article on this, plus other weird and negative encounters I've had with some of the Birch Society leadership over the past 39 years. Would appreciate your posting a link.
00:00 The Senate Judiciary Committee hearing underscores the need for action over discussions regarding social media regulations.
01:24Section 230 liability protections for social media companies need updating, though outright repeal isn't supported due to its role in fostering internet innovation.
02:10 Senator Graham criticizes social media executives for inaction and emphasizes the urgency of legal accountability, referencing a tragic incident involving Instagram.
03:19 Bipartisan efforts highlight unanimous support for bills addressing social media issues, signaling a critical need for change.
04:17 Calls for accountability stress the importance of allowing victims to sue social media companies, especially in cases involving exploitation.
05:14 Concerns are raised about TikTok's handling of hate speech and extremist content, prompting questions about the company's responsibility.
06:24 Senator Graham emphasizes the necessity for legal recourse against social media platforms to address the harm caused by their products.
07:05 The absence of legal avenues for recourse undermines trust in social media companies' ability to address grievances and protect users' interests.
MUST WATCH: Josh Hawley Gets Applauded Multiple Times Ruthlessly Grilling Mark Zuckerberg:
00:00 Russell Brand discusses media attacks and the unraveling of recent events, pointing out attempts to silence him due to his diverging views on significant issues.
03:13 Various organizations, including UK government-funded ones, targeted Russell Brand, associating him with Chinese propaganda and dismissing his critiques as conspiracy theories.
08:32 Legacy media outlets, government-backed think tanks, and content moderation nonprofits demonize Brand, labeling him a conspiracy theorist and censoring his content without clear violations.
13:23 Tucker Carlson acknowledges Brand's articulate critique on the Ukraine war, highlighting the shifting media landscape and the importance of independent voices challenging mainstream narratives.
17:18 Russell Brand reflects on being targeted by powerful governments and intelligence agencies, highlighting the alarming marriage of military and censorship efforts within political circles.
20:13 Russell Brand warns of impending tyranny disguised as convenience and safety, urging viewers to recognize the erosion of freedom and share their thoughts.
20:57 Brand predicts that global conflicts will be used to justify increased authoritarianism, even in countries not directly involved in wars, expressing sadness at the pervasive deception.
21:25 Tucker Carlson reflects on his career shifts and the changing landscape of media, emphasizing the narrowing window for democratic discourse and the institutional fear driving decisions.
FYI: People who have Creator endowed rights (life, liberty, private property, etc) that are protected by governments are mutually exclusive with subject citizens who have surrendered endowed rights in exchange for government privileges (i.e. "constitutional rights", political rights, civil rights).
Mandatory civic duties abrogate endowed rights to life, liberty, private property, etc. (Ex: Militia duty - the obligation to train, fight, and die on command)
The question is : are you a subject citizen for whom censorship rules apply?
You might inquire of your public servant for an explanation of their delegation of authority and power.
All prior restraint is an attack on liberty, and evidence of subjugation or submission.
Only after the fact, can government seek justice for an injured party, whose person, liberty or property was affected.
FYI: Universal Declaration of Human rights is anathema to Creator endowed rights.
It's riddled with socialism, compulsory charity and denial of endowed rights. Frankly, it exposes the truth about the real mission of the UN - to destroy America's republican form of government, and replace it with the Peoples Democratic Socialist Republics of America.
The Supreme Court announced Monday that it will hear arguments on March 18, 2024 in Murthy v. Missouri, a major case involving free speech, government agencies, and social media that could have monumental implications for content moderation.
The case deals with whether or not federal agencies indirectly encouraged social media platforms such as Facebook and X, formerly Twitter, to take down posts on the basis that they contained false information about COVID-19. The case could set a significant precedent around social media and how much communication is allowed between federal agencies and tech companies before the speech becomes coercive.
It's obviously important that we figure out how to apply pressure on the Court so that it doesn't rule improperly.
I feel scared. Very scared. Internet-wide surveillance and censorship, enabled by the unimaginably vast computational power of Artificial Intelligence (A.I.), is here.
This is not a futuristic dystopia. It’s happening now.
Government agencies are working with universities and nonprofits to use AI tools to surveil and censor content on the Internet.
This is not political or partisan. This is not about any particular opinion or idea.
What’s happening is that a tool powerful enough to surveil everything that’s said and done on the Internet (or large portions of it) is becoming available to the government to monitor all of us, all the time. And, based on that monitoring, the government – and any organization or company the government partners with – can then use the same tool to suppress, silence, and shut down whatever speech it doesn’t like.
But that’s not all. Using the same tool, the government and its public-private, “non-governmental” partners (think, for example: the World Health Organization, or Monsanto) can also shut down any activity that is linked to the Internet. Banking, buying, selling, teaching, learning, entertaining, connecting to each other – if the government-controlled A.I. does not like what you (or your kids!) say in a tweet or an email, it can shut down all of that for you.
Yes, we’ve seen this on a very local and politicized scale with, for example, the Canadian truckers.
But if we thought this type of activity could not, or would not, happen on a national (or even scarier – global) scale, we need to wake up right now and realize it’s happening, and it might not be stoppable.
New Documents Show Government-Funded A.I. Intended for Online Censorship
The US House Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government was formed in January 2023 “to investigate matters related to the collection, analysis, dissemination, and use of information on US citizens by executive branch agencies, including whether such efforts are illegal, unconstitutional, or otherwise unethical.”
Unfortunately, the work of the committee is viewed, even by its own members, as largely political: Conservative lawmakers are investigating what they perceive to be the silencing of conservative voices by liberal-leaning government agencies.
Nevertheless, in its investigations, this committee has uncovered some astonishing documents related to government attempts to censor the speech of American citizens.
These documents have crucial and terrifying all-of-society implications.
In the Subcommittee’s interim report, dated February 5, 2024, documents show that academic and nonprofit groups are pitching a government agency on a plan to use A.I. “misinformation services” to censor content on internet platforms.
Specifically, the University of Michigan is explaining to the National Science Foundation (NSF) that the A.I.-powered tools funded by the NSF can be used to help social media platforms perform censorship activities without having to actually make the decisions on what should be censored.
Here’s how the relationship is visualized in the Subcommittee’s report:
Here’s a specific quote presented in the Subcommittee’s report. It comes from “Speaker’s notes from the University of Michigan’s first pitch to the National Science Foundation (NSF) about its NSF-funded, A.I.-powered WiseDex tool.” The notes are on file with the committee.
Our misinformation service helps policy makers at platforms who want to…push responsibility for difficult judgments to someone outside the company…by externalizing the difficult responsibility of censorship.
This is an extraordinary statement on so many levels:
It explicitly equates “misinformation service” with censorship.
This is a crucial equation, because governments worldwide are pretending to combat harmful misinformation when in fact they are passing massive censorship bills. The WEF declared “misinformation and disinformation” the “most severe global risks” in the next two years, which presumably means their biggest efforts will go toward censorship.
When a government contractor explicitly states that it is selling a “misinformation service” that helps online platforms “externalize censorship” – the two terms are acknowledged as being interchangeable.
In other words, it assumes that part of what the platforms should be doing is censorship. Not protecting children from sex predators or innocent citizens from misinformation – just plain and simple, unadulterated censorship.
It states that the role of A.I. is to “externalize” the responsibility for censorship.
The Tech platforms do not want to make censorship decisions. The government wants to make those decisions but does not want to be seen as censoring. The A.I. tools allow the platforms to “externalize” the censorship decisions and the government to hide its censorship activities.
All of this should end the illusion that what governments around the world are calling “countering misinformation and hate speech” is not straight-up censorship.
What Happens When A.I. Censorship is Fully Implemented?
Knowing that the government is already paying for AI censorship tools, we have to wrap our minds around what this entails.
No manpower limits: As the Subcommittee report points out, the limits to government online censorship have, up to now, involved the large numbers of humans required to go through endless files and make censorship decisions. With A.I., barely any humans need to be involved, and the amount of data that can be surveilled can be as vast as everything anyone says on a particular platform. That amount of data is incomprehensible to an individual human brain.
No one is responsible: One of the most frightening aspects of A.I. censorship is that when AI does it, there is no human being or organization – be it the government, the platforms, or the university/nonprofits – who is actually responsible for the censorship. Initially, humans feed the A.I. tool instructions for what categories or types of language to censor, but then the machine goes ahead and makes the case-by-case decisions all by itself.
No recourse for grievances: Once A.I. is unleashed with a set of censorship instructions, it will sweep up gazillions of online data points and apply censorship actions. If you want to contest an A.I. censorship action, you will have to talk to the machine. Maybe the platforms will employ humans to respond to appeals. But why would they do that, when they have A.I. that can automate those responses?
No protection for young people: One of the claims made by government censors is that we need to protect our children from harmful online information, like content that makes them anorexic, encourages them to commit suicide, turns them into ISIS terrorists, and so on. Also from sexual exploitation. These are all serious issues that deserve attention. But they are not nearly as dangerous to vast numbers of young people as A.I. censorship is.
The danger posed by A.I. censorship applies to all young people who spend a lot of time online, because it means their online activities and language can be monitored and used against them – maybe not now, but whenever the government decides to go after a particular type of language or behavior. This is a much greater danger to a much greater number of children than the danger posed by any specific content, because it encompasses all the activity they conduct online, touching on nearly every aspect of their lives.
Here’s an example to illustrate this danger: Let’s say your teenager plays lots of interactive video games online. Let’s say he happens to favor games designed by Chinese companies. Maybe he also watches others play those games, and participates in chats and discussion groups about those games, in which a lot of Chinese nationals also participate.
The government may decide next month, or next year, that anyone heavily engaged in Chinese-designed video games is a danger to democracy. This might result in shutting down your son’s social media accounts or denying him access to financial tools, like college loans. It might also involve flagging him on employment or dating websites as dangerous or undesirable. It might mean he is denied a passport or put on a watchlist.
Your teenager’s life just got a lot more difficult. Much more difficult than if he was exposed to an ISIS recruitment video or suicide-glorifying TikTok post. And this would happen on a much larger scale than the sexual exploitation the censors are using as a Trojan Horse for normalizing the idea of online government censorship.
Monetize-able censorship services: An A.I. tool owned by the government can theoretically be used by a non-governmental entity with the government’s permission, and with the blessing of the platforms that want to “externalize” the “responsibility” for censorship. So while the government might be using A.I. to monitor and suppress, let’s say as an example, anti-war sentiment – a company could use it to monitor and suppress, let’s say as an example, anti-fast food sentiment. The government could make a lot of money selling the services of the A.I. tools to 3rd parties. The platforms could also conceivably ask for a cut. Thus, A.I. censorship tools can potentially benefit the government, tech platforms, and private corporations. The incentives are so powerful, it’s almost impossible to imagine that they will not be exploited.
Can We Reverse Course?
I do not know how many government agencies and how many platforms are using A.I. censorship tools. I do not know how quickly they can scale up.
I do not know what tools we have at our disposal – other than raising awareness and trying to lobby politicians and file lawsuits to prevent government censorship and regulate the use of A.I. tools on the internet.
If anyone has any other ideas, now would be the time to implement them.
Author:
Debbie Lerman
Debbie Lerman, 2023 Brownstone Fellow, has a degree in English from Harvard. She is a retired science writer and a practicing artist in Philadelphia, PA. View all posts
Re: Internet Censorship: So it continues...
Reply With Quote
Re: Internet Censorship: So it continues...
Federal investigators asked banks to search and filter customer transactions by using terms like “MAGA” and “Trump” as part of an investigation into Jan. 6, warning that purchases of “religious texts” could indicate “extremism,” the House Judiciary Committee revealed Wednesday.
Re: Internet Censorship: So it continues...
Bookmarks