James Murdoch Gave $1M to Lib Group that Sued Trump for Trying to Stop Big Tech Censorship

Climate activist James Murdoch gave at least $1 million to a group fighting to undermine state oversight of elections. That same group also backed Big Tech censorship against former President Donald Trump.

Murdoch — son of News Corporation Executive Chairman Rupert Murdoch, — funded several equally leftist causes during the 2020 election. His philanthropic organization — Quadrivium Foundation — gave at least $1 million to the Protect Democracy Project (PDP) according to its 2019 990. PDP is the sister organization of the left-wing United to Protect Democracy (UPD). In 2020, PDP filed a lawsuit on behalf of leftist organizations over then-President Trump’s 2020 executive order to investigate Big Tech censorship in an effort to protect the First Amendment rights of Americans. Murdoch’s cash flow into PDP is an endorsement of the insane censorship of speech online by Facebook, Twitter and other Big Tech companies.

PDP claims to be a “nonpartisan” nonprofit dedicated to holding “the President and the Executive Branch accountable to the laws and longstanding practices that have protected our democracy through both Democratic and Republican Administrations.” The group was formed by “former White House and Administration lawyers and experienced constitutional litigators.” But research reveals that PDP is anything but nonpartisan. The joint website for PDP and UPD promoted a litany of left-wing arguments, such as making the arbitrary connection between voter ID laws and “voter suppression and race.” 

The website even championed the constitutionally dubious H.R. 1 election bill, which Heritage Foundation Senior Legal Fellow Hans von Spakovsky dubbed “‘unconstitutional.’” Spakovsky stated that H.R. 1 “‘imposes federal micromanagement on the states, reversing the local oversight of the election process that our Founders believed was essential to preserving liberty and freedom in America.’” 

A 2019 blog published on the joint website was also telling of PDP’s left-wing bent, as it saw the 2016 election of Trump as an “assault” on American values:

[Trump’s] election represented not only a radical change in policy but an assault on what we consider fundamental American values. Going into the 2020 election, many on the left are thinking about the work that the next president and Congress will have to do to repair the damage done since 2016 and address the crises Trump has created and exacerbated.

Murdoch may have had political reasons for funding a group that was openly advocating for the ability of Big Tech to censor Trump. James and his wife Kathryn gave “$20 million to Biden’s campaign, groups supporting him and opposing Trump, and organizations dedicated to disrupting online threats and extremism.” An MRC study published in December found that Twitter in particular had censored Trump and his campaign 543 times since May 31, 2018. Biden and his campaign weren’t censored at all.

PDP’s statement on the lawsuit incorrectly suggested that Trump’s executive order was an attempt to chill the speech of Big Tech companies:

The executive order is designed to chill social media companies from moderating the President’s content or other content in a way that Trump doesn’t like, particularly correcting his false statements about elections.

Parties to the lawsuit were also explicitly left-wing. Common Cause, one of the plaintiffs, urged Congress to pass the controversial H.R. 1 bill. The George Soros-funded Free Press, another plaintiff, attempted last year to get the Federal Communications Commission to label Trump’s coronavirus briefings as “hoaxes.” Rock the Vote Action Fund, the sister organization to a third plaintiff Rock the Vote, said that it is “dedicated to building the political power of young progressives and leveraging that power for action on issues that affect their lives.” President Joe Biden would later rescind Trump’s executive order following pressure from the groups.

The website for the two sister organizations revealed a leftist vendetta against Trump in light of the lawsuit trying to protect Big Tech censorship. The website referred to Trump as a “symptom of political forces that are eroding support for democracy at home and abroad.” PDP must not have realized that America is a republic, not a democracy. It got worse:

Moving forward, the greatest threat to our democracy would be to wipe our hands of the problems that have been exposed in our system, leaving us vulnerable to Trump 2.0: the person watching all of this from the sidelines, recognizing that the American electorate is open to a strongman style of governance, but who is more capable than Trump and will rise in time to implement an autocratic model even more effectively.

Trump’s executive order was intended to ensure that Big Tech companies uphold the First Amendment on their platforms. “The Attorney General shall establish a working group regarding the potential enforcement of State statutes that prohibit online platforms from engaging in unfair or deceptive acts or practices,” the executive order stated. 

Conservatives are under attack. Contact ABC News (818-460-7477), CBS News (212-975-3247) and NBC News (212- 664-6192) and demand they report on James Murdoch’s connection to the Protect Democracy Project and its attempts to promote online censorship.

 



Source link

Facebook denies it withheld censorship under Trump to avoid regulation

Facebook is disputing the claim that it provided President Trump and his campaign more editorial leeway ahead of the 2020 election as part of a deal to avoid new federal regulation.

The newest tussle is part of a larger battle Facebook is fighting with critics who say they have evidence that Facebook applies different rules for politicians and VIPs than it does for the regular posters using its platforms. Answers about how Facebook’s censorship regime developed in the run-up to its ban of then-President Trump earlier this year could prove critical to regulatory and policy decisions debated by federal lawmakers and affect Mr. Trump’s lawsuit against Facebook over his ban.

Author Max Chafkin is claiming Mr. Trump’s fingerprints were on Facebook’s decision not to fact-check political speech before the 2020 election. Mr. Trump, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, Jared Kushner — Mr. Trump’s son-in-law — and billionaire tech entrepreneur Peter Thiel huddled in private at the White House in 2019 and hatched a plan, according to Mr. Chafkin, author of “The Contrarian” a book about Mr. Thiel.

“The specifics of the discussion were secret — but … Thiel later told a confidant that Zuckerberg came to an understanding with Kushner during the meal,” wrote Mr. Chafkin for New York Magazine’s website. “Facebook, he promised, would continue to avoid fact-checking political speech — thus allowing the Trump campaign to claim whatever it wanted. If the company followed through on that promise, the Trump administration would lay off on any heavy-handed regulations.”

Facebook is dismissing the allegation as nonsense.

“The policy was announced before this dinner ever took place,” Andy Stone, Facebook spokesperson, said on Twitter.

Mr. Stone said the policy developed over the course of a year before that meal, citing a September 2019 Facebook statement and a 2018 report in The Washington Post as evidence that Mr. Zuckerberg did not concoct a secret plan over a meal with Mr. Trump.

Regardless of when Facebook decided to treat political speech differently than other forms of online speech, the company’s critics are already up in arms about how it treats various users differently.

According to the Wall Street Journal, Facebook engaged in “whitelisting” — exempting select people from its enforcement actions online. An internal review of Facebook’s whitelisting behavior found it indefensible, according to the Journal, despite Facebook employing the practice to address prominent accounts.

Facebook says critics fundamentally misunderstand its rules.

Dan Gainor, vice president at the conservative Media Research Center, criticized Facebook’s whitelisting practices but does not believe the social media giant is alone.

“As for whitelisting, it seems obvious they do it in some formal way, [b]ut all of the major social media companies treat some posters differently than others,” Mr. Gainor said in a message. “It’s awful, inconsistent and not even transparent. I just don’t think Facebook is the only one giving certain users special treatment.”

Facebook’s rules, however, are under more scrutiny than other tech platforms because of how lawmakers and regulators have taken aim at its platforms. For example, Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi, Illinois Democrat, wrote to Mr. Zuckerberg on Monday to request all documents regarding suspected human trafficking using Facebook and Instagram accounts.

While the CEOs of tech companies routinely receive letters from disgruntled lawmakers, Mr. Krishnamoorthi leads a subcommittee on economic and consumer policy within the House Committee on Oversight and Reform with considerable say over regulation for the social media companies.

Sign up for Daily Newsletters

 





Source link

Facebook Bans Brand New St. Louis Conservative Radio Station’s Ad Campaign – RedState

Facebook seems to be up to its old tricks of banning speech they don’t like, especially if that speech is conservative speech. Back in July, a brand new conservative radio station started broadcasting in my hometown of St. Louis. Locally owned and operated, NewstalkSTL offers political opinions from local hosts (the station also broadcasts the Dan Bogino and Joe Pags programs) that listeners in the St. Louis metro area have grown to trust. For full disclosure, I co-host the afternoon show with former Missouri Speaker Tim Jones and our exceptional executive producer Katie Fitzpatrick.

We’ve been on the air a little over two months now, and the reception from the listening audience has been tremendous. Because of that success, station management decided recently to embark upon a four-week ad campaign on Facebook to let more people know about our station. One of the station’s taglines is “We offer news, analysis, and opinion.” Apparently, for the Facebook censors, our ad which simply tells you who we are and how to listen to the station could “influence public opinion.” Below is a screenshot of Facebook’s explanation as to why they were banning our ads.

Below are the two ads that Facebook has banned. Take a look for yourself, do these innocuous ads deserve banishment?

Freshman Senator Josh Hawley (R-Mo) has been one of the leading proponents of amending Section 230. Section 230 shields social media companies from liability for what people post on their platforms. That was acceptable to most people until Facebook and Twitter started censoring and choosing sides on which speech was acceptable and which was not. The banning of NewstalkSTL’s Facebook ads is another stark reminder that these companies have way too much power and influence and need to be reined in.



Source link

HYPOCRISY! Instagram Warns of Censorship ‘Risk’ with Broad Government Regulation

In a twist of irony, head of Instagram Adam Mosseri warned about the “risk” of social media “censorship” in an attempt to defend his platform from articles critical of censorious Facebook.

Mosseri joined Recode Media Host Peter Kafka’s Vox podcast to respond to The Journal’s Sept. 14 reporting. The Journal cited Facebook research to suggest Facebook knows its Instagram platform can be toxic for minors, especially teen girls. Mosseri tried to put a more positive spin on the research, which Facebook reportedly had not released even upon request, and in the process spoke of the dangers of censorship on social media.

Kafka pushed Mosseri that perhaps social media needs more government regulation, after the Instagram head described the platform as being something like a car. “If we continue with the car metaphor, there’s [been] tons of regulations around cars over the years,” said Kafka. He then asked, “Do we need that level of regulation, government intervention with social media?” Mosseri responded with a warning: Take “something like ‘hate speech’ and you define it very, very broadly, and you have huge fines for every time someone doesn’t come down fast enough. You create a very strong incentive for companies like ours to take down tough content, and that runs the risk of slippering into censorship.” 

But what makes Mosseri’s warning so absurd is that Instagram has a history of censoring content on its platform. Instagram put a “fact-check” label on a Donald Trump post which was unrelated to the election, a “Remembering Pearl Harbor” post. The platform also removed FBI crime statistics in 2020, calling them “hate speech.” Instagram removed all “Stop the Steal” election content from its platform in Jan. 2021. Instagram deleted the account of a nonprofit Christian group after it posted an anti-porn video in July 2020. The platform also reportedly deleted, and then later reinstated, the account of the mother of Marine Lance Cpl. Kareem Nikoui, killed in Kabul, after she blamed Joe Biden for her son’s death on Instagram.

Facebook, which owns Instagram, also has a history of censorship.  Facebook reportedly banned “two ads centered on the abortion stance of then-Democratic nominee Joe Biden and his running mate, California Sen. Kamala Harris.” An alleged insider said in May Facebook systematically censors so-called COVID-19 “vaccine hesitancy.”

Conservatives are under attack. Contact Facebook headquarters at 1-650-308-7300 or 1-650-543-4800 and contact Instagram at 650-543-4800 and demand that Big Tech be held to account to mirror the First Amendment while providing transparency, clarity on “hate speech” and equal footing for conservatives. If you have been censored, contact us using CensorTrack’s contact form, and help us hold Big Tech accountable.





Source link

HYPOCRISY! Instagram Head Warns of Censorship ‘Risk’ with Broad Government Regulation

In a twist of irony, head of Instagram Adam Mosseri warned about the “risk” of social media “censorship” in an attempt to defend his platform from articles critical of censorious Facebook.

Mosseri joined Recode Media Host Peter Kafka’s Vox podcast to respond to The Journal’s Sept. 14 reporting. The Journal cited Facebook research to suggest Facebook knows its Instagram platform can be toxic for minors, especially teen girls. Mosseri tried to put a more positive spin on the research, which Facebook reportedly had not released even upon request, and in the process spoke of the dangers of censorship on social media.

Kafka pushed Mosseri that perhaps social media needs more government regulation, after the Instagram head described the platform as being something like a car. “If we continue with the car metaphor, there’s [been] tons of regulations around cars over the years,” said Kafka. He then asked, “Do we need that level of regulation, government intervention with social media?” Mosseri responded with a warning: Take “something like ‘hate speech’ and you define it very, very broadly, and you have huge fines for every time someone doesn’t come down fast enough. You create a very strong incentive for companies like ours to take down tough content, and that runs the risk of slippering into censorship.” 

But what makes Mosseri’s warning so absurd is that Instagram has a history of censoring content on its platform. Instagram put a “fact-check” label on a Donald Trump post which was unrelated to the election, a “Remembering Pearl Harbor” post. The platform also removed FBI crime statistics in 2020, calling them “hate speech.” Instagram removed all “Stop the Steal” election content from its platform in Jan. 2021. Instagram deleted the account of a nonprofit Christian group after it posted an anti-porn video in July 2020. The platform also reportedly deleted, and then later reinstated, the account of the mother of Marine Lance Cpl. Kareem Nikoui, killed in Kabul, after she blamed Joe Biden for her son’s death on Instagram.

Facebook, which owns Instagram, also has a history of censorship.  Facebook reportedly banned “two ads centered on the abortion stance of then-Democratic nominee Joe Biden and his running mate, California Sen. Kamala Harris.” An alleged insider said in May Facebook systematically censors so-called COVID-19 “vaccine hesitancy.”

Conservatives are under attack. Contact Facebook headquarters at 1-650-308-7300 or 1-650-543-4800 and contact Instagram at 650-543-4800 and demand that Big Tech be held to account to mirror the First Amendment while providing transparency, clarity on “hate speech” and equal footing for conservatives. If you have been censored, contact us using CensorTrack’s contact form, and help us hold Big Tech accountable.





Source link

Leaks Renew Concern Over Facebook’s Fact-Checking Sway

This week the Wall Street Journal unveiled “The Facebook Files” – an investigative series based on leaked internal Facebook materials that offer an unvarnished look at how the social media giant sees its platform and its impact on society. A central theme of the reporting is the degree to which Facebook’s own research is at odds with its public statements, and that internally it has recognized the harms the platform causes for society even while publicly touting its benefits.

The Journal’s reporting raises myriad concerns over the state of social platforms generally today, from Instagram’s toxic influence on teenage girls to the impact of algorithmic changes on political discourse to how Facebook secretly shields influential users from its content moderation rules.

Given the growing influence of fact-checkers as the ultimate arbitrators of “truth” in the digital world, the Journal also reported that their verdicts may not be as independent as publicly portrayed: “Facebook has asked fact-checking partners to retroactively change their findings on posts from high-profile accounts.”

Asked by RealClearPolitics how many times it has intervened in fact-checking verdicts and under what circumstances it asks fact-checkers to change their rulings, a Facebook spokesperson did not answer, pointing instead to its generic fact-checking FAQ. Asked if the company would deny on the record having ordered a fact-checking partner to change a verdict, the company did not respond.

The International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN), which has established the set of standards to which most major fact-checkers adhere, did not respond to multiple requests for comment regarding whether it was aware of any of its signatories receiving and/or honoring requests from Facebook to change their verdicts.

Asked whether PolitiFact had ever received a request from Facebook to change one of its verdicts, if it had ever acquiesced and if it is aware of such requests to other fact-checkers, its executive director, Aaron Sharockman, responded that it is in the midst of “fact-finding.” Asked whether PolitiFact could at least confirm that it itself had never received or honored such requests, Sharockman responded that “any comment we have, we’ll make in the manner and time of our choosing.”

For an industry built on trust and transparency, it is remarkable that neither the IFCN nor PolitiFact were forthcoming on these allegations regarding Facebook’s request to protect powerful causes and people. Yet if true, this would largely undermine and delegitimize their work if the powerful were able to ensure favorable verdicts for their falsehoods.

Facebook helps fund the fact-checking community, accounting for more than 5% of PolitiFact’s revenue in 2020 and is one of the top funders of many other checking operations. If fact-checkers are facing pressure to change their verdicts, even if they don’t ultimately honor those requests, such demands could have a chilling effect on their independence. Given fact-checkers’ ability to halt the online distribution of stories and ideas they deem false or misleading, the public should have a right to know the degree to which outside forces are shaping their rulings.

In fact, last year the business magazine Fast Company confirmed that fact-checking organizations, including IFCN signatories, have indeed changed their verdicts under pressure from Facebook. In at least one case, internal Facebook correspondence shows that an IFCN signatory changed its verdict from “False” to “Partly False” (which carries fewer penalties) after the social media platform flagged that the publisher being fact-checked was a major advertiser whose spending could be impacted by the harsher rating.

Asked to comment on the apparent discrepancy between Facebook’s public portrayal of fact-checkers’ independence and its interventions to change their verdicts, a spokesperson confirmed that the company does intervene when it believes a different rating should have been applied, but would not comment on how often this has occurred.

How many times have fact-checkers changed their verdicts at the request of Facebook or other major funders? Have they ever changed verdicts at the request of influential politicians? We have no idea, and the organizations’ silence on the Journal’s reporting reminds us that the public should not expect transparency when it comes to the operations of fact-checkers or the social platforms they work with, despite their outsized power over the digital public square.

Outside of leaks of internal company documents, as in the 2017 leak to The Guardian of Facebook’s internal moderation guidelines or the Journal’s current series, the only real insights we currently have are outside researchers’ probes of social platforms’ inner workings. Facebook is increasingly pushing back on such efforts.

Last month, Facebook disabled the accounts of a New York University project that asked volunteers to install a browser plug-in to collect information on how the ads they saw on the platform were targeted to them. While Facebook publishes a database of ads that run on its platforms, it notably does not provide access regarding to whom each ad is targeted. For example, the database shows that 76% of the appearances of a Pennsylvania Democratic Party ad about school boards was shown to women. Was that because Facebook’s algorithms believe women care more about education issues (raising potential algorithmic bias concerns) or did the party explicitly target women (contrary to Democrats’ push against gender stereotypes)? There is simply no way to know.

Asked why it does not publish this information for political ads, the company would only confirm that it has no plans to do so. One possibility, however, is that a closer look at how politicians target their ads would reveal uncomfortable truths about how they see America and potentially expose racial and gender stereotyping at odds with their public commitments.

In the end, why does all of this matter? In Facebook’s own words, it matters because even a single algorithmic tweak can influence policymaking around the world, forcing political parties “to skew negative in their communications on Facebook, with the downstream effect of leading them into more extreme policy positions.” In the case of one Polish political party, its posts changed from 50% positive to 80% negative exclusively because of Facebook’s algorithm change to prioritize divisive content. As Facebook ultimately summarized, many political parties, “including those that have shifted strongly to the negative, worry about the long-term effects on democracy.”

RealClear Media Fellow Kalev Leetaru is a senior fellow at the George Washington University Center for Cyber & Homeland Security. His past roles include fellow in residence at Georgetown University’s Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service and member of the World Economic Forum’s Global Agenda Council on the Future of Government.



Source link

Politico Reveals Full Acceptance of Social Media Censorship

Censorship? The press says: Hey, no problem!

You might expect (in sane times) the press would be in favor of more freedom of speech. Instead, Politico is not only uncritically covering social media justifications for censorship, they also appear unfazed about the government getting into the Big Brother act as well.

This was the message promulgated by “tech lobbying and influence” reporter Emily Birnbaum on Thursday in “4 takeaways from POLITICO’s first tech summit.” The first (and most important) takeaway for Politico is censorship, censorship, and MORE censorship! The subtitle of the article is “Self-regulation isn’t going to cut it, according to lawmakers and advocates.”

Self-regulation isn’t going to cut it. In the face of impending regulatory threats, some tech companies proactively made changes to the way they do business: Apple implemented new privacy features, Facebook and Google have doubled down on efforts to remove misinformation, and more. But, according to lawmakers and advocates, no amount of defensive efforts by the tech industry is going to save companies from impending government intervention.

Social media censorship just won’t do the trick. We need to have an army of Winston Smith government bureaucrats to memory hole “misinformation” for us.

“One of the things I like to say to the companies is … ‘If you’re willing to do it yourself, then why are you opposed to putting it into law?” said Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), the chair of the Senate Judiciary antitrust subcommittee.

K. Dane Snowden, the CEO of the Internet Association, said he doesn’t think Silicon Valley gets enough “credit.” He said policymakers (and the White House) often overlook what the companies are doing “to promote vaccinations and vaccines” for Covid-19 and to remove misinformation related to the pandemic. But later, Klobuchar pointed to a study showing that people are less likely to be vaccinated when they say Facebook is their primary source of news. “Enough is enough,” she said.

This is rather ironic coming from Amy Klobuchar since she grudgingly admitted to Michael Smerconish in 2020 that her husband was treated for his COVID-19 with hydroxychloroquine which is one of those taboo “misinformation” treatments at YouTube and most of the rest of the social media. It was also the Klobuchar attitude that also made any discussions of the origins of COVID-19 labeled as taboo misinformation if it did not conform with the authorized narrative that it could only have come from bats in the wild. Any hint that it could have been from a lab leak was denounced and censored.

A poll of summit participants produced this poll result:

What issue has contributed most to the rift between Washington and Silicon Valley? Fifty-nine percent of participants said disinformation and misinformation on social media has been the most important point of division.

It’s quite clear that Washington — legislators and journalists alike — want a tight clamp on social-media “misinformation” to reinforce their favorite narratives. Free speech loses. It leaves too much to chance. 



Source link

Twitter block on Hunter Biden articles wasn’t illegal: FEC commish

One of the Federal Election Commission members who rejected a claim that Twitter violated campaign finance laws by censoring The Post’s reporting on Hunter Biden’s laptop said that the social media giant may have been biased in favor of then-candidate Joe Biden but did not break the law.

Republican commissioner Sean Cooksey issued a three-page justification of his vote to reject the complaint by the Republican National Committee, saying that he thought Twitter may have had political motives in censoring the articles, but that it did not rise to the level of an in-kind contribution to Biden’s presidential campaign against incumbent President Donald Trump.

Cooksey expressed his doubt that Twitter was neutral in its coverage and simply following standard company practices.

“The Commission’s approved Factual and Legal Analysis concludes that Twitter was simply enforcing preexisting, commercially reasonable policies to protect its product quality and business interests. According to the Commission, none of the behavior at issue was for the purpose of influencing the 2020 presidential election.

“I’m not so sure,” Cooksey wrote.

“In my view, the record doesn’t establish whether Twitter was consistently enforcing a politically neutral business policy or using its platform to support one candidate over another. But I also think the answer to that question is ultimately irrelevant.

“I conclude Twitter is a publisher with a First Amendment right to control the content on its platform and to favor or disfavor certain speech and speakers,” Cooksey, a former aide to Twitter critics Sens. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) and Ted Cruz (R-Texas), wrote.

GOP FEC commissioner Sean Cooksey stated Twitter’s censorship of the Post’s Hunter Biden stories did not influence the 2020 presidential election.
AP Photo/Charles Dharapak, File

“Its conduct therefore falls under the FEC’s media exemption, doesn’t qualify as an expenditure or contribution, and doesn’t violate campaign-finance law.”

Cooksey’s former bosses led congressional pushback to Twitter’s censorship of reports that indicated that then-Democratic presidential nominee Biden was involved with his son’s international business relationships, including in Ukraine and China.

The three Republican commissioners sided with the panel’s two Democrats and one independent to reject the RNC complaint, documents released Wednesday show.

The FEC vote occurred on Aug. 10 and the decision — but not the vote breakdown — was leaked this week to the New York Times.

A form describing the vote does not explain the reasons for the commissioners’ decisions, but the three Republicans, all appointed by former President Donald Trump, explained their votes in writing.

Two of the Republicans wrote that Twitter either had a right to censor the stories ahead of the election by citing the company’s “Hacked Materials” policy — despite no evidence that the information was hacked.

Although Twitter initially claimed the laptop materials may have been hacked, a Delaware computer repairman whose ID was confirmed by The Post before publication said Hunter Biden abandoned the laptop and he gave the material to the FBI annd Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani. Hunter Biden has not denied that the laptop was his.

Republican Federal Election Commissioner Sean Cooksey
GOP FEC commissioner Sean Cooksey argues Twitter’s political bias for candidates is “ultimately irrelevant.”
Federal Election Commission

FEC Vice Chairman Allen Dickerson and Commissioner James Trainor III wrote in a nine-page justification that the commission “has long recognized that ‘business activity [that] ‘reflects commercial considerations’’ cannot be considered a contribution or an expenditure.”

The two Republicans wrote: “Twitter vigorously maintains that its decision to throttle the sharing of the Post articles at issue… resulted from the evenhanded application of its content moderation policies. Given Twitter’s clear denials and lacking any indications, other than pure conjecture, to the contrary, the Commission found that these allegations simply did not meet our evidentiary standard and voted accordingly.”

They added, “we do not believe that a particular course of moderation need be politically ‘neutral’ – whatever that may mean in practice, and however it might be accomplished at a scale involving billions of individual posts. A single commercial decision is still an exercise of commercial judgment; there is no requirement that it be part of a proven pattern of ideological or partisan evenhandedness, so long as it is not itself done for the purpose of encouraging Americans to vote one way or another.”

Dickerson, a former legal director at the Institute for Free Speech, and Trainor, a former assistant to Defense Secretary James Mattis, with whom Trump had a bitter falling-out, said that they also felt that “Twitter’s actions are protected by our media exemption and by the First Amendment itself.”

The Republican commissioners sided with Twitter despite stiff pushback from GOP lawmakers who called for repeal of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act after the censorship. That law gives social media companies legal immunity for third-party content, rather than the usual liability for publishers.

Supporters of reforming Section 230 say tech giants should lose protections if they operate as a publisher rather than as a neutral platform.

A 3D-printed Facebook dislike button is seen in front of a displayed Twitter logo.
Two members of the Federal Election Commission argued Twitter censored the Post’s Hunter Biden stories based on their “Hacked Materials” policy.
REUTERS/Dado Ruvic/Illustration/File

The RNC said this week that it’s considering appealing the FEC’s ruling.

Hawley, Cooksey’s former employer, previously pushed the FEC to penalize Twitter, saying last year that “the most powerful monopolies in American history are attempting to control the news and interfere in a federal election.”

“This is not some random blog. This is the newspaper founded by Alexander Hamilton, for heaven’s sake. What’s really at stake here is a free press in this country and I have to say, this is really alarming,” Hawley said.

Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey admitted this year during a congressional hearing that blocking users from sharing The Post’s blockbuster scoop was a “total mistake” and that locking The Post out of its own account for more than two weeks was “a process error.”



Source link

Google Bans Pro-Life Ads That Promote ‘Abortion Pill Reversal Treatment’ – RedState

Pro-life activist Lila Rose sent out a panicked thread on Tuesday, informing the public that her pro-life group Live Action had been banned from running ads on Google. Their offense (besides being blatantly pro-life)? Daring to inform women about the options they have to reverse the effects of the abortion pill.

Below is the entire, disturbing thread.

We must not become numb to this type of censorship. Now is the time to take our stand. If the squeaky wheel gets the grease, it’s time for conservatives to start squeaking…loudly.

Watch my full commentary on the issue…and get mad.





Source link

Biden’s Ninth Circuit Nominee — Was Just Unanimously Overturned by the Ninth Circuit – RedState

One reason President Donald Trump was so revolutionary was because he appointed many, MANY judges who acted as judges are supposed to act (his three Supreme Court misses notwithstanding).

Election 2020: You Can Never Have Too Many Constitutionalist Judges and Justices

Perhaps the most revolutionary move was Trump’s transformation of the historically, notoriously leftist and anti-Constitution Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Ninth Circus Court No More? Trump-McConnell’s Judges Have Made Huge Differences Everywhere:

“Trump’s consistent fealty to constitutional jurists – and (then-Senate Majority Leader Mitch) McConnell’s prioritization of getting them confirmed – is paying huge dividends all across the country.

“Especially in the Ninth Circus.

“‘With Ten Appointees on the Ninth Circuit, Trump Seeks to Tame His Nemesis’

“The Court’s entire judge population is twenty-nine.  More than 1/3 of them – are now Trump judges.

“Trump’s Reshaping of ‘Ninth Circus’ Appeals Court Has Stopped a Lot of ‘Liberal Judicial Activism.’”

Unfortunately, we are now addled with anti-Constitution, exceedingly awful President Joe Biden.

Biden Announces 5th Wave of Judicial Nominees as Democrats Aim to Maintain Quick Pace of Confirmations to Federal Bench

And Biden seems intent on reclaiming the crown jewel of judicial idiocy.

Judge Lucy Koh Tapped for 9th Circuit in Latest Batch of Biden Judicial Nominees

If ever there was a poster child for judicial activism in the service of government cronies — it’s Lucy Koh.

The Egregious Damage One Activist Judge Can Do

Get Big Media’s glowing appreciation of Koh’s radical anti-judging….

In Silicon Valley, Lucy Koh is the Law:

“Her rulings at times have broken legal ground….

“Koh’s interest in the law, friends and colleagues say, is rooted in an idealistic sense of justice – in the law as an agent for change.”

Translation: Koh likes to ignore the Constitution and the law.

And make stuff up so as to impose her personal policy preferences – ‘break new ground’ so as to be an ‘agent of change’ – rather than remain within the confines of the Constitution and the law.

And Judge Koh’s latest really big ruling – was omni-directionally awful.

An Obama Judge Could Singlehandedly Kill US Intellectual Property and National Security

Judge (Lucy) Koh’s Qualcomm Coup:

“Her sweeping antitrust ruling kneecaps the firm and 5G competition.”

Judge Koh’s ruling didn’t just kneecap Qualcomm – it kneecapped any patent holder anywhere in the world doing business in the United States.

But Judge Koh’s ridiculous ruling – was even more damaging than that.

She single-handedly, unilaterally rewrote large swaths of the United States’ patent system.

Oh: And Koh imposed all of this judicial insanity in service of monster-crony, Big Tech IP thief Apple (Market Cap: $2.47 trillion).

Apple was stealing Qualcomm’s IP — and wanted the court to ratify its massive heist.  And Koh was happy to oblige — no matter how far she had to warp the law to deliver the cronyism.

How awful was Koh?:

“Judge Koh refused to hear from two dozen witnesses put forward by Qualcomm.  And went whole hog with Communist Chinese cellular company Huawei.  That also happens to be a direct competitor of Qualcomm.

“Judge Koh cited Huawei – 134 times in her 233 page order.

“Because Judge Koh didn’t care about…you know, facts and dubious Communist Chinese witnesses and stuff.  She cared about imposing her personal Leftist policy preference.”

Leftist Judge’s ChiComm #1 Witness in Awful IP Theft Ruling – Is a Massive IP Thief

How exceedingly awful was Koh’s ruling?

When the Ninth Circuit Court Unanimously Says You’ve Gone Too Far Left….

Appeals Court Throws Out Antitrust Ruling:

“A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (unanimously) reversed a 2019 ruling by a federal judge who found that Qualcomm had abused its monopoly position in wireless chips and overcharged mobile phone makers for its patents….

“The District Court judge, Lucy Koh,…(issued) a 233-page decision that could have forced Qualcomm to renegotiate its licensing contracts with phone makers and license its technology to rival chip makers.

“But the appeals court panel was not persuaded.

“In a 56-page ruling, the judges concluded that Qualcomm had no duty under antitrust law to license its competitors. They also ruled that Qualcomm’s policy of not supplying chips to any handset maker that had not licensed its patents did not work like an illegal surcharge on chips sold by competitors.

“‘Anti-competitive behavior is illegal under federal antitrust law,’ the judges wrote.  “Hyper-competitive behavior is not.”

The Ninth Circuit totally obliterated Koh’s ruling — and her alleged legal thinking behind it.

And now Biden has nominated Koh for a promotion — to the Ninth Circuit.

The court that totally obliterated Koh’s ruling and her alleged legal thinking behind it.

Those Court colleague lunches should be really…interesting.

You only promote Koh if you’re primarily interested in destroying the judiciary, IP, the economy, and the country.

Good times.



Source link